Crop vs full frame

Naturalist wrote in post #19042491
... good quality glass (lenses) will last 20 years or more before they become obsolete.

That was a standard truism for decades. But no more. Nowadays when the version II lenses come out, everybody sells the old stuff and gets the newer version. There have been significant improvements in kit lenses too.

I think the most important question in all the post are: What are your goals? Just imagine somebody asks " I am brand new to cars and am looking at buying my first professional car. I was reading this article and it looks like V8 is the way to go, however the cars are so expensive. I was thinking of getting maybe a Chevrolet Malibu or a Subaru Legacy to start out with." If you really want help you need to be more specific about your hopes and goals.

Archibald wrote in post #19042503
That was a standard truism for decades. But no more. Nowadays when the version II lenses come out, everybody sells the old stuff and gets the newer version. There have been significant improvements in kit lenses too.

Depends on the lens. There's a reason why some Leica and Zeiss lenses sell for thousands more than they did when new. Some photographers use certain lenses for the way they render.

Even the old ones. Started buying some old lenses for fun & the way the render, mostly M42 mount. I'm a little late to the game. It seems 8-10 years ago these were very cheap, not so much now. I've seen some posts about a lens that was around $400 8 years ago, now t's going for almost $3,000!! (Canon 50mm F/.095)

Pigpen101 wrote in post #19042681
Even the old ones. Started buying some old lenses for fun & the way the render, mostly M42 mount. I'm a little late to the game. It seems 8-10 years ago these were very cheap, not so much now. I've seen some posts about a lens that was around $400 8 years ago, now t's going for almost $3,000!! (Canon 50mm F/.095)

yep and lenses like the Leica 50 1.2 double aspherical Noctilux or the 50 1 Noctilux are very special and have gone through the roof price wise. The Leica 50 1.2 is now selling used for 20K if you can find one. It was still expensive a few years back but no where near 20K it is now if you can even find one. The 35 1.4 double aspherical is another lens that if you can find one will usually run you over 10K Even some of the old Canon lenses like the 55 1.2 aspherical or the 85 1.2 aspherical have really gone up in value thanks to the resurgence of film. Both the 55 aspherical and the 85 aspherical have chrome mounts and have a far more interesting rendering than the modern versions 50L and 85L.

Some of the old Russian Jupiter lenses are very cheap and the old ones are single coated. They render nothing like modern lenses. And interesting article on Leica lenses.
https://www.artphotoac​ademy.com/the-leica-look/

An affordable 50mm lens that is really interesting is the Voigtlander 50 1.2 Nokton.

I know a bit of it is the resurgence of film, even I have pulled out my old Mamiya/Sekor in the last month. A lot of what I've read points to the mirrorless & 4/3 systems. These systems don't offer a huge amount of choice, but with cheap adaptors most of the older lenses will work very well. I was even late to the Russian lens club. My Helios 44-2 & Volna 9 were over $100 each with shipping & many videos I watched quoted them between $20 & $40.

Heh, the OP seems to have left, so we might as well talk about vintage lenses.

Yeah, I kinda went off topic, sorry.

Pigpen101 wrote in post #19042859
I know a bit of it is the resurgence of film, even I have pulled out my old Mamiya/Sekor in the last month. A lot of what I've read points to the mirrorless & 4/3 systems. These systems don't offer a huge amount of choice, but with cheap adaptors most of the older lenses will work very well. I was even late to the Russian lens club. My Helios 44-2 & Volna 9 were over $100 each with shipping & many videos I watched quoted them between $20 & $40.

I shoot with Leica M FF digital so a lot of options for me. My thought on FF is if you are a mostly wide angle to normal lens photographer then FF should be your choice.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #19042934
I shoot with Leica M FF digital so a lot of options for me. My thought on FF is if you are a mostly wide angle to normal lens photographer then FF should be your choice.

That might have been true 15 years ago, but we crop people have had 10mm and even 6.5mm lenses for a long time. We get so wide, it is hard to keep our shoes out of the picture.

Archibald wrote in post #19042943
That might have been true 15 years ago, but we crop people have had 10mm and even 6.5mm lenses for a long time. We get so wide, it is hard to keep our shoes out of the picture.

I wouldn't want my 35 1.4 Summilux FLE to not give me a 35mm FoV or my 90 Summicron to not give me a 90mm FoV so it is true today as it was 15 years ago.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #19042949
I wouldn't want my 35 1.4 Summilux FLE to not give me a 35mm FoV or my 90 Summicron to not give me a 90mm FoV so it is true today as it was 15 years ago.

I believe the point that Archibald was making was that

• when 135 format SLRs predominated and shared its lenses with dSLRs, the widest lens you could get was exemplified by the 16mm-35mm Canon.
  
• when APS-C dSLRs rose into prominence, the widest lens was first maybe 11mm minimum, then later 10mm minimum, then later yet 6.5mm minimum for APS-C shooting

Wilt wrote in post #19042957
I believe the point that Archibald was making was that

• when 135 format SLRs predominated and shared its lenses with dSLRs, the widest lens you could get was exemplified by the 16mm-35mm Canon.
  
• when APS-C dSLRs rose into prominence, the widest lens was first maybe 11mm minimum, then later 10mm minimum, then later yet 6.5mm minimum for APS-C shooting

...and 6.5mm on APS-C is like using 9.7mm on FF body...a vertical AOV of 102 degrees, you would see your shoes.

Wilt but thats not what i was referring to. If you shoot a lot of wide angle and (I should have also said) care about specific lenses with specific FL which is what I was talking about in a previous post then FF is still your choice as it would have been 15 years ago. Also I would not want my 24 Elmarit ASPH to not give me a 24mm FoV.

I see your point of view is very clearly made. And it was not in conflict in any way with what Archibald said. And neither was arguing the point with the other.
I merely made sure Archibald's point of view, of 'advance 15 years' and the format size decrease has dictated a whole new set of FL, including ultra-ultrawide. But I do need to point out the existence of the 8mm fisheye 180 degree lens for 135 film SLRs many decades earlier, so 6.5mm for APS-C is lagging! 17mm T-S is lagging on APS-C too, not as wide as 24mm T-S on FF.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #19042963
Wilt but thats not what i was referring to. If you shoot a lot of wide angle and (I should have also said) care about specific lenses with specific FL which is what I was talking about in a previous post then FF is still your choice as it would have been 15 years ago. Also I would not want my 24 Elmarit ASPH to not give me a 24mm FoV.

You are referring to use of some specific lenses that you love. Of course those are best for your chosen format. There are other specialty lenses too that were designed for FF and are best used on FF, like TS lenses and ultra-fast lenses. If you need those capabilities, then FF is for you.