oldmantran
Guest
This might sound obvious but lenses are rated for full frame cameras correct? For instance, if I get a 10-22mm lens, the full frame will be truly 10-22 whereas a 1.6x cropped like a 7D would essentially treat it like a 16-39mm?
-
Welcome back Guest!MARSH is a private reefing group. Comments and suggestions are encouraged, but please keep them positive and constructive. Negative threads, posts, or attacks will be removed from view and reviewed by the staff. Continually disruptive, argumentative, or flagrant rule breakers may be suspended or banned.
Question about full frame versus cropped (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter oldmantran
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Users who are viewing this thread
Houston_Reefer
Guest
The 1.6 sensor will give you a frame size equivalent to a 16-39 on a full sensor, but it doesn't give you the zoom of that lens. Does that make sense? In other words it shrinks the framing but doesn't actually add zoom to the shot
below radar
Guest
I have an HTC EVO to take pics. I don't even know what kind of real camera we have. What does a nice gitup cost for one of them there new fangled shiny picture takers?
Houston_Reefer
Guest
The body will cost you anywhere from 400 to 3000. The real expense is the glass
oldmantran
Guest
I have an HTC EVO as well. Most of my impromptu photos i post up here are from my phone camera. However, I am getting into more serious photography so I've done quite a bit of reading on camera types and equipment for DSLRs.
For 95% of casual photographers will be fine with a basic DSLR like a Canon T2i or a Nikon D5100 or 3100 which are in the 500-600 range with a standard 18-55mm lens. This class of camera is what are called cropped frame cameras. Nikon refers to them as DX and Canon 1.6x. They sensor is smaller than a standard 35mm sensor. This is the reason I asked my original question about lenses on crop cameras.
Full frames have full size sensor. Nikon calls theirs FX. So when you get a 18-55mm lens, full frame cameras are true to the lens size. A crop camera interprets the same lens as 18*1.6 by 55*1.6 on the Canons.
The lenses can cost anywhere from $100 to multiple thousands. Expensive doesn't necessarily mean better pictures.
soymilk
Supporting Member
Looks like youre reading into uwa lenses. The 10-22mm is a pretty nice lens. I have my buddy's tokina 11-16mm right now and I really like it. Take a look at that too if you get the chance.
That or you can test it out yourself at the lighting workshop.
That or you can test it out yourself at the lighting workshop.
oldmantran
Guest
What lighting workshop??? BTW, the 10-22 Canon uwa is an EF-S lens so it wouldn't work on a full frame.
The net effect of this is the same as using a higher zoom lens in a full frame though. I get what your saying but is confusing for someone that's new to photography. To the OP, read this article, it'll help:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/crop-factor.htm
soymilk
Supporting Member
Marsh has a lighting workshop at ADG on may 12th. I'm debating bringing all my gear to video it. Debating if it's worth the hassle. And if anyone would actually watch it later on.
The 10-22mm is an ef-s lens and should NOT be put on a full frame camera. It will damage the mirror. My coworker wrecked his by putting it on there.
But even though the tokina is a crop sensor lens, you can still mount it on the 5dmkii without any problems. But it's only usable at 16mm. I need the f2.8 aperture for video.
T
tang
I believe it depends on the lens type. For instance, if you get a Nikon FX camera with a DX lens you will still get the cropped view. If you get a Nikon DX camera with the DX lens you wouldn't know the difference because it's going to still be cropped. Now if you get a Nikon DX camera with an FX lens you still wouldn't know the difference because DX will always be cropped no matter what lens you put on it. So if you get a Nikon FX camera you'll never want to get a DX lens, if you have a Nikon DX camera you don't care what lens you buy because it's always going to be cropped. If you're just talking about mm then a 50mm FX lens on a Nikon DX camera will be more like a 35mm lens, but I don't think it matters if you have a Nikon DX camera with a 35mm DX lens, it should be still 35mm. I think that's how it goes...
soymilk
Supporting Member
A 35mm dx lens ( 35mm f1.8 nikkor for example ) will act like a 52mm lens on a dx camera. But honestly, unless you used to shoot film and remember what focal lengths you used to like shooting, all those numbers don't mean much. 50mm with 75mm 35mm equivalent doesnt mean much if you dont know what 50mm is like.
Some dx lenses still work on fx cameras. Not many but still
Some dx lenses still work on fx cameras. Not many but still
oldmantran
Guest
It makes a big difference if i'm shooting ultrawide angle. For interior shots of rooms, the recommended size is 22-24mm to avoid exaggerated lines due to barrel distortion. If I got a APS (cropped) camera, I'd have to shoot with a 15mm to get an actual 24mm. Which would mean I'd have to buy a 10-22mm uwa lens. Learning quite a bit here.
I was debating full frame (5d mark ii) or a cropped (7d). I think I can achieve the same results with a 7d + 10-22mm uwa lens, plus i get added benefit of fast continuous shooting for action and better HD video capabilities. Now I just have to wait for canon to release the upgrade to the 7d.
I was debating full frame (5d mark ii) or a cropped (7d). I think I can achieve the same results with a 7d + 10-22mm uwa lens, plus i get added benefit of fast continuous shooting for action and better HD video capabilities. Now I just have to wait for canon to release the upgrade to the 7d.
soymilk
Supporting Member
barrel distortion can be corrected in post with software like lightroom. They usually have all the lens profiles for majority of canon lenses. Makes life a lot easier. Shooting video with a dslr kinda sucks lol. Stablization is a big must, that means tripods, fluid heads, IS lenses, or else you get jello cam.
I personally like the tokina 11-16mm over the canon 10-22mm but you can't go wrong either way. The canon 17-55mm IS is pretty nice too, can be used as an everyday lens as well. Have you gotten any flashes yet?
I personally like the tokina 11-16mm over the canon 10-22mm but you can't go wrong either way. The canon 17-55mm IS is pretty nice too, can be used as an everyday lens as well. Have you gotten any flashes yet?
Last edited:
oldmantran
Guest
No flash yet. So my stock includes a very nice tripod and a Canon 50mm f/1.8 so far. I have a borrowed T2i which I'll try to hold on to as long as i can. I'm accumulating items that will work on the T2i while not limiting my choices when i get a new body. Flash is a good next step. Most have built-in diffusers, right? Also, what would you recommend for supplemental lighting, Soy? umbrella, strobe, etc?
Also, I've been shying away from 3rd party lenses mainly because of resale value. For instance, I resold my Pentax 50mm for $100 more than I bought it for 3 years ago. How do Tokina and Sigma resale prices go? Good Canon lenses retain their value very well and sometime even go up.
Also, I've been shying away from 3rd party lenses mainly because of resale value. For instance, I resold my Pentax 50mm for $100 more than I bought it for 3 years ago. How do Tokina and Sigma resale prices go? Good Canon lenses retain their value very well and sometime even go up.
Houston_Reefer
Guest
I have a 580EXII and it does have the built in diffuser. I love that thing! I have the 50mm 1.4 and use that quite a bit. I am going to start investing in L series next, starting with the 70-200 2.8 ISII
soymilk
Supporting Member
Most have diffusers, but if you're doing indoor room photography you're probably gonna bounce the flash from the ceiling for better results. Flashes are probably better for you since they run off batteries and can be moved and deployed easy.
The tokina 11-16mm in kinda one of the best uwa lenses made. If you look up reviews for it, it's usually pretty highly recommended. It sold originally for 600 and now the price is 700. Used prices range around $450-550. Nice thing about buying used is if you decide to sell it, you can usually get what you paid. I personally don't like sigma too much. I had the 50mm f1.4, and while it worked ok. I had problems with focus using that lens. As for canon lenses, it all depends. Most lenses drop about 25-30% right off, the only lenses that go up in value are good ones that got discontinued.
The tokina 11-16mm in kinda one of the best uwa lenses made. If you look up reviews for it, it's usually pretty highly recommended. It sold originally for 600 and now the price is 700. Used prices range around $450-550. Nice thing about buying used is if you decide to sell it, you can usually get what you paid. I personally don't like sigma too much. I had the 50mm f1.4, and while it worked ok. I had problems with focus using that lens. As for canon lenses, it all depends. Most lenses drop about 25-30% right off, the only lenses that go up in value are good ones that got discontinued.
soymilk
Supporting Member
the 70-200mm ISii is a beast of a lens. Great lens, i wish it wasn't white though... attracts too much attention.
Houston_Reefer
Guest
This is true. They say it is to keep the elements cool but who knows. I can't imagine it makes too much difference. They aren't too heavy though, which I like a lot.
oldmantran
Guest
and i wish it wasn't $1300 either. LOL. I kinda like the white with red stripe. Fancy! hehe.
Last edited:
