For what I plan on doing with my camera, the only prime lens that I would probably ever get would be a 50mm. Other than that, I think something like this would cover almost everything that I want to do with it:
Well no matter what you do, you better get the 50mm 1.8. =P
You may realize the error of your ways after you get that lens, and compare it to the cheap kit zooms. Or not, if you don't, you'll save yourself a good deal of money.
I'm looking into getting a camera soon, it needs to be pretty portable and not too large, but I have no idea where to start looking or what to look for, help?
I have had my 50mm 1.8 on my om now for about 2 years and have never had it off longer than a few days. Bought a 135mm recently but the 50mm is so versitile and portable I find it hard to switch.
Im considering getting a 35 or 28mm for my om, anyone any ideas on which?
I haven't shot with an f/4 zoom lens in ages. Those were dark times..dark times indeed.
OK, this made me laugh. The main reason I'm considering the f/4 70-200mm is because I'm planning on continuing my historic railroad hunt this summer, and some areas that I want to shoot are on private property so I'll have to shoot from the road. I'll be outside, so hopefully it'll work well enough.
I think you guys have sold me on the prime 55 though.
The S95 is a great choice if you really need a compact camera, however as I've wrote up before, it is still a small sensor compact camera, and there is really only so much you can do with it. Its also pretty near the cost of a low end dSLR as well.
Personally I would recommend a Sony Nex-3 or 5, Or Olympus/Panasonic m4/3 if you really want something compact, but with a high quality large sensor, that is competitive to a full size SLR.
I would check back a few pages, because this has come up a few times in this thread.
Is there a specific reason you want something as compact as the S95? The thing to understand is that with these super small compact sensor cameras, you're really limited when it comes to the bokeh(out of focus background) effect that you get with a proper large sensor camera, so artistically, its a lot more limiting. If all you want to do is take landscape shots or texture reference photos, that sort of wide depth of field can be good, but for a lot of other types of photography, it is a big negative. Specifically, creating any sort of "isolation" when shooting portraits/people is very difficult.
Not to mention the slow, soft, unreplacable lenses, poor ergonomics and controls, and generally poor image quality and noise performance when compared to a DSLR. If you consider all of this stuff, including the high cost of what is still a small sensor point&shoot camera, and still want an S95 or similar super compact camera, the Canon S90/S95 is a good choice.
ideally I'd like something more like $300. Larry wants something we can easily bring to parties, I'd like a slr for textures and experimenting with real photography, so we'll meet somewhere in-between.
I assume you already have some sort of basic compact camera, really, if you want something compact for parties I would recommend just sticking with that. If you dont understand the differences between a basic P&S and a S95, you probably do not want to drop $3-400 on one.
And then get a used dSLR + 50mm lens for the $300-350 range for the big boy stuff. You can pick up a used Canon 20D + EF 50mm 1.8 in that range.
Also, for parties and low light, a dSLR with a nice fast lens is going to be very useful. I take my dSLR and a couple lenses to parties, bars, etc, and never really feel like it is that big of a burden, however i'm not afraid to look like a dork with a big camera.
Saying you want cheap, small, and good... You'll only end up with 1 or 2 out of the 3. To meet somewhere inbetween, your best bet is a mirrorless camera like the NEX or olympus EP-1(which you can find with the pancake for $500). The EP-1 with the kit zoom is $400 on amazon too, its not as compact as the S95, but gives you a lot more options, you can upgrade to a better lens etc.
OK, this made me laugh. The main reason I'm considering the f/4 70-200mm is because I'm planning on continuing my historic railroad hunt this summer, and some areas that I want to shoot are on private property so I'll have to shoot from the road. I'll be outside, so hopefully it'll work well enough.
I think you guys have sold me on the prime 55 though.
The f/4 zooms are decent enough if you're shooting in good light, and they're compact too. It's usually the zooms with the variable apertures that churn on shoddy photos
Nikon doesn't make a 70-200mm F4, so i'm pretty sure he means the 55-200mm 4-5.6(as he mentioned earlier). He could be talking about the 70-210mm F4 but, of course, this lens will not work on his camera, as he doesn't have an in body focus motor.
However, with the still life stuff he wants to shoot, a cheap tripod or monopod will be a good idea, so the slower/variable speed isnt that important. Also, you cant really get a cheap prime in those focal ranges, so its sort of moot.
The s90 and s95 are great pocket cameras. You can get a DSLR BODY for around that price, but try to replicate the lens range and speed of the s90 and you're looking at double if not triple the price. A 28mm equivalent f/2 is gonna set you back at least 300-600 dollars for a crop body camera.
I shot with an s90 alongside a 5D+50mm lens in Vienna and when editing in post I could tell the difference, but the difference was surprisingly little for the price and size difference. I printed several of the s90 photos in a photo book alongside the 5D and no one else has ever commented on seeing a difference between images between the two (though I notice, hahah!)
A nex body is similar in size, but all the lenses are huge in comparison. If you're wanting something versatile and pocketable, you can't go wrong with the s90/95.
The difference between the s90 and the m4/3 offerings isn't enough imo. You have to go up to a Nex or a semi modern DSLR to see a significant noise and dynamic range improvement.
This seams like plenty, until we start to look at affordable(less than $400) primes, the list then becomes:
35mm 1.8 DX
50mm 1.4 G
50mm 1.8 G
.... and that is fucking-it. This is pathetic, I would never recommend anyone get a Nikon body that doesn't have a focus motor. These cameras are for noobs who will buy the camera with the kit lens, and never consider another lens(or just get another cheap kit tele zoom).
On the other hand, canon prime lenses under or around $400
Could someone shed some light on this for me? What exactly makes Zoom lens so bad? Aren't they more versatile than Prime lens? I mean, if I'm just going out to shoot whatever, I don't know what I'll come accross. This is great when doing nature photography, because I'll see birds, animals, and interesting flora. Wouldn't a Prime lens be terrible for this? I want to be able to zoom in as much as possible on an animal, so that I don't have to get too close! I'm assuming you'd just recommend a Telephoto lens in this case... right? Or am I completely off track?
In what situation would a Prime lens be at it's best? Portraits?
*edit*
I've been looking at the Nikon Prime Lens, there seems to be MANY available. But I'm confused on one point. There aren't many that have an actual Focus Motor, like you said, but all of them seem to have Auto-Focus. What's the difference?
Zoom lenses are bad because of manufacturing. Zoom lenses are much more complex, requiring many more optical elements because of the simple fact that they offer a variable focal length. More complex glass leads to worse image quality, and slower lenses.
You can build high quality, reasonably fast( 2.8 ) zooms, however, these are VERY expensive, and generally will only offer equivalent quality to a prime lens.
A 2.8 lens is still a relatively slow lens, when you consider a cheap 1.8 lens is 1.5 stops faster, a 1.4 lens is 2 stops faster and a pro-series 1.2 lens(which you can buy for the cost of some pro zooms) is 2.5 stops faster.
Most cheap zooms are in the 3.5-5.6 range, and some cheap telephoto zooms are even slower, then you have to consider that most are too soft wide open, and you have to stop down 1-2 stops to get any sharpness. So we look at something like a kit 18-55mm, depending on the setting, you may need to stop down to 5.6-8 to get any sharpness, whereas on the EF 50mm 1.8, 2.2-4.5 is super sharp, and 1.8 is likely as sharp or sharper than a cheap zoom even at F8. So you're looking at 3-4 stop improvement here. This is why the 50mm 1.8 lens(of any system) is regarded as the best possible buy you could ever make. It is cheap, fast, and offers a simple construction and optical formula that leads to excellent image quality.
Slow zoom lenses also offer more limited bokeh, because of the small apertures, they let less light in, so there is a limit to how blurry your out of focus areas will become.
From a more theoretical standpoint, many say that zoom lenses make the photographer lazy, sure they seem convenient, but having a fixed focal length requires you to get more creative, and to actually get up and more around to reframe your shot, many people would agree that this is actually a good thing.
In what situation would a Prime lens be at it's best? Portraits?
In short, zooms are better for:
Convenience. And nothing else
Primes are better for:
Low light shooting
People who demand a high degree of sharpness
Anyone looking to do exaggerated depth of field effects
I've been looking at the Nikon Prime Lens, there seems to be MANY available. But I'm confused on one point. There aren't many that have an actual Focus Motor, like you said, but all of them seem to have Auto-Focus. What's the difference?
Many Nikon lenses are designed without auto focus motors. This means they rely on the camera to have a little pin that goes into the lens and a motor inside the camera body to spin that pin to focus the lens. Low end Nikon camera bodies do not have this motor, so many many high quality Nikon lenses can not be used with auto focus on the cheap Nikon bodies. For this reason, it is highly advisable that you do not purchase a low end Nikon body, unless you know you'll never want any of these lenses.
For lenses to work on the low end Nikon bodies, they need to have focus motors built in them. What Canon has been doing since the 80s, but Nikon has only been doing relatively recently.
This is a good question I am not going to be able to answer fully because I don't know too much about the technical side of the lens but here is what I know:
Prime lens are faster than zoom lens (most of the time), they are cheaper in general because they are easier to make, also they are sharper then most zoom lens. Because they are faster lens the DOF is shallow which is something I am looking for when shooting portraits most of the time. I would say they are ideal for shooting still images or indoor sports.
Zoom lens are getting better and better and they do cost a bit more but it feels like you have 3 lens on the body all the time and you dont have to change them so often. If you are shooting births or animals prime lens is not going to be the best option. There are some zoom lens that are producing almost the same quality of images as the primes - just a lot more expensive.
edit : EQ was way faster and better with the description
Yeah, the big drawback of primes is that you'll need to carry multiple lenses.
However as I noted before, you can generally afford:
24mm 2.8
35mm 2.0
50mm 1.8
85mm 1.8
For less than the cost of a quality 24-70mm 2.8, and the prime lenses are going to offer better characteristics at each focal length as well.
Canon makes a lovely 70-200mm 2.8L, but the thing is massive, and costs about $2500, when instead you could buy:
85mm 1.8 $325
135mm 2.0 $900
200mm 2.8 $600
Which again, will likely provide superior or equivalent performance at the noted focal lengths, be cheaper, and be a lot lighter(on the mounted, maybe not in your camera bag =P).
Now when it comes to cheap telephotos, you really do not have much choice, you've gotta go with a cheap zoom. I have a Canon EF 80-200mm 4.5-5.6 zoom lens that I keep around for the rare occasion I need 100-200mm range. I got this lens for about $20, so I love it in that regard. It runs like $60-120. You can get the 75-300mm for good prices too, or the 75-300mm IS, but a that price point($300) I would prefer the amazing 85mm 1.8 or 100mm 2.0 lenses.
For me, over 100mm on a crop body is quite excessive. 100mm on my camera is 160mm, this is really a lot of reach, really anything passed this and you're going to need to lug around a tripod/monopod to keep it steady. I picked up a cheap generic 100mm 3.5 macro lens for about $75, that I love as a macro lens and a general purpose telephoto lens. I use that 80-200mm about 0.01% of the time. In fact, i've never really used it, but will be taking it will be taking it with me when I leave for Colorado in a week, I expect it will serve some use hiking in the mountains.
Thanks for the description guys. So if I wanted to take some animal shots, I'm assuming you'd recommend telephoto?
Just to get this clear, as there is often confusion on this topic.
A prime lens is a fixed focal length. IE: 50mm 1.8
A zoom lens is a lens with a variable focal length. IE: 18-55mm 3.5-5.6
Neither of these have anything to do with wide/normal/telephoto
A fisheye is a lens that covers 180 degrees
A super wide is generally a lens in the 12-20mm range
A wide angle lens is 24-35mm range
A normal lens is the 40-60mm range
A portrait lens is the 85-135mm range
A telephoto lens is 100mm or more, really anything from 100-1200mm is a telephoto.
So, you can have a prime telephoto, or a zoom telephoto. Zoom and Telephoto are not interchangeable terms.
Could someone shed some light on this for me? What exactly makes Zoom lens so bad? Aren't they more versatile than Prime lens? I mean, if I'm just going out to shoot whatever, I don't know what I'll come accross. This is great when doing nature photography, because I'll see birds, animals, and interesting flora. Wouldn't a Prime lens be terrible for this? I want to be able to zoom in as much as possible on an animal, so that I don't have to get too close! I'm assuming you'd just recommend a Telephoto lens in this case... right? Or am I completely off track?
In what situation would a Prime lens be at it's best? Portraits?
*edit*
I've been looking at the Nikon Prime Lens, there seems to be MANY available. But I'm confused on one point. There aren't many that have an actual Focus Motor, like you said, but all of them seem to have Auto-Focus. What's the difference?
In addition to what EQ said, zooms make you compositionally lazy. When you have only a 35mm, for example, and you see something you want to photograph, you frame it up, and think, should I back up to include more? go closer? move to my left or right? Most people with zooms just zoom to frame what they want in the photo and don't think about what the fov does.
For example with a 35mm and a 50mm equivalent, you can zoom or walk till your subject fills the frame from top to bottom standing. In the 50mm framing, you'll see little of his/her surroundings, and a much blurrier background at similar settings. With a 35mm, you will see more of where they are standing, and more of the bg will be in focus. You can use a short tele for this affect in the other direction, isolating even more from the environment and blurring the bg even more extremely.
To match the quality of even inexpensive primes, you have to spend quite a bit for a lens, other than the tamron 17-50mm 2.8 which is around 500 bux, but even still, the cheap 50mm lenses are not only 1.5 stops faster, but also sharper at 2.8.
If you like going out and photographing, very few people actually "need" a zoom lens. Bird photographers, and sports stuff is about it. Everything else you can do within around 35-85mm, many people shoot either 100% with a 35mm or 50mm, and many more using a 2 lens kit with one wideish 24, 28, or 35mm lens, and one longer 75, 85, or 90mm lens.
I shoot a lot, really a lot, and do all the photography I enjoy with just a 35mm lens. It's only when I want to do some headshot portraiture that I switch to an 85mm lens.
Photography is about seeing, and learning to capture. Gear is such a small portion of the equation. Not having the 'right" lens fov is almost never the problem, but not being able to gather enough light for the situation frequently is. You can figure out how to work a normal lens (35-50mm equiv) in almost any situation, but you are not going to be getting good party photos without a flash with an f/4-5.6 lens.
Really I think it should be mandatory for everyone to shoot an entire year with a fixed normal lens. You learn so much about photography, the actual art of taking images, and it frees you from focusing on gear, and thinking you need more/different to improve.
Also, it is very important to note again, that on these longer and slower telephoto lenses, you're likely going to need some support. If you're shooting at F8 on the 200mm lens on a crop body, which is a 300mm you need a minimum of 1/300th a second shutter speed.
Metered out my window in the back yard(cloudy, partially overcast day), I get 1/320th at 800 iso. To freeze the action of a slowly moving animal, you would probably want 600-1000th of second, and to freeze a fast moving animal or flying bird, you'd probably want 2000/th of a second. With a slow zoom lense, this because very difficult, as you're going to need to use ISO 6400/12800 to get these shutter speeds. Now, a 100mm, 135mm or 200mm prime, you could shoot at closer to 800 ISO to get a 1/2000th shutter speed and 800 ISO is generally usable on most cameras, where 6400/12800 likely is not.
Ahhh that clears everything up! Thanks alot guys. Right now I'm just using the Zoom lens that came with my D5100. Can't afford a new lens right now, but you guys pretty much got me sold on primes. Zooms do have their use for the kind of photography I do though. I love nature shots. So I never know what to expect in the deep woods. When I need to be quick about taking a shot, having a control on the focal length is a HUGE plus.
In addition to what Ben is saying, its very very important to actually understand what the various focal lengths "Do". Most people with zoom lenses zoom in/out to frame, this is generally a bad way to think about it/to work with lenses.
An 18mm lens is going to give massive perspective distortion, which can be great when used in a smart way, to exaggerate relationships between near and far objects for instance. However, when used to take portraits of your friends, their features will become exaggerated and the can appear quite ugly.
A 50mm lens is closest to what the eye actually sees, so it provides a very natural perspective. Good for standard photography and Portraiture.
A 85-100mm portrait/short telephoto does the opposite of a wide lens, it compresses the relationships, which can be every more pleasing when doing closeups of faces for instance.
Longer telephotos compress even more, which can be useful when you want to make relationships appear smaller, IE: objects appear closer than they really are.
So, if you're a zoom guy, you shouldn't be zooming to frame, you should still move around with your FEET to frame, and select the appropriate focal length for the desired effect of the shot.
Ahhh that clears everything up! Wonderful description. What would define a Macro lens?
Hehe, I thought about adding this.
A macro lens is generally a lens that can focus close. Many lenses tag on the "Macro" term these days, but it is applied pretty loosely. "True" macro lenses generally focus to 1:1 or 1:2 reproduction ratio.
Reproduction ratio is a sort of confusing thing to explain, it has to do with filling a 35mm film frame at a 1:1 size ratio, IE: a lens that can focus close enough to fit a 35mm film negative fully in the frame.
In general terms, a 1:2 lens focuses really close, and a 1:1 lens focuses really really fucking close.
Macro lenses with longer focal lengths tend to be better, IE: 90/100mm macro lenses tend to cost more than 50mm macro lenses. This is because a 100mm macro lens that focuses to 1:2 gives you twice the working distance as a 50mm 1:2 lens, while the 50mm lens physically focuses closer, they can both frame an object the same size. However, the 100mm lens gives you 2x the room to work with. A 50mm macro lens can often be hard to use, because you get so close to your subject that you block the light, or even just run into it.
Wow. I love your Photography nerdism, EQ.
A macro lens is what I want to get next. I absolutely adore macro photography.
But for Macro, I imagine having a focus motor is a must, right? Things must really get dark in the viewfinder then you're that close to something.
With AF(which I would recommend) your choises are slim, you can get the Nikon 60mm 2.8(which is $350-550) or the Tamron 90mm 2.8(which is $300-400). I would probably recommend the Tamron here as its 90mm, and 90mm is a good focal range to have in general. It could double as a portrait lens in a pinch, which is good considering you can't get the 85mm 1.8.
If you're shooting stationary subjects, you could pick up an old Nikon Micro Nikkor, 2.8 or 3.5 for $75-150, I've used both of these on my Canon via an adaptor and liked them, however you will need to get a better focus screen. These lenses are full on manual, but with a macro lens like this, the focus is nice and slow with a large throw, ie the distances from min to max focus, so its easier to get precise focus.
Autofocus on macro lenses tend to be slow and loud, but I would rather have it than not. The cheap-as-shit Vivitar 100mm 3.5 lens I have is very loud, and the AF sucks(it still gets the job done however), but the image quality is awesome-fantastic, and I paid about $60 for it. It runs in the $75-150 range, but you can only use it on the higher end Nikons. This is what I would really recommend because of the price, but not an option.
[edit] Doing a bit of research, the Tamron 90mm is definitely what I would recommend if you can afford it. At 90mm 2.8, which is 135mm equiv, you get a macro lens, a portrait lens, and a medium telephoto lens, essentially. With a good 2.8 speed. The lens also has an option to lock the focus the the near or far half. IE: you can lock it in the near for macro, and lock it in the far for general purpose. So it wont hunt all the way from 2" inches to infinity when using AF.
In addition to what Ben is saying, its very very important to actually understand what the various focal lengths "Do". Most people with zoom lenses zoom in/out to frame, this is generally a bad way to think about it/to work with lenses.
That's exactly what I already said. :-P
I have been meaning to write something like this up before, so this provided the perfect excuse to do so. Here is a big 'ol blog post about focal lengths with example images.
Well, you mentioned it, but didn't actually explain why, hence the "in addition to" bit. =D
Something else that you didn't really touch on in your blog, as you say 35mm, 50mm, 85mm correspond to 24mm, 35mm, 50mm on crop, while this is true for framing, it is not at all true for perspective distortion. A 24mm lens is going exaggerate relationships a good deal more than a 35mm lens.
Worth noting as its something that people get easily confused by, I use a 30mm 1.4 lens as a "normal" lens, but it is nothing like a normal lens, except for the crop of image it creates. It is distinctly a wide angle lens. Which means that it has the perspective distortion, and relatively wide depth of field characteristics like a like a 28mm lens on film, much more than anything related to a 50mm lens. In this regard it is a disappointing lens, as I love the bokeh and perspective characreristics of my nifty 50. As a wide angle lens, it is a wonderful lens.
This was something I really didn't get when I started shooting, but makes a lot more sense now. A 35mm lens doesn't become a 56mm lens when used on a Canon crop factor, it mearly gives the same sized image. I feel this is a topic that is rarely explained fully.
At the end of the day, if you want to compare a setup containing; 35mm, 50mm, 85mm from full frame to crop, the best thing you can do to get the same results on a crop body is to simply back up a few feet, instead of using wider lenses, because then you're changing the results drastically, this is the best comparison really. A 24mm lens is not really a suitable replacement for a 35mm lens, it is a totally different beast. But we don't always have a few feet to back up, so crop users end up using wider lenses.
I did explain why, in my bit about people changing sizes based on framing and being compositionally lazy.
Sorry, that's not true about crop vs full frame. You are forgetting distance.
If one were to keep the distance the same and shoot with a 50mm on a crop, and then a 50mm on a full frame, the perspective distortion would be different, but if you frame things up identically with a 35 on a crop, and a 50 on a full frame, you will get the same photo. The perspective distortion changed because your distance changed (you would get much closer to frame your subject with that same 35mm on a full frame camera, which is what would change the distortion).
It's why if you get far enough away with a wide angle (on a full frame or a crop) and crop down the physical image so it only encompasses the subject, you can still get less perspective distortion on stuff. A 35 doesn't become a 50, it's still a 35, but the cropped image from it forces one to use it as a 50mm, making it functionally the same both in it's "reach" and how it shows size relationships. (the only change is a larger DoF resulting in a less blurry background. IE a 23mm f/2 on a crop has the same DoF as a 35mm f/2.8 on a full frame)
You are right that it's rarely explained fully, mostly because few people understand it (as we can see in this thread :-P ). I can show you a photo from my 23mm lens on my X100 crop sensor, and my 35mm lens on my Canon full frame, and at the same distance everything is identical.
I ended up going with the D3100 and Amazon. With Amazon Prime I got the camera last night and charged it up. I'm pretty impressed so far (of course it is my first DSLR, so... ). My memory card and camera bag are still on the way so I just grabbed a spare SD card I had lying around. I was experimenting with shooting JPEG+RAW when I got a "corrupted card" warning. It turns out the SD card I had grabbed was a super slow class 4... oops! I'm hoping to take the camera for a spin tonight with the correct card.
You guys are going wayy too deep in to this. Who needs all of the side by side comparing ( i don't ) I still dont fully understand what is inside them lens and how exactly do they work, but I know what I needed to know :
When shooting portraits ( because this is what I am interested in) 85 mm or longer focal length lens will compress the image and will make the objects in the background look closer to the foreground and the opposite for lens below 50 mm.
85mm (or any other ) lens will give the same result on a crop sensor as it would on a full frame with the difference of not so blurry background (DOF) and cropped by the cropping factor!
That is about it- is it not? -( I hope I am right about what I said above )
I understand it is important to understand everything to the very last part that is inside your gear in order to use it correct, but is this not making it too much complicated?
I also love the way prime lens make you think more and move more!! Even if my images are nothing special yet my photography improved tremendously after I got my first cheap 50 mm prime lens.
Well, EQ is taking it close to "too much" by trying to complicate things with incorrect information. The original post of mine about wide, normal, compressed, is very relevant for creative portraits and understanding what lenses do for perspective and distortion.
There are many times when a subject's surroundings are important, and you want to know how best to show them in relationship. You can backup/get closer, or you can change lenses/ zoom out/in, and both methods have a different result.
It's like understanding the difference between photoshop blending methods when doing textures. One can just go about by feel, or one can have a knowledge about the tools and do things purposefully. Understanding perspective distortion is a very fundamental aspect of photography, especially when people are involved as subjects. I'd actually include it in a photography 101 course.
I did explain why, in my bit about people changing sizes based on framing and being compositionally lazy.
Sorry, that's not true about crop vs full frame. You are forgetting distance.
If one were to keep the distance the same and shoot with a 50mm on a crop, and then a 50mm on a full frame, the perspective distortion would be different, but if you frame things up identically with a 35 on a crop, and a 50 on a full frame, you will get the same photo. The perspective distortion changed because your distance changed (you would get much closer to frame your subject with that same 35mm on a full frame camera, which is what would change the distortion).
It's why if you get far enough away with a wide angle (on a full frame or a crop) and crop down the physical image so it only encompasses the subject, you can still get less perspective distortion on stuff. A 35 doesn't become a 50, it's still a 35, but the cropped image from it forces one to use it as a 50mm, making it functionally the same both in it's "reach" and how it shows size relationships. (the only change is a larger DoF resulting in a less blurry background. IE a 23mm f/2 on a crop has the same DoF as a 35mm f/2.8 on a full frame)
You are right that it's rarely explained fully, mostly because few people understand it (as we can see in this thread :-P ). I can show you a photo from my 23mm lens on my X100 crop sensor, and my 35mm lens on my Canon full frame, and at the same distance everything is identical.
Actually, your 23mm is equiv to your 35mm, because it is designed as a smaller format 35mm lens, with the same perspective distortion etc. This is also true for m43 lenses. However, when you look at 35mm film lenses like a Canon 24mm, its a 24mm on a FF camera, and its a 24mm on a crop camera. The perspective qualities do NOT changed because of the crop. Only the coverage of the lens changes. The perspective distortion, and by that I mean the near/far relation, is still the same.
For instance the Lumix 20mm 1.7 lens, this is essentially a 40mm 1.7 lens and is designed to have the perspective distortion qualities of a normal 40mm lens. Now, if you were to compare this with an actual 20mm lens, designed to be an ultrawide lens for 35mm film cameras, the results would be very different.
You're simply wrong in this case, sorry.
The distance becomes relevant when we start to talk bokeh, as if you need to get farther away to get the same shot, you're liking going to get less creamy bokeh, and on some wider lenses, if you have to step back a few feet, you may be basically hitting infinity.
Your blog post about the relations between wide, normal and telephoto is very much correct, and the relations are also true with ultra-wide, wide and normal, which is basically what you suggest is equivalent on crop. However, they are not the same thing. If they were, there would be no reason(other than noise performance) to shoot fullframe. In the 24mm, 35mm, 50mm comparison, none of these lenses will offer the telephoto like compression qualities of an 85mm lens, when used on a crop body, you have to *drum roll please* actually use an 85mm lens for that.
Hahah, no, the incorrect one is you. the lens MM is a mathematical function of how it affects light. You can't "design" a 23mm lens to behave like a 35mm, it's not possible. It's a 23mm lens no matter what you put behind it to catch the image.
A 23mm on a crop will give you an identical image (albeit with a larger DoF) to a 35mm on a crop. Period. Same with 35mm crop and 50mm Full frame. You are absolutely wrong about this, full stop.
Seriously, did you just ignore the image I posted proving you wrong, the detailed explanation that you overlooked distance changes for framing purposes, and just theorize that you must still be right?
You've posted some helpful information in this thread, but on this you are definitely incorrect and complicating a simple issue for beginners.
50mm is "normal". If you have a cheaper crop/NEX/m4/3 you have to get a wider angled lens to achieve this, 35 on a crop, 25 on a m4/3. Period. That's the point of the discussion, there is no difference a beginner needs to know. If they want wide on a crop, get a 24 or wider. If they want telephoto, anything above the cheap 50mm lens will give it to you.
The reasons to buy full frame (ignoring the fact that most full frame bodies have superior metering, viewfinders, and auto focus and weather sealing) is to get the lens range to "act" properly. The 35mm L has no peer on a crop on any format. Only the Leica 35s on an M9 touch it, albeit without autofocus. Same with the 50mm 1.2. You can't get a 35mm 1.2 for a DSLR to get that speed on a "normal" lens. You end up having lenses like the 24-70mm f/2.8 which covers 95% of a portrait photographers needs. The 17-50 lenses are good, but not as good as the 24-70, and not weather sealed like it is either.
There are less and less reasons to prefer full frame outside of DoF reasons. I definitely miss the extra blurry background I got on my 35L on a full frame, but outside of that, the X100 (which is a 23mm f/2 on a crop) gives me everything I had from that combo in 1/3 the weight and 1/4 the size. (and 1/3 the price)
Well this is sort of good news to me really, I was thinking I would have to upgrade to fullframe at some point to really get the best out of my lenses, but I'll never be able to afford those lenses that you would really see a difference on.
However, I'm pretty sure I would prefer a 50mm 1.4 on FF vs my 30mm 1.4 on crop, just because of the narrower DOF at the equivalent focal length.
Can you shed any light on why a 30mm lens would be equivalent in terms of focal length and perspective, but the DOF characteristics are entirely different? Or any resources explaining why the perspective is the same, from a technical lens point.
What I mean by that is that like, on my 30mm, at 2 feet, the bokeh is awesome and creamy, but at 10 feet or so, its basically infinity. Not the case on my 50mm.
It's related to the size things are projected onto the sensor. Imagine looking at the camera from the top, with it sliced down the center so you are looking down on the image coming into the lens, converging to a point, then back onto the sensor.
Because the sensor is physically larger on a full frame, it's being projected larger, hence the blurrier background. This is why medium format lenses, while only being f/2.8 max (other than the wild card mamiya 80mm 1.9) have much crazier background blur than a 35mm camera (not to mention it's "sensor-crop" goes the other way, an 80mm medium format lens is "normal) and a 130mm large format lens is "normal")
It's why my 23mm f/2 lens behaves blurry background-wise like a 35mm f/2.8. The blurry bits aren't projected large enough to look truly blurry.
It's why you get more in focus too. There is only one infinitely flat distance at any setting that is actually "in focus", it's the fact that there is a lot in front and behind that is still sharp enough to appear in focus. Because the crop sensors are smaller (and P&S's even smaller) that so much is in focus. It's actually not any more in focus, it's that it's blurriness is being projected smaller than the individual pixel sites, so it's being recorded as fine detail.
Here is something that will really blow your mind. There is the same amount of background blur on a 30mm f/1.4, a 50mm f/1.4 and an 80mm f/1.4 if you and your subject are at the same distance on all three. It's the fact that that blurry background is projected more largely on the sensor that you see it as more blurry. (because of the perspective distortion) If you took a photo on a 50mm f/1.4 on a cropped-sensor 24 MP camera, and then the same photo at the same distance with an 85mm f1.4 on a full frame 6mp camera, and in photoshop cropped down to the center most 6mp from the cropped-sensor camera image, it would look exactly the same as the full frame version, same amount of background blur, exact same distortion on the face (same amount of ears on the side of the head would be visible, nose the same size, etc) and the same exact stuff would be behind their shoulders and at the same size in both images.
Looks like I got a job doing real estate photography for a while and I need a basic flash, going to be reading up on what might be best for me but if you guys have any suggestions for brand or best place to start it would be much appreciated.
They said they usually use Tamron 10~20 lenses, but on the outside chance I get to choose which lens they buy me is there a 10mm lens of better value? Probably won't be shooting any 10mm shots for myself personally.
I have the Earthquake starter kit right now as far as lenses go for my 20d, using my kit 18-55mm for wide shots.
Depending on what you want to do you have some options, if you want widest possible, the sigma 8-16mm is a good bet, if you want the fastest, the tokina 11-16mm 2.8 or the sigma 10-20mm(if you want a better range) 3.5 is your lens, the tamron 10-24mm provides the best zoom range, but the canon 10-22mm is pretty similar. Lens speed on these isnt supper important, as you'll likely be shooting at F4-5.6 min or so with some studio lighting/flash for interiors so you'll probably want to go with something that has the best sharpness and zoom range. However, having something that has a 2.8-3.5 aperture and being able to stop down a stop or two to gain sharpness, and still be under F8 is good. I dont really know much as far as sharpness with these lenses, you'll want to do some research.
As far as primes in this range, most people will be using zooms. Most prime lenses in the 8-14mm range are going to be fisheye, which is likely not what you want.
Those are pretty much your choices for wide primes, if you know that a 14mm and 20mm lens will cover your needs, the Canon 14mm 2.8 + Sigma 20mm 1.8 or Canon 20mm 2.8 may be a better choice than a ultra wide zoom.
[edit] Forget that 14mm 2.8, its a $2500 L lens, your choices are pretty much only zooms unless you have a massive budget.
For anyone looking at some moderate wide zooms, the Tamron 20-40mm 2.7-4.0(which is F2.8 at 28mm) and the sigma 20-40mm 2.8 look like pretty awesome choices, if you dont need really fast lenses at these apertures, these lenses are a great pairing to a 50mm 1.8 lens instead of a 20/24/28/35mm setup, basically replaces 4 primes without being much slower. I've seen these sell on ebay for $150-300, which makes it a super awesome choice, as any one of those 4 primes can cost that much. If you can find one of these badboys, and need a cheap wide zoom to pair with some longer primes like the 50mm and 85mm, they look awesome.
20-40mm may seem like a poor range(and its why they arent made anymore, I'm sure) but that is actually a really good range on a crop format for regular photography. 32-64mm on Canon, pair that with 50mm(80mm) and 85mm(136mm) for win sauce on a budget.
Thanks for the response EQ, I think with my crop sensor the range might be nice for me to get some use out of this lens outside of work. I think I will be getting either one of the 10-20 Sigma's or the 10-24 Tamron depending on what deal I find first. Seems most people like the Sigma over the Tamron in those match ups.
Replies
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-55-200mm-VR-Vibration-Reduction/dp/B000O161X0/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=IUIS8Z41YEQJ7&colid=1NXKY03VN760A
I really appreciate all the great insight!
You may realize the error of your ways after you get that lens, and compare it to the cheap kit zooms. Or not, if you don't, you'll save yourself a good deal of money.
I've married myself to a 35mm f/2 for a year and am not shooting with anything else.
That f/4-5.6 lens is going to suck in anything other than broad daylight. You'll see.
whow,
Im considering getting a 35 or 28mm for my om, anyone any ideas on which?
OK, this made me laugh. The main reason I'm considering the f/4 70-200mm is because I'm planning on continuing my historic railroad hunt this summer, and some areas that I want to shoot are on private property so I'll have to shoot from the road. I'll be outside, so hopefully it'll work well enough.
I think you guys have sold me on the prime 55 though.
http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/canon-powershot-s95/4505-6501_7-34154931.html?tag=contentBody;similarProds
Personally I would recommend a Sony Nex-3 or 5, Or Olympus/Panasonic m4/3 if you really want something compact, but with a high quality large sensor, that is competitive to a full size SLR.
I would check back a few pages, because this has come up a few times in this thread.
Is there a specific reason you want something as compact as the S95? The thing to understand is that with these super small compact sensor cameras, you're really limited when it comes to the bokeh(out of focus background) effect that you get with a proper large sensor camera, so artistically, its a lot more limiting. If all you want to do is take landscape shots or texture reference photos, that sort of wide depth of field can be good, but for a lot of other types of photography, it is a big negative. Specifically, creating any sort of "isolation" when shooting portraits/people is very difficult.
Not to mention the slow, soft, unreplacable lenses, poor ergonomics and controls, and generally poor image quality and noise performance when compared to a DSLR. If you consider all of this stuff, including the high cost of what is still a small sensor point&shoot camera, and still want an S95 or similar super compact camera, the Canon S90/S95 is a good choice.
And then get a used dSLR + 50mm lens for the $300-350 range for the big boy stuff. You can pick up a used Canon 20D + EF 50mm 1.8 in that range.
Also, for parties and low light, a dSLR with a nice fast lens is going to be very useful. I take my dSLR and a couple lenses to parties, bars, etc, and never really feel like it is that big of a burden, however i'm not afraid to look like a dork with a big camera.
Saying you want cheap, small, and good... You'll only end up with 1 or 2 out of the 3. To meet somewhere inbetween, your best bet is a mirrorless camera like the NEX or olympus EP-1(which you can find with the pancake for $500). The EP-1 with the kit zoom is $400 on amazon too, its not as compact as the S95, but gives you a lot more options, you can upgrade to a better lens etc.
The f/4 zooms are decent enough if you're shooting in good light, and they're compact too. It's usually the zooms with the variable apertures that churn on shoddy photos
However, with the still life stuff he wants to shoot, a cheap tripod or monopod will be a good idea, so the slower/variable speed isnt that important. Also, you cant really get a cheap prime in those focal ranges, so its sort of moot.
The s90 and s95 are great pocket cameras. You can get a DSLR BODY for around that price, but try to replicate the lens range and speed of the s90 and you're looking at double if not triple the price. A 28mm equivalent f/2 is gonna set you back at least 300-600 dollars for a crop body camera.
I shot with an s90 alongside a 5D+50mm lens in Vienna and when editing in post I could tell the difference, but the difference was surprisingly little for the price and size difference. I printed several of the s90 photos in a photo book alongside the 5D and no one else has ever commented on seeing a difference between images between the two (though I notice, hahah!)
A nex body is similar in size, but all the lenses are huge in comparison. If you're wanting something versatile and pocketable, you can't go wrong with the s90/95.
The difference between the s90 and the m4/3 offerings isn't enough imo. You have to go up to a Nex or a semi modern DSLR to see a significant noise and dynamic range improvement.
stealing this for another forum because it owns. Thanks.
In what situation would a Prime lens be at it's best? Portraits?
*edit*
I've been looking at the Nikon Prime Lens, there seems to be MANY available. But I'm confused on one point. There aren't many that have an actual Focus Motor, like you said, but all of them seem to have Auto-Focus. What's the difference?
You can build high quality, reasonably fast( 2.8 ) zooms, however, these are VERY expensive, and generally will only offer equivalent quality to a prime lens.
A 2.8 lens is still a relatively slow lens, when you consider a cheap 1.8 lens is 1.5 stops faster, a 1.4 lens is 2 stops faster and a pro-series 1.2 lens(which you can buy for the cost of some pro zooms) is 2.5 stops faster.
Most cheap zooms are in the 3.5-5.6 range, and some cheap telephoto zooms are even slower, then you have to consider that most are too soft wide open, and you have to stop down 1-2 stops to get any sharpness. So we look at something like a kit 18-55mm, depending on the setting, you may need to stop down to 5.6-8 to get any sharpness, whereas on the EF 50mm 1.8, 2.2-4.5 is super sharp, and 1.8 is likely as sharp or sharper than a cheap zoom even at F8. So you're looking at 3-4 stop improvement here. This is why the 50mm 1.8 lens(of any system) is regarded as the best possible buy you could ever make. It is cheap, fast, and offers a simple construction and optical formula that leads to excellent image quality.
Slow zoom lenses also offer more limited bokeh, because of the small apertures, they let less light in, so there is a limit to how blurry your out of focus areas will become.
From a more theoretical standpoint, many say that zoom lenses make the photographer lazy, sure they seem convenient, but having a fixed focal length requires you to get more creative, and to actually get up and more around to reframe your shot, many people would agree that this is actually a good thing.
In short, zooms are better for:
Convenience. And nothing else
Primes are better for:
Low light shooting
People who demand a high degree of sharpness
Anyone looking to do exaggerated depth of field effects
Many Nikon lenses are designed without auto focus motors. This means they rely on the camera to have a little pin that goes into the lens and a motor inside the camera body to spin that pin to focus the lens. Low end Nikon camera bodies do not have this motor, so many many high quality Nikon lenses can not be used with auto focus on the cheap Nikon bodies. For this reason, it is highly advisable that you do not purchase a low end Nikon body, unless you know you'll never want any of these lenses.
For lenses to work on the low end Nikon bodies, they need to have focus motors built in them. What Canon has been doing since the 80s, but Nikon has only been doing relatively recently.
Prime lens are faster than zoom lens (most of the time), they are cheaper in general because they are easier to make, also they are sharper then most zoom lens. Because they are faster lens the DOF is shallow which is something I am looking for when shooting portraits most of the time. I would say they are ideal for shooting still images or indoor sports.
Zoom lens are getting better and better and they do cost a bit more but it feels like you have 3 lens on the body all the time and you dont have to change them so often. If you are shooting births or animals prime lens is not going to be the best option. There are some zoom lens that are producing almost the same quality of images as the primes - just a lot more expensive.
edit : EQ was way faster
However as I noted before, you can generally afford:
24mm 2.8
35mm 2.0
50mm 1.8
85mm 1.8
For less than the cost of a quality 24-70mm 2.8, and the prime lenses are going to offer better characteristics at each focal length as well.
Canon makes a lovely 70-200mm 2.8L, but the thing is massive, and costs about $2500, when instead you could buy:
85mm 1.8 $325
135mm 2.0 $900
200mm 2.8 $600
Which again, will likely provide superior or equivalent performance at the noted focal lengths, be cheaper, and be a lot lighter(on the mounted, maybe not in your camera bag =P).
Now when it comes to cheap telephotos, you really do not have much choice, you've gotta go with a cheap zoom. I have a Canon EF 80-200mm 4.5-5.6 zoom lens that I keep around for the rare occasion I need 100-200mm range. I got this lens for about $20, so I love it in that regard. It runs like $60-120. You can get the 75-300mm for good prices too, or the 75-300mm IS, but a that price point($300) I would prefer the amazing 85mm 1.8 or 100mm 2.0 lenses.
For me, over 100mm on a crop body is quite excessive. 100mm on my camera is 160mm, this is really a lot of reach, really anything passed this and you're going to need to lug around a tripod/monopod to keep it steady. I picked up a cheap generic 100mm 3.5 macro lens for about $75, that I love as a macro lens and a general purpose telephoto lens. I use that 80-200mm about 0.01% of the time. In fact, i've never really used it, but will be taking it will be taking it with me when I leave for Colorado in a week, I expect it will serve some use hiking in the mountains.
Just to get this clear, as there is often confusion on this topic.
A prime lens is a fixed focal length. IE: 50mm 1.8
A zoom lens is a lens with a variable focal length. IE: 18-55mm 3.5-5.6
Neither of these have anything to do with wide/normal/telephoto
A fisheye is a lens that covers 180 degrees
A super wide is generally a lens in the 12-20mm range
A wide angle lens is 24-35mm range
A normal lens is the 40-60mm range
A portrait lens is the 85-135mm range
A telephoto lens is 100mm or more, really anything from 100-1200mm is a telephoto.
So, you can have a prime telephoto, or a zoom telephoto. Zoom and Telephoto are not interchangeable terms.
In addition to what EQ said, zooms make you compositionally lazy. When you have only a 35mm, for example, and you see something you want to photograph, you frame it up, and think, should I back up to include more? go closer? move to my left or right? Most people with zooms just zoom to frame what they want in the photo and don't think about what the fov does.
For example with a 35mm and a 50mm equivalent, you can zoom or walk till your subject fills the frame from top to bottom standing. In the 50mm framing, you'll see little of his/her surroundings, and a much blurrier background at similar settings. With a 35mm, you will see more of where they are standing, and more of the bg will be in focus. You can use a short tele for this affect in the other direction, isolating even more from the environment and blurring the bg even more extremely.
To match the quality of even inexpensive primes, you have to spend quite a bit for a lens, other than the tamron 17-50mm 2.8 which is around 500 bux, but even still, the cheap 50mm lenses are not only 1.5 stops faster, but also sharper at 2.8.
If you like going out and photographing, very few people actually "need" a zoom lens. Bird photographers, and sports stuff is about it. Everything else you can do within around 35-85mm, many people shoot either 100% with a 35mm or 50mm, and many more using a 2 lens kit with one wideish 24, 28, or 35mm lens, and one longer 75, 85, or 90mm lens.
I shoot a lot, really a lot, and do all the photography I enjoy with just a 35mm lens. It's only when I want to do some headshot portraiture that I switch to an 85mm lens.
Photography is about seeing, and learning to capture. Gear is such a small portion of the equation. Not having the 'right" lens fov is almost never the problem, but not being able to gather enough light for the situation frequently is. You can figure out how to work a normal lens (35-50mm equiv) in almost any situation, but you are not going to be getting good party photos without a flash with an f/4-5.6 lens.
Really I think it should be mandatory for everyone to shoot an entire year with a fixed normal lens. You learn so much about photography, the actual art of taking images, and it frees you from focusing on gear, and thinking you need more/different to improve.
Metered out my window in the back yard(cloudy, partially overcast day), I get 1/320th at 800 iso. To freeze the action of a slowly moving animal, you would probably want 600-1000th of second, and to freeze a fast moving animal or flying bird, you'd probably want 2000/th of a second. With a slow zoom lense, this because very difficult, as you're going to need to use ISO 6400/12800 to get these shutter speeds. Now, a 100mm, 135mm or 200mm prime, you could shoot at closer to 800 ISO to get a 1/2000th shutter speed and 800 ISO is generally usable on most cameras, where 6400/12800 likely is not.
Also, what would define a Macro lens?
An 18mm lens is going to give massive perspective distortion, which can be great when used in a smart way, to exaggerate relationships between near and far objects for instance. However, when used to take portraits of your friends, their features will become exaggerated and the can appear quite ugly.
A 50mm lens is closest to what the eye actually sees, so it provides a very natural perspective. Good for standard photography and Portraiture.
A 85-100mm portrait/short telephoto does the opposite of a wide lens, it compresses the relationships, which can be every more pleasing when doing closeups of faces for instance.
Longer telephotos compress even more, which can be useful when you want to make relationships appear smaller, IE: objects appear closer than they really are.
So, if you're a zoom guy, you shouldn't be zooming to frame, you should still move around with your FEET to frame, and select the appropriate focal length for the desired effect of the shot.
Hehe, I thought about adding this.
A macro lens is generally a lens that can focus close. Many lenses tag on the "Macro" term these days, but it is applied pretty loosely. "True" macro lenses generally focus to 1:1 or 1:2 reproduction ratio.
Reproduction ratio is a sort of confusing thing to explain, it has to do with filling a 35mm film frame at a 1:1 size ratio, IE: a lens that can focus close enough to fit a 35mm film negative fully in the frame.
In general terms, a 1:2 lens focuses really close, and a 1:1 lens focuses really really fucking close.
Macro lenses with longer focal lengths tend to be better, IE: 90/100mm macro lenses tend to cost more than 50mm macro lenses. This is because a 100mm macro lens that focuses to 1:2 gives you twice the working distance as a 50mm 1:2 lens, while the 50mm lens physically focuses closer, they can both frame an object the same size. However, the 100mm lens gives you 2x the room to work with. A 50mm macro lens can often be hard to use, because you get so close to your subject that you block the light, or even just run into it.
A macro lens is what I want to get next. I absolutely adore macro photography.
But for Macro, I imagine having a focus motor is a must, right? Things must really get dark in the viewfinder then you're that close to something.
If you're shooting stationary subjects, you could pick up an old Nikon Micro Nikkor, 2.8 or 3.5 for $75-150, I've used both of these on my Canon via an adaptor and liked them, however you will need to get a better focus screen. These lenses are full on manual, but with a macro lens like this, the focus is nice and slow with a large throw, ie the distances from min to max focus, so its easier to get precise focus.
Autofocus on macro lenses tend to be slow and loud, but I would rather have it than not. The cheap-as-shit Vivitar 100mm 3.5 lens I have is very loud, and the AF sucks(it still gets the job done however), but the image quality is awesome-fantastic, and I paid about $60 for it. It runs in the $75-150 range, but you can only use it on the higher end Nikons. This is what I would really recommend because of the price, but not an option.
[edit] Doing a bit of research, the Tamron 90mm is definitely what I would recommend if you can afford it. At 90mm 2.8, which is 135mm equiv, you get a macro lens, a portrait lens, and a medium telephoto lens, essentially. With a good 2.8 speed. The lens also has an option to lock the focus the the near or far half. IE: you can lock it in the near for macro, and lock it in the far for general purpose. So it wont hunt all the way from 2" inches to infinity when using AF.
That's exactly what I already said. :-P
I have been meaning to write something like this up before, so this provided the perfect excuse to do so. Here is a big 'ol blog post about focal lengths with example images.
http://mr-chompers.blogspot.com/2011/05/focallengths.html
Something else that you didn't really touch on in your blog, as you say 35mm, 50mm, 85mm correspond to 24mm, 35mm, 50mm on crop, while this is true for framing, it is not at all true for perspective distortion. A 24mm lens is going exaggerate relationships a good deal more than a 35mm lens.
Worth noting as its something that people get easily confused by, I use a 30mm 1.4 lens as a "normal" lens, but it is nothing like a normal lens, except for the crop of image it creates. It is distinctly a wide angle lens. Which means that it has the perspective distortion, and relatively wide depth of field characteristics like a like a 28mm lens on film, much more than anything related to a 50mm lens. In this regard it is a disappointing lens, as I love the bokeh and perspective characreristics of my nifty 50. As a wide angle lens, it is a wonderful lens.
This was something I really didn't get when I started shooting, but makes a lot more sense now. A 35mm lens doesn't become a 56mm lens when used on a Canon crop factor, it mearly gives the same sized image. I feel this is a topic that is rarely explained fully.
At the end of the day, if you want to compare a setup containing; 35mm, 50mm, 85mm from full frame to crop, the best thing you can do to get the same results on a crop body is to simply back up a few feet, instead of using wider lenses, because then you're changing the results drastically, this is the best comparison really. A 24mm lens is not really a suitable replacement for a 35mm lens, it is a totally different beast. But we don't always have a few feet to back up, so crop users end up using wider lenses.
Sorry, that's not true about crop vs full frame. You are forgetting distance.
If one were to keep the distance the same and shoot with a 50mm on a crop, and then a 50mm on a full frame, the perspective distortion would be different, but if you frame things up identically with a 35 on a crop, and a 50 on a full frame, you will get the same photo. The perspective distortion changed because your distance changed (you would get much closer to frame your subject with that same 35mm on a full frame camera, which is what would change the distortion).
It's why if you get far enough away with a wide angle (on a full frame or a crop) and crop down the physical image so it only encompasses the subject, you can still get less perspective distortion on stuff. A 35 doesn't become a 50, it's still a 35, but the cropped image from it forces one to use it as a 50mm, making it functionally the same both in it's "reach" and how it shows size relationships. (the only change is a larger DoF resulting in a less blurry background. IE a 23mm f/2 on a crop has the same DoF as a 35mm f/2.8 on a full frame)
You are right that it's rarely explained fully, mostly because few people understand it (as we can see in this thread :-P ). I can show you a photo from my 23mm lens on my X100 crop sensor, and my 35mm lens on my Canon full frame, and at the same distance everything is identical.
Here, I went and found an image demonstrating it. :-) http://www.seriouscompacts.com/attachments/f42/150d1279405092-canon-lenses-full-frame-vs-crop-5035-full-jpg The photographer had to back up with the 35mm to the same distance as the 50 on the full frame in order to frame it up similarly. That distance change is what makes the 35 "behave" like a 50 both in reach and perspective distortion.
When shooting portraits ( because this is what I am interested in) 85 mm or longer focal length lens will compress the image and will make the objects in the background look closer to the foreground and the opposite for lens below 50 mm.
85mm (or any other ) lens will give the same result on a crop sensor as it would on a full frame with the difference of not so blurry background (DOF) and cropped by the cropping factor!
That is about it- is it not? -( I hope I am right about what I said above )
I understand it is important to understand everything to the very last part that is inside your gear in order to use it correct, but is this not making it too much complicated?
I also love the way prime lens make you think more and move more!! Even if my images are nothing special yet my photography improved tremendously after I got my first cheap 50 mm prime lens.
Way to go 3Dlee
There are many times when a subject's surroundings are important, and you want to know how best to show them in relationship. You can backup/get closer, or you can change lenses/ zoom out/in, and both methods have a different result.
It's like understanding the difference between photoshop blending methods when doing textures. One can just go about by feel, or one can have a knowledge about the tools and do things purposefully. Understanding perspective distortion is a very fundamental aspect of photography, especially when people are involved as subjects. I'd actually include it in a photography 101 course.
Actually, your 23mm is equiv to your 35mm, because it is designed as a smaller format 35mm lens, with the same perspective distortion etc. This is also true for m43 lenses. However, when you look at 35mm film lenses like a Canon 24mm, its a 24mm on a FF camera, and its a 24mm on a crop camera. The perspective qualities do NOT changed because of the crop. Only the coverage of the lens changes. The perspective distortion, and by that I mean the near/far relation, is still the same.
For instance the Lumix 20mm 1.7 lens, this is essentially a 40mm 1.7 lens and is designed to have the perspective distortion qualities of a normal 40mm lens. Now, if you were to compare this with an actual 20mm lens, designed to be an ultrawide lens for 35mm film cameras, the results would be very different.
You're simply wrong in this case, sorry.
The distance becomes relevant when we start to talk bokeh, as if you need to get farther away to get the same shot, you're liking going to get less creamy bokeh, and on some wider lenses, if you have to step back a few feet, you may be basically hitting infinity.
Your blog post about the relations between wide, normal and telephoto is very much correct, and the relations are also true with ultra-wide, wide and normal, which is basically what you suggest is equivalent on crop. However, they are not the same thing. If they were, there would be no reason(other than noise performance) to shoot fullframe. In the 24mm, 35mm, 50mm comparison, none of these lenses will offer the telephoto like compression qualities of an 85mm lens, when used on a crop body, you have to *drum roll please* actually use an 85mm lens for that.
A 23mm on a crop will give you an identical image (albeit with a larger DoF) to a 35mm on a crop. Period. Same with 35mm crop and 50mm Full frame. You are absolutely wrong about this, full stop.
50mm is "normal". If you have a cheaper crop/NEX/m4/3 you have to get a wider angled lens to achieve this, 35 on a crop, 25 on a m4/3. Period. That's the point of the discussion, there is no difference a beginner needs to know. If they want wide on a crop, get a 24 or wider. If they want telephoto, anything above the cheap 50mm lens will give it to you.
So the only difference is DOF, this is good to know, and definitely not how I understood it.
I admit defeat.
There are less and less reasons to prefer full frame outside of DoF reasons. I definitely miss the extra blurry background I got on my 35L on a full frame, but outside of that, the X100 (which is a 23mm f/2 on a crop) gives me everything I had from that combo in 1/3 the weight and 1/4 the size. (and 1/3 the price)
However, I'm pretty sure I would prefer a 50mm 1.4 on FF vs my 30mm 1.4 on crop, just because of the narrower DOF at the equivalent focal length.
Can you shed any light on why a 30mm lens would be equivalent in terms of focal length and perspective, but the DOF characteristics are entirely different? Or any resources explaining why the perspective is the same, from a technical lens point.
What I mean by that is that like, on my 30mm, at 2 feet, the bokeh is awesome and creamy, but at 10 feet or so, its basically infinity. Not the case on my 50mm.
Because the sensor is physically larger on a full frame, it's being projected larger, hence the blurrier background. This is why medium format lenses, while only being f/2.8 max (other than the wild card mamiya 80mm 1.9) have much crazier background blur than a 35mm camera (not to mention it's "sensor-crop" goes the other way, an 80mm medium format lens is "normal) and a 130mm large format lens is "normal")
It's why my 23mm f/2 lens behaves blurry background-wise like a 35mm f/2.8. The blurry bits aren't projected large enough to look truly blurry.
It's why you get more in focus too. There is only one infinitely flat distance at any setting that is actually "in focus", it's the fact that there is a lot in front and behind that is still sharp enough to appear in focus. Because the crop sensors are smaller (and P&S's even smaller) that so much is in focus. It's actually not any more in focus, it's that it's blurriness is being projected smaller than the individual pixel sites, so it's being recorded as fine detail.
Here is something that will really blow your mind. There is the same amount of background blur on a 30mm f/1.4, a 50mm f/1.4 and an 80mm f/1.4 if you and your subject are at the same distance on all three. It's the fact that that blurry background is projected more largely on the sensor that you see it as more blurry. (because of the perspective distortion) If you took a photo on a 50mm f/1.4 on a cropped-sensor 24 MP camera, and then the same photo at the same distance with an 85mm f1.4 on a full frame 6mp camera, and in photoshop cropped down to the center most 6mp from the cropped-sensor camera image, it would look exactly the same as the full frame version, same amount of background blur, exact same distortion on the face (same amount of ears on the side of the head would be visible, nose the same size, etc) and the same exact stuff would be behind their shoulders and at the same size in both images.
Edit: The company has the product on Kickstarter, if you donate $50 you can get one. I wouldn't say that's a bad deal at all.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/97103764/capture-camera-clip-system?ref=search
Looks like I got a job doing real estate photography for a while and I need a basic flash, going to be reading up on what might be best for me but if you guys have any suggestions for brand or best place to start it would be much appreciated.
They said they usually use Tamron 10~20 lenses, but on the outside chance I get to choose which lens they buy me is there a 10mm lens of better value? Probably won't be shooting any 10mm shots for myself personally.
I have the Earthquake starter kit right now as far as lenses go for my 20d, using my kit 18-55mm for wide shots.
Tamron 10-24mm 3.5-4.5
Canon 10-22mm 3.5-4.5
Sigma 8-16mm 4.5-4.6
Sigma 10-20mm 4-5.6
Sigma 10-20mm 3.5
Sigma 12-24mm 4.5-5.6
Tokina 11-16mm 2.8
Tokina 12-24mm 4.0
Depending on what you want to do you have some options, if you want widest possible, the sigma 8-16mm is a good bet, if you want the fastest, the tokina 11-16mm 2.8 or the sigma 10-20mm(if you want a better range) 3.5 is your lens, the tamron 10-24mm provides the best zoom range, but the canon 10-22mm is pretty similar. Lens speed on these isnt supper important, as you'll likely be shooting at F4-5.6 min or so with some studio lighting/flash for interiors so you'll probably want to go with something that has the best sharpness and zoom range. However, having something that has a 2.8-3.5 aperture and being able to stop down a stop or two to gain sharpness, and still be under F8 is good. I dont really know much as far as sharpness with these lenses, you'll want to do some research.
As far as primes in this range, most people will be using zooms. Most prime lenses in the 8-14mm range are going to be fisheye, which is likely not what you want.
Canon 14mm 2.8
Sigma 20mm 1.8
Canon 20mm 2.8
Canon 24mm 1.4
Sigma 24mm 1.8
Canon 24mm 2.8
Those are pretty much your choices for wide primes, if you know that a 14mm and 20mm lens will cover your needs, the Canon 14mm 2.8 + Sigma 20mm 1.8 or Canon 20mm 2.8 may be a better choice than a ultra wide zoom.
[edit] Forget that 14mm 2.8, its a $2500 L lens, your choices are pretty much only zooms unless you have a massive budget.
For anyone looking at some moderate wide zooms, the Tamron 20-40mm 2.7-4.0(which is F2.8 at 28mm) and the sigma 20-40mm 2.8 look like pretty awesome choices, if you dont need really fast lenses at these apertures, these lenses are a great pairing to a 50mm 1.8 lens instead of a 20/24/28/35mm setup, basically replaces 4 primes without being much slower. I've seen these sell on ebay for $150-300, which makes it a super awesome choice, as any one of those 4 primes can cost that much. If you can find one of these badboys, and need a cheap wide zoom to pair with some longer primes like the 50mm and 85mm, they look awesome.
20-40mm may seem like a poor range(and its why they arent made anymore, I'm sure) but that is actually a really good range on a crop format for regular photography. 32-64mm on Canon, pair that with 50mm(80mm) and 85mm(136mm) for win sauce on a budget.