Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-08-2010, 04:05 PM   #61
Veteran Member
eurostar's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Albareto, Italy
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 816
QuoteOriginally posted by herzzreh Quote
Well, I still don't buy it. Crop factor comes into big play when choosing a lens. Say I want a fast and light 40-50mm... with 36mm sensor, I have this choice. Do I have the same choice with 1.5 crop? Nope, nada... Please show me a decent and small-ish 28-30mm (and cheap) that's faster than f/2! This is where crop plays a big role.
I don't understand why you would spend a lot of money on a camera to use a cheap lens, when you can sped the same amount of money on a costly, faster lens and use it on a cheap camera. A lens is much more long-living than a camera of any format.

11-08-2010, 11:10 PM   #62
New Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Jyväskylä, Finland
Posts: 16
QuoteOriginally posted by eurostar Quote
I don't understand why you would spend a lot of money on a camera to use a cheap lens, when you can sped the same amount of money on a costly, faster lens and use it on a cheap camera. A lens is much more long-living than a camera of any format.
Because sometimes a cheap lens is enough? On full frame even a cheap 50/1.7 is a very usable lens (there are people with D700's who have nothing but a cheap 50mm and that's just fine) - on APS-C, you'd need a 33mm f/1.2 lens to achieve the same kind of depth of field and photographic possibilities. Last time I checked, such a lens doesn't exist.

There is a lot of market for full frame cameras even if you aren't into lenses that cost thousands. Especially if you are into inexpensive and still really good primes. I think Pentaxians, if anyone, should understand that.
11-09-2010, 07:07 AM   #63
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by crwl Quote
Because sometimes a cheap lens is enough? On full frame even a cheap 50/1.7 is a very usable lens (there are people with D700's who have nothing but a cheap 50mm and that's just fine) - on APS-C, you'd need a 33mm f/1.2 lens to achieve the same kind of depth of field and photographic possibilities. Last time I checked, such a lens doesn't exist.

There is a lot of market for full frame cameras even if you aren't into lenses that cost thousands. Especially if you are into inexpensive and still really good primes. I think Pentaxians, if anyone, should understand that.
.

This is an excellent point, and spot on.

I have to admit that I didn't get this at first, either, so I don't hold it against anyone if it seems odd to them.

Shooting less expensive glass on a FF camera seems counterproductive, but keep in mind that just because something is less expensive doesn't mean it's not a good, sharp lens. Consider the Pentax F 50 1.7. One of the sharpest lenses you can put on your Pentax. One of the reasons it's not heralded as much as it deserves optically (aside from being out of production) is that 50mm on aps-c is considered an 'odd' FL, too long for indoor shooting, to short for telephoto, fairly good for traditional portraiture. On a small-bodied, fast-focusing FF Pentax, that lens would be brilliant, and very useful.

I shoot a Nikon $280 20mm f/2.8 AF-D and $109 50 f/1.8 AF-D, and they are both very good lenses, capable of great images. The 20 2.8 would be the equivalent of a 13mm f/2.8, the 50 a 35mm f/1.8 on aps-c. (DOF for the same FOV would make them a 13mm f/1.9 and 35mm f/1, but then we're getting too far into equivalence than most people like to go! )

Bottom line is that a FF camera can make inexpensive lenses very valuable to you, expand your shooting options, and bring some different, fun situations to you.

FF doesn't have to mean "break the bank".


.
11-09-2010, 08:03 AM   #64
Veteran Member
pasipasi's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oulu
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 533
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
This is an excellent point, and spot on.
There's also the fact that going wide is cheaper on full frame. One of the first lenses I bought for my D700 was an old 24/2.8 Nikkor for about 120eur. It's as wide as my DA*16-50 was, but with better DOF control and is actually sharper (primes tend to be), and cost me almost 800 euros less. I'm a wide angle shooter, so FF was a very natural step forwards.

Here's some bokeh with a 24mm lens:




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!
camera, dslr, ff, pentax, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:32 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