Is anyone totally happy with their lens combination for crop sensor?

[juans eye]

Tokina 11-16, EF-S 18-55 and EF 70-300.

 

I'd really like a decent prime for low light and an L lens to replace my kit lens and I'd be set.

 

/bing

[mwaks]

The invention of the 1.6 conversion has filled me with nothing but happiness. Nothing on this earth could please me more. I have no need for the readings of Ram Das or Deepak Chopra to lead me to a happy and content state of mind and it's all thanks to my 20 and 40D. Canon has taken me to the next plain of consciousness and focus.

[davyjo]

17-55mm IS, 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 105 Macro, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS, 300mm f/4 IS, 1.4X Extender.

 

Wish I could afford a longer and faster tele but I'm one happy camper. The 10-22mm is in my future.

[cameracorpus]

I am very happy with my 100-400L and 28-105. If I need more wide angle, which is rare, I break out a FF film body. I want to invest in a 10--22, but don't even see an immediate need. Most times, it is the 28-105 or the 100-400L.

[anesh]

I'm not happy. I have Canon 28-135, 100-400, 70-300, 50 f/1.8. Would have liked an IS L lens to cover a similar field the way the 24-105 does on a 5D.

[george_schafer]

I primarily do portraits, and for the longest time I shot with a crappy 28-90mm canon zoom lens (flexible, but terrible abberations!).

 

But I have a 50mm f/1.8 (which is 80mm on my crop sensor) which takes excellent portraits! Once I got over the fact that it didn't have to do everything, I was able to really appreciate the glass.

 

I'm hoping to get either the Canon L 30-70mm or the Tamron 35-75mm (not sure about the actual focal lengths) because I'm used to working with longer lenses by default, so they'll seem nice and wide to me. Since I mostly do portraits anyway, longer is better.

 

I'm considering upgrading my Rebel XT to the 40D or 50D. I love my crop sensor!

[matthijs]

I'm totally happy with my 50/1.8 and 70-200/4L IS.

 

I'm saving for a 17-40/4L to make it complete.

 

For my current style of shooting that would be perfect. When my style changes my wishes will change.

 

(Though I must say that the 50D looks better every day, gotta start saving more money...)

 

Matthijs.

[anthony_hicks]

I don't mind 1.6x crop because I'm not a big wideangle user. But I will only be happy when Canon makes a really

good 28mm prime which I can use as a 'standard' lens (not EF-S - I like the flexibility of being able to use my lenses

on my film camera too). A future Zeiss ZE 28mm would do the job nicely.

[Mike_R1664876643]

I have the Tokina 12-24, Nikon 35 f2.0, Niikon 18-70, and Nikon 80-200 f2.8. Now that I've gotten used to these lenses on my D80 I really don't think much about it. With the Tokina I can go wider now than I ever could with film, when my widest lens was the 24mm that I recently sold.

[erikhaugsby]

I wish my 70-200 could go a little wider--the gap between 70mm and 112mm-e would be ridiculously nice to have. That and I'd like my 17-40 to be able to shoot wider than 28mm-e.

[lahuasteca]

No, I'm not. I'm a Nikon user, first D70s then D80. I have struggled, particularly on the wide angle. 16 mm on

crop sensor to equal 24 mm on my film Nikons just doesn't cut it - perspective distortion and field curvature.

For lack of $$$$ for a D700, I find myself going back to slide film and FE2 for a lot of wide angle shots.

 

Second major league gripe about crop sensor is the viewfinder. For composition and manual focus it is not in the

same league as the full frame viewfinders.

 

A third criticism, and this is very subjective, is subject isolation. I guess this may be a function of smaller

depth of field, but objects, be they people, trees, landforms, or whatever seem to pop more on slide film shot on

the film camera than with the D70s/D80.

 

Guess I better give up lunch for a year to save for a D700.

[danny d]

I just wish canon made a 50-150 2.8 efs I am happy with the tele, but it is rather slow..

 

zooms:10-22 efs, 17-85 efs, 55-250 efs

Primes: 30mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8

[wentbackward]

Not happy with wide and standard lenses. Switched to full frame and now much happier, back to the old 35mm days.

[Davide Baroni]

Well, yes, pretty much happy, thank you. :-)

I'm a Nikon user, and I got 12-24, 18-70 (which I will change as soon as there will be a new 24-70 that costs less than a thousand euros... or I find a 2nd hand 28-70 2.8 for half that price), 80-200 2.8 and 300 f/4. I'm using 'em on a D70s, and next week I'll get my hands on a "new" second hand D2x.

And I'll be even happier. :-D

Davide

[nhut-nguyen]

I sometimes wish my 24-70 is a bit wider on my 40D, but when I use my 400mm it's equivalent to 640, you loose one thing and gain another. Full frame has its advantage, but I shoot mainly birds so the extra reach is always welcome.

[mickeyess]

I am fairly pleased. I have the 40D with the EF-S 10-22 USM (love this lens) for the wide end, an EF 28-135 IS USM for walking around, and an EF 70-200 f4L IS USM for the long shots. Thinking about the EF 24-70 f2.8L USM for a new walking around lens.

[bjscharp]

For (short) tele, crop sensor is actually more attractive. The 50mm 1.8 is a lot cheaper than the 85mm 1.8, 100mm macro is less than half of the 180mm macro (and faster, and lighter, and better AF), the 135mm F2 is one-fifth of the price of the 200mm F2, the 200mm f2.8 is one-sixth of the 300mm f2.8, the list goes on. Do I need to compare the 800mm 5.6 to the 1200mm f5.6?

 

It's only at the wide end you run in to problems, but with the 10-22mm even that is pretty much solved.

 

FF has its merits, but lens choice isn't one of them anymore I think.

[obakesan]

Hi

<P>

not really. After years of 35mm usage I was totally happy with:

 

<UL>

<LI> TS-E 24mm </LI>

<LI> EF 24mm f 2.8</LI>

<LI> 50mm f1.8 </LI>

<LI> 35-70 zoom </LI>

<LI> TS-E 90 </LI>

</UL>

<p>

but none of this seemed right on my first DSLR (a 20D). I bought a 18-55 kit lens for the 20D and wasn't really

happy with that either. Not wanting to spend another few thousand (this is no longer my profession so its not

earning me money anymore)

<P>

I could see that the 20D gave me images which were very close to 35mm film, but my lenses did not 'fit' their

intended design "angle of view" anymore. Since I also have 4x5 I sold the TS-E lenses as I had given up waiting

(for years for the affordable?) full frame to arrive in the guise of the 5D I found that I still needed to spend

another few more grand on top of what the 20D was worth (back then).

<P>

Since then I just haven't been happy with SLR. I might be telling a different story if I was a "soccer dad" and

used the APS cameras for telephoto (and EOS's fine USM zooms), but I'm not.

<P>

My 630 with a 50mm and a 24 (either of them) made a fine travel camera too. Hiking around asia or the bush in

Australia. A 20D with (I've now bought to try it) a 12-24 is nice for wides, but its heavier and bulkier than my

35mm "full frame" and 2 lenses. Meantime I carry a folding 6x9 film camera (for quality) and a compact digital

for everything else.

<P>

I'm waiting to see what micro 4/3's will offer.

[bjscharp]

If you have a lot of EOS film lenses, the crop factor can indeed be a PITA, but most of your lenses, except maybe for

the TS-E material, can be had in EF-S equivalents now, or were already available

 

EF 24 -> EF 14mm, or any of the 17-xx zooms

EF 50mm -> EF 28mm 1.8 (or the excellent Sigma 30mm)

35-70 zoom -> any of the 17-55 zooms

TS-E 90mm -> TS-E 45 mm?

 

You'll have to buy again, that's true. But the choice is there if you look.

 

(which is not to say that for my landscapes, I wouldn't rather use my EOS 30 with a 17-40, but that's not the

discussion here :-) )

[bjscharp]

As I said in my previous post, the step to a crop sensor when you have a lot of film/FF lenses is quite similar to that

of switching brands, and having a lot of film lenses can be an important factor to get a FF digital.

 

The question posted in the title however, is if anyone is happy with their crop lenses.

 

Having made the switch to Canon with a crop sensor coming from an old manual film body with Pentax mount, I had

no `old' lenses I had to find a use for. I have based much of my lens choices around the crop sensor, and am quite

happy with it. Like you, I didn't much like the wide offerings, and didn't relish the though of running out of batteries in

the middle of nowhere while backpacking, and got a second hand film EOS together with a 17-40 (and the 50mm 1.8

I already had),. Between the two, the only reason I see to get more lenses right now is to satisfy my gear-lust and

RRS

 

So I think the answer to the title question really depends on your situation. If you started Canon with a crop sensor,

or with hardly any lenses, there is very little difference between FF and APS-C. Some things may not be available,

and some things might be more expensive, but as I lined out in my earlier post, it also goes the other way. If you use

FF, there is no possibility to get a 300mm f2.0, 500mm f2.8, or a 150mm TS lens. With crop body, there is (200mm

F2.0, 300mm f2.8, TS-E 90mm). A sharp, f2.8 standard zoom with IS? EF-S has it, FF doesn't, etc

 

There is no absolute match between the two collections, but the same goes when comparing 35mm and MF, for

example. I think each format should be judged on its own merits, and by now, APS-C has enough to hold its own

quite well I think.

 

Going from FF to APS-C is best compared to going from Nikon to Canon, or something like that. You can get most

of what you were used to, but it'll be an investment, and will take some getting used to. If it's worth the price of a 5D

mkII, only you can decide.

[obakesan]

Yakim

 

I'm interested to know what features it might be? Is it the frame rate?

[yakim_peled1]

More AF points.

 

More cross-type AF points.

 

Grip has a joystick to move the AF points (I sold my BG-E2 N just because it lacked one).

 

Auto ISO has better implementation.

 

 

Spot metering can be attached to the active AF point.

 

EC is not limited to 2 stops. While in most cases it's enough, I had encountered times when I wished for more.

 

Higher FPS. While I don't use it much, when I do I wish it to be as high as possible.

 

D700: I can have FF with build in flash. While I don't use it much, I did encounter times when it was useful.

 

D700: I can have a virtual horizon. This could be useful to my landscape shots.

 

System: I can mount a macro lens with VR.

 

System: I can mount a relatively cheap 200/2 VR.

 

 

 

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[yakim_peled1]

Rephrasing earlier post.

 

>> D700 $3000 @12MP, 5D2 $2700 @ 21MP. that should be a no brainer decision :-)

 

Only if MP count is all that matters to you. As it does not for me, I plan to sell two L lenses and buy a Nikon body. I am willing to accept D300 or D700 but not 5D. I also have no interest in 5D Mk II. Why? Because 12MP is more than enough for me and for all other parameters, only the Nikons have the features I want.

 

BTW, I don't plan to move. I plan to have both systems.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[photo_dark]

To answer the OP.... no i'm not really happy with my lens combo, but I purposely bought my combination knowing that I would be going full frame once the 5Dmkii came out (17-40L, 24-70L, 70-200L). It seems to me that there are comparable lenses to match the 'big three' focal ranges for 1.6 cameras (10-22, 17-55 f2.8, 70-200). If you don't mind the 55-70 gap, it's pretty comprehensive I think.

 

Maybe the bigger issue is the depth of field difference between the same focal lengths on 1.6 vs. FF cameras.

[photohns]

Although I'm an armchair/internet "photographer" and don't know much, I just started this post to see if people are happy yes/no with their lens selection for aps cameras. Some like primes, some like zooms, I don't see how that affects what kind of photographer you are. People aren't concerned what kind of brush someone used to paint a favorite painting. Equipment is just equipment, it will just sit there if no one uses it.

Thanks to all who answered, I found it interesting.