Crop factor wins again

[gavinlg]

On m4/3, my cheap old thin Elmar 90/4 becomes a really excellent 180mm. It's so small that it draws no attention. A very different shooting experience. Don't knock it until you've tried it!

I posted a big thing on RFF a while ago - I tested the canon 35mm f1.4L, 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.8 on an e-p1 with an adapter. I took all the images off my flickr account but basically the lenses - the 35mm and 85mm in particular are fantastic performers on a 5d, but they sucked on an e-p1. Looking at comparison pictures between the same lens on the 5d and e-p1 it was pretty obvious that they were significantly less sharp at anything under f4, had worse bokeh, showed weird coma wide open and muted colors on the e-p1.

 

[ramosa]

Crop sensors make magic lenses average lenses.

Yea, the downside for me is that lenses have more DOF (when comparing identical fields of view) on cropped sensors :bang:

 

[rxmd]

For instance, the Pentax 31mm and 43mm are gorgeous on full frame (film) bodies, but average on crop bodies. The canon 35mm f1.4L is wonderful on a full frame body, but becomes a massive and average 50mm on a crop body. The zeiss ZM 35mm biogon is a great 35mm lens on an m9, but becomes a very large (almost) 50 on an m8.

Your argument basically boils down to "they're big". "Gorgeous" and "wonderful" and even "really really good" are no better than "magic".

On the other end, an already-useful 70-300L becomes an enormously useful 110-480 on a crop body, something any wildlife photographer will appreciate.

 

[rxmd]

I posted a big thing on RFF a while ago - I tested the canon 35mm f1.4L, 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.8 on an e-p1 with an adapter. I took all the images off my flickr account but basically the lenses - the 35mm and 85mm in particular are fantastic performers on a 5d, but they sucked on an e-p1. Looking at comparison pictures between the same lens on the 5d and e-p1 it was pretty obvious that they were significantly less sharp at anything under f4, had worse bokeh, showed weird coma wide open and muted colors on the e-p1.

Many of those amateur comparisons of expensive lenses etc. leave me unconvinced. Sharpness comparisons presuppose accurate focusing; colour comparisons say more about in-camera processing by different manufacturers than about lenses or sensors; the whole setup presupposes a certain rigour and lack of emotional investment on behalf of the person conducting the setup.

On a more fundamental level, when a lens exhibits different behaviour on sensor A and sensor B, the underlying reason probably isn't primarily the different size of those sensors.

The lack of communication between body and lens probably also plays a role, but that has nothing at all to do with crop factors, rather with using lenses on bodies by different manufacturers.

Related to that there is the other question how you stopped down the Canon lenses on the Micro 4/3 body in your "anything under f/4" comparison.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Love it for heavy game shooting. Birds, etc. with long lenses. 1.5x helps a lot.

35 f/2 is my normal. Would love a 28 f/2. My 50 f/1.4 or f/2 is a nice short portrait lens. No problems here with crop factor.

 

[LKeithR]

Crop factor has never been a really big issue for me. I mean, I understand what's happening, how the crop factor affects the use of a particular lens and everything but I really don't think about it. I shoot what I see in the viewfinder and, if using a prime, do just the same thing I did back when I shot film; reposition myself to achieve the framing I want. One of my favourite "alternate" lenses on my DSLRs right now is a plastic fantastic Cosina 100/3.5 macro which I got dirt cheap. It becomes a relatively long 150 on my K100D but it sure takes nice pictures.

I think the whole crop factor thing is like choosing cameras and lenses. There's no wrong or right, only different likes and dislikes. I'm not bothered by crop factor but if you're someone who has really embraced a particular lens and become comfortable with how it feels on film I can understand how crop factor could change how it works for you...

 

[peterm1]

It sounds as if you are a little like me. I prefer to shoot with slightly longer lenses. Too many people seem to be obsessed with wides and ultra wides and then never really use them all that well. (What DO you do with all that foreground and how DO you get over the fact that they are dreadful for shots involving humans unless you like your subjects to have big noses and round faces.) Besides I hate having to shove my camera into peoples' faces to get a street shot. Its the ultimate in rudeness and most street shots also end up looking more or less the same as a result.

So in short, crop factors work to my strengths and I am quite happy to go on using DX and similar cameras. (Having said that I would love an M9)

 

[gavinlg]

Related to that there is the other question how you stopped down the Canon lenses on the Micro 4/3 body in your "anything under f/4" comparison.

You mount the lens on a canon body, press the DOF preview button, and whilst holding it, unmount. The aperture you had selected on the body before you removed the lens remains set in the lens after you remove it.

 

[gavinlg]

Your argument basically boils down to "they're big". "Gorgeous" and "wonderful" and even "really really good" are no better than "magic".

Okay, how about this: When I use my Canon prime lenses on my canon full frame bodies, I really like the results I get. When I use those same prime lenses on a canon 1.6 crop body, I struggle to get results I like. Any softness and optical weaknesses of the lenses are magnified, literally.

When I use my Canon primes on m4/3, I basically can't get results that I like. So instead of using words to describe how the lenses change, I can just say instead that I vastly prefer to use the lenses on a full frame body, because it gives me better results than on a crop body.

To expand further, when using (say) the 35L on a crop body, it becomes more like a 50mm lens, except much larger than the usual 50mm lens. When shooting at f1.4, it's actually creating a depth of field more like f1.8-f2 on the full frame camera with a real 50mm lens, except that the real 50mm lens at f1.8-2 will be much sharper, smaller, probably have better bokeh because it's a longer focal length etc.

 

[LKeithR]

It sounds as if you are a little like me. I prefer to shoot with slightly longer lenses. Too many people seem to be obsessed with wides and ultra wides and then never really use them all that well. (What DO you do with all that foreground and how DO you get over the fact that they are dreadful for shots involving humans unless you like your subjects to have big noses and round faces.) Besides I hate having to shove my camera into peoples' faces to get a street shot. Its the ultimate in rudeness and most street shots also end up looking more or less the same as a result.

So in short, crop factors work to my strengths and I am quite happy to go on using DX and similar cameras. (Having said that I would love an M9)

Yeah, for whatever reason, I've never been a big fan of really wide lenses--on film I was quite happy with the look I got from a 50mm and with anything much wider I was always thinking my shots had a lot of empty space. And as for street, I'm a very timid street shooter so the "in your face" thing just doesn't work for me. I'm quite content to step back a bit and use a longer lens. In the end it's what the image looks like that matters, not how you shot it.

Here's an example of the kind of image I can capture with my previously mentioned 100mm lens on a 1.5 crop factor K20D. I don't see what I would have gained from a wider lens...