[Nicolas06]

lot of explanation arround macro and magnification

First magnification... Every FF contain an APSC sensor inside... Just crop. Some FF do come with very similar pixel size than APSC is needed. So 36MP FF sensor is arround the 16MP magnification on APSC as well as 50MP magnification on FF is arround the same as 24MP on APSC... So all an APSC is going to do on macro vs an FF with similar pixel size is to give a narrower field of view with the same lense, but similar magnification.

Now, can you please explain us how macro is relevant for DA*200 or DA*300 ? Neither are macro lenses.

When we speak of equivalence this is always with something in mind... The most common assumption is to get the same framing with the same subject in focus and the same deph of field. For this, there clear equivalence: You can change lense for one 1.5x time shorter focal lense on APSC than on FF, and set the apperture 1.5x time more closed down on the FF than for APSC. This give you same framing, same subject in focus, same deph of field.

Of course if there no lense that exist in one format (or for say a similar price) that can offer the combination of focal length, focussing distance and apperture you need to get this equivalence, you can say this is not the same. This mean we are at the limits. This can be because you want macro but didn't manage to find 2 macro lenses, this can be because there lense with such focal length/apperture are quite expensive or do not exist.

For most picture through there no issue and it can be done because APSC and FF are near. It is not like we speak of 2/3" vs MF where one or the other would struggle to achieve same deph of field in practice for many shoots. But this doesn't change one bit the theory... this is just that you can't choose the apperture from 0 to infinite like you can't choose focal length from 0 to infinite.

But if I want to reproduce a shoot taken at 50mm on m4/3 f/4 and I happen to have an FF, I'll get something very similar with a 100mm lense and f/8... That's just things that are good to know when one switch format from time to time, need to plan to buy in a new format or wonder how he could reproduce the same picture made by a fellow photographer that happen to have a dfiferent sensor format.

The conclusion might very well be that it is not possible to get the equivalrent shoot because there no matching or affordable gear for it but we should not jump to this case until we are in this very situation in practice.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 07-19-2015 at 02:03 AM.

[bossa]

[/COLOR]

Tell that to the flower or insect photographer, or for that matter, the bird photographer that are known to use extension tubes when shooting small birds (on FF). Either lenses are DOF equivalent or they are not, You can not cherry pick at what focusing distances that fit your argument, and generalize from that some sort of universal rule. That is cheating. Lenses for different formats do not give similar framings either. Choosing only the framing that you favorite format can do as the only relevant, is meaningless. APS lenses need no more being equivalent to FF lenses than vice versa. And where are those macro lenses for FF than are equivalent to those on APS? Do not exist. And where are those Pentax 6X7 lenses "equivalent" to consumer lenses on FF? Do not exist either. In fact, "equivalent" lenses do not exist because it isn't about equivalence, but speed. It is obvious that lens manufacturers do not make lenses cross formats to be "quivalent". I wonder why?
And are there anyone who think the DOF wide open of a 300/2.8 lens is an advantage? For most people who use such lenses it is a problem in terms of DOF and try to work around it.
Still, at 2.8 lens is never going to be equivalent to a F:4 lens cause they give different exposure. F:2.8 is by definition equal to F:2.8. It is no more correct saying a 2.8 lens is equal to a F:4 lens than saying 2.8km is equal to 4km. Both are measurements after a standard and is not a matter for discussion.
Insisting that lenses should be equivalent by trading off the advantage of the larger format is a zero sum game and utterly meaningless. Who wants to use a Pentax 6X7 in order for it to be equal to a Pentax LX? Thats why the photographic industry and photographers don't care about it. The premise of the equivalentists is monumentally bananas; The whole point of different formats is NOT to be equivalent.
Now, theres nothing wrong wanting a lens for different format with wide open DOF at a certain focusing distance equal of that of another lens in another format, but it is no more valid than any other whim a photographer may have regarding lens properties. They are opinions, and subject and situation dependent opinions at that, and not rules or principles. The industry standard for lens aperture is written on every lens. It is not about opinions.


---------- Post added 07-19-15 at 02:32 AM ----------



I said minimum DOF. Not DOF at 20m. I wasn't aware that only DOF at 20m counts...

The concept of equivalence is only to be used as a guide for people learning a different format and I cannot understand why people, such as yourself, get so upset about it.

Obviously there is a variation regarding exposure as there is an aperture difference to achieve the same DOF. FOV and DOF are the areas of equivalence and they are only meant as a guide for conversion.

Regarding the MFD/DOF relationship:

[UncleVanya]

How did we get here? The thread it's supposed to be about prices.

[bossa]

How did we get here? The thread it's supposed to be about prices.

Some people can't help but pick fights and some of us get roped in like suckers.

[Sandy Hancock]

Back on track, I just acquired a *mint* DA*200 for AU$700 including a 77mm CPL filter. It might not be the cheapest around but I'm very happy with it
Any desire I had for the DFA*70-200 has evaporated, so I figure it has saved me thousands

[noelpolar]

Back on track, I just acquired a *mint* DA*200 for AU$700 including a 77mm CPL filter. It might not be the cheapest around but I'm very happy with it
Any desire I had for the DFA*70-200 has evaporated, so I figure it has saved me thousands

Didn't doubt you for a moment!

[GeneV]

Godwin's Law of internet forums comes to mind, with the photography twist. "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler FF equivalence and superiority approaches 1."

---

Last edited by GeneV; 07-20-2015 at 01:03 PM.

[Rondec]

Godwin's Law of internet forums comes to mind, with the photography twist. "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler FF equivalence and superiority approaches."

It is odd. I thought the whole point of creating the full frame section of the forum was to isolate the infection, but it doesn't seem to have worked.

[GeneV]

It is odd. I thought the whole point of creating the full frame section of the forum was to isolate the infection, but it doesn't seem to have worked.

If the level of moderation applied to keeping politics isolated (and then out) were applied to this topic, some needless friction would be avoided.

[cali92rs]

I have noticed prices falling for almost all lenses. It is definitely a buyer's market.
I have first hand knowledge of this because I have some gear that I am trying to sell, and I am getting hosed

[Nicolas06]

I have noticed prices falling for almost all lenses. It is definitely a buyer's market.
I have first hand knowledge of this because I have some gear that I am trying to sell, and I am getting hosed

On the other hand, euro vs dollard exchange rate mate buying lenses from anywhere except europe uninterresting here... In france if you buy from US or countries outside europe, you have to pay arround 30% tax on the gear and with the current exchange rate buying used from US is almost like buying new theses days !

[UncleVanya]

Back on track, I just acquired a *mint* DA*200 for AU$700 including a 77mm CPL filter. It might not be the cheapest around but I'm very happy with it
Any desire I had for the DFA*70-200 has evaporated, so I figure it has saved me thousands

Awesome. Used mine today with the 1.4x to prove that the possums my wife saw were pinecones... lol.

[bossa]

[Driline]

I took the K 200 2.5 lens out today for a 4th of July local town celebration. I just.....can't. After reviewing the pictures I took..... I can't justify dumping this lens for a DA*200. It's sharp...contrasty, and I'm nailing the focus with my new Pentax eyepiece.

Well, I've changed my mind. I miss the auto focus, so off goes the K 200 2.5 for sale to the Pentax Market place along with my pristine like new DA* 16-50. ( Im just not a wide angle shooter). I'll add the DA*200 to my stable of lenses and leave it at that. Unless of course my LBA gets the best of me and I buy the FA 77 to complete my 3 Amigos
So that leaves me with the following lenses:

FA 31
FA 43
FA 100 Macro
DA*50-135 (or FA 77) at a later date
DA*200
F*300

[GeneV]

I've noticed it is down to $800 or less at B&H.