Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveBSC /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The 50mm 1.8 is not hitting its peak performance until F4. We may be talking about two different things here, I'm not talking about "usable", I'm talking razor sharp. The F1.8 is usable at F2.8 sure, but to me it still just seems like throwing away $100. It's great for $100 no question, but just put that $100 towards the 1.4 instead. That's what I'd do. That's razor sharp at F2.8.
I still disagree. While I haven't gotten 'razor' sharp images at 1.8 on with the 50, I have gotten VERY sharp images at f/2. There are technical reasons why I do not carry the 50 1.8, but I do think that it's a great lens for the price and the 50 1.4 isn't optically a significant upgrade from the 1.8, minus the 1/2 stop advantage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DaveBSC
A lot of your lenses like the 135 and the 24-70 are considerably less useful on APS-C than they are full frame. They'll work, sure but 39-112mm for example is not a particularly useful zoom range.
Again, I disagree with this statement. Actually, I strongly disagree with this. What is the purpose of APS-C then? Yes, it is cheaper because of the smaller sensor size is cheaper to manufacture. BUT, it does have it's advantages. While the mm designation is given based off of the 35mm standard, it does not imply that full-frame utilizes the lenses to their optimum.
There will be people who will say that wider lenses suffer on a full format body, as light falloff is apparent as you shoot wider, vignetting is something that is less apparent in APS-C sensors. But the thing is, you
can use the 1.6x crop to your advantage - Especially if you're shooting subjects from afar. Bird photographers, for example, prefer the 1.6x crop. Coupled with something like the 500mm f/4, it gives you the range of an 800mm focal length, without having to use a TC - without sacrificing f-stops. To say that the 24-70 is less useful on the APS-C sensor, is to say that all L lenses were designed for full format - and that is
completely false.
Think about it. Can you think of anyone who would bring a 1Ds Mark III to a sporting event over a 1D Mark III? No. Why? The difference between 10fps and 5fps is apparent. The additional length you gain from a crop is another huge advantage. Why should I carry extra equipment - Why should I pay more for the extra range, when I can simply carry an APS-C/H body?
I do not know what you shoot with, but I use a 1D Mark II N. The 1D series utilizes a 1.3x APS-H sensor and with the 24-70, that gives me an effective 31.2-112mm range. For me, that suits what I shoot. What you quoted is for an APS-C sensor, but regardless, some people prefer to shoot longer. Not everyone enjoys UWA or WA, and not everyone needs it. The last time I checked, Canon doesn't make a 39-112mm f/2.8, so purchasing a 24-70 on a 1.6x makes sense if you want that range, doesn't it?
Quote:
DaveBSC said:
Here's what I'd suggest for someone specifically shooting with a Canon APS-C camera. Zooms: Tokina 11-16mm F2.8, Canon 17-55mm F2.8, or as a more affordable alternative Sigma 17-50mm F2.8, and then try to find a Tokina 50-135mm F2.8, as I think its a much better lens than Sigma's 50-150mm 2.8. Canon's 55-250mm is surprisingly decent for $200 or so, but of course it's considerably slower than the Tokina.
For primes: the Canon 35mm F1.4, 50mm 1.4, 60mm F2.8 macro (a killer lens), 85mm F1.2 (just absolutely
awesome, but $2000!), 85mm F1.8, 100mm F2, and 135mm F2 for telephoto.
I agree that the 17-55mm 2.8 is a great lens for APS-C cameras, but it seems that you tend to lean more towards the UWA/WA range. Do you shoot FF?
Not everyone does. Not everyone enjoys FF either. To say that one sensor size is more useful than the other is complete hogwash. Each sensor size has it's purpose, and that's a fact. People shoot at different focal lengths. This is the overly simplified explanation of why Canon produces lenses in multiple ranges.
Also, think about this for a second now. You think that the 85 1.2 is pretty great, right? The bokeh produced with it on a FF body is pretty nice, right? Mount that on a 1.6x crop and the bokeh will improve. Why? A longer focal length will produce more bokeh. On a 1.6x, that gives you a range of 136mm. I'm sure you know what the 135mm is capable of - imagine that at 1.2. If you don't believe me, try it for yourself.