Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Has crop factor changed lens perception
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
I must admit I find the 50mm boring. It's the FOV we see all the time through our eyes, so 24 & 90 are my preference.

It's exactly same by me. My favorit lenses on FF are 25mm Distagon, few lenses between 85-100mm and 180mm teles.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Willem wrote:

i have the second version as well. maybe mine has damage or something, as it was already second hand when i got it. And i still have a lot to learn, so maybe i will get better results with it as i learn.
Still i feel that my takumar primes give a way better image then this kitlens.


Well, my experience with Taks is they are wickedly sharp, so I won't argue with that.

Being second hand your lens is most likely suspect. Probably why the original owner sold it.

I have an example. Last year, my mom gave me her EOS gear. Part of the outfit was an EF 28-80mm. Well, I already had a 28-80mm that came with an Elan IIe I bought. So obviously I didn't need two, so I decided to sell one of them. But I tested both first to see if one might be sharper than the other. I didn't expect there to be any difference. But I was surprised to find out that there was a quite noticeable difference -- one was clearly sharper than the other. So I sold the non-sharp one on eBay. Shocked Oh well.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fuzzywuzzy wrote:
The Canon kit lens image quality is "good enough" if you stop it down a bit. Unfortunately it's already pretty slow, if you're stopping it down even farther, shooting handheld inside is frustrating and probably won't give good results.

My Takumar 50/1.4 will give me handheld shots the kit lens could never dream of, but if you're outside at f/8 the kit lens isn't that bad, it's by far my widest lens and has it's uses.

In it's day my Tak 50/1.4 was a Cadillac. People talk about the kit lens like it's a dead donkey, but it's more like a 5 year old Chevy minivan. Unglamorous, clunky, cheap, but if it's all you've got it is definitely usable.


My EF 18-55 has the IS function. I have been able to get sharp hand-held images with it at 1/2 second, and under rigidly controlled circumstances (i.e. good support for my hands) -- 3 seconds. Try that with your 50/1.4 Tak.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Willem wrote:
[...] i have the second version as well. maybe mine has damage or something, as it was already second hand when i got it. And i still have a lot to learn, so maybe i will get better results with it as i learn.
Still i feel that my takumar primes give a way better image then this kitlens.


Maybe not Very Happy

The Super-, S-M-C, & SMC Takumars are better than the Canon 18-55 IS (II) Zoom, imho.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ObTopic:
Technology alters expectations. When 50-55-58mm primes were the most cost-effective kit lenses, those were what we expected and accepted. Now 18-55's are cost effective and mostly pretty decent -- not equivalent to a bagful of primes, but still quite usable.

The next big breakthrough may put amorphous lenses onto image-field sensors with smart software that selects focal length, focus distance, exposure, all after-the-fact. Or as someone mention, we may (sooner!) see cameras shooting short bursts of bracketed high-res video where we select frames from the set. When we expect and have such capabilities, our kit zooms will seem as quaint or reviled as Domiplans. As with Indiana Jones, a kit lens that has been buried 1000 years may be worth something!


PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
I must admit I find the 50mm boring. It's the FOV we see all the time through our eyes, so 24 & 90 are my preference.


seems to be true for me, using an APS-C camera, too. Don't use my 35mm much, most used is a 50mm and second a 24mm.
Often wished for a wider angle, my 20mm is way too big and heavy for me to carry often
the wide end is the most obvious disadvantage of an APS-C camera when using lenses made for 35mm film, it's great fun for a fast 50!

cooltouch wrote:

My EF 18-55 has the IS function. I have been able to get sharp hand-held images with it at 1/2 second, and under rigidly controlled circumstances (i.e. good support for my hands) -- 3 seconds. Try that with your 50/1.4 Tak.


use a Pentax dSLR, it stabilizes every Tak, any lens Wink
never tried 3 sec. with my 1.4/50 Takumar, 1/3 sec can do and 1/10 sec is routine


PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm using my 30mm very much on the Crop; you can nearly do anything with it, this is a nice "ever on" for the Camera. As I don't have a good Zoom (and the 18-55IS isn't really what I see in a Lens), this is a "nice to have".

While working, I'm sure a Fan of 50mm on my Crop - just because I love portraits. I love Close-Ups, so a 50mm brings the perfect FOV for this.
And hell, they are good and cheap Smile


PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 2:35 pm    Post subject: Has crop factor changed lens perception Reply with quote
After getting my 5DMkII, I only use my crop body, 40D with telephotos for that added reach.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:

use a Pentax dSLR, it stabilizes every Tak, any lens Wink
never tried 3 sec. with my 1.4/50 Takumar, 1/3 sec can do and 1/10 sec is routine


Good point about the Pentax. If they were ever to come out with a FF camera, I'd seriously consider getting one.

As for the stability business, what I did was read up on the amount of movement the IS on that lens is capable of absorbing, and then just attempted to keep my movement within those boundaries. If you can do that, then theoritically with an IS lens, one can make exposures that last for indefinite periods of time. Anyway, give it a try. Put yourself in a position where your arms and hands are well braced and see how long you can last. I did it when sitting in my favorite chair, leaning forward somewhat to brace my arms against my chest, and snugged my hands against my chest also, then I focust on an object on my desk, about 30 cm away from the camera. Took about a dozen tries to get a sharp 3-second exposure. Cool


PostPosted: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:10 am    Post subject: Re: Has crop factor changed lens perception Reply with quote
buggz wrote:
After getting my 5DMkII, I only use my crop body, 40D with telephotos for that added reach.


There is no added reach with mounting a tele lens on a crop camera

The clue is in the word ' CROP '

Its to do with the FOV being cropped down by 1.5 compared to the same lens mounted on a FF camera.

Hence the FOV of a wide angle 20mm lens on a FF camera looks real wide. Put that same 20mm lens on a 1.5x crop camera and you get the FOV of a 30mm lens.

The word ' CROP ' does exactly what it says. Nothing to do with some magical 50% increase in reach


PostPosted: Sat Jul 02, 2011 6:27 am    Post subject: Re: Has crop factor changed lens perception Reply with quote
Fretless Pete wrote:
buggz wrote:
After getting my 5DMkII, I only use my crop body, 40D with telephotos for that added reach.

There is no added reach with mounting a tele lens on a crop camera

Better would be to say "added magnification" as crop cameras usualy packs more pixels in same cropped area than FF.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just to throw fuel on the fire -- whenever I look at a lens table, it shows me the angles of view of the lenses. And the longer focal length lenses always have "cropped" fields of view compared to shorter focal lengths. Cool


PostPosted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 12:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Just to throw fuel on the fire -- whenever I look at a lens table, it shows me the angles of view of the lenses. And the longer focal length lenses always have "cropped" fields of view compared to shorter focal lengths. Cool

OMFG, zooming my Lil'Bigma from 170 to 500 crops the image! Call the optics police!


PostPosted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
RioRico wrote:
OMFG, zooming my Lil'Bigma from 170 to 500 crops the image! Call the optics police!

From practical point of view yes, crops AND magnifies the cropped part of image Twisted Evil


PostPosted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:57 pm    Post subject: Re: Has crop factor changed lens perception Reply with quote
BRunner wrote:
Fretless Pete wrote:
buggz wrote:
After getting my 5DMkII, I only use my crop body, 40D with telephotos for that added reach.

There is no added reach with mounting a tele lens on a crop camera

Better would be to say "added magnification" as crop cameras usualy packs more pixels in same cropped area than FF.


That might be better BRunner, yes , but i think we are then comparing pixel density, and not the simple fact of just crop factors

But i see your point


PostPosted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It must be a slow day today. I guess I'm a bit nonplussed that this discussion continues. Surely the members here can move past a discussion as to whether a lens's focal length is "amplified" or not when placed on a crop body camera. We all understand what's going on.

You know how a movie director will sometimes put his hands out in front of him, making a square with them so he can visualize a scene? We all know that's what a crop body camera does with a lens. Pixel density be damned, that's still all it does with a lens, i.e., crop the lens's field of view or image circle. The cropped sensor may have more pixels crammed into it, but that doesn't mean the lens can handle the added alleged resolution.

Any lens will have resolution limits. The smaller the crop, the closer you get to those resolution limits. I would be more concerned about this reality than anything else when selecting a lens for a crop body camera, be it mf or af.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BRunner wrote:
Everybody wants fast lenses. And really fast 1.4/35mm lenses are very, very expensive. Where fast 50s are still cheap (some) and fast portrait lenses not so cheap, but still significantly lower prices than 35mm. Actually is probably better idea to get used FF 5D and good 1.4/50 than crop camera and 1.4/35.


I used to think that faster lenses always = better lenses... until I got a preset Tele-Takumar 200mm f5.6 (because it was $15). That lens is incredible, especially for full sunlight with wonderful contrast and color.

Wide open:




with a Canon achromat for close-up work screwed on the front:


PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
RioRico wrote:
dnas wrote:
Although kit zooms of the range 18-55mm for DSLRs are very common, quite a few of them are not high quality at all.

The original Canon 18-55mm was a bad lens, with very poor corners and edges. The newer 18-55mm IS is very much better.

Yes, you should have had a Pentax SMC-DA 18-55, a much better lens.


+1 Laughing


PostPosted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 1:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cheekygeek wrote:
BRunner wrote:
Everybody wants fast lenses. And really fast 1.4/35mm lenses are very, very expensive. Where fast 50s are still cheap (some) and fast portrait lenses not so cheap, but still significantly lower prices than 35mm. Actually is probably better idea to get used FF 5D and good 1.4/50 than crop camera and 1.4/35.


I used to think that faster lenses always = better lenses... until I got a preset Tele-Takumar 200mm f5.6 (because it was $15). That lens is incredible, especially for full sunlight with wonderful contrast and color.

Wide open:

[very colorful photos!!!]



+1 for the 5Dc + 1.4/50

+1 Well, that specific 'slow' takumar has exceptional performance imho. Very Happy Also it is tiny, lightweight, easy to pack, compared to its later f/4 relatves.

WOW! #2 is a rare photo. Are you Native American?


PostPosted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
WOW! #2 is a rare photo. Are you Native American?


Thank you for the complement. Not sure how "rare" however. The photo is of a 17 year old fancy dancer of the Otoe-Missouria tribe in Oklahoma.
World Pentax Day, June 18th, coincided with "The Dancers of the Plains Exhibition Powwow Celebration and Cultural Learning Experience" held in Kearney, Nebraska at The Great Platte River Road Archway.

I took many shots this day (most of which could have benefited from a little flash fill. The challenge was in finding a good shot that didn't have corn-fed white people in the background. Smile PS... I am not Native American.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Has crop factor changed lens perception


Yes. You only need to browse Flickr to see that crop camera users desire faster and faster (f/1.x is not enough) glass, to be able to achieve shallow depth of field on their 1.5-1.6 or 2.0 crop factor sensors.

Every single high-end wedding photographer in the World uses medium format, because shallow depth of field is the desired look. I shoot full-frame DSLR, and 99% of my frames are at f/2.8 or wider, and I hit the 1/8000s shutter limit during summertime weddings.

Clients who pay proper wedding photography fees ($$$$) don't want to see the same look in their photos that they can get by asking their DSLR enthusiast cousin to shoot their wedding with his/her variable-aperture zoom lenses. Shallow depth of field is a trend that has already lasted a few years, and I personally can't see an end to it.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 1:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
But wait, Vilhelm. It seems to me that you're arguing that crop factors haven't changed perception. The examples you give are of people attempting to emulate the effects of lenses used with larger formats, but with their crop-body cameras. They tell me that they are bringing their perceptions with them into the crop-body format and are having trouble duplicating what they were used to in other formats. So, their perception is the same, it's just the format that has changed.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2