If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Equivalency of focal length has its limits
Incubus wrote:
[…] On the other hand, their 24Mp APS camera costs a lot less than a 45Mp FF camera. In addition, their 24Mp APS with 300mm lens costs an awful lot less than a FF camera with 400 - 500mm lens. I would say the "reach" argument is valid on that basis. It will also be smaller & weigh less. -hh |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Equivalency of focal length has its limits
Incubus wrote:
-hh wrote: Incubus wrote: […] On the other hand, their 24Mp APS camera costs a lot less than a 45Mp FF camera. In addition, their 24Mp APS with 300mm lens costs an awful lot less than a FF camera with 400 - 500mm lens. I would say the "reach" argument is valid on that basis. It will also be smaller & weigh less. That is true, although not an advantage for everyone; I can use a slower shutter speed with my heavier camera and old, heavy manual focus Nikkor telephoto lens than I ever could with equivalent DX gear because the size and weight helps to keep it more stable. My POV is mostly that once one starts using the longer/faster telephoto lenses, there's never a problem with them "not being heavy enough" for stability. For example, a generic 70-200mm f/2.8 IS is ~3lbs and a prosumer dSLR body is ~2lbs (total 5lbs). And this is before one exploits the crop DX gear's ability to shoot the same basic field of view with a shorter telephoto lens versus a FF with a longer lens. For example, replace the 200mm with a 300mm in the above...a 300mm f2.8 IS is ~5lbs just on its own (plus its a prime without any zoom), so you're easily lugging a 7lb system before tripod, etc. Of course, if you have a VR lens, that might well be moot. Yes, that too; VR/IS is another trading-off factors of cost, weight, performance, etc. -hh |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Equivalency of focal length has its limits
In article , Incubus
wrote: My POV is mostly that once one starts using the longer/faster telephoto lenses, there's never a problem with them "not being heavy enough" for stability. For example, a generic 70-200mm f/2.8 IS is ~3lbs and a prosumer dSLR body is ~2lbs (total 5lbs). Try the older AF Nikkor 70 - 300G - the bog standard version without VR. It's very light and plastic and I had an awful job holding the camera and lens steady when I briefly owned one. I used it with a D300. Granted, one would prefer a tripod with an equivalent focal length of 450mm but it was difficult to control at focal lengths that I could shoot handheld with a heavier lens. that lens is not particularly good, especially when compared to a nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 vr, even if the vr is off. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Equivalency of focal length has its limits
In article , Incubus
wrote: Try the older AF Nikkor 70 - 300G - the bog standard version without VR. It's very light and plastic and I had an awful job holding the camera and lens steady when I briefly owned one. I used it with a D300. Granted, one would prefer a tripod with an equivalent focal length of 450mm but it was difficult to control at focal lengths that I could shoot handheld with a heavier lens. that lens is not particularly good, especially when compared to a nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 vr, even if the vr is off. I think I used it once to take a photo of the Moon before selling it on. It came with the D300, which was the only reason I had it. I am told that the VR version is better it is, but even that is not in the same class as a 70-200/2.8 vr, the f/4 version, or even the old 80-200 non-vr. but there are a number of cheaper lenses with a similar focal length that would probably be just as good for my purposes. that depends on your purposes. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Equivalency of focal length has its limits
Incubus wrote:
-hh wrote: Incubus wrote: -hh wrote: Incubus wrote: […] On the other hand, their 24Mp APS camera costs a lot less than a 45Mp FF camera. In addition, their 24Mp APS with 300mm lens costs an awful lot less than a FF camera with 400 - 500mm lens. I would say the "reach" argument is valid on that basis. It will also be smaller & weigh less. That is true, although not an advantage for everyone; I can use a slower shutter speed with my heavier camera and old, heavy manual focus Nikkor telephoto lens than I ever could with equivalent DX gear because the size and weight helps to keep it more stable. My POV is mostly that once one starts using the longer/ faster telephoto lenses, there's never a problem with them "not being heavy enough" for stability. For example, a generic 70-200mm f/2.8 IS is ~3lbs and a prosumer dSLR body is ~2lbs (total 5lbs). Try the older AF Nikkor 70 - 300G - the bog standard version without VR. It's very light and plastic and I had an awful job holding the camera and lens steady when I briefly owned one. I used it with a D300. Granted, one would prefer a tripod with an equivalent focal length of 450mm but it was difficult to control at focal lengths that I could shoot handheld with a heavier lens. I'm on Canon; the equivalent lens might have been the old 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 which I found very soft longer than 200mm, so immediately replaced it with the IS/VR version which was only slightly less bad...but still soft at 200mm+ even with good film and on a tripod. I was lucky enough to have traded that lens in well before my local small business camera store went out of business due to the digital age to replace it with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS that I still have today. Even with a 1.4x on it, it is much sharper, although also heavier. Because of weight, I picked up a "kit" lens a few years ago of a Canon EF-S 18-135mm IS f/4.5-5.6 which I've been pleasantly surprised at its performance (plus its much lighter in the bag). IMO, this 18-135 is probably intended to be a modern EF-S version of Canon's ancient (introduced 1998) EF 28-135mm IS … I'd used one of these for years back in film days (still have it, although its gyros are getting sticky). This 18-135, along with an EF-S 10-22mm, were the two lenses I just took on a trip to Rapa Nui where the subjects were almost exclusively landscapes. Used it several times, along with the (broken - see other thread) tripod, so both pieces of gear proved to be worth taking along; should get a chance to start to look at the pics from the trip this coming weekend; need to change around some HDD/SSDs before uploading. -hh |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Equivalency of focal length has its limits
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 12:26:14 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
wrote: Try the older AF Nikkor 70 - 300G - the bog standard version without VR. It's very light and plastic and I had an awful job holding the camera and lens steady when I briefly owned one. I used it with a D300. Granted, one would prefer a tripod with an equivalent focal length of 450mm but it was difficult to control at focal lengths that I could shoot handheld with a heavier lens. If one is even reasonably serious, why would they compromise themselves with that lens? That is not a standard to base a comparison upon. I shoot DX for the "length", but it involves much more than just equivocal fl. Started with a D70 18-70 kit lens and 1st gen 70-200/f2.8 VR. Added a TC-20 for more length for wildlife photography and sports car races. Later went crazy and got a 1st gen 200-400 f/4 VR. Have had it repaired once. Then added a TC-14 as got more serious about wildlife. Have also added a Tokina 12-24 f/4 and Rokinon manual 8mm fisheye for limited WA use. Nikon 18-200 (hurt) and 18-300 walkabouts added along the way as well. I shoot 99=% handheld. The 200-400 will easily push most anyone to their limits. For the most part I find it too restrictive to use at the racetracks behind fences and it is definitely harder to pan smoothly with. 70-200 + TC-14 , has been my go to lately here. Depending on subject one cannot always win with shutter speed. Feather movement in wind, atmospheric turbulence etc, cannot be overcome even with VR. FWIW, a good friend of mine has been getting positive results with the newer 200-500 f/5.6 on his D5300. YMMV. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The focal length to sensor size equivalency thing has to DIE!! | Eric Stevens | Digital Photography | 15 | May 21st 16 11:55 PM |
The focal length to sensor size equivalency thing has to DIE!! | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 0 | May 21st 16 01:13 PM |
The focal length to sensor size equivalency thing has to DIE!! | PeterN[_6_] | Digital Photography | 3 | May 21st 16 01:11 PM |
The focal length to sensor size equivalency thing has to DIE!! | David Taylor | Digital Photography | 0 | May 21st 16 09:27 AM |
Is there a formula to convert digital lens focal length to 35mm focal length ? | narke | 35mm Photo Equipment | 5 | March 1st 05 12:31 AM |