Is Full frame still the most versatile?

Started Mar 31, 2013 | Discussions thread
Dennis Forum Pro • Posts: 18,609
Was it ever ?

zenpmd wrote:

Yes, they are big cameras, but with the constant apeture pro zoom lens they are (probably) the only lenses you will ever need. The DOF equivalent on, say, the new Tamron 2.8 24-70 will never happen on m4/3, since it would require an aperture of 1.4 throughout the zoom range, thats never going to happen!

I suppose its just a shame there is no a 2.8 constant zoom lens that extends to around 85mm on FF that allows for good portraits. 70 is too short.

Are you looking at working pros ?

Most people find iPhones much more versatile than FF bodies with 2 f/2.8 zooms.

I find my RX100 more versatile than my DX body with zooms.  The DSLR can "do" more when I have it, but the RX100 can do more by virtue of being with me more.

I agree on the 24-70/2.8 being too short (for my tastes).  I've found, after experimenting with lineups, that I prefer a slower 16-80/85 with fast primes for low light or shallow DOF, and a 70-200/2.8 when necessary.  I'd actually find the 70-200/2.8 a bit short on FF and would often use it with a 1.4X, and then would want a 24-120 to go with it, plus a couple fast primes.  With 24-70 and 70-200 I fear I'd be forever swapping lenses.

I think the 2-lens combo (24-70/70-200) works so well for wedding & event photographers and PJs because they use 2 bodies, one lens on each, so they the next best thing to continuous coverage.

None of that sounds versatile in any universal sense.  It is what it is - one of many formats, most popular with pros who are in a better position to spend the money and for who lugging the gear is part of the job.

- Dennis

-- hide signature --
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD Biggs23
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
MOD Biggs23
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow