Fast primes comparison!

Hello people.

I need someone who have and can (and obviously wanna do that):
make couple identical shots of several subjects - one with FF camera and 35mm @ f2, one with crop camera and 24mm @ f1.8 (can be Sigma's or L's).
If there's anyone from Winnipeg - I have crop body and Sigma 24/1.8 so it can be easier.
I am thinking how much the image will improve if I switch to FF and take 35mm f/2 lens instead on shooting the crop with Sigma 24mm/1.8.

This isn't quite the same, but here are the 22mm and 40mm compared:

https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=16516564&po​stcount=12

The 40mm on the 5D3 is even more ahead of the crop prime than the 5D with the full frame prime was.

Ok this is old but the Cameras tested are the same generation so it should follow through.

http://www.seriouscomp​acts.com/showthread.ph​p?t=162

Although I have not heard many good things about Sigma's older faster primes like the 24/1.8 so testing that againt a much better 35/2 IS and FF would be vastly unfair. However a test using the 85/1.2 or Sigma 85/1.4 versus the 135/2 at 2 and 2.2 respectfully would be more fair.

Digital Story wrote in post #17074126
Hello people.

I need someone who have and can (and obviously wanna do that):
make couple identical shots of several subjects - one with FF camera and 35mm @ f2, one with crop camera and 24mm @ f1.8 (can be Sigma's or L's).
If there's anyone from Winnipeg - I have crop body and Sigma 24/1.8 so it can be easier.
I am thinking how much the image will improve if I switch to FF and take 35mm f/2 lens instead on shooting the crop with Sigma 24mm/1.8.

Heya,

The image itself will not improve a lot. What will change is depth of field, and field of view, from each lens. You'll get tighter depth of field (so less depth of field, more isolation) with the 35 F2 on a full frame, than the 24 F1.8. But it's not super significant. It will be a little noticeable. Sharpness and all that, you're going to be hard to really see a big difference other than pixel peeping.

Very best,

It is my quite amateur opinion that the difference between apsc and fullframe is nearly insignificant unless you are at some extreme or another. Low light, large aperture, huge prints and the like. I look through my LR library and I can't tell which (mostly) of them are shot on what format. And I made them.

Yes I am shooting in low light quite often, and at fast apertures only.

Sharpness is not that important to me, the general image look is.

FEChariot wrote in post #17074221
Although I have not heard many good things about Sigma's older faster primes like the 24/1.8 so testing that againt a much better 35/2 IS [...]

I am thinking about the older 35mm f/2, without the IS. Eventually I will try to save for 35L.

Digital Story wrote in post #17074464
Yes I am shooting in low light quite often, and at fast apertures only.

Sharpness is not that important to me, the general image look is.

I am thinking about the older 35mm f/2, without the IS. Eventually I will try to save for 35L.

I bought the old EF 35mm f/2 lens. I sold it because the AF was noisy, a bit slow, and it was the old non-FTM lens. Canon, at that time, sold it for $255 - refurbished.

I bought the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM for about $439 - refurbished, and am happy with its modern design, fast & quiet AF with FTM. Optically, there isn't much difference. For the less than $200 difference, I'd go for the newer IS version. If money matters, you are not losing much IQ to go with the older version.

IMHO, the 35L, like most L-glass, is way overpriced. You may need f/1.4. That changes the whole valuation thing.

Basically I need as fast as possible, but for a while I might have just the f/2 version. But in final I will buy the 35L anyways... Just curious if the 35/2 will give better image on FF camera, than now I can get with Sigma 24/1.8 on a crop body.

Digital Story wrote in post #17074464
Yes I am shooting in low light quite often, and at fast apertures only.

Sharpness is not that important to me, the general image look is.
.

Heya,

Then all you need to focus on is composition and exposure.

You do not need full frame. You do not need special lenses. Buying a 35L will not just magically make it all better compared to a 35 F2 IS. You'll find the 35L isn't all that superb. The 35 F2 IS and the new Sigma 35 ART really give it competition (even though the 35 F2 IS is less expensive and not an L, it optically performs on that level).

What you should just focus on is what focal length gives you the field of view that you prefer on whatever format you're shooting (APS-C for you). 24mm on APS-C is like 38mm (let's just call it 40mm to keep it realistic) on full frame. It's a hair on the wide side of normal. 35mm on full frame will appear a bit wider, but not tremendously wider. But they will be very close. The key difference will be resolving power on a full frame sensor from a optically superior lens, and a tighter depth of field. F1.8 depth of field looks more like F2.8 does on full frame (light gathering is similar, but the look, where the focal plane is and the blur begins in the out of focus areas, APS-C has less tight depth of field, full frame has a tighter control; this is due to distance to subject only, but the crop factor of APS-C will have you standing further/closer depending on the composition frame up for the same field of view of a full frame; example full frame at 35mm standing 4 feet away, to get a similar field of view on APS-C with a 35mm lens, you'll have to step back more to get that same composition. As you know, putting more distance between you and that subject, will increase depth of field, thus the APS-C has less tight depth of field control in this manner).

So again, if sharpness is not a concern, then really, the only things that you need to consider are composition which is completely up to you and only limited by physical space that you can be in relative to focal length that you have; and exposure (considering enough shutter to avoid blur if unwanted, the rest is just ISO levels and maximum aperture; ISO noise can be managed in post). So really just whatever focal length that you really prefer and as wide an aperture as you can get, is all you need to focus on.

If you're happy at 24mm F1.8 on APS-C, going to 35mm F2 on full frame will result in a similar field of view, less depth of field (so tighter control) and possibly better ISO handling (dependent on full frame model). You'd be spending at least $2k to do that total move likely (assuming modern full frame; not just an old 5D classic), just to produce something very similar, but with about 1 stop worth of depth of field at the widest apertures (because it doesn't matter after F4~F5.6, etc really at wider angles).

Suggestion: get a cheap 5D classic. Or rent a full frame for 3 days or something. Just see for yourself. Again, you said you don't care about sharpness, so you don't need the best optics. Save your money there. Just get lenses that provide the field of view you want on the format you're shooting, with the widest aperture you can afford. You're shooting for composition and exposure, not extreme sharpness and clarity.

++++++++++

Just to give you food for thought, here's some depth of field examples from APS-C and Full Frame just to help compare (though at 85mm and wide aperture):

85mm F1.8:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ofuj​8s

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nkWz​dB

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nVRm​Ku

Digital Story wrote in post #17076928
Basically I need as fast as possible, but for a while I might have just the f/2 version. But in final I will buy the 35L anyways... Just curious if the 35/2 will give better image on FF camera, than now I can get with Sigma 24/1.8 on a crop body.

This should have been completely obvious. 24mm on crop and 35mm on ff are nearly equal in FOV. If the aperture is about the same (1.8 vs 2), the 35mm on ff has two rather large advantages: IS and ISO. IS will allow a slower shutter speed in suitable situations. About 2 stops of better noise performance means you can keep the shutter speed up, when necessary. No contest. Not even close. 35IS on ff wins this one, handily.

I am not sure of the quality of image my Sigma 24 gives that is why I am considering the change.

Some time earlier I had the 5Dc and it was superb. But at that time I just had the 50mm.
I am thinking about the 6D.

BTW. I know how to photograph. I wanted to see the real difference between crop + 24/1.8 and FF + 35@1.8

Digital Story wrote in post #17078448
I am not sure of the quality of image my Sigma 24 gives that is why I am considering the change.

Some time earlier I had the 5Dc and it was superb. But at that time I just had the 50mm.
I am thinking about the 6D.

BTW. I know how to photograph. I wanted to see the real difference between crop + 24/1.8 and FF + 35@1.8

Heya,

So are you just looking for validation for a purchase you know you're going to make? Just buy the 6D and 35 F2 IS. You're going to do it eventually anyways based on how you've described things. I looked at your images, and I frankly don't see any reason at all for you to move to a different camera. If you're just looking for more composition possibilities, just get more focal length fast primes.

Very best,

I am looking for something what will give me more creamy bokeh than what I can achieve with f/1.8 & crop body. So thats why I would like to see the real difference between these combos.

Hi op, another thing to consider because you mention you always shoot in low light, is the noise on a crop body. I have a 7D and I don't use iso 1600 because of the noise. On my 6D, I can happily use iso 3200. If you own a newer cropper then maybe it will be a different story.You have also mentioned that sharpness is not important to you so why not just use an advanced point and shoot camera like the G series?