Go wider or go full frame?

[Phoenix_Jackson]

I'm so stupid. I had a list of lens line-up for my 60D and was satisfied until I realized I didn't consider the crop factor. So there goes the extensive research and headaches on decisions. I haven't purchased heavily though.

So as I had to redo all my wants, I read something from another forum that quite touched what I was thinking about. But I couldn't take the bickering from page 2 to page 4 and I just quit reading. So here I ask the more insane but kinder people.

The OP was asking for something wider than 24mm with his APS-C. A response recommended to purchase a 5D instead of a new lens. This got me curious as I never read much about FF. I was surprised how much cheaper the 5D is compared to most of the lenses I was investing in.

5D or not, I honestly thought getting an FF to fully utilize what wide/UWA lenses could offer, is a more sensible approach. But isn't it a drag to be carrying 2 cameras around? Especially for just a beginner, amateur, hobbyist, non-pro?

[SwissJon]

I don't know the correct terminology in Canon, but in Nikon we talk about DX (APS-C) lenses and FX (FF) lenses. If you have bought lenses that are only DX compatible, then I think in Canon, they don't actually fit FX cameras. (They do on Nikons)

So you need to look at what you've actually bought. If you've only got FX lenses, then the change is interesting, if you have DX lenses, then less so.

A camera body weighs about the same as a 2.8 lens, give or take a few grams, so you're not really carting about much more than an extra lens, and if you keep a long lens on the DX and a wide angle on the FX, swapping between the two out in the field makes it far less likely that you'll have issues with dust getting in, and it's a lot quicker.. So no, 2 camera bodies isn't really a drag.

On the other hand, Tokina make 2 VERY nice UWA lenses, the 11-16 F/2.8 and the 12-24 f/4, both of which are really quite light. They're both very sharp, although a little prone to lens flair.

[ravncat]

Going full frame may require changes in alot of your lenses - depending on what you have and what you want to shoot. So going with a full frame camera may involve lots of other purchases.. Now there are so many quality super wide angle lenses, that full frame isn't really necessary to get into wide angle land. Early on that wasn't so - it took awhile before sigma came up with the 10-20, before that, super wide wasn't really an option.

A lot of people have the consumerist "buybuybuy" and "it is automatically the best" attitude about full frame - There are advantages - but there are still advantages to the crop factor. So - you generally should have a real reason to go full frame - "I want 35mm to be 35mm" isn't a good one in my opinion

Good reasons to go with full frame,
Narrower Depth of field is possible with a given focal length and position.
Larger viewfinder in camera.
Tendancy to have larger pixel sizes (and benefits that come with that - (higher ISO, better dynamic range, per pixel sharpness etc)

Worth noting that this is best for comparisons of the same generation - those crop sensors keep getting better too - in general, newer sensor wins.

Good reasons to stick with crop
1.5 crop factor for telephoto. (The full frame lenses get really expensive when you get into the long end)
Sharper section, no - (or rare) vingetting with full frame lenses
Decreased cost of lenses designed for crop.

The performance difference between full and crop for the same generation tends to be somewhere around a stop and a half (+ or - a stop) You can get into all sorts of arguments here. Now the only other major reasons to go with one or the other, are the features, build type, af sensors and all the other tech that's part of the body.

Once you start getting into varying megapixels and pixel size, things become a little less simple, but in the end, you're really only going to need full frame if you need Lots of resolution or Highest ISO. (And that's generally not in the same camera due to the whole pixel size thing again)

Camera upgrades are cool and fun. Full disclosure, I've a full frame nikon - and a crop nikon and a four thirds sensor (2x crop) They all have a place and purpose - I went full frame because I had no non full frame lenses - wanted the larger viewfinder and wanted the ability to get super narrow depth of field with my fast primes. Before I got one, I got a tokina 11-16 for my D200 (crop sensor) And it produces fantabulous wide angle results. Bottom line, my full frame camera is better at the edges of the envelope- but it's a generation newer. Shooting in the low ISO region, and looking at prints - The older d200 and the tokina 11-16 do not have distinguishably worse image quality (until print sizes get huge)

What choice you make, should ultimately be up to what lenses you have, and if you have a reason to go full frame - Don't knock the crop cameras out as inferior. I almost always use my crop camera when I go into the macro world - just because of that crop factor....

[OsmosisStudios]

What do you currently have?

Without knowing that there's not much we can do.

[gturner]

Crop sensors are excellent these days and perfectly adequate for most work.
That is until you look through the view finder of a full frame camera and you realise what a difference 60% MORE image really looks like.


As for lenses.... it really helps to know what you have and what you like to shoot.

Going full frame IS going wider. So to me, you're asking the same question, only twice and more convoluted that necessary.

[sk66]

Either answer works. You'll have to decide which works better for you.

There are many side effects of going to FF.... I honestly don't think it's the "best answer" for most. Getting the same image quality requires the purchase of much more expensive lenses on FF.
FF is heavier and bulkier (which *I* actually prefer). And FF doesn't have the benefit of multiplying the focal length (if you need/want reach).

They are making much better quality lenses for crop bodies which eliminate the crop body "deficiencies" these days. (e.g. Nikon 10-24mm, 17-55mm)

[ishootRAW]

It's really up to which lenses you want to use. Not so much the quality of said lenses. But why do you want the FF lenses? Unless it's for wether sealing(which no EF-s lenses have), most crop lenses are as good or even better then there FF counterparts(case in point, Canon 17-55 2.8 - sharper then the 24-70 2.8, oh and it has IS and is $300 less). And the crop factor does come in handy. For wildlife and such, where are FF user would have to buy a expensive 400-500mm, you can use the $650 70-300.

IMHO, spend the money on one of the above tokinas, or the wonderful canon 10-22. Unless you do huge prints, are a bokeh maniac, or need to be able to shoot at ISO's like 102,000. Stick with crop.

[Phoenix_Jackson]

The only EF-S lenses I currently have are 18-55 and 55-250.
I don't have the the complete line-up on my hands but are already registered as reserved and already put some money on each of them. At any time, I could place all of the total savings for one or two reserved lens. And as long as I haven't given the "okay send this thing to me now" signal, I could cancel that reservation for a different item. So for now, I'm safe.

Along with the two mentioned, I have the nifty-fifty (part of the triple lens package with the body), Samyang 85mm, and a used Sonnar 135mm purchased independently (not from the 'reserved'). Last week, I had a choice of pairing the Samyang with a new 35mm. But also was offered a used Vario Sonnar 28-85mm, or used Voigtlander 40mm and 90mm from 2 sellers. I could ignore the Voigtlanders since they're both too close to my 50mm 1.8 and 85 1.4. But both the Samyang prime and the CZ zoom were appealing. It was a choice between the two until I read something on another forum: I know Samyang 35mm looks actually more like 55mm...
That's when it hit me that even the shortest end of the CZ zoom performs like a 45mm! And yes, even while using my two primes, the numbers just never registered in my mind. It's been a week but I still have face-palm marks.

Sufficed to say that I'm still okay with my current lenses (using on FF wise). But it's more about "what if" a 21mm (for example) on my 60D was just not wide enough?

But thank you for the replies. I realized now that it's not just about the coverage when going for FF.
*btw the Tokina 11-16mm is already one of the "reserved" lenses. DPS members helped me decide on that too.

[inkista]

Given the Sonnar and Vario-Sonnar on your list, if your love is really for the old manual focus lenses, then maybe going 5D is going to help, simply because all those old MF lenses were designed for the same size image plane, and you're never going to find a wide-on-crop lens in that pool of candidates. OTOH, you could just compromise on one single lens, get an ultrawide for crop at a price much much lower than going ultrawide on full-frame would cost you, and be happy that way.

You also wouldn't have to start worrying about mirror clearance issues (my Tessar 45 pancake and my Distagon 28/2.8 [both C/Y] are not usable on my 5Dii due to mirror clearance issues, and I had to do some minor surgery to my Planar 100 to get it to mount. My Leica-Rs are fine, though. But there are many many known incompatibilities when it comes to 5D mirror clearance. Check out the pebbleplace.com tables, and see for yourself. Life is a lot harder on the full-frame side with manual lens adapting. You may not have considered that, either.

Then price a Tokina 11-16 or an EF-S 10-22 against an EF 16-35 f/2.8 II USM. It's only a crop that you can go ultrawide for $600...

That said? I still love the hell out of my 5Dii, and how my 24-105 is now finally a wide angle lens.