Crop factor lens investment - DPChallenge Forums

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

06/13/2008 06:00:26 PM · #1

When I first got my D300, I was... reluctant to buy into the "invest in lenses" philosophy. Maybe I still am, a D300 is an expensive and very nice beast, I cannot see replacing it any time soon.

Anyway, the D300 obviously being a cropped sensor, gives me two options, full-frame and cropped-frame lenses. As time passes the prices for full-frame cameras is dropping, eventually it will be the norm. If I invest in cropped-frame sensors I may lose that investment once they become obsolete. So full-frame lenses seem like a much better investment.

I am looking at purchasing the new Sigma 4.5mm fisheye, made specifically for cropped frame sensors. It provides a true 180 degree edge to edge circular image. It costs, $900. Which is a lot to me for a single purchase. It would seem like less, if I knew I would still be using it in 5 years, however being for cropped sensors its value may really decline within just a couple years.

However, no one makes a full frame lens that can provide 180 degree view on a cropped sensor.

What to do, what to do?!

slickchik

OM System OM-1

06/13/2008 06:04:14 PM · #2

I thought the same thing about the Canon 10-22mm...it is for 1.6 crop sensors only. BUT, the time spent using this lens and the images I can get from it make it a worthwhile investment. It is a wonderful lens.

I'd bet you will enjoy that 4.5mm fisheye immensely and the pleasure you would get out of it would be worth the money.

Buy it and enjoy it and don't look back...

kawesttex

Apple iPhone 11 Pro

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/13/2008 06:08:44 PM · #3

And don't forget that even if the full-frame cameras become the norm (for folks like us), the cropped sensors become the P&Ss. The problem now is figuring out if the lense will hold it's value as the Canon 10-22 does!

Message edited by author 2008-06-13 18:09:41.

Tycho

Nikon D70

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

06/13/2008 06:35:39 PM · #4

Originally posted by togtog:

As time passes the prices for full-frame cameras is dropping, eventually it will be the norm.

Non sequitur.

Originally posted by togtog:

What to do, what to do?!

Actually, it's quite easy for one to overcome the gear-lust and be rational about how to spend one's money. Having said that, however, I go "F*** being rational" and indulge myself every now and then, too. No regrets so far.

cdrice

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

06/13/2008 07:11:49 PM · #5

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the DX lenses would still work on a FF DSLR, albeit with a reduction in resolution. As I recall, some models with auto-detect a DX lens and adjust for it, other models need the user to select a menu option. Am I smoking crack, or do I remember that correctly?

If so, I wouldn't think DX lenses will ever be "obsolete" -- although they might not be as popular and/or hold their resale value down the road. Personally, I don't care about resale value and such, because I hardly expect I'm going to be selling any of my crap -- I'll find some use for it myself. ;)

I like

kawesttex's point, too, though -- even if FF DSLRs become the norm, a cropped frame DSLR will still make a great P&S or backup/second body as well, so even if a DX lens wouldn't work on a FF camera, it could still work on your backup body.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

06/13/2008 11:00:07 PM · #6

The APS-C format is here to stay. Not everyone wants or needs a larger format. If you move to 35mm, there will be ample market for *good* APS-C lenses. As a rule, you'll lose a greater percentage of your purchase price on most third-party lenses, and on consumer-grade lenses made by your camera manufacturer.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

06/13/2008 11:09:23 PM · #7

Awesome advice guys, thank you so much. The lens is probably #12 on my purchase list but I'll get there. So much crap to buy, lol... and I thought the Jr. Meth Lab was costly and complicated, ahhh childhood, I miss those times.

God I want that lens. Hehehe.

Now correct me if I am wrong to copy cdrice, but I've heard that circular fisheyes do not work for like QTVR, I assume a rectangular lens is required for that of some sort. Not that I have strong intentions to do that, just wondering.

Mick

Canon EOS-5D

06/13/2008 11:17:41 PM · #8

Originally posted by kirbic:

The APS-C format is here to stay.

That sounds a lot like, "Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM." :)

I think it will be replaced in a few years. Nothing lasts forever.

chungeez

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/13/2008 11:25:32 PM · #9

Originally posted by cdrice:

when lenses are made for aps-c sensors, they take shortcuts, including only providing for an image that covers the smaller sensor and modifying the mount to take advantage of aps-c dimensions. if it mounts on a full-frame, at the very least, you'll have severe vignetting, and will have to crop all your images down. no point in using it on a ff. just hold on to your aps-c camera.

having said that, i agree with others who say go ahead and splurge on it. you will get plenty of use out of it before you go on to a full frame.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

06/13/2008 11:33:28 PM · #10

I'm not sure if it is ideal for this and it is a very specific use, but a few nights ago, we had a large amount of rooster tail lighting all around my home, with very little rain. I was forced to pick only one direction to shoot in, making me miss 3/4 of the lightning. Since this fisheye is 180 degrees, I could aim it straight up and get the entire sky couldn't I? I wouldn't have missed anything would I have?

Fear my mad grammar skillz!

Mick

Canon EOS-5D

06/13/2008 11:40:11 PM · #11

Originally posted by togtog:

Maybe, but the lightning could hit you from 360 degrees. :)