Originally Posted by Julius
Both the 24-105f4 and 70-200f4 are very appealing to me. Believe me, in cost and size, they are VERY appealing over the 2.8 versions. But the main point of me jumping to FF is for better low light performance. So it almost seems a waste to get f4 lenses when I need to maximize my low light potential. Am I wrong in thinking this way?
The full frame automatically gets you more than a stop. 1.6x applies to the effective equivalent aperture.... So f/4 on full frame is 'faster' in effect, than f/2.8 on a crop sensor.
But, really, the issue on f/2.8 sans IS vs. f/4 with IS, is better stop motion, and thinner depth of field, more pronounced bokeh, vs. better handheld with available light of stationary objects. The difference in zoom is significant, but not extreme, in my opinion, and the 24-70 is better on the wide side at equivalent apertures, as I recall.
Well I think I'm going for the 24-70 2.8 or 28-70 2.8 for sure. That being said, I'm more uncertain about my longer focal lengths. 135L? 70-200 f4 IS? 70-200 2.8 IS? The last one mentioned would be great, but I think the pure size and weight of the lens will limit the places I'd take it. Not to mention the price tag.
The 'crop factor' applies to aperture in terms of effective depth of field, but not light-gathering ability - in other words, you'll have the same exposure settings at f/4 on full frame and a 1.6x crop body. But, the full frame sensor will have less noise, so performance in low light will be better.
This shot was with the 5D(12.8MP), 24-105 @ f5 and 55mm, 1/25, ISO 800, hand held with IS on.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.67/IMG_5F00_0142.jpg[/img]
Here is 100% crop
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.67/IMG_5F00_0142_2D00_100_2500_.jpg[/img]
Mark
The 'crop factor' applies to aperture in terms of effective depth of field, but not light-gathering ability - in other words, you'll have the same exposure settings at f/4 on full frame and a 1.6x crop body. But, the full frame sensor will have less noise, so performance in low light will be better.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
Maybe my words were chosen poorly. The sensor itself is, in total, gathering more light, however, the light intensity per area of sensor does not change, so, yes, in terms of exposure requirements for a given ISO sensitivity, yes, that doesn't change. you see it in being able to (all else being equal) use a higher ISO sensitivity for a given noise level.
I never claimed to be Daniel [8-|]
Cozen,
It's simple. 1/focal length = min shutter speed. I shoot 1/200 at 200mm most of the time indoors. That's the fastest shutter speed I can sync with flash fill with my 5D. A 135mm is going to want at least 1/135 shutter speed. Can you handhold slower. Yes, but the keeper rate is reduced. That doesn't negate the versatility. IS is fantastic, but you can't stop human motion much below 1/60th. There are many exceptions but I wouldn't accept IS as the sole remedy. I've shot wedding vows with a Tamron 70-300 f3.5-5.6 on a Pentax K100 at 220mm plus @ 1/15th shutter speed that are fabulous. Of-course the camera was on a tripod. I had IS but still opted for the tripod. It's not as restrictive as you might think. Especially with the "Slick" pistol grip I have.
The value I enjoy from my older used Canon L glass is worth the little extra I give up. Don't count out a used 70-200 f2.8L (non Is) Man, I hate designating that. From now on it is what it is
70-200 f2.8L
70-200 f2.8L IS
70-200 f2.8L IS II
Fabulous zoom lenses. All of them.
I happen to use both, the 70-200 F4L IS & 135L. Outdoor sports = 70-200. Portraits & indoor sports = 135L. For weddings, depending on the condition these 2 get swap back and forth.
So it's all really depends on what you need to do w/ your equipment. I think you know which one will suite you best.
I'm almost debating skipping the 24-70/24-105 and grabbing both of the 135L and the 70-200 f4IS. Reason being the 70mm on a FF is almost wide enough for most uses other than group shots and wide landscapes. I can use my 20-35mm or 50mm for those applications until it comes time for a 24-70 range lens. How does the 70-200 f4 IS perform for indoor events (non sports such as concerts/bdays/weddings)?
Well, that depends on how you define "light-gathering ability". If you mean "per area", then you're right. But if you look at "total" light gathering ability, then it's clear that full frame does have more.
Which definition you use will depend on what your purpose is. If you're advising a novice on how to get a good exposure in daylight, talking about per-area light makes more sense.
On the other hand, if you're trying to determine which camera+lens combination has the most light (and least amount of noise), then the amount of light per area is completely immaterial: all that matters is the total amount of light (and sensor technology).
For example, if you looked only at per-area light, it would dictate that f/2.8 on a digicam has more light (and therefore less noise, AOTBE) than f/5.6 on a DSLR. But in reality it does not, which is clear if you look at total light: an integration of light per area and total amount of area, where it is clear that f/5.6 on a DSLR has more light and less noise than f/2.8 on a digicam.
I'm sure you know all of this already, but I just wanted to point out that "per-area" is not the only valid way to interpret "light gathering ability".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote