Crop sensor camera lenses - help!

What's Hot
2456

Comments

  • RMJRMJ Frets: 1274
    hywelg said:
    I bought a Sigma ART 20mm F1.4 for work to use on my 7D, so it's about 32mm equivalent. I am very pleased with it. It is part of a plan though to ease the cost of upgrading to a 5D. 
    Yeah I've been looking at that one too. Pricey tho 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • RMJRMJ Frets: 1274
    edited December 2018
    Having researched this to death I think I'm gonna go for 17-55 f2.8. It's a kit lens upgrade but then I'll have decentish lenses from 12 to 55mm
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • RMJRMJ Frets: 1274
    Urgh this is becoming a complicated choice. I think I need a walk around lens rather than a wide angle, as my Tokina 12-24 appears to be fine.

    So my choices appear to be....

    17-55 f2.8 IS (or sigma equiv)
    17-40 f4L
    15-85 f3.5 to 5.6 IS
    24-70 f4L

    Internet wisdom says 17-55 f2.8 IS the one  to get. But it's expensive. And useless if I upgrade to full frame. There is a cheaper sigma version which is 17-50, but again useless on FF.

    My heart says the 17-40 Is the one to get. It's am L lens and 100+ quid cheaper. But it's only F4 and no IS.

    Or do I extend zoom range from my Tokina 12-24 and get a 24-70?! This would seem sensible but no doubt I'll be switching between the two all the time. 

    Help!



    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • BudgieBudgie Frets: 2099
    edited January 2019
    I use a full frame camera and my go to lens is a 24-70mm (I also have a 18mm Zeiss for wide angle and currently a 70-300mm Nikon, which I may upgrade). The crop sensor equivalent is roughly 17-50mm. When I had a crop sensor Nikon I bought a Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 and it was superbly sharp and a lot cheaper than the Nikon equivalent and reviewed rather well against too. I ended up selling the DX lenses when I changed to full frame and didn’t lose any cash at all. Sigma also make a 17-70mm lens too which is supposed to be good for the price. 

    I suppose it it depends on what sort of photography you are interested in. My interest is landscapes so I don’t need faster lenses as I generally use a tripod.


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • RMJRMJ Frets: 1274
    Budgie said:
    I use a full frame camera and my go to lens is a 24-70mm. The crop sensor equivalent is roughly 17-50mm. When I had a crop sensor Nikon I bought a Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 and it was superbly sharp and a lot cheaper than the Nikon equivalent and reviewed rather well against too. I ended up selling the DX lenses when I changed to full frame and didn’t lose any cash at all. Sigma also make a 17-70mm lens too which is supposed to be good for the price. 

    I suppose it it depends on what sort of photography you are interested in. My interest is landscapes so I don’t need faster lenses as I generally use a tripod.


    Thanks. I really want to buy a standard zoom that is flexible enough to take in some landscape through to portrait. 17-50 on a crop seems decent range for that? 

    I've seen mixed reviews of the Sigma 2.8 but it is so much cheaper than the Canon equiv. Good to hear some real world experience. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • Without trying to sound daft, why is full frame an upgrade to you? 

    You are concerned about price. Bigger sensors mean bigger, more (often much more) expensive lenses - is it possible an upgrade for you would be going to a different aps-c sensor instead? 

    Despite marketing, image quality is almost entirely irrelevant these days. I had a choice for Sony or fuji and went fuji because of great, sharp lenses that are small, light and offer full frame results. 

    Not trying to steer you away, but you need to work out what you need. In my experience, using full frame lenses on a crop sensor is, at best, a terrible compromise. You'll lose sharpness as you're effectively cropping into the image circle it was designed for, it'll be much bigger than an equivalent aps-c lens and you'll gain nothing but potentially shallower depth of field (which is 99 percent a waste of time and money, but a huge marketing success). 

    F/4 full frame lenses are about the same size and weight of equivalent 2.8 lenses in aps-c. Is it worth losing a stop of light and probably sharpness for the sake of possibly upgrading later? 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • RMJRMJ Frets: 1274
    Without trying to sound daft, why is full frame an upgrade to you? 

    You are concerned about price. Bigger sensors mean bigger, more (often much more) expensive lenses - is it possible an upgrade for you would be going to a different aps-c sensor instead? 

    Despite marketing, image quality is almost entirely irrelevant these days. I had a choice for Sony or fuji and went fuji because of great, sharp lenses that are small, light and offer full frame results. 

    Not trying to steer you away, but you need to work out what you need. In my experience, using full frame lenses on a crop sensor is, at best, a terrible compromise. You'll lose sharpness as you're effectively cropping into the image circle it was designed for, it'll be much bigger than an equivalent aps-c lens and you'll gain nothing but potentially shallower depth of field (which is 99 percent a waste of time and money, but a huge marketing success). 

    F/4 full frame lenses are about the same size and weight of equivalent 2.8 lenses in aps-c. Is it worth losing a stop of light and probably sharpness for the sake of possibly upgrading later? 
    Not daft at all. Future proofing isn't a deal breaker for me but something I want to be aware of.  It's not an immediate aspiration so I'm inclined to buy the 'best lens to suit my current needs and kit. If the 17-40 doesn't do that then I'll happily pass on it.

    17-50 Is the range I'll shoot at most. 2.8 wouod be handy to have for indoors and IS is worth having if it's on offer and doesn't come at a significant premium. 

    If money wasn't an issue I would go for the 17-55. But it's very expensive, even used. However i havent read a bad review of it. So hopefully it would hold its value if i did move on. 


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • RMJ said:
    Without trying to sound daft, why is full frame an upgrade to you? 

    You are concerned about price. Bigger sensors mean bigger, more (often much more) expensive lenses - is it possible an upgrade for you would be going to a different aps-c sensor instead? 

    Despite marketing, image quality is almost entirely irrelevant these days. I had a choice for Sony or fuji and went fuji because of great, sharp lenses that are small, light and offer full frame results. 

    Not trying to steer you away, but you need to work out what you need. In my experience, using full frame lenses on a crop sensor is, at best, a terrible compromise. You'll lose sharpness as you're effectively cropping into the image circle it was designed for, it'll be much bigger than an equivalent aps-c lens and you'll gain nothing but potentially shallower depth of field (which is 99 percent a waste of time and money, but a huge marketing success). 

    F/4 full frame lenses are about the same size and weight of equivalent 2.8 lenses in aps-c. Is it worth losing a stop of light and probably sharpness for the sake of possibly upgrading later? 
    Not daft at all. Future proofing isn't a deal breaker for me but something I want to be aware of.  It's not an immediate aspiration so I'm inclined to buy the 'best lens to suit my current needs and kit. If the 17-40 doesn't do that then I'll happily pass on it.

    17-50 Is the range I'll shoot at most. 2.8 wouod be handy to have for indoors and IS is worth having if it's on offer and doesn't come at a significant premium. 

    If money wasn't an issue I would go for the 17-55. But it's very expensive, even used. However i havent read a bad review of it. So hopefully it would hold its value if i did move on. 



    I think I'd be inclined to stick with an apsc-c zoom in that case. You'll get sharper images, better low light and ois in something that's less huge than a 2.8 ff lens. 

    Wild card would be a 24mm and 50mm prime. Primes are generally just sharp all the time, even full frame ones. Canon has a nice 24mm ef-s prime that's tiny, sharp and fast  and the 50mm 1.8 will give you a nice portrait lens. Both together may be cheaper than a zoom, especially used. I'm not too knowledgeable about Canon aps-c lenses sadly, as they (along with nikon) completely neglected their aps-c systems to push people into the big-ticket full frame. This is a shame, but it is what it is. Sigma also have a 30mm art prime that's nice. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • RMJRMJ Frets: 1274
    RMJ said:
    Without trying to sound daft, why is full frame an upgrade to you? 

    You are concerned about price. Bigger sensors mean bigger, more (often much more) expensive lenses - is it possible an upgrade for you would be going to a different aps-c sensor instead? 

    Despite marketing, image quality is almost entirely irrelevant these days. I had a choice for Sony or fuji and went fuji because of great, sharp lenses that are small, light and offer full frame results. 

    Not trying to steer you away, but you need to work out what you need. In my experience, using full frame lenses on a crop sensor is, at best, a terrible compromise. You'll lose sharpness as you're effectively cropping into the image circle it was designed for, it'll be much bigger than an equivalent aps-c lens and you'll gain nothing but potentially shallower depth of field (which is 99 percent a waste of time and money, but a huge marketing success). 

    F/4 full frame lenses are about the same size and weight of equivalent 2.8 lenses in aps-c. Is it worth losing a stop of light and probably sharpness for the sake of possibly upgrading later? 
    Not daft at all. Future proofing isn't a deal breaker for me but something I want to be aware of.  It's not an immediate aspiration so I'm inclined to buy the 'best lens to suit my current needs and kit. If the 17-40 doesn't do that then I'll happily pass on it.

    17-50 Is the range I'll shoot at most. 2.8 wouod be handy to have for indoors and IS is worth having if it's on offer and doesn't come at a significant premium. 

    If money wasn't an issue I would go for the 17-55. But it's very expensive, even used. However i havent read a bad review of it. So hopefully it would hold its value if i did move on. 



    I think I'd be inclined to stick with an apsc-c zoom in that case. You'll get sharper images, better low light and ois in something that's less huge than a 2.8 ff lens. 

    Wild card would be a 24mm and 50mm prime. Primes are generally just sharp all the time, even full frame ones. Canon has a nice 24mm ef-s prime that's tiny, sharp and fast  and the 50mm 1.8 will give you a nice portrait lens. Both together may be cheaper than a zoom, especially used. I'm not too knowledgeable about Canon aps-c lenses sadly, as they (along with nikon) completely neglected their aps-c systems to push people into the big-ticket full frame. This is a shame, but it is what it is. Sigma also have a 30mm art prime that's nice. 
    Thanks. I do have the 50mm prime already. Getting a wider prime is an option. I'd just have to be prepared to switch when required. A zoom appeals to me as it removes that burden for general purposes. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • MayneheadMaynehead Frets: 1782
    Might be useful to list the lenses you already have.

    I reckon if you have the kit lens then that should be good enough as a walk around, so you'll just need a wide angle zoom for architecture. I heard the  Sigma 10-22 is a good choice.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • Whenever I think of buying a 35mm ("full frame" is meaningless marketing bs) camera I rewatch Zack Arias' wonderful video on the subject. 



    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • BudgieBudgie Frets: 2099
    RMJ said:
    Budgie said:
    I use a full frame camera and my go to lens is a 24-70mm. The crop sensor equivalent is roughly 17-50mm. When I had a crop sensor Nikon I bought a Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 and it was superbly sharp and a lot cheaper than the Nikon equivalent and reviewed rather well against too. I ended up selling the DX lenses when I changed to full frame and didn’t lose any cash at all. Sigma also make a 17-70mm lens too which is supposed to be good for the price. 

    I suppose it it depends on what sort of photography you are interested in. My interest is landscapes so I don’t need faster lenses as I generally use a tripod.


    Thanks. I really want to buy a standard zoom that is flexible enough to take in some landscape through to portrait. 17-50 on a crop seems decent range for that? 

    I've seen mixed reviews of the Sigma 2.8 but it is so much cheaper than the Canon equiv. Good to hear some real world experience. 
    Well, for landscapes, I mostly find 24mm to be wide enough. The 18mm I have is there to squeeze out a little extra if needed. As a walk about zoom 24-70mm is probably perfect.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • BudgieBudgie Frets: 2099
    Whenever I think of buying a 35mm ("full frame" is meaningless marketing bs) camera I rewatch Zack Arias' wonderful video on the subject. 


    Funnily enough, I watched that before I changed to FX from DX. I suppose if you think you have a need for it - a camera is, after all, just a tool - you just get the tool for the job. In my case, and the primary reason I swapped, was that I have a need to photograph artwork to form a high resolution catalogue of sold work for potential prints after the painting has gone to a new owner. In addition, for landscape photography the dynamic range and the amount of detail captured with the ability to crop an image and still have a good usable file was again a plus. The files I get from my D810 are noticeably much better than they were from my D7100.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • mattdavismattdavis Frets: 840
    Wild card would be a 24mm and 50mm prime. Primes are generally just sharp all the time, even full frame ones. Canon has a nice 24mm ef-s prime that's tiny, sharp and fast  and the 50mm 1.8 will give you a nice portrait lens. Both together may be cheaper than a zoom, especially used. 


    This is what I do - my old Ef 50 mm prime and the newer ef-a 24mm pancake. Found it a great combo. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • Budgie said:
    Whenever I think of buying a 35mm ("full frame" is meaningless marketing bs) camera I rewatch Zack Arias' wonderful video on the subject. 


    Funnily enough, I watched that before I changed to FX from DX. I suppose if you think you have a need for it - a camera is, after all, just a tool - you just get the tool for the job. In my case, and the primary reason I swapped, was that I have a need to photograph artwork to form a high resolution catalogue of sold work for potential prints after the painting has gone to a new owner. In addition, for landscape photography the dynamic range and the amount of detail captured with the ability to crop an image and still have a good usable file was again a plus. The files I get from my D810 are noticeably much better than they were from my D7100.
    You clearly had one of those real use cases where it's worth having a larger sensor. On the whole though I think most hobbyists really don't need a sensor that big. And folks often don't understand the knock-on effect in the cost and size of lenses. 

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • Matt_McGMatt_McG Frets: 321
    Can I add a dissenting voice? Wide angle lenses don't make for very interesting landscape photos. 

    If all you care about is 'fitting more into the frame', then sure. And you may have a really good reason for wanting to do that.

    But I think you'd be surprised what focal length was actually used on most/many of the more compelling/iconic landscape shots you see.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • boogiemanboogieman Frets: 12313
    Matt_McG said:
    Can I add a dissenting voice? Wide angle lenses don't make for very interesting landscape photos. 

    If all you care about is 'fitting more into the frame', then sure. And you may have a really good reason for wanting to do that.

    But I think you'd be surprised what focal length was actually used on most/many of the more compelling/iconic landscape shots you see.
    I think the real problem is that a lot of WA landscape shots have pretty much been done to death and we’re too used to seeing the same style of shot, repeated over and over. Seascapes especially. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • BudgieBudgie Frets: 2099
    Matt_McG said:
    Can I add a dissenting voice? Wide angle lenses don't make for very interesting landscape photos. 

    If all you care about is 'fitting more into the frame', then sure. And you may have a really good reason for wanting to do that.

    But I think you'd be surprised what focal length was actually used on most/many of the more compelling/iconic landscape shots you see.
     If used well, wide angle lenses make incredibly compelling images. The key is really the foreground element of an image. I'd certainly agree that when used to make the vista 'wider' without the foreground interest, a wide angle lens falls very short for making interesting landscapes. I also agree that longer focal lengths (70-200mm) can result in excellent images.


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • hywelghywelg Frets: 4302
    Personally, when on holiday the last thing I want to do is carry a a big (or even a small ) slr, never mind extra lenses. Consider a Sony RX100 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • RMJRMJ Frets: 1274
    Thanks for your inputs guys. I have ordered a used 17-55 f2.8 from mpb.  I think it's the best option for what I need, which is a standard zoom range that I can use in low light. 

    If cost and convenience weren't so .If I of an issue I would be going for various primes.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
Sign In or Register to comment.