APS-C Lenses Bad Investment?
 

Perhaps this stems from a incorrect understanding of how these lenses work, but the way I understand them is the APS-C lenses are specifically made for the cropped sensored cameras like the 7D, correct?

Would it then be a bad investment to buy APS-C lenses knowing that cropped sensors are probably going to be a thing of the past in the future (another misconception on my part?)

Why not just buy "regular," full-format lenses since they can be used on the 7D ANYWAY, albeit cropped, and still be used on any future full-format camera?

APS-C is here to stay I think, or they would have left the building by now. For digital the one that will eventually be phased out is full frame, but it will be a fight to the death. Camera companies have really been trying for years now to get rid of full frame. When Canon introduced the 5D and the 1Ds, I don't think they thought it would be such a demand from film photographers who where finally ready to convert to digital when FF was what they were waiting for.

Your reasoning is right if you ever plan to buy or use FF cameras.

That's correct. A reduced image circle allows APS-C lenses to be cheaper and/or sharper for a given focal length.

Misconception. APS-C will only get more and more popular as the price drops and they are used in new types of cameras, like the miniature interchangeable cameras available on Four Thirds.

Because they cost more and have lower image quality. Try comparing the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 vs the Canon 17-40 f/4 L. The APS-C lens is cheaper, longer, faster, sharper, and superior in almost every way. One important way that it is not superior is the manual focus ring.

I pretty much agree. Unless you're planning on buying a 5DMKII, there's no good reason not to buy an APS-C lens. As adapters start appearing to use 35mm cine lenses on the 7D, the chip size should only get more popular.

I think you're thinking more like a video person here and not still photographer which these lenses and camera are made for. In that case FF is always superior not only because just about every industry is still formatted to film standards but also because you will always be able to print larger and retain image quality with a FF then APS-C. Then there is DOF limitation that the crop sensor has and less sensitivity. This is why film photographers fought and waited until digital finally made a FF before the huge shift happened 4-5 years ago.

For still photography, that's true.

I'm overjoyed that I can get less expensive, lighter glass for my APS-C 7D. For the video world it's just the right size. I think as chips get better, more sensitive, as technology marches on, we may see the decline or extinction of 35 full frame. I wish there was more of the premium glass for APS-C, I have a feeling it would cut significantly into the "L" glass market.

As far as advice, I think this forum is about video and therefore the bias is toward what's good for video as opposed to a still photographer. I can see for stills that ff has an advantage in light sensitivity and versatility. However, I can only see the APS-C cameras getting better and better, and Canon and Nikon's newest flagship DSLRs are APS-C (in some cases) because I think they see the trend.

If you're investing in "L" ff glass cause you want to upgrade to a ff DSLR in the future I don't know if this is wise, I mean technology gets better and cheaper all the time, and your good APS-C lenses aren't going to devalue.

One of the things I'm a little excited about getting good glass, whether ff or crop sized, is that when I eventually upgrade my Sony EX1 to a EX3, I can put an adapter and then put my good glass on that and get like a 5000mm tele for wildlife. Because a 1/2" sensor is so much smaller than APS-C, you get that 'magnification factor' with an excellent lens.

I like the 5D because I have bought a closet full of old glass that works wonders with the full frame format. And visualization is easier for me because I am used to what lenses have what approximate angle of view because of our experience with the 35mm still format.

Some don't realize, however, that the 7D sensor is closer to the imager size of a celluloid 35mm camera, than the 5D. So for the more film like depth of field we are are searching for in these cameras, the 7D gets you closer to the traditional 35mm cinema camera. In fact, there are times with the 5D where you will end up fighting to shallow a depth of field. Of course the easy resolution of that problem is stopping down the lens to extend depth of field.

Considering the _millions_ of Canon APS-C format DSLRs currently in use, what makes you think it's going away anytime soon?

My comments applied to using FF lenses on APS-C bodies. What you say is only true when you compare FF bodies vs APS-C bodies, but that's not what this thread is about.

APS-C?

Heck, I still shoot 5 x 7 inch - haven't seen a sensor in that size yet (although there are scanning digital backs if you can get some of the bailout money from Barry O.)

More seriously, given the inventory of Canon L series full frame lenses I have I'd have to be crazy to get an APS-C camera and lose the wide angle capability that I've spent all that money for (the Canon 14mm rectilinear is one of my favorite lenses!)

Looks like I'd better get another 5D body before FF disappears!

My pet peeve with many lenses is the falloff in the corners. I personally like the idea of FF glass on an APS-C body, just because of the flat field. The one exception would be for wide lenses. EF-S lenses make all the sense in the world at the wide end, just because of size, cost, and available ranges.

I'm no kool-aider but, which plays nicer with Red? aps-c or ff lenses?

Yeah, I'm not big on the vignetted look either. Thankfully, Canon automatically corrects the falloff for all their own lenses, so it's only the third party brands where you have to worry about it. (Then again, even with the correction you may have to worry about the increase in noise in the corners.)

5x7? That's like a point and shoot in comparison to my 8x10 daguerreotypes I do.... hehehe. Nice to see other large format people still around and on board for digital video Jim.

I came across this photo of video Chris Hurd that was taken around the time he started dvinfo.net:

http://thebrownings.name/photo/misc/mammoth-camera.jpg

That's why I gave up large format photography: I hate to wear a coat and tie while working.

Hey, anybody looks good in a bowler.

The Red One has the same size sensor as the 7D (or almost the same) so it shouldn't make a difference. If you're looking towards something like the S35 Scarlet though, then FF lenses would make more sense, because the S35 Scarlet's sensor is bigger than S35 (30mm wide, instead of the 24mm of a Red One).

Of course, either type of lens would work on a 2/3" Scarlet too.

If we focus (pun!) on the "investment" word, avoid buying a series I lens just before the series II is released. If the series II lens is sharper, the value of the series I lens can be cut by 30-40% nearly overnight.

That's one area where the "rumor" sites might be useful. If you're on the fence about a given lens, it's an old design, and there are rumors about a series II, you might consider holding off a bit. On the other hand, if you need that series I lens for a long-term documentary starting tomorrow, ignore the rumors, buy the lens and make your film.

On the other hand, if you find any lens in good condition at well under market value, it can be a very nice investment. I doubled my money on one such lens simply because I pounced within minutes of a craigslist posting and took my time in selling it. You can't bank on that kind of luck though.

In short, know the market. Know what you need. Be patient, if you can.

Aside from the Series I/II thing, lenses hold their value pretty darn well. They're not exactly venture capital investments, but they do better than a lot of 401ks lately...

That makes 3 hands Jon.

I think going downtown and giving your money to that transient to invest or getting back to that e-mail from the wife of that Nigerian prince is doing better than a lot of 401ks lately...;-)

Dan

The 3rd hand really helps at the poker table! :)

It's nice to know that spending a little money on the 7d isn't like the typical black hole of video camers. The lens, monitors and some of the other goodies actually hold up well. What a novel idea.

To get back to my original question, and after having read all the dialog above, the follow up question to this is:

Is full-format the future of DSLR once chips get cheaper/better, or is APS-C here to stay for the next decade or two? Maybe two decades is a stretch, but I do have some 17 year old FF lenses that I'm using now on my 7D that work excellently, so maybe it's not such a stretch.

I'm lost in all of this...

Video has been my profession, I did some still photography because I could. Since the DSLR's are relatively inexpensive I thought now might be a good time to experiment with shooting video on a DSLR.

Much of the discussion has been from people who have older/higher end lenses sharing their opinions, which I for one really appreciate and think its great that we can invest in accessories that will still be valuable as these cameras improve, but for someone pretty much starting from scratch its all a bit overwhelming. I'm not even sure were to start.

I have the kit lens, which I thought was OK until I tried shooting video in low light, my EX1 does better. But then I have seen some footage from the 7D shot inside a restaurant that was amazing. I realize I have a lot to learn about settings but the restaurant footage was shot with a 24mm f/1.4, not my 17-85 f/4-5.6.

Sorry I don't mean to hijack this thread, but are the APS-C lenses good lenses for video? Are they good for stills? People talk about great deals on used prime lenses, where do you find those? Since I don't know much about lenses and don't trust eBay it makes it difficult. Boy do I sound like a whiner...

Since I'm a bit off topic -- it is so much fun shooting video on a DSLR, stopping to take what you know will be a great photograph only to open it in Photoshop and wonder where that great shot went. I guess as a videographer I got lazy and shooting with a DSLR makes you work for the shot and I forgot how much fun that can be.

Someone still makes a 20 X 24 - they claim you can get it in a mini-van (Wisner???)

I've toyed with the idea of getting an 8 X 10 field camera, but at my age (70 next year) I think I'll just stick with my Linhof Kardan Bi. Not really the ideal field camera but I had a custom short monorail made for it so it packs down to about 8 - 10 inches with lens in place. I schlepped it all over Yosemite when I took a workshop with Ansel Adams almost 40 years ago. Never tried Daguerrotypes, but have fooled with some other "ancient" techniques.

Funny you mention "point and shoot" because on one occasion I did exactly that with the Linhof - the picture was there and there was no time to fool with a tripod so I focused by guess and put the monorail on my shoulder and fired. Worked fine!

Back on topic.

The economics of the chip industry dictate that in the long run small has got to win on price. It costs a few billion dollars to put up a fabrication line and the number of (I think these days) 300mm wafers the line can produce per month is pretty well fixed, so it all comes down to $ per square inch of silicon wafer which equates to making smaller lines and features so as to get chip size down to get more chips per month from the fab line. So APS -C has to be half the price of full frame, and full frame has to price itself out of the low end to middle of the market sooner or later.

By the way, the folks at IDC (the big consulting outfit) have used this idea to show why solid state disk or flash will not kill hard drives - the number of square inches of silicon needed to make enough read/write heads for a hard drive is minuscule compared to the number of square inches needed for flash memory, and to make enough square inches of silicon to equal the world wide total capacity of hard drives would require dozens of new multi-billion dollar fab lines - not very likely to happen anytime soon.

Oh good, so investing in the APS-C lenses is the way to go???

Just kidding. Thats actually an interesting way to look at this, from the manufacturers perspective.

Chuck it's not whether the lens is an APS-C lens or a full frame one. There are excellent lenses in both sizes. Your kit lens is too slow for low light shooting unless you raise the ISO quite a bit. I have the cheapo but sharp Canon f1.8 50mm lens which is great in those low light situations, but it's a bit long. I've seen good comments about the Sigma 1.8 20mm lens (about $600). Lots of people also seem to be getting the Tamron 17-50, which is f2.8 all the way and less than half the price of the Canon 17-55, which is getting great reviews too. But the problem with all these zooms is that f2.8 is considered fast for one, but in the video world, fast is more like f1.6 or 1.8. Because of the type of work I do my next lens purchase will probably be a fast wide angle. Then for a "normal" lens I'd like to get the f2.8 24-70 L lens, money permitting.

Bill,
What are you considering for your fast wide angle choice? I bought and returned a sigma 30mm 1.4, and am leaning towrads the Canon 28 1.8. The 24 1.4 looks great but WAY too expensive.
Bruce Yarock

Bruce, What did you disliked on the Sigma 30mm? Am looking for one myself.

I'm also interested in why you returned the Sigma. I own the 28/1.8 and might be able to let you know if it has similar weaknesses or not.

I'm considering the 20mm Sigma. A 30 isn't wide enough.

Jon, do you like the 28mm?

I am considering buying it or the sigma. What I want to know is how the focus ring operates for video use, is it precise and well damped? Does the lens breath?

Hadn't noticed that they had done a 1.4 24mm but I think the 24mm focal length is just great - I had a 24mm for my old Nikon F's years and years ago and found myself using it much more than I had thought I would.

Interesting that the convergence of DSLR and video brings this kind of discussion into the video realm. I think the big deal of this convergence is that now it opens up the use of a vast number of reasonably priced lens options to the video community - no reason not to have 180 degree fisheye videos anymore. Even the expensive DSLR lenses are cheap by video interchangeable lens standards. Absolutely wonderful creative opportunities IMHO.

Now if I could just get a shoulder mount video camera with an APS sensor and a standard Nikon or Canon lens mount. DSLR form factor sucks for video - again just my humble opinion

Is there anything out there faster than 2.8 and wider than 24mm? Apparently the sigma 20mm 1.8 is soft wide open. It needs to be tack sharp; the Canon 24 1.4 has spoiled me!

I like the 28mm lens very much. We used it for most of the "theater scenes" in this 48-hour piece: We also used it on our "bouncing boom" shot outside the theater.

It feels very much like the 85mm f/1.8 mechanically. It supports all of the Magic Lantern eRack Focus parameters. The focus motion is smooth. It has full-time-manual-focus, so the ends can move, if you push past the stop. Travel is around 110 degrees. I don't find this to be a problem on a wide lens, since the DOF isn't crazy thin.

The lens, like most photo lenses, breathes, but it's pretty subtle. I just compared it to my other lenses, and it's probably the best. From best to worst: 28/1.8, 200/2.8L, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 Macro. The macro breathes like crazy, but that's not surprising, since its focus range is so extreme.

Photographers rate the 28/1.8 poorly because it's not super sharp. For video, it's more than sharp enough.

Falloff is middling, losing a stop in the corners of an APS-C at f/1.8, and losing a stop on full frame corners at f/2.8 and above. Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Lens Vignetting Test Results

None that I know of, for FF SLR at least. There are some nice rangefinder options though, like the Leica 20mm f/1.4, which has even less aberration than the Canon 24mm f/1.4 (except for falloff).

Me too! That lens almost never leaves my camera, I love it.

Quick one, I tried a new Sigma 20mm f1.8 yesterday and it seemed much better wide open than older Sigma 20mm f1.8 lenses that I'd tested. Didn't have time for a full test but it may be worth checking out the latest version in case they have done something to improve it.

Dan

Jean Phillipe,
I tested the Sigma in a shoot out with the Canon 50mm 1.4 and the 17-55 f2.8, both of which I have. I was shooting photos and noticed that the sigma was nowhere near as sharp in comparison. And since it's not really wide enough, I decided to return it. I also bought the Tokina 11-16 f2.8, which is a real nice lens ( I had the 12-24 f 4 version originally).
The Canon 24mm f 1.4 sounds like a great lens, but way expensive. I'm going to check out the Sigma 20,, 1.8.
Bruce Yarock