Full Frame Lenses vs Small Sensor Lenses

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by measekite, Sep 11, 2006.

  1. measekite

    measekite Guest

    People say it is not a good idea to purchase the smaller sensor lenses
    for Nikon and Canon since they would be ineffective if you want to
    upgrade to a full frame 5D or if Nikon brings out a full frame DSLR.

    Is there any disadvantage to purchasing only full frame lenses?

    Is there any advantage to purchasing smaller sensor lenses?

    What are the designations for both Canon and Nikon for the full frame
    and small sensor lenses?
     
    measekite, Sep 11, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. measekite

    pixel_a_ted Guest

    That's true and it is a consideration. But some people believe that the
    current sensor size will be around for a long time. 35 mm cameras did
    not disappear because of large format cameras.
    Heavier, more expensive, plus see next answer.
    Lighter, less expensive. Also, some manufacturers claim they have
    optimized the lenses for use with the shiny sensor in digital cameras.
    For Nikon it's DX for the small sensor lenses; any lens without the DX
    designation is for full frame.
    ..
     
    pixel_a_ted, Sep 11, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. measekite

    Shaun Guest

    Is there any disadvantage to purchasing only full frame lenses?

    Yup. Quite often the range of full frame zoom lenses aren't suited to
    cropped sensors. For example, a zoom starting at 24-105mm lens would have
    an excellent range for full frame, but not very wide on a cropped sensor.
    Also, with the Canon range, the better quality 'L' lenses are really
    tailored towards full frame. So getting a 'L' zoom for a cropped sensor
    body usually results in a non ideal range. A 16-35 L isn't really that wide
    on a cropped body, so to get a super wide angle lens, you would need to go
    for a 10-22 non 'L' lens.
    Pretty much the opposite to above.
    Canon full frame lenses are EF, Canon cropped sensor body lenses are EF-S.
    Although the full frame EF lenses will fit on the cropped sensor bodies
    without any problems.
     
    Shaun, Sep 11, 2006
    #3
  4. measekite

    Guest

    That's not true. absolutely. Cropped image is what it is. cropped. most
    of the lenses inacuracies exist in the outer fringes of its image. Very
    often a mediocre full frame lense will be just perfect for a small
    sensor because it will not show its outer area. In addition, a 10-22
    lense is still 10-22 equivalent. it's about 16-30 on the camera. an
    EF-S lens doenst mean its numbers are as of 35mm, they dont do this
    conversion for you.
     
    , Sep 11, 2006
    #4
  5. measekite

    Shaun Guest

    What part isn't true?


     
    Shaun, Sep 11, 2006
    #5
  6. measekite

    Dave Cohen Guest

    In the interest of historical accuracy, 35mm cameras appeared after
    large format cameras, which, while they didn't disappear did shrink a
    little.
    Dave Cohen
     
    Dave Cohen, Sep 11, 2006
    #6
  7. measekite

    Prometheus Guest

    That is not what he is saying, he is saying that a 16 mm lens is not
    very wide on a cropped body because it will only have the angle of view
    a 26 mm lens gives on a full-frame body, if you want the view that a 16
    mm lens gave you on 35 mm film you will need a 10 mm lens for your (1.6)
    cropped sensor. And a 24 mm lens only gives the angle of view that a 38
    mm lens has.
     
    Prometheus, Sep 11, 2006
    #7
  8. The part about top posting.
     
    John McWilliams, Sep 11, 2006
    #8
  9. measekite

    measekite Guest

    I understand but if you look at the past few years DSLR camera are
    becomming a better value. More for the same or less money. Look at the
    $7000 full frame Canon and now you can get the little brother 5D for
    around $3000. Going on then in the not too distant future you may be
    able to get maybe a 4D for around $1500. If that is the case then
    people who bought the APS size lenses would be at a disadvantage if they
    wanted to upgrade.

    It seems that to get the benefits of DX or EF-S lenses one is taking a
    chance that they will not be able to upgrade.
     
    measekite, Sep 12, 2006
    #9
  10. measekite

    Bill Funk Guest

    The part about the L lenses.
     
    Bill Funk, Sep 12, 2006
    #10
  11. measekite

    measekite Guest

    Top posting is usually better


    unless you are replying to a specific thing.
     
    measekite, Sep 12, 2006
    #11
  12. Aw, who actually buys those things? <grin>. Seriously, (and in case the
    manufacturers are listening) I'll consider buying "APS" lenses when the
    last existing Nikon film body is no longer repairable. Given that I can
    still get 30+ year old F2s fixed, not within my lifetime.
     
    Scott Schuckert, Sep 12, 2006
    #12
  13. All that will happen is that they need to sell the EF-S lenses along
    with their APS-sensor DSLR at the time they upgrade to full-frame DSLR.
    The lenses aren't going to be obsolete, so you should be able to sell
    them.

    Or you could buy only "full frame" lenses now, which will trade spending
    more now for spending less later (since you can use them after
    upgrading). Unless you see your income dropping between now and then, I
    don't see much benefit paying more now.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Sep 12, 2006
    #13
  14. You haven't been checking out the prices on the more interesting of the
    cropped lenses, have you? The Nikon 12-24/4.0 and Canon 17-55/2.8 are both
    ridiculously expensive, and the Canon 10-22 ain't cheap.

    The Canon 17-40/4.0 plus Tamron 28-75/2.8 together cost less than the Canon
    17-55/2.8, and are pretty much all I need for the 5D, and owning them in
    advance made the 5D a much less daunting purchase than it would have been
    had I needed glass for it as well.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Sep 12, 2006
    #14
  15. Generally, all else being equal, they will be heavier and cost more.
    This is more of an issue at the wide angle end. On a lens in the
    vicinity of 17/18mm (ultrawide on 35mm, wide on APS), it doesn't take a
    lot of effort to produce reasonable sharpness across an APS sized image
    circle. If the image circle is to be extended to 35mm size, and you want
    acceptable sharpness with minimal chromatic abberations and things like
    barrel, towards the edges of the frame, then a lot of work needs to go
    into the lens, hence increasing it's price and weight. If you only ever
    use the lens on an APS sensor, you have a lot of glass that is being
    used to make an acceptable image in areas that will never be turned into
    part of your photo. An advantage though, is that the work put into
    making the edges acceptible, will usually also make the middle even better.
    Generally, all else being equal, they are lighter and cheaper,
    especially at the wide angle. Personally I wouldn't bother with
    telephotos designed for the small sensors - for example lately there
    seem to have been a lot of small-sensor 55-200's appear - they are about
    the same price as a full-frame 70(ish)-300, so personally I'd get the
    70-300, so it would be compatible with all formats. At a wide angle
    though, for example Canon's EF-S 17-85IS would IMO be a better buy than
    the EF 17-40/4 (The 17-40 is quite a bit dearer and lacks IS).

    I'll probably open a can of worms here, but at this stage I don't see a
    huge advantage in going full frame, unless by full frame you mean 35mm
    film. Stick a 50/1.4 on a 5D and the results are pretty disgusting, with
    about a 2 stop loss of light between the centre and the edges. The same
    lens behaves fine on 35mm film. Sure the problem could be fixed in
    postprocessing, but it would be a lot of extra work compared to doing
    the same thing with a 30/1.4 on an APS body.
    DX for Nikon, EF-S for canon. Canon Lenses have the marker used to align
    the lens on the body in a different position, and coloured white instead
    of red, on ef-s lenses. In theory this should stop people trying to fit
    an EF-S lens to an EF body - doing so can damage the lens and/or camera.
     
    Graham Fountain, Sep 13, 2006
    #15
  16. measekite

    Mueen Nawaz Guest

    No. If you're not replying to a specific thing, then don't quote.

    --
    White dwarf seeks red giant for binary relationship.


    /\ /\ /\ /
    / \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z anl
     
    Mueen Nawaz, Sep 13, 2006
    #16
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.