London Fog wrote:
Gotta say John, even the primes that Canon currently offer are smokin' hot.

Never said they weren't.

Dan K Photography wrote:

This is backwards. You have more lens choices with APS-C format cameras then with the 5D. The 50D can use all the pro lenses the 5D can use plus all the APS-C lenses.

He said "variety".

There are far fewer wide lens options than medium, but when you use APS-C wide lenses are your medium, ultra wides (even fewer) your wides, and there aren't really any ultra wide options for APS-C, are there?

The 24 1.4 on FF is a great lens, but you're not going to find a 15 1.4 for APS-C

-JAY- wrote:
What can the 50D / 5D that your XSi cannot?

Thumb wheel. That's huge if you're not shooting in P.

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
Not sure why you find it heretical. Just wondering why Canon has never bothered to design any APS format lenses with the professional photographer in mind. There was a period of time when the 20D was the most common camera in wedding photographer's hands. That would have been a great time to address the needs of the professional event photographer.

I don't know the answer for a fact, but I'm totally open to using a crop sensor as my main body. I did for 3 years with the 1D4 and I'm torn with the 5D3.

In my experience, the FF sensors have always been higher quality - not because of the advantage of the larger size, but better design. If that's always going to be the case, then the presumption would be that FF would always be the professional choice.

You could argue that Canon overlooked their flagship camera by not designing any lenses at all for a 1.3 crop.

Kaouthia wrote:

Yeah, doing weddings, going wider than 38mm is obviously handy.  I absolutely do not ever intend on doing any weddings, so it's not a concern for me.

As is extra DoF at 1.4 when you've opened up for more light.

MC Photo wrote:
As is extra DoF at 1.4 when you've opened up for more light.

Even shooting both lenses at f/2.8, the f/1.4 prime is going to help your autofocus lock on a lot more often in lower light situations.

And depending on the focal length of the 1.4, and the focus distance to your subject, a little less depth of field might not be an issue.

If you're on a 35mm f/1.4 and your subject's 15ft away, I don't imagine a slightly shallower depth of field is going to be much of an issue (you're still gonna get about 5ft depth of field at that distance).  Even on a 50mm, you're still gonna get over 2ft at that distance.

MC Photo wrote:
I don't know the answer for a fact, but I'm totally open to using a crop sensor as my main body. I did for 3 years with the 1D4 and I'm torn with the 5D3.

In my experience, the FF sensors have always been higher quality - not because of the advantage of the larger size, but better design. If that's always going to be the case, then the presumption would be that FF would always be the professional choice.

You could argue that Canon overlooked their flagship camera by not designing any lenses at all for a 1.3 crop.

Well the 1.3 body didn't sell in near the quantities of the APS format bodies, and I would suggest that the majority of these went to sports shooters who were not constrained by the limitations in not having format-specific lenses available.

MC Photo wrote:
As is extra DoF at 1.4 when you've opened up for more light.

Kaouthia wrote:
Even shooting both lenses at f/2.8, the f/1.4 prime is going to help your autofocus lock on a lot more often in lower light situations.

Actually, the AF sensor will see the exact same thing from an f/1.4 lens as it would from an f/2.8 lens, and AF will be identical in both situations.

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
Actually, the AF sensor will see the exact same thing from an f/1.4 lens as it would from an f/2.8 lens, and AF will be identical in both situations.

Actually, a wider aperture lets more light get in through through the lens, through the prism and to the AF system, as the lens is fully open when it's not actually taking a shot (or in liveview mode).

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
Like I said, when you look in terms of how a professional photographer actually works, the fact that EF lenses fit doesn't matter much at all, except for in the telephoto range.

The 'nonsense' was your statement that Canon makes no 'pro' lenses for crop cameras. They do.

However, you now seem to be arguing that what you really meant was 'Canon make no 'pro' extreme wide-angle lenses for crop cameras'. Not quite the same argument.

The simple fact is that it's easier and cheaper to make a fast wide angle lens for a FF camera for obvious reasons. However, as you also get a wider FOV by default with FF it also makes sense for somebody with a strong need for very wide angle shots in low light to get a FF camera in the first place. It's a win-win. Why should Canon invest huge amounts of money researching and producing what would be very expensive and ultimately inferior fast wide-angle lenses for their crop bodies when they already have some excellent EF lenses which when paired with a FF body will do the job better and probably cheaper?

As for whether a lens like the 24-105 f/4L is more suited to a FF or crop body, that's up to the photographer to decide. Personally, I find it too short on a FF body and pretty much ideal on a crop even though it wasn't designed specifically for crop bodies. So do plenty of other people.

Anybody who prefers a crop body has access to a dazzling array of top quality lenses covering all the 'normal' focal lengths (even taking into account the 1.6 crop factor). The lack of a 'pro' quality extreme wide-angle is not going to be a significant factor for most people who shoot with crop bodies. If you need super fast wide-angle coverage then get a FF body. It's not rocket science.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
The 'nonsense' was your statement that Canon makes no 'pro' lenses for crop cameras. They do.

Name one.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
However, you now seem to be arguing that what you really meant was 'Canon make no 'pro' extreme wide-angle lenses for crop cameras'. Not quite the same argument.

Did you bother to read what I said? Where are the portrait lenses? To date, there are none designed for Canon's APS-c format cameras. You can use an 85 for the equivalent of a 135, but what if you want a short telephoto portrait lens? There's nothing. Nothing.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
The simple fact is that it's easier and cheaper to make a fast wide angle lens for a FF camera for obvious reasons.

Oh really? Would you care to enlighten me? Would this be for the same reason that wide angle lenses are cheaper for a Hasselbad?

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
However, as you also get a wider FOV by default with FF it also makes sense for somebody with a strong need for very wide angle shots in low light to get a FF camera in the first place. It's a win-win. Why should Canon invest huge amounts of money researching and producing what would be very expensive and ultimately inferior fast wide-angle lenses for their crop bodies when they already have some excellent EF lenses which when paired with a FF body will do the job better and probably cheaper?

Why should Canon invest huge amounts of money? Well gosh, perhaps because APS format cameras outsell FF cameras 50-to-1? Maybe because they're a lens company who wants to sell lots of lenses?

As for "inferior" performance, if it's well-designed, it will perform just as well as its FF counterpart. Perhaps even better, because the EF-S mount lets the lens get closer to the sensor, and newer lens designs are superior to older lens designs.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
As for whether a lens like the 24-105 f/4L is more suited to a FF or crop body, that's up to the photographer to decide. Personally, I find it too short on a FF body and pretty much ideal on a crop even though it wasn't designed specifically for crop bodies. So do plenty of other people.

That's why we see so many 1Dx photographers using 38-168 f/6.4 lenses. Gotcha.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
Anybody who prefers a crop body has access to a dazzling array of top quality lenses covering all the 'normal' focal lengths (even taking into account the 1.6 crop factor). The lack of a 'pro' quality extreme wide-angle is not going to be a significant factor for most people who shoot with crop bodies. If you need super fast wide-angle coverage then get a FF body. It's not rocket science.

Apparently, it is.

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:

MC Photo wrote:
As is extra DoF at 1.4 when you've opened up for more light.

Actually, the AF sensor will see the exact same thing from an f/1.4 lens as it would from an f/2.8 lens, and AF will be identical in both situations.

In practical terms, half your statement is true.

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
Actually, the AF sensor will see the exact same thing from an f/1.4 lens as it would from an f/2.8 lens, and AF will be identical in both situations.

Kaouthia wrote:
Actually, a wider aperture lets more light get in through through the lens, through the prism and to the AF system, as the lens is fully open when it's not actually taking a shot (or in liveview mode).

But the AF system doesn't see the extra light. It just doesn't work that way. "f/2.8" AF sensors are just that: sensors that see the f/2.8 aperture of a lens. Any lens. f/4 AF sensors see the f/4 aperture of any lens that's attached to it, even if that lens is all the way open to f/1.2. This is also why slower lenses won't work with large aperture AF sensors, regardless of how much light there is in the scene.

Kaouthia wrote:
And if you put an f/4 lens on that body with the "f/2.8 AF sensors", are you trying to tell me the sensor still sees the same amount of light that it would if there was an f/2.8 lens on there?

Of course not, because the f/2.8 sensor wouldn't be activated. But you knew that, and you knew that wasn't what I wasn't talking about. We were talking about using faster lenses.

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
Name one.

All the "L" lenses in the EF range.

As for your other 'points', you're just arguing for the sake of it. You mistakenly stated that Canon make no 'pro' lenses for crop cameras and have spent the rest of this thread trying throw up a smokescreen of specious arguments about everything else to try to cover up the fact that you made a single incorrect statement.





Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
Of course not, because the f/2.8 sensor wouldn't be activated. But you knew that, and you knew that wasn't what I wasn't talking about. We were talking about using faster lenses.

And if you have AF sensors capable of utilising those faster lenses, those faster lenses are going to help then, right?

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
Name one.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
All the "L" lenses in the EF range.

I didn't realize those lenses were designed specifically for APS format cameras. I have to say, Canon sure did pick some weird focal lengths, and the hoods they supplied with them don't appear the be the correct ones. Odd.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
As for your other 'points', you're just arguing for the sake of it. You mistakenly stated that Canon make no 'pro' lenses for crop cameras and have spent the rest of this thread trying throw up a smokescreen of specious arguments about everything else to try to cover up the fact that you made a single incorrect statement.

So instead of actually demonstrating your superior knowledge, you're just throwing up the checkers board and saying, "I'm right, you're wrong, and are too stupid to realize it." Got it.

Could you do me the favor of recommending some appropriate Canon lenses for the pro using a 7D who wants:
1. A fast "normal" lens. The equivalent of a 50mm f/1.4 on a FF camera, which would put it around 32mm. The lens should cost around the same as a Canon 50mm f/1.4, and be about the same size. It also needs to have USM, because it's 2012 and no pro wants to have a buzzy AF motor.

2. A fast short telephoto portrait lens. The equivalent of an 85mm lens on a FF camera, with nice, beautiful bokeh. That would be around 55mm and need to not be of the double-gauss design of "normals" that produce such ugly bokeh.

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
{dick measuring deleted }

Now you're just wasting everybody's time




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
Of course not, because the f/2.8 sensor wouldn't be activated. But you knew that, and you knew that wasn't what I wasn't talking about. We were talking about using faster lenses.

Kaouthia wrote:
And if you have AF sensors capable of utilising those faster lenses, those faster lenses are going to help then, right?

Only because they have the large exit pupils (the virtual aperture as seen from the back of the lens) required for the sensors to actually see the image.

The AF sensors themselves have apertures of around f/22 and they're set up in pairs. One looks at one side of the exit pupil and the other looks at the other side of the exit pupil. When the two sides match (or are "in phase"), the image is in focus.

To the AF system, an 85mm f/1.2 is an 85mm f/2.8, or f/4 or f/5.6, depending on the design of the sensor in question

Steve Crossan wrote:
The 5D and 50D are the same price used. I'm torn between which one to get; the slower, more classic 5D, or the zippier more modern 50D.

To the OP:

More or less, you have made your decision, from this statement.

These two cameras are very capable instruments but very different. I know, because I own and use both.

I would use them for different purposes. If you own both, you would say that too.

The 50D is zippy as you mentioned:
--- AF Micro Adjust (it just nails it!)
--- Sensor auto cleaning (it just cleans it)
--- FPS at 6.3 rate (it just rips it)
--- High res LCD screen (it just clarifies it)
--- Can use ANY EOS lenses

The 5D is slow, a dust magnet, etc.
but:
--- The low light images are like no other (it just shines!)
--- Full Frame (for whatever egotistic merit it has)

Both share the same batteries and use the same CF card format.

.

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
To the AF system, an 85mm f/1.2 is an 85mm f/2.8, or f/4 or f/5.6, depending on the design of the sensor in question

Are you writing that an 85mm f/1.2 will perform like a f/2.8 on a crop body? That makes no sense at all. The 85mm will always be 85mm. The physical dimension of the lens doesn't magically grow when you put it on a crop body. The f/1.2 will always be f/1.2.

Also, if lenses did lose two stops, then that would mean f/5.6 lenses wouldn't AF because they'd be f/11. So, if a crop body did AF fine with f/11, that means crop bodies have better AF since full frames struggle with that, right? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
To the AF system, an 85mm f/1.2 is an 85mm f/2.8, or f/4 or f/5.6, depending on the design of the sensor in question

R_Marquez wrote:
Are you writing that an 85mm f/1.2 will perform like a f/2.8 on a crop body? That makes no sense at all. The 85mm will always be 85mm. The physical dimension of the lens doesn't magically grow when you put it on a crop body. The f/1.2 will always be f/1.2.

Also, if lenses did lose two stops, then that would mean f/5.6 lenses wouldn't AF because they'd be f/11. So, if a crop body did AF fine with f/11, that means crop bodies have better AF since full frames struggle with that, right? Yeah, I didn't think so.

No, he and I were talking about the sensitivity of the autofocus sensors. An autofocus sensor that is optimized for f/2.8 lenses will see the same thing, in terms of the amount of light it has to work with or the precision of the focus, from either an f/2.8 lens or an f/1.2 lens. The lens itself isn't losing anything. People have the mistaken perception that an f/1.4 lens give the AF sensor more light, and therefore will be easier for the AF system to focus.

Image format has nothing to do with this.

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:

MC Photo wrote:
As is extra DoF at 1.4 when you've opened up for more light.

Actually, the AF sensor will see the exact same thing from an f/1.4 lens as it would from an f/2.8 lens, and AF will be identical in both situations.

The focal length is going to put me at a different distance.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:

All the "L" lenses in the EF range.

As for your other 'points', you're just arguing for the sake of it. You mistakenly stated that Canon make no 'pro' lenses for crop cameras and have spent the rest of this thread trying throw up a smokescreen of specious arguments about everything else to try to cover up the fact that you made a single incorrect statement.





Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

I think he means "designed specifically for a cropped sensor camera."

London Fog wrote:
So, are there NO pros at all who use Canon crop cameras?

By Pro, I mean a photographer who actually earns his living with whatever camera he has at hand, and has been published and paid for his work or both? This includes wedding photographers of course!

I think there are a lot of pros using a 1D4.


It's not the operator that defines whether a camera is professional or not.

MC Photo wrote:
Thumb wheel. That's huge if you're not shooting in P.

I haven't missed it one bit.

OH MY GOD IT TAKES AN EXTRA EIGHTH OF A SECOND TO CHANGE MY APERTURE!!!!!! ALERT THE PRESSES!

Kaouthia wrote:

Even shooting both lenses at f/2.8, the f/1.4 prime is going to help your autofocus lock on a lot more often in lower light situations.

And depending on the focal length of the 1.4, and the focus distance to your subject, a little less depth of field might not be an issue.

If you're on a 35mm f/1.4 and your subject's 15ft away, I don't imagine a slightly shallower depth of field is going to be much of an issue (you're still gonna get about 5ft depth of field at that distance).  Even on a 50mm, you're still gonna get over 2ft at that distance.

True. I don't usually shoot people from 15 feet away. Half to 1/3 of that is more likely for me.

-JAY- wrote:

I haven't missed it one bit.

OH MY GOD IT TAKES AN EXTRA EIGHTH OF A SECOND TO CHANGE MY APERTURE!!!!!! ALERT THE PRESSES!

That's a long time when discussing events that happen for 1/250th of a second.

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:

Well the 1.3 body didn't sell in near the quantities of the APS format bodies, and I would suggest that the majority of these went to sports shooters who were not constrained by the limitations in not having format-specific lenses available.

Which is my point. What percentage of the 20Ds were sold to people who'd pay for a pro lens designed for APS-C? I'm sure more 20Ds overall, but the market within 20D owners would have been small.

And really you're taking about 20D owners who would consider an L inadequate because it wasn't designed for the crop.