Has anyone here stayed with crop frame because of the Sigma 18-35mm?

Started Jan 21, 2014 | Discussions thread
brightcolours Forum Pro • Posts: 15,624
Re: Has anyone here stayed with crop frame because of the Sigma 18-35mm?

davel33 wrote:

I stay with a crop for the 18-35 and I feel no reason to jump to FF. I do events and have NEVER had a client that was not thrilled with end product, not one. I have never seen anyone outside of this field that could tell the difference between crop and FF or cared (yes there are some). No matter what some of the people will say FF is more money. I can use my Sigma 50-150 2.8 OS for less then half the money as 70-200 II and its sharper** on my 70D. So for me I will stay with my 70D for at least 3 years then see where the market is.

f2.8 x 1.6 = f4.48. On FF the 70-200mm f4 L IS USM would be faster even, a better comparison. Way less heavy, that FF combination

Also the equivalence idea is a bit over done, yea the 24-70 will cover the same range+ and have the same DOF but its still just about 1.5 stops slower which negates much of the 2 stops advantage the 6D has. The 18-35 is a 1.8 Tstops while the 24-70II is 3 Tstops**.

It is not an idea, it is a sound theory. And yes, if you want similar exposure times you have to use equivalent ISO settings too. Then noise won't be a lot different. So, with equivalent lenses FF does not have a big advantage, usually (except in above example, where the FF 70-200mm f4 is a lot less heavy).

Where FF does shine, is the ability to use bigger apertures (so: more shallow DOF). When one does not want/need that, APS-C is a good choice too. So, sure, stay with APS-C and the 18-35mm f1.8 Sigma. Nothing wrong with that!

BTW, I doubt that T1.8 on an f1.8 lens is possible. 17 elements, 12 groups, and no loss of light? Can pigs fly?


**data from DXO mark

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