Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 09 Jun 2009 (Tuesday) 18:24
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

So... if I were to move from crop to FF...

 
mrkgoo
Goldmember
2,289 posts
Joined Aug 2006
     
Jun 09, 2009 18:24 |  #1

So I was just thinking - I love the 85mm FL on my 40D. Particularly for MFD portraits. Now theoretically, to get the same FOV on a 5DmkII (pipedream), I'd need something like a 135mm (preferably an f/2.0L, naturally), right?

But can that actually give me the same image equivalent, seeing as I won't be able to focus as close? The MFD is larger for the 135mm, I believe. Is this something to consider, beyond just FOV changes for lenses when moving to full frame?

Do crop cameras get an 'advantage' when it comes to macro then?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
gasrocks
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
13,431 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2005
Location: Portage, Wisconsin USA
     
Jun 09, 2009 18:43 |  #2

First , it should be simple math. Crop = 1.6 X, FF = 1.0 X. The actual DOF you have changes a bit, so yes, a slight advantage for macro work with crop. But, portraits and macro are perhaps 2 different things.


GEAR LIST
_______________

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mrkgoo
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,289 posts
Joined Aug 2006
     
Jun 09, 2009 19:08 |  #3

gasrocks wrote in post #8080185 (external link)
First , it should be simple math. Crop = 1.6 X, FF = 1.0 X. The actual DOF you have changes a bit, so yes, a slight advantage for macro work with crop. But, portraits and macro are perhaps 2 different things.

I was just wondering that I could possibly not get the same FOV of a 135mm on a full frame camera due to the longer MFD compared to an 85mm on a crop.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,181 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2573
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Jun 09, 2009 19:17 |  #4

mrkgoo wrote in post #8080315 (external link)
I was just wondering that I could possibly not get the same FOV of a 135mm on a full frame camera due to the longer MFD compared to an 85mm on a crop.


you should be able to just slap on an extension tube to lower the MFD...


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
timbop
Goldmember
Avatar
2,980 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 18
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Southern New Jersey, USA
     
Jun 09, 2009 19:22 |  #5

mrkgoo wrote in post #8080315 (external link)
I was just wondering that I could possibly not get the same FOV of a 135mm on a full frame camera due to the longer MFD compared to an 85mm on a crop.

Not exactly. It's not the distance, it's the magnification - the 135 actually has a .19x factor whereas the 85 has a .13x mag on full frame. On the crop cam, then yes you are using a smaller portion of the frame. A simple 1.6 multiplier of .13 would yield a rough estimate of .20x. Not much of a difference, IMHO.

The real difference comes into play if you put extension tubes on the lenses, in which case the 85 would get more benefit from a 25mm tube, for example.

Honestly, though, this is a lot like worrying about the brand of tires that come on your new car. That is, it's probably not why you would choose one car over another. Outside of the analogy, there are a whole lot of reasons to go full frame and plenty of macro lenses to fit it.


Current: 5DM3, 6D, 8mm fish, 24-105/4IS, 35/2IS, 70-200/2.8IS, 85/1.8, 100-400/IS v1, lensbaby composer with edge 80, 580's and AB800's
Formerly: 80D, 7D, 300D, 5D, 5DM2, 20D, 50D, 1DM2, 17-55IS, 24-70/2.8, 28-135IS, 40/2.8, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 70-200/4IS, 70-300IS, 70-200/2.8, 100 macro, 400/5.6, tammy 17-50 and 28-75, sigma 50 macro & 100-300

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mrkgoo
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,289 posts
Joined Aug 2006
     
Jun 09, 2009 19:35 |  #6

timbop wrote in post #8080381 (external link)
Not exactly. It's not the distance, it's the magnification - the 135 actually has a .19x factor whereas the 85 has a .13x mag on full frame. On the crop cam, then yes you are using a smaller portion of the frame. A simple 1.6 multiplier of .13 would yield a rough estimate of .20x. Not much of a difference, IMHO.

The real difference comes into play if you put extension tubes on the lenses, in which case the 85 would get more benefit from a 25mm tube, for example.

Honestly, though, this is a lot like worrying about the brand of tires that come on your new car. That is, it's probably not why you would choose one car over another. Outside of the analogy, there are a whole lot of reasons to go full frame and plenty of macro lenses to fit it.

Hmm. Macro isn't my concern as much.

Ok, let's say the 85mm has a MFD of 0.9m. I take a portrait at 0.9m on a 40D. I like this FOV. Can I get this same field of view with a 135mm on a full frame camera? Would the MFD of slightly more than 1m of the 135mm (honestly, I can't remember the respective MFDs) prevent me from framing the same?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,355 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Likes: 2585
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Jun 09, 2009 19:38 |  #7

mrkgoo wrote in post #8080438 (external link)
Hmm. Macro isn't my concern as much.

Ok, let's say the 85mm has a MFD of 0.9m. I take a portrait at 0.9m on a 40D. I like this FOV. Can I get this same field of view with a 135mm on a full frame camera? Would the MFD of slightly more than 1m of the 135mm (honestly, I can't remember the respective MFDs) prevent me from framing the same?


Maybe you should try a longer lens

On full frame for portraits you could try a 200mm f/2.8L if the 135 is not sufficient....

The only way to answer your question to be honest is to actually TRY it


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,181 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2573
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Jun 09, 2009 19:49 |  #8

mrkgoo wrote in post #8080438 (external link)
Hmm. Macro isn't my concern as much.

Ok, let's say the 85mm has a MFD of 0.9m. I take a portrait at 0.9m on a 40D. I like this FOV. Can I get this same field of view with a 135mm on a full frame camera? Would the MFD of slightly more than 1m of the 135mm (honestly, I can't remember the respective MFDs) prevent me from framing the same?

the MFD of the 135L is .9M...the MFD of the 85mm is .85M...doesn't seem like much of a difference to me at all...

either way an extension tube solves any MFD problem...


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
timbop
Goldmember
Avatar
2,980 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 18
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Southern New Jersey, USA
     
Jun 09, 2009 19:55 |  #9

Sorry, I got distracted with my whining kids when I started to write my response. The slightly different MFD won't really make a difference; with the extra few pixels of the 5D you could probably crop down to almost exactly the same FOV you get from the 85 on the 40D. What I can say for sure is that the 135 is in a whole new league compared to the 85/1.8 though. I just got done renting one (literally sent it back today), and it was difficult boxing it back up after using it almost exclusively for a week. Of course, my 70-200/2.8IS was my first love, so I was able to cope with the loss.

As I mentioned, for portraiture the 5D/5D2 combined with a 135L are difficult to top. The 5d/5d2 with 70-200/2.8IS are probably just as good, depending upon if you're a prime or zoom with IS lover. Honestly, the 40D with 85/1.8 are just a notch below.


Current: 5DM3, 6D, 8mm fish, 24-105/4IS, 35/2IS, 70-200/2.8IS, 85/1.8, 100-400/IS v1, lensbaby composer with edge 80, 580's and AB800's
Formerly: 80D, 7D, 300D, 5D, 5DM2, 20D, 50D, 1DM2, 17-55IS, 24-70/2.8, 28-135IS, 40/2.8, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 70-200/4IS, 70-300IS, 70-200/2.8, 100 macro, 400/5.6, tammy 17-50 and 28-75, sigma 50 macro & 100-300

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mrkgoo
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,289 posts
Joined Aug 2006
     
Jun 09, 2009 20:00 |  #10

KenjiS wrote in post #8080458 (external link)
Maybe you should try a longer lens

On full frame for portraits you could try a 200mm f/2.8L if the 135 is not sufficient....

The only way to answer your question to be honest is to actually TRY it

Right, you mean go out and but a 5dmkII and a 135mm L? I Wish! :p;)

It's all 'in theory', I was just wondering. I know I can crop and do all sorts of things to achieve the same result, I was just curious.

Of coruse now I know the MFD (thanks DreDAze), it's kind of a moot issue, really.

And timbop, you are supposed to make me NOT want this combo ....:p




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rodinal
Goldmember
1,127 posts
Joined Jul 2008
     
Jun 09, 2009 20:13 |  #11
bannedPermanent ban

mrkgoo wrote in post #8080047 (external link)
So I was just thinking - I love the 85mm FL on my 40D. Particularly for MFD portraits. Now theoretically, to get the same FOV on a 5DmkII (pipedream), I'd need something like a 135mm (preferably an f/2.0L, naturally), right?

No.
Don't you use your feet sometimes? Keep the lens you love and compensate with your feet, you get to the same result if you actually know how to use them... FOV, AOV, crap, gosh! ppl theorize so much about photography...


1D Mark II • 16-35/2.8L mk I • 24-70L • 70-200/2.8L IS • 50/1.8 • 24-85 • 400/5.6L • 430EX

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
timbop
Goldmember
Avatar
2,980 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 18
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Southern New Jersey, USA
     
Jun 09, 2009 20:20 |  #12

Rodinal wrote in post #8080643 (external link)
No.
Don't you use your feet sometimes? Keep the lens you love and compensate with your feet, you get to the same result if you actually know how to use them... FOV, AOV, crap, gosh! ppl theorize so much about photography...

You can't walk any closer than MFD... or at least it doesn't do you any good :D


Current: 5DM3, 6D, 8mm fish, 24-105/4IS, 35/2IS, 70-200/2.8IS, 85/1.8, 100-400/IS v1, lensbaby composer with edge 80, 580's and AB800's
Formerly: 80D, 7D, 300D, 5D, 5DM2, 20D, 50D, 1DM2, 17-55IS, 24-70/2.8, 28-135IS, 40/2.8, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 70-200/4IS, 70-300IS, 70-200/2.8, 100 macro, 400/5.6, tammy 17-50 and 28-75, sigma 50 macro & 100-300

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rodinal
Goldmember
1,127 posts
Joined Jul 2008
     
Jun 09, 2009 20:26 |  #13
bannedPermanent ban

and how often does this guy focus near the MFD limit?


1D Mark II • 16-35/2.8L mk I • 24-70L • 70-200/2.8L IS • 50/1.8 • 24-85 • 400/5.6L • 430EX

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,181 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2573
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Jun 09, 2009 20:29 |  #14

mrkgoo wrote in post #8080047 (external link)
Particularly for MFD portraits

Rodinal wrote in post #8080721 (external link)
and how often does this guy focus near the MFD limit?

haha...did you read the first post...i think this whole post was strictly about shots taken near the MFD...:lol:


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rodinal
Goldmember
1,127 posts
Joined Jul 2008
     
Jun 09, 2009 20:36 |  #15
bannedPermanent ban

near MFD, the FOV is 1.2 ft wide... so the guy fills the whole frame with the head of the subject.
Therefore with a 135mm he must step back.
whats the problem?


1D Mark II • 16-35/2.8L mk I • 24-70L • 70-200/2.8L IS • 50/1.8 • 24-85 • 400/5.6L • 430EX

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,445 views & 0 likes for this thread
So... if I were to move from crop to FF...
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is angkorphoto
879 guests, 356 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.