Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-12-2021, 10:38 AM   #16
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 37,239
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxxoid Quote
That's perfectly possible. However, a lens designed for the smaller sensor would have exact same advantage.
It's main advantage is that it would be lighter. And that is why most of us treasure our APS-c lenses.

Sigma 70-300 550gm
Pentax 55-300 PLM 442

And the Pentax is by far the superior lens. I use it with care to avoid vignetting on my K-1 FF (which it does at some focal lengths, but not all). I'd rather use an APS_c lens on FF (and do on a regular basis) than a similar FF lens, because of the weight, where the APS-c lens is good enough to give good results.

02-12-2021, 10:48 AM - 1 Like   #17
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Columbus Ohio USA
Posts: 194
I think I am struggling with the premise. The lens is just a series of pieces of glass. The issue that a ff lens "wastes" the edges in a apsc doesn't make what is captured and used any less. If anything the center of a ff lens is the typically the best part.
02-12-2021, 10:49 AM   #18
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 37,239
QuoteOriginally posted by volley Quote
My advice is: Just enjoy shooting ... and rest assured that FF-lenses will work without quality issues on APS-C.
Seriously, this is it. You have to shoot with a lens to know if it's for you. Prejudging based on the sensor size it was developed for should be a non-starter.

QuoteQuote:
In fact, MTF charts have no effect on my decision to buy or use a lens.
But if you've found something to be true, MTF charts with accompanying distortion and CA graphs can help explain a point.

I'm always amused when people assume because I use MTF charts in my explanations that they are a big part of my life. At this point, already owning over 20 lenses, what I look at most is how smooth the out of focus areas are. Overall sharpness is over-rated, but, all other things features being equal, I might use MTF as the tie breaker, but I'd be more likely to use price.

Honestly, most of the time I only use MTF charts to back up my observations when explaining things here on the forum. Not doing so may precipitate unnecessary arguments. Anyone can argue with me. Test chart data makes it more difficult.
02-12-2021, 10:57 AM   #19
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Columbus Ohio USA
Posts: 194
Slight hijack

At some point does a apsc lens stop making sense to design because of physics? For example it doesn't seem like a (apsc only) 70-200mm at f/2.8 exist. They seem to be ff and usable on the apsc. Is this because physics dictate in order to have the aperture large enough at that focal length the image circle will end up being large?

02-12-2021, 11:00 AM   #20
Seeker of Knowledge
Loyal Site Supporter
aslyfox's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Topeka, Kansas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 21,058
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
My wife is into photography and steals my favourite lenses for her own use. .. . .
big hijack

IMHO [ 30th anniversary will be Sept 7 2021 ] a good marriage is made up of compromises
02-12-2021, 11:03 AM   #21
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 37,239
QuoteOriginally posted by Sidney Porter Quote
Slight hijack

At some point does a apsc lens stop making sense to design because of physics? For example it doesn't seem like a (apsc only) 70-200mm at f/2.8 exist. They seem to be ff and usable on the apsc. Is this because physics dictate in order to have the aperture large enough at that focal length the image circle will end up being large?
That's partially true, but consider that the 50-135 2.8, a favourite on APS_c is the same field of view of the 70-200 on FF, maybe not the same lens but the same capability.

The 70-200 on APS-c would be 100-300mm on FF, those exist, but they are much less popular. It's the functional 35mm focal length that's important, not the actual FL of the lens.

The DA*50-135 is much lighter than a DFA*70-200. Telephoto is where APS-c really starts to make sense over FF in terms of weight.
02-12-2021, 11:20 AM   #22
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 39,605
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxxoid Quote
The total number of "pixels" that the lens projects onto an APS-C sensor is going to be 1.5 times less.
Hmmmm...I don't think I my lens projects pixels or even latent pixels, but...

The proof of the pudding is in the eating and I only have one crop-format lens in my bag for use with my K-3, a Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 (C) that is my walk-around zoom. Everything else is FF and I have done some pretty good work with those, even the "vintage" stuff*. Below is a link to my Flickr page; see if you you can pick out the photos with the wasted pixels.

fotostevia | Flickr


Steve

(...flux to the frame is the same for any given focal length regardless of image circle...)

* Believe it or not, most of my "vintage" lenses are more than up to the challenge of the pixel pitch on the K-3.

Last edited by stevebrot; 02-12-2021 at 11:43 AM.
02-12-2021, 11:20 AM   #23
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Columbus Ohio USA
Posts: 194
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote

The 70-200 on APS-c would be 100-300mm on FF, those exist, but they are much less popular. It's the functional 35mm focal length that's important, not the actual FL of the lens.
I often shoot at poorly lit highschool athletic fields so I often benefit from the field of view and the f2.8 that I get from my tamron 70-200. I was wondering if it could be even made physically smaller for an apsc. I understand comparing field of view between the 2 formats.

It has been awhile since I have shot the larger format. I don't have a k1 and the last film I shot was in 2011. At this point my minds eye is apsc. The only time I even think equivalent is for forum post.

02-12-2021, 11:21 AM   #24
Pentaxian
Dan Rentea's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 1,716
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxxoid Quote
We can use full-frame lenses on APS-C cameras, but that sounds like an awful idea, since only the center of the lens would be used. The total number of "pixels" that the lens projects onto an APS-C sensor is going to be 1.5 times less. Let's say a full-frame lens has a resolution of 2000 lp/ph. On an APS-C sensor that would become 1333 lp/ph. That's in linear dimension. Over the area of the sensor, that would be a 2.25-fold decrease in resolution. That's enough to turn and awesome lens into trash.

I understand that lens "resolution" is not the same as resolution of the lens+camera, but a 2.25-fold decrease in resolution of one part of the system is going to have a dramatic effect on the final image.

I also appreciate that a cropped sensor would "benefit" from using only the center of the FF lens where resolution is better than at the border, however, this is not nearly enough to compensate for using only a fraction of the image projected by a FF-lens. Border resolution is typically 10% less than resolution in the center, while the sensor size is 33% different (in linear dimension).

What is your real-life experience of using FF-lenses on APS-C camera vs using an APS-C lens?

I see that SMC-FA 35mm f/2 has glowing reviews. How would it do on an APS-C camera relative to SMC DA 35mm F2.4?

This thread confirms this, but the author did not actually state what camera he was using.
I haven't seen a Canon APS-C lens outperforming the 85mm f1.4L on a crop camera. Or a 70-200mm f2.8L lens. Or a 16-35mm f2.8 lens. Or...

Same with Nikon. I haven't seen a Nikon APS-C lens outperforming the Nikon 105mm f1.4 lens for example on a crop camera.

The reason why APS-C lenses are being bought has to do with weight and price, both of them being less than an equivalent lens on a full frame. Personal opinion of course.
02-12-2021, 11:25 AM   #25
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 39,605
QuoteOriginally posted by Sidney Porter Quote
For example it doesn't seem like a (apsc only) 70-200mm at f/2.8 exist.
It is called the DA* 50-135/2.8, same FOV on APS-C as 70-200 on FF.


Steve
02-12-2021, 11:29 AM   #26
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Columbus Ohio USA
Posts: 194
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
It is called the DA* 50-135/2.8, same FOV on APS-C as 70-200 on FF.


Steve
I understand fov between formats.

My question is could a 70-200 f2.8 be made with only a apsc image circle?
02-12-2021, 11:39 AM   #27
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 37,239
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
The reason why APS-C lenses are being bought has to do with weight and price, both of them being less than an equivalent lens on a full frame. Personal opinion of course
Exactly, if APS_c has enough resolution and noise characteristics, for telephoto for your shooting you'd be silly to carry around FF gear in long focal lengths. That being said, if I'm out shooting with my 300 2.8 and 1.4 TC and the subject is a bit tight, switching to my K-1 is always an option, although when I've done it I rarely see any advantage to the K-1 images, they are just harder to get. But hey, you gotta experiment. Otherwse you don't know as much as you could.

It's amazing how many misconceptions can be cleared up by a bit of experience.
02-12-2021, 11:48 AM - 1 Like   #28
Pentaxian
redrockcoulee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 2,218
QuoteOriginally posted by aslyfox Quote
big hijack

IMHO [ 30th anniversary will be Sept 7 2021 ] a good marriage is made up of compromises
Very true. I stayed with Pentax even though I was working at a all Nikon shop with a staggering array of lens because my wife wanted the K10D instead of a Nikon.

We share equipment from Pentax, Hasselblad and large format. She allows me to buy whatever gear I wish, knowing I'm a miser, but frowns on me selling anything. 45 years and counting. Pentax for the entire time starting with matching black Spotmatic F.
02-12-2021, 11:54 AM   #29
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 39,605
QuoteOriginally posted by Sidney Porter Quote
My question is could a 70-200 f2.8 be made with only a apsc image circle?
Definitely, and Nikon, Canon, Sony, and Pentax all make APS-C lenses in that general zoom range, though not as fast as f/2.8. It seems that the smaller image circle does not make that much difference in bulk/weight with faster lenses.


Steve
02-12-2021, 12:08 PM - 1 Like   #30
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 18,716
Iíll wade in.

The pixels of most apsc sensors are smaller than the ff the lens is measured on. Bear in mind that even if the lens has a finite maximum resolution that resolution is likely higher than it was measure as. We have seen that places that do lens measurements find that every time sensor resolution goes up their measured lens resolution also goes up - not necessarily in a direct proportion however.

What this means is that you canít simple assume that the detail available at ff is the most the lens can provide. Think of it as if you had two coloring programs. One with 3mmx3mm blocks that was 2.25 times the area of another with 2mmx2mm blocks. Each block does not map directly to another even in the central portion. In a 6mm x 6mm area 4 blocks becomes 9. This change is why a lens may resolve better on apsc than ff unless the ff sensor is very high resolution (A7rIV for example).

Note that this is not always this way. It is well known that some larger format lenses were/areless perfect than they needed to be if used on smaller formats. Large format lenses shot on 35mm cameras sometimes struggled to meet the expected performance due to the size of the negatives relative to the prints made. Smaller lenses often have to be more carefully engineered as tiny imperfections will show. But the delta in image size is typically much larger than 1:2.25 area. Put an 8x10 lens on a q7 and the high density of pixels might reveal flaws. But in more practical terms it isnít seen in practice much. The main penalty for using ff gear on apsc is weight/size.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
300mm, aps-c, border, camera, canon, center, charts, da, decrease, ff lens, full-frame, gear, image, images, k-1, k-mount, lens, lenses, logic, norm, pentax lens, pixels, plm, resolution, sensor, slr lens, test
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-3III vs K-1II, APS-C vs full frame, which is "best" & price relevance - my thoughts BigMackCam Pentax DSLR Discussion 128 12-13-2020 02:43 AM
Full Frame vs Better Cropped Camera? RockvilleBob Photographic Industry and Professionals 37 02-17-2013 02:24 PM
Difference Between Full Frame (35mm) Sensor & Cropped (APS-C) Sensor richard balonglong Photographic Industry and Professionals 22 06-28-2012 02:20 AM
Full Frame Vs High Quality Cropped Body - Will Pentax Win/Survive in the Game? RiceHigh Pentax News and Rumors 219 05-18-2009 07:15 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:49 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top