LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


Crop vs Full Frame - quick (and dirty) comparison

FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras
Thread started 04 Mar 2012 (Sunday) 13:05   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
RandyS
Goldmember
RandyS's Avatar
Joined Dec 2009
1,046 posts
Minnesota
[MORE/SHARE]

I'm going on a trip soon, and I was thinking it'd be nice to leave the big, heavy, and oh so white 70-200/2.8 zoom at home if I could make sense of it.

As I was trying to sort out how the bag would be packed, I had both my FF body, and a crop backup in the bag. Then the light went on. On the crop body, the 135mm lens should frame quite a bit like the 200mm end of the big white thing. And since I was bringing a 24-105/4 zoom along I don't think I'd miss having the long zoom. So I decided to run a couple tests.

I tried to sort out how I could make this as unscientific as is humanly possible, and I'm fairly sure I've succeeded. I paid special attention to not framing things identically as I switched bodies/lenses as I didn't really want it to be that much easier to sort it out.

I did, however, fail by leaving the aperture @ 5.6 for every shot. Missed a perfect opportunity to help confuse the issue a bit more.

In all of these, the FF is on top.

First - the completely unnecessary comparison. The 17-40 @ 17 on the crop, and the same lens @ 29 on the FF. I selected 29 because it was what I got when I set the lens to about 27 on the scale. Works for me.

FF + 29 vs Crop + 17

IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i61/rsamos/pnet/17.jpg

Then, probably the most important of the 'tests' - the 70-200 @ 200 on the FF, the 135 on the crop. Here, the DOF differences are starting to show up.

FF+200 vs Crop+135
IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i61/rsamos/pnet/135.jpg

Lastly, and again a not very needed test as I wouldn't have been bringing my 300 along, I just wanted to throw it on the FF to compare against the crop with the 135 & 1.4x TC. This shot clearly shows how the DOF is going to be different (due to longer focal lengths) on the FF.

FF+300 vs Crop+135+1.4TC
IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i61/rsamos/pnet/135_TC.jpg

So, my end conclusion is that I'm planning on bringing the 135 along instead of the big white thing. At least today that's what I'm planning. Saves me about 1/2 the weight of the zoom and some room in the bag.

Post #1, Mar 04, 2012 13:05:06




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
newworld666
Goldmember
newworld666's Avatar
Joined Jan 2009
2,306 posts
on earth
[MORE/SHARE]

dof range and bokeh, even in your basic samples are not in the same league
And if you choose some other situations... color range and saturation would be another story too.

Post #2, Mar 04, 2012 13:49:33


Marc
5DMKII+1Dx 24L1.4II 85L1.2II 180L3.5 300F2.8nonIS TC2XII ..... Sigma14F2.8AFDG, Zuiko 500F/8 Reflex
http://myc-photos.euexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
RandyS
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
RandyS's Avatar
Joined Dec 2009
1,046 posts
Minnesota
[MORE/SHARE]

In all ways I believe the 135 is the better of the two lenses. It's one of the reasons I wanted an excuse to bring it along. The only purpose for this "test" was to see if I would be happy with the ability to frame the image the way I wanted to using the 'better'/shorter/light​er/less conspicuous lens with the crop body. Certainly for color and contrast there's no comparison between the two. The zoom does an admirable job for a zoom, but the 135 has long been one of my very favorite lenses.

DOF is a non-starter - at least as far as this comparison is concerned. In the real world, the only reason it's different between a FF & crop body because of the difference in focal length needed to achieve the same framing in a photo taken from the same location. And that can be modified/controlled by the aperture. In the examples everything was taken at f/5.6. At 200 the zoom only goes to 2.8 where I can always shoot the 135 @ f/2.0. At 300 my lens is an f/4.0 (both the prime, and the 70-200+ 1.4TC). But with the 135 & TC on the crop body I can get f/2.8 for the same framing.

One of the things I like more about having the 135 with is that I like the quality of the out of focus areas more than with the zoom. That holds up for me even in the examples above. To be fair in using the examples for that comparison, you need to look at the 135 with the TC against the 200mm lens.

But this was never mean to cover any of that. I know all the reasons I like the 135. I just wanted to double check framing. And that works for me.

Post #3, Mar 04, 2012 15:41:45




LOG IN TO REPLY
rick_reno
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2010
44,430 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Randy,

leaving home with your "big, heavy, and oh so white 70-200/2.8 zoom" is not a good idea. It's not going to happy and it could get out at night and chew your sofa up.

Post #4, Mar 04, 2012 16:49:44




LOG IN TO REPLY
RandyS
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
RandyS's Avatar
Joined Dec 2009
1,046 posts
Minnesota
[MORE/SHARE]

rick_reno wrote in post #14022334external link
Randy,

leaving home with your "big, heavy, and oh so white 70-200/2.8 zoom" is not a good idea. It's not going to happy and it could get out at night and chew your sofa up.

Hah!

I actually thought of that Rick. I'm thinking of offering it to a friend to use while I'm away. It may still be pissed off for being left behind but at least it will be at his house. :cool:

Post #5, Mar 04, 2012 17:02:31




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
stsva
Cream of the Crop
stsva's Avatar
Joined Mar 2009
5,928 posts
Northern Virginia
[MORE/SHARE]

This is definitely the best "unscientific" comparison I've seen. You've convinced me (of something, I'm not sure what). ;):D

Post #6, Mar 04, 2012 18:01:58


Some Canon stuff and a little bit of Yongnuo.
http://www.pbase.com/s​tsva/profileexternal link
Member of the GIYF
Club and
HAMSTTR
٩ Breeders Club http://photography-on-the.net ...=744235&highlight=h​amsttr Join today!
Image Editing OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
arbitrage
Member
Joined Aug 2011
80 posts
Whitehorse, Yukon , Canada
[MORE/SHARE]

All of these images were shot with the 5DmkII. Also for each set they report the same FF focal length and never the crop one that you say you used. What is up with this? I thought you were shooting one with a crop camera?

Post #7, Mar 04, 2012 18:20:00


1DX / 5DMKIII / 1DMKIV / 5DMKII / 7D / T1i / 17-40L / 24-105L / 40 Pancake / 100-400L / 100MacroL / 600 f/4 IS LVer II / Bower 14mm 2.8 / 10-22EF-S (SOLD) / 18-55IS / 55-250IS / RRS 34L / RRS BH-55 / Lee Filters / F-Stop Guru / GuraGear Kiboko 30L

LOG IN TO REPLY
RandyS
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
RandyS's Avatar
Joined Dec 2009
1,046 posts
Minnesota
[MORE/SHARE]

Those are single, flat file images created to post as single files. It's just the crop image pasted onto the bottom of the FF image. I posted the important information, like aperture & focal lengths used.

What were you looking for in the Exif?

Post #8, Mar 04, 2012 18:34:04




LOG IN TO REPLY
RandyS
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
RandyS's Avatar
Joined Dec 2009
1,046 posts
Minnesota
[MORE/SHARE]

stsva wrote in post #14022773external link
This is definitely the best "unscientific" comparison I've seen. You've convinced me (of something, I'm not sure what). ;):D

My work here is done then. :D

I like to believe that I've proven with little doubt, that in some ways, at some times, some things can be used instead of some other things. Well ... mostly.

Post #9, Mar 04, 2012 18:34:34




LOG IN TO REPLY
qbfx
Senior Member
qbfx's Avatar
Joined Nov 2009
456 posts
Montpellier, France
[MORE/SHARE]

RandyS, an off-topic question, but I'm curious, why do you have a horse's arse for an avatar :p

Post #10, Mar 05, 2012 04:17:15


╔═══════╗
:::::::::::::::::::╔════╗
::::::::5D:::::':::::::::''XS::::
╚═══════╝::::╚════╝

LOG IN TO REPLY
RandyS
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
RandyS's Avatar
Joined Dec 2009
1,046 posts
Minnesota
[MORE/SHARE]

Hmmm. Nobody's ever asked me that before.

I guess I'm not positive now. More the mood I was in when digging through my archives for something I suppose.

Post #11, Mar 05, 2012 04:25:33




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
mrbtd
Senior Member
Joined Nov 2009
418 posts
Lindenhurst, IL
[MORE/SHARE]

...

Post #12, Mar 05, 2012 06:24:59




LOG IN TO REPLY
qbfx
Senior Member
qbfx's Avatar
Joined Nov 2009
456 posts
Montpellier, France
[MORE/SHARE]

I admit, it's a silly question but couldn't help asking it..

Post #13, Mar 05, 2012 06:55:36


╔═══════╗
:::::::::::::::::::╔════╗
::::::::5D:::::':::::::::''XS::::
╚═══════╝::::╚════╝

LOG IN TO REPLY
Gweebs
Senior Member
Gweebs's Avatar
Joined Sep 2011
285 posts
Birmingham, UK
[MORE/SHARE]

RandyS wrote in post #14021940external link
At 200 the zoom only goes to 2.8 where I can always shoot the 135 @ f/2.0. At 300 my lens is an f/4.0 (both the prime, and the 70-200+ 1.4TC). But with the 135 & TC on the crop body I can get f/2.8 for the same framing.

If you use a 1.4TC on your 135 Prime, don't you lose a stop in aperture? f/3.2 or f/4???

Post #14, Mar 05, 2012 07:10:31


Canon 5D III & 50D - Sigma 10-20 - Canon 50mm 1.8 - 24-105L - Canon 100 2.8L - EF-S 55-250 IS - Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS - 480 EXII - Olympus OM-D EM-5
Flickrexternal link - 500pxexternal link - Portfolioexternal link - Purpleportexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
RandyS
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
RandyS's Avatar
Joined Dec 2009
1,046 posts
Minnesota
[MORE/SHARE]

mrbtd wrote in post #14026414external link
...

You don't say.

qbfx wrote in post #14026490external link
I admit, it's a silly question but couldn't help asking it..

Not silly really. It's just simply that nobody has ever asked that before, and I didn't have a proper answer. Reality is ... I still don't.

Gweebs wrote in post #14026532external link
If you use a 1.4TC on your 135 Prime, don't you lose a stop in aperture? f/3.2 or f/4???

Yes ... you do lose a stop. f/2.0 + a stop = f/2.8.

f/4.0 would be two stops.

Post #15, Mar 05, 2012 07:32:09




LOG IN TO REPLY


LIST NEARBY THREADS
3,911 views & 0 likes for this thread
Crop vs Full Frame - quick (and dirty) comparison
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras



NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.00327 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
920 guests, 741 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is Demax

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.