Crop factor and zoom lens and other stuff.

[jmorgan]

OK, reading the threads on peoples wants in the zoom department and I am in the same boat though don't want to muddy the waters. With the crop factor of 1.6, I supposedly get 480mm out of my 70-300, unless I buy a Canon lens with the EF-S, as I have with my wide angle.

So my 28-135 is really a 44-216.
70-300 is a 112-480

What am I missing here? Seems too easy.

But my EF-S 10-22 is a tad over according to some blurb but near enough.

I am in a bit of a pickle as I seem to be at odds with the coverage and usability that I really want. The 70-300 is a sigma and quite frankly not too easy and hopeless, on full zoom off a tripod no good unless it is very bright and passable on but not quite. If I get x-200 then that might be OK at 320 for the crop factor. What have I cocked up here.

e.g. some city shots, the wide angle certainly but the 28-135 seems out of sorts. Not sure about the longer zoom. Out in the countryside other priorities are in place.

Not sure what I want here.

[Mr Will]

jmorgan said:

So my 28-135 is really a 44-216.
70-300 is a 112-480

You seem very confused, and I'm not quite sure what you are asking.

You are correct about your crop factor though, it is 1.6 which means you multiply the effective focal length of all lenses (EF or EF-S) by 1.6.

Your 28-135 is a 44-216, 70-300 is a 112-480 and your 10-20 is a 16-32.

Are you looking for a better telephoto lens to replace the 70-300? If so, the EF-S 55-250mm is highly rated and worth a look.

If you are finding your 28-135 odd, that's because its a focal length range designed for full frame, where is goes from wide to short telephoto as a general purpose lens. On your camera it goes from normal to telephoto, which is an odd combination to work with. Something like the EF-S 17-85mm lens (27-136mm effective) will do this job better on your body.

Does this clear things up at all?

[Simpo Two]

It may help if you think in terms of angle of view rather than focal length. The longer the lens, the smaller the section of the vista in front of you is being photographed.

If you're suffering from camera shake that's another issue.

[jmorgan]

Not sure where I am, so yes, confused. Typically wandering around so scenery, wildlife and cities rather than sport.

The EF-S 11-22 is as I understand it meant for the cropped sensor so not multiplied by 1.6 though it is slight bigger in reality? Love this lens either way. Keeping it.

I think the mistake I have made is the 28-135, it is USM and IS and very nice though but it seems a faff to get that off for the 300 that is pants at 300 when it overlaps the 135 (crop size in consideration). I could use that (28-135) as a trade in in the right place I suppose. The zoom, I was thinking of something for a full frame but up to 200 (relying on the crop factor) and getting a better one but end up overlapping the 28-135. I have not been thinking when buying the lens so in a bit of a mish mash. I might upgrade the body at a later date so should stick to EF.


Going back to the drawing board. I still have the kit lens that came with it.


Sod it, my brain cell just imploded again.

On the other hand, why not upgrade to a full frame, got to be some decent ones second hand..... sod it, bought the EF-S... lot of loot to boot.

[jmorgan]

Simpo Two said:

It may help if you think in terms of angle of view rather than focal length. The longer the lens, the smaller the section of the vista in front of you is being photographed.

If you're suffering from camera shake that's another issue.

Yeah, OK with that, angle of view. Still learning about apertures and how they work into the equation, if I want a bit of depth of field with the sigma then it is awkward unless it is a very bright day.

[Simpo Two]

jmorgan said:

The EF-S 11-22 is as I understand it meant for the cropped sensor so not multiplied by 1.6 though

Bingo; this is your confusion.

A lens designed for a crop sensor does not project a large enough image to cover a full frame sensor. That is all; it is nothing to do with focal length. A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens whether it is designed for full frame or crop. The DIFFERENCE is that on a crop sensor it will APPEAR to be 80mm because the edges of the image are cropped.

jmorgan said:

Yeah, OK with that, angle of view. Still learning about apertures and how they work into the equation, if I want a bit of depth of field with the sigma then it is awkward unless it is a very bright day.

Telephoto lenses don't really do depth of field, true. If you need, say, f16 to get the DOF you want, and that drops your shutter speed below what you can hand hold, either support the camera somehow or increase ISO to get the shutter speed back up. With care you should be able to hand hold 1/250th at 300mm.

[Mr Will]

jmorgan said:

The EF-S 11-22 is as I understand it meant for the cropped sensor so not multiplied by 1.6 though it is slight bigger in reality? Love this lens either way. Keeping it.

Wrong, the focal length is still multiplied - it's effectively 18-35mm on your camera.

jmorgan said:

I might upgrade the body at a later date so should stick to EF.

On the other hand, why not upgrade to a full frame, got to be some decent ones second hand..... sod it, bought the EF-S... lot of loot to boot.

EF-S lenses are smaller, lighter, cheaper, often better quality and better suited to your camera. You'd be foolish to rule them out based only on a possible future upgrade. Buy them second hand and you won't lose much reselling them anyway.

jmorgan said:

I think the mistake I have made is the 28-135, it is USM and IS and very nice though but it seems a faff to get that off for the 300 that is pants at 300 when it overlaps the 135 (crop size in consideration). I could use that (28-135) as a trade in in the right place I suppose. The zoom, I was thinking of something for a full frame but up to 200 (relying on the crop factor) and getting a better one but end up overlapping the 28-135. I have not been thinking when buying the lens so in a bit of a mish mash.

I think your mistake is that you seem to be picking lenses pretty much at random rather than for a specific purpose. Slow down for a moment and consider what you want to photograph.

Here are are few typical recommendations to get you started:

Subject	Effective Focal Length (FF)	True Focal Length (on Crop)
Landscape/Architecture	16-35mm	10-22mm
Street scenes/groups of people	28-50mm	17.5-31mm
Portraits	50-135mm	31-85
Sports/Animals	200+mm	125+mm
Birds/Aircraft/Motorsport	300+mm	187mm

This should also give you a clue why swapping in a hurry shouldn't be needed. If you are wandering around a city you aren't likely to need 300mm. If you're out stalking wildlife then you should have your telephoto on from the beginning.

[jmorgan]

Mr Will said:

I think your mistake is that you seem to be picking lenses pretty much at random rather than for a specific purpose. Slow down for a moment and consider what you want to photograph.

Nail on the head there I think. OK, have the wide angle. Want a general walk around and a zoom for wildlife. Though I have had the two (apart from the wide) for some time and it is getting to me that I have made a mistake somewhere.


OK, rethink time and take a step back before I chuck some loot at something.

[Mr Will]

jmorgan said:

Mr Will said:

I think your mistake is that you seem to be picking lenses pretty much at random rather than for a specific purpose. Slow down for a moment and consider what you want to photograph.

Nail on the head there I think. OK, have the wide angle. Want a general walk around and a zoom for wildlife. Though I have had the two (apart from the wide) for some time and it is getting to me that I have made a mistake somewhere.

OK, rethink time and take a step back before I chuck some loot at something.

I think the walk-about lens is your big problem - you've effectively got two telephotos (one long, one short) and a wide-angle. There is nothing covering the 28-50mm section of my chart and a big overlap in purpose between two of your lenses.

Sell the 28-135mm and replace it with an EF-S 17-85mm or similar. This will cover most normal shooting comfortably, leaving your wide-angle and telephoto to do their respective jobs.

Once that's done, start looking at what you want to do next - most likely replacing the 70-300mm with something of higher quality.

[jmorgan]

At the back of my mind is losing the 28-135 but its such a nice lens and streets ahead of the 70-300 (its got to go really). Could stretch to the both gone at the same time..... need some thinking time on this but the crop factors, if I get the EF-S then not such an issue, thing that also got me tied up in knots was thinking of getting a good sommit-200 in a non EF-S and using the crop to my advantage. Digging deeper here ain't I?

[LeighW]

I have a Sigma 10-20, Canon 15-85, Canon 55-250 and Canon 50mm 1.8, which without spending ££££ cover most situations nicely. I may swap the 50mm for a 35mm at some point though as it's a bit long for a crop body.

[Simpo Two]

Mr Will said:

Here are are few typical recommendations to get you started:

Subject	Effective Focal Length (FF)	True Focal Length (on Crop)
Landscape/Architecture	16-35mm	10-22mm
Street scenes/groups of people	28-50mm	17.5-31mm
Portraits	50-135mm	31-85
Sports/Animals	200+mm	125+mm
Birds/Aircraft/Motorsport	300+mm	187mm

I've read that twice...

Should your column headings not be 'True Focal Length (FF)' and 'Effective Focal Length (on crop)'?

And then swap the numbers over.

[Mr Will]

jmorgan said:

At the back of my mind is losing the 28-135 but its such a nice lens and streets ahead of the 70-300 (its got to go really). Could stretch to the both gone at the same time..... need some thinking time on this but the crop factors, if I get the EF-S then not such an issue, thing that also got me tied up in knots was thinking of getting a good sommit-200 in a non EF-S and using the crop to my advantage. Digging deeper here ain't I?

The 28-135 is the cheapest FF normal zoom that Canon make - it's nice but not amazing. If you were talking a 24-105mm L then it might be a different matter but there are plenty of EF-S lenses of an equivalent quality to what you have.

Playing the crop factor to your advantage at the long end does work but don't do it purely with a view to a future upgrade. If you go full frame then you are likely to want something longer than 200mm anyway.

The other things to bear in mind are portability and cost. EF-S lenses are smaller, lighter and cheaper than their EF equivalents. While this is unlikely to be your number one priority there is no point lugging around something more cumbersome than you need.

If I were you?

This: http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equipment/us...

Plus this: http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equipment/us...

would sort you out pretty much immediately for very little cash. They'll even take your old lenses in trade-in, which should cover the majority of the cost.

There are higher quality options if you want to spend four times the amount but both of these will be in improvement over what you are already using so I'd save the top-end options for later.

[Mr Will]

Simpo Two said:

Mr Will said:

Here are are few typical recommendations to get you started:

Subject	Effective Focal Length (FF)	True Focal Length (on Crop)
Landscape/Architecture	16-35mm	10-22mm
Street scenes/groups of people	28-50mm	17.5-31mm
Portraits	50-135mm	31-85
Sports/Animals	200+mm	125+mm
Birds/Aircraft/Motorsport	300+mm	187mm

I've read that twice...

Should your column headings not be 'True Focal Length (FF)' and 'Effective Focal Length (on crop)'?

And then swap the numbers over.

I wrote those headings several times and couldn't come up with a snappy heading that wasn't possible to misinterpret.

Probably should be "35mm Equivalent Focal Length" and "True Focal Length Required on Canon APS-C" or something like that. But that was too long...

[upsidedownmark]

jmorgan said:

At the back of my mind is losing the 28-135 but its such a nice lens and streets ahead of the 70-300 (its got to go really). Could stretch to the both gone at the same time..... need some thinking time on this but the crop factors, if I get the EF-S then not such an issue, thing that also got me tied up in knots was thinking of getting a good sommit-200 in a non EF-S and using the crop to my advantage. Digging deeper here ain't I?

Just got to jump on something here - what specifically about the 70-300 is hopeless? It's pretty much *the* standard 'kit' tele-zoom. Buy a camera, it comes with a 18-55 kit, add a 70-300.

The DOF will be the same with the 70-300 at f/8 as it would be on a 300mm/2.8 at f/8 - as will the shutter speed. 'Fast' glass will focus quicker (generally), but all the other factors with shutter speed, DOF and hand holding will be the same. The more expensive lens will probably be a bit sharper, but big, fast glass introduces it's own problems - weight and minimal DOF wide open. That's not to say the 70-300 is perfect, but everything is a compromise.

If you need more shutter speed to hand hold, start with upping the iso.

[Mr Will]

upsidedownmark said:

jmorgan said:

At the back of my mind is losing the 28-135 but its such a nice lens and streets ahead of the 70-300 (its got to go really). Could stretch to the both gone at the same time..... need some thinking time on this but the crop factors, if I get the EF-S then not such an issue, thing that also got me tied up in knots was thinking of getting a good sommit-200 in a non EF-S and using the crop to my advantage. Digging deeper here ain't I?

Just got to jump on something here - what specifically about the 70-300 is hopeless? It's pretty much *the* standard 'kit' tele-zoom. Buy a camera, it comes with a 18-55 kit, add a 70-300.

The DOF will be the same with the 70-300 at f/8 as it would be on a 300mm/2.8 at f/8 - as will the shutter speed. 'Fast' glass will focus quicker (generally), but all the other factors with shutter speed, DOF and hand holding will be the same. The more expensive lens will probably be a bit sharper, but big, fast glass introduces it's own problems - weight and minimal DOF wide open. That's not to say the 70-300 is perfect, but everything is a compromise.

If you need more shutter speed to hand hold, start with upping the iso.

IIRC there is a 70-300mm and a 70-300mm IS which are substantially different; the IS lens being a decent entry level option and the non-IS version being cheap and a bit pants. Might be wrong on that though.

[jmorgan]

Mr Will said:

The 28-135 is the cheapest FF normal zoom that Canon make - it's nice but not amazing.

I am reading the rest. You have to bear in mind what I have had experience with, so for me at my level, this is good, I have not experienced the rest out there. All meant in the nicest possible way

But if it was cheap, it took a thick wedge of loot to buy a few years ago. It is IS and USM.

upsidedownmark said:

Just got to jump on something here - what specifically about the 70-300 is hopeless? It's pretty much *the* standard 'kit' tele-zoom. Buy a camera, it comes with a 18-55 kit, add a 70-300.

Seems very soft or out of focus on full zoom. Detail not there. Now maybe I am expecting too much, should look through somewhere like flickr to see a comparison. I appreciate the cheaper lenses will be slower, and as it can take other lenses I wanted to try stuff out. Maybe I am expecting too much.

[flat-planedCrank]

Mr Will said:

IIRC there is a 70-300mm and a 70-300mm IS which are substantially different; the IS lens being a decent entry level option and the non-IS version being cheap and a bit pants. Might be wrong on that though.

Yep, the 70-300 IS is decent for the money, there is a new 70-300 L for a bunch more too

For less £, have you looked at the EF-S 55-250?

[Simpo Two]

jmorgan said:

Seems very soft or out of focus on full zoom. Detail not there. Now maybe I am expecting too much, should look through somewhere like flickr to see a comparison. I appreciate the cheaper lenses will be slower, and as it can take other lenses I wanted to try stuff out. Maybe I am expecting too much.

You earlier implied it was a depth of field issue. Examples would help us sort it out. What do you mean by 'slower' - smaller max aperture?

[Mr Snap]

To be honest, JP. It sounds like you need a course about basic photography from an experienced photographer/photography teacher.

You need to learn how to get the best out of a camera with the lenses you have.

Few pro's walk about with a vast selection of lenses. First they decide what they want to achieve and then they select the appropriate equipment for the task.
Stop trying to shoot everything that moves. Concentrate on one or two subjects and work them hard with the equipment you have. Learn to walk past subjects you can't handle. You'll learn more about photography this way.

You'll never have all the equipment you need to take every photograph you "see", so learn to make the best of what you have and don't get pulled in to the never ending chase for better equipment. Don't let the camera makers suck you in.