Reading mode: Light Dark

What are the benefits to Landscape on FF over crop?

Go to last post
R

Rakumi

Veteran Member
Messages
6,448
Reaction score
105
Location
US
I just purchased a 6d2 and the widest FF lens I have is my 24-105mm f4L (which I had way before the 6d2). Before the 6d2, my setup was the 60D (which I still own) and my landscape setup was the Sigma 8-16mm lens. I can spend on say a 17-40mm L lens right now. I know my 6D2 offers major benefits in low light and also has a shallower depth of field for portraits but under a controlled situation for landscape (tripod, slow shutter if needed, stopping down to f9-11, etc), will there be a difference for FF VS CROP?
 
Welcome to Full Frame Land.

24 mm is pretty wide on a full frame, and you may well be happy with that. If you go wider, consider stretching the budget to the 16-35 f/4 L. It's a lot newer than the 17-40 and one of Canon's best lenses. I have one, and I'm in love with it.
 
I guess what I would like to know is would I be fine with my Sigma on the 60D, would it match the image quality of my FF when it comes to landscape? Not only do I not have the budget for a new lens right now, but even when I do it would not be a super expensive L lens or at best the more affordable 17-40mm. But even then, my Sigma is equal to 13mm on the 60D when converted to FF equivalent. I wont be anywhere close to that with the FF so if the IQ is about the same, I will just continue using my 60D for extreme landscape photography.
 
+1
 
Rakumi said:
I guess what I would like to know is would I be fine with my Sigma on the 60D, would it match the image quality of my FF when it comes to landscape? Not only do I not have the budget for a new lens right now, but even when I do it would not be a super expensive L lens or at best the more affordable 17-40mm. But even then, my Sigma is equal to 13mm on the 60D when converted to FF equivalent. I wont be anywhere close to that with the FF so if the IQ is about the same, I will just continue using my 60D for extreme landscape photography.
Click to expand...
It's always difficult to answer this kind of question without it seeming like a put-down, but the unhappy truth is that it's not worth switching to full frame unless you also have the budget for lenses. That said, you can't buy everything at once and the solution is often patience - wait until you have the funds for the right lens, which is undoubtedly the 16-35/4L IS. Buying the 17-40 would be a mistake in my opinion, unless you can find a very good used example for the right price. This is not to save money as such - it's so you can get most if not all of it back when you have the funds for the 16-35.

Regarding the extra FoV that you get with the Sigma - I don't think there is any full frame lens to match it*, though maybe there will be an RF 14-XX or 12-XX in the next year or two and when it comes it will very likely blow everything else out of the water! So start saving now!!

*Edit - from Canon that is. I assume you must have already discounted the non-Art Sigma 12-24, which is still available I believe?

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevebalcombe/
 
Last edited:
Although you could get more dynamic range and cleaner files on an FF, you had an excellent 8-16 lens, it's just slow. If you got an 11-24 f4 or Sigma 12-24 f4 Art you'd end up getting two stops more light but spend a lot more money for a similar quality of lens. The 17-40 is not in the same league as what you have, the IQ is outdated.

There are two older 12-24 Sigmas, not nearly as good on the edges but far cheaper.
 
Last edited:
Steve Balcombe said:
Rakumi said:
I guess what I would like to know is would I be fine with my Sigma on the 60D, would it match the image quality of my FF when it comes to landscape? Not only do I not have the budget for a new lens right now, but even when I do it would not be a super expensive L lens or at best the more affordable 17-40mm. But even then, my Sigma is equal to 13mm on the 60D when converted to FF equivalent. I wont be anywhere close to that with the FF so if the IQ is about the same, I will just continue using my 60D for extreme landscape photography.
Click to expand...
It's always difficult to answer this kind of question without it seeming like a put-down, but the unhappy truth is that it's not worth switching to full frame unless you also have the budget for lenses. That said, you can't buy everything at once and the solution is often patience - wait until you have the funds for the right lens, which is undoubtedly the 16-35/4L IS. Buying the 17-40 would be a mistake in my opinion, unless you can find a very good used example for the right price. This is not to save money as such - it's so you can get most if not all of it back when you have the funds for the 16-35.

Regarding the extra FoV that you get with the Sigma - I don't think there is any full frame lens to match it*, though maybe there will be an RF 14-XX or 12-XX in the next year or two and when it comes it will very likely blow everything else out of the water! So start saving now!!

*Edit - from Canon that is. I assume you must have already discounted the non-Art Sigma 12-24, which is still available I believe?
Click to expand...
I actually did not know about that Sigma lens, I am pretty out of the loop. But that lens is even more expensive. I guess I will just make due with my Sigma 8-16mm on the 60D. And as far as my lens line up, I had a mix of EF and EFS lenses. Most of my lenses are for FF but never had a wide angle for FF because it made no sense since I did not have a FF camera at the time and EFS type was wider for crop. The Sigma I own is just for crop. I guess I will just stick with it for landscape.
 
fishy wishy said:
Although you could get more dynamic range and cleaner files on an FF, you had an excellent 8-16 lens, it's just slow. If you got an 11-24 f4 or Sigma 12-24 f4 Art you'd end up getting two stops more light but spend a lot more money for a similar quality of lens. The 17-40 is not in the same league as what you have, the IQ is outdated.

There are two older 12-24 Sigmas, not nearly as good on the edges but far cheaper.
Click to expand...
So I guess I will just work with what I have. It is a great lens and if the benefit is not substantial, I really love the focal length I get and since I already have the lens, I do not need to pay for something new. I hope dynamic range is not a huge difference. I bought the FF for better low light (not landscape low light because I can use tripod) with portraits and even greater depth of field for portraits.

--
Darkness is the monster and your shutter is your sword, aperture your shield and iso your armor. Strike fast with your sword and defend well with your shield and hope your armor holds up.
 
Last edited:
Biggest advantage for me: shooting in forests or other landscapes where you can't zoom with your feet ( with the same lens).
 
less noise -- e.g. astro and other times when you want to freeze motion like when it's windy. more dynamic range. more control over shutter speed -- e.g. less diffraction at smaller apertures. to name a few big ones. but the bottom line is if you are doing fine with crop there's no sense in throwing money at expensive equipment. when your equipment limits you then I would upgrade. also do you use a tripod?

--
Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/edraderphotography/
 
Last edited:
For landscape, I only use the tripod when it is dark out. But not for bright sunny days.
 
Rakumi said:
I just purchased a 6d2 and the widest FF lens I have is my 24-105mm f4L (which I had way before the 6d2). Before the 6d2, my setup was the 60D (which I still own) and my landscape setup was the Sigma 8-16mm lens. I can spend on say a 17-40mm L lens right now. I know my 6D2 offers major benefits in low light and also has a shallower depth of field for portraits but under a controlled situation for landscape (tripod, slow shutter if needed, stopping down to f9-11, etc), will there be a difference for FF VS CROP?
Click to expand...
...instead of the 17-40 / 4L -- this demonstrates why. Then see here to see the difference between your FF and crop setup.

If you need wider than 16mm on FF (10mm on 1.6x), then I recommend the Tamron 15-30 / 2.8 VC (II) or Sigma 14-24 / 2.8, although both of those are quite large compared to the 16-35 / 4L IS, but neither is quite as wide as 8mm on 1.6x. If you really need wide, then the Canon 8-15 / 4 FE is an outstanding lens well worth considering (as is the 11-24 / 4L, but that's more than a little pricey).
 
Last edited:
Great Bustard said:
Rakumi said:
I just purchased a 6d2 and the widest FF lens I have is my 24-105mm f4L (which I had way before the 6d2). Before the 6d2, my setup was the 60D (which I still own) and my landscape setup was the Sigma 8-16mm lens. I can spend on say a 17-40mm L lens right now. I know my 6D2 offers major benefits in low light and also has a shallower depth of field for portraits but under a controlled situation for landscape (tripod, slow shutter if needed, stopping down to f9-11, etc), will there be a difference for FF VS CROP?
Click to expand...
...instead of the 17-40 / 4L -- this demonstrates why. Then see here to see the difference between your FF and crop setup.

If you need wider than 16mm on FF (10mm on 1.6x), then I recommend the Tamron 15-30 / 2.8 VC (II)
Click to expand...
Have you tried that v2 one yet, or are you going by reputation?
 
fishy wishy said:
Great Bustard said:
Rakumi said:
I just purchased a 6d2 and the widest FF lens I have is my 24-105mm f4L (which I had way before the 6d2). Before the 6d2, my setup was the 60D (which I still own) and my landscape setup was the Sigma 8-16mm lens. I can spend on say a 17-40mm L lens right now. I know my 6D2 offers major benefits in low light and also has a shallower depth of field for portraits but under a controlled situation for landscape (tripod, slow shutter if needed, stopping down to f9-11, etc), will there be a difference for FF VS CROP?
Click to expand...
...instead of the 17-40 / 4L -- this demonstrates why. Then see here to see the difference between your FF and crop setup.

If you need wider than 16mm on FF (10mm on 1.6x), then I recommend the Tamron 15-30 / 2.8 VC (II)
Click to expand...
Have you tried that v2 one yet, or are you going by reputation?
Click to expand...
What I've read is that the optics in the 15-30 / 2.8 VC II are basically the same as the original, and the original was very well reviewed (although TDP shows the Canon 16-35 / 4L IS to be better, at the same focal length and aperture).
 
Great Bustard said:
fishy wishy said:
Great Bustard said:
Rakumi said:
I just purchased a 6d2 and the widest FF lens I have is my 24-105mm f4L (which I had way before the 6d2). Before the 6d2, my setup was the 60D (which I still own) and my landscape setup was the Sigma 8-16mm lens. I can spend on say a 17-40mm L lens right now. I know my 6D2 offers major benefits in low light and also has a shallower depth of field for portraits but under a controlled situation for landscape (tripod, slow shutter if needed, stopping down to f9-11, etc), will there be a difference for FF VS CROP?
Click to expand...
...instead of the 17-40 / 4L -- this demonstrates why. Then see here to see the difference between your FF and crop setup.

If you need wider than 16mm on FF (10mm on 1.6x), then I recommend the Tamron 15-30 / 2.8 VC (II)
Click to expand...
Have you tried that v2 one yet, or are you going by reputation?
Click to expand...
What I've read is that the optics in the 15-30 / 2.8 VC II are basically the same as the original, and the original was very well reviewed (although TDP shows the Canon 16-35 / 4L IS to be better, at the same focal length and aperture).
Click to expand...
Yes- I know the original and the Canon. The Canon simply is the sharper on edges and corners and has a flatter field so does better in benchmarks. The Tamron has less vignetting even at f2.8

They both settle down to a similar used price, but that seems to be more than OP wants to pay.
 
Rakumi said:
I just purchased a 6d2 and the widest FF lens I have is my 24-105mm f4L (which I had way before the 6d2). Before the 6d2, my setup was the 60D (which I still own) and my landscape setup was the Sigma 8-16mm lens. I can spend on say a 17-40mm L lens right now. I know my 6D2 offers major benefits in low light and also has a shallower depth of field for portraits but under a controlled situation for landscape (tripod, slow shutter if needed, stopping down to f9-11, etc), will there be a difference for FF VS CROP?
Click to expand...
I have the 6D and the 16-35L, and an SL2 and a 10-18. The former is of course better. I would compare the distortion figures on both lenses and see if there is a big difference.

More important to me would be is the 60D sensor up to snuff? If I'm not mistaken it is the older 18mp sensor. It was good in it's day, but the newer crop sensors are much improved. When I compare a shot from the SL2 to the 6D, it is hard to see a difference until higher ISO's are reached. Even there the 24mp sensor is a full stop (at least) better than the older 18, and with better noise characteristics. Food for thought.

Another alternative is to stitch together shots from your 24-105 to reach a wider perspective.
 
There is no benefit to the 24x36mm format. Find the lens that achieves the optical quality and effect you want. Then get the camera that supports it. The lens is the only thing that matters. Sensor size DOES NOT CHANGE YOUR DEPTH OF FIELD! The only thing that effects your DOF are the combination of focal length, aperture and subject distance.
 
jbuzzinco said:
There is no benefit to the 24x36mm format.
Click to expand...
In fact, there is.
jbuzzinco said:
Find the lens that achieves the optical quality and effect you want.
Click to expand...
The sensor plays an important role in this.
jbuzzinco said:
Then get the camera that supports it. The lens is the only thing that matters.
Click to expand...
You are mistaken. The same lens on different cameras can, and usually does, result in different performance.
jbuzzinco said:
Sensor size DOES NOT CHANGE YOUR DEPTH OF FIELD! The only thing that effects your DOF are the combination of focal length, aperture and subject distance.
Click to expand...
And the sensor size has more than a little to do with what focal length you would use.
 
Unless you want to buy a used 17-40, I would suggest saving your money until you can afford a 16-35mm f4 L Lens. It is better than the 17-40 in many ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top