What is the APS-C equivalent of the holy trinity?

[kvnsn]

I have used the Canon 80D at work and really like its size, functionality and image quality, and I would like to get one for my own personal use, on travels and for family photos.

Most DSLR makers will have the holy trinity of lenses, usually the 16-35mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8. These lenses to me are workhorse lenses, providing great image quality, large aperture and functionality. But these lenses are also made for full frame sensors.

Is there a equivalent set of high quality zooms for Canikon APS-C bodies? I do know of the Sigma 18-35 and 50-100 f1.8s, but I just wish to find out more, especially at the wide angles.

 

[noggin2k1]

It may come down to market research, that most buyers of crop cameras never buy more than the kit lens...

Without wanting to digress (and I do agree with this point), it's always baffled me.

Whenever someone asks me to recommend a DSLR, the first thing I ask is "what lenses are you planning to buy?" - the answer is pretty much always "the lens it comes with", with my response being "then just buy a bridge camera"

Absolutely no idea why people don't share this logic.

 

[fishy wishy]

It may come down to market research, that most buyers of crop cameras never buy more than the kit lens...

Without wanting to digress (and I do agree with this point), it's always baffled me.

Whenever someone asks me to recommend a DSLR, the first thing I ask is "what lenses are you planning to buy?" - the answer is pretty much always "the lens it comes with", with my response being "then just buy a bridge camera"

Absolutely no idea why people don't share this logic.

But when people assume a DSLR will get them a better quality of photo than bridge cameras, their assumption is right due to the far larger sensor, as long as they can get close enough.

A lot buy into a DSLR knowing they can grow into it, but never progress much. That's okay and normal.

The funnier thing is when people on these forums ask all the time about 18-300 lenses. It's not really worth asking whether it approaches the quality of a collection of lenses, because your common sense should tell you it isn't, right? Or why would people buy a collection of lenses instead? The idea of a DSLR is that you can change lenses to suit the task best and see the correct framing.

 

[noggin2k1]

It may come down to market research, that most buyers of crop cameras never buy more than the kit lens...

Without wanting to digress (and I do agree with this point), it's always baffled me.

Whenever someone asks me to recommend a DSLR, the first thing I ask is "what lenses are you planning to buy?" - the answer is pretty much always "the lens it comes with", with my response being "then just buy a bridge camera"

Absolutely no idea why people don't share this logic.

But when people assume a DSLR will get them a better quality of photo than bridge cameras, their assumption is right due to the far larger sensor, as long as they can get close enough.

A lot buy into a DSLR knowing they can grow into it, but never progress much. That's okay and normal.

The funnier thing is when people on these forums ask all the time about 18-300 lenses. It's not really worth asking whether it approaches the quality of a collection of lenses, because your common sense should tell you it isn't, right? Or why would people buy a collection of lenses instead? The idea of a DSLR is that you can change lenses to suit the task best and see the correct framing.

And the lens element is what I'm eluding too with bridge cameras too. Those who don't venture outside of the kit lens really aren't going to notice the difference in IQ between a APS-C DSLR and a slightly smaller sensored bridge (although there are APS-C bridges). Where they would see more keepers however, is the bigger focal range a bridge would provide them with.

 

[Pontoneer]

I personally think Canon & Nikon purposely don't offer high quality primes for their APS-C line, as it's a carrot to get you into their (more profitable) full frame setups.

Or because the flange the flange distance means that they would be big and expensive or slow. I not Pentax have gone for slow

Mount is the same, so dedicated DX lenses couldnt be be bigger than the FX ones that people end up using.

That's just not true. The classic case is why did Nikon never make a 35mm equvalant fast prime for DX. Well look at a full frame 24mm f1.4. it costs over £2000 and takes 77mm filters and weighs 620g

The Fuji 23mm f1.4 costs abit over £800 weighs 300g.

The difference is the flange distance not the sensor size.

Making a 24mm lens that suit over 40mn from a sensor requires a retro focal design. Hence big heavy and exoensuve

Very good DX lenses means there would be less incentive to upgrade to FF. Secondly I think the business case is also weak. Creating a bunch of 2.8 DX zooms might not be profitable if there is not that much demand, which does seem to be the case as buyers of DX systems are typically looking for cheap DSLR systems.

I think that shows that different manufacturers each have their own philosophies.

Nikon kit has always struck me as big and somewhat heavy , and having used a lot of it in the past , feels it too .

Ive never used Fuji ( apart from their film , of which I shot an awful lot ) but I do like the look of their cameras and little jewel like lenses .

My Pentax DA21mm Ltd is also a lovely little jewel of a lens , superbly constructed and optical quality , by design not ultra fast , but very compact and light - thin I paid £500 odd for it ...

I also still have a legacy 24mm from my film days , it was of course bought as a wide angle , but works pretty nicely on crop , a bit bigger and heavier than the 21 , but think it is a 2.8 , of course completely manual .

 

[Pontoneer]

It may come down to market research, that most buyers of crop cameras never buy more than the kit lens...

Without wanting to digress (and I do agree with this point), it's always baffled me.

Whenever someone asks me to recommend a DSLR, the first thing I ask is "what lenses are you planning to buy?" - the answer is pretty much always "the lens it comes with", with my response being "then just buy a bridge camera"

Absolutely no idea why people don't share this logic.

But when people assume a DSLR will get them a better quality of photo than bridge cameras, their assumption is right due to the far larger sensor, as long as they can get close enough.

A lot buy into a DSLR knowing they can grow into it, but never progress much. That's okay and normal.

The funnier thing is when people on these forums ask all the time about 18-300 lenses. It's not really worth asking whether it approaches the quality of a collection of lenses, because your common sense should tell you it isn't, right? Or why would people buy a collection of lenses instead? The idea of a DSLR is that you can change lenses to suit the task best and see the correct framing.

And the lens element is what I'm eluding too with bridge cameras too. Those who don't venture outside of the kit lens really aren't going to notice the difference in IQ between a APS-C DSLR and a slightly smaller sensored bridge (although there are APS-C bridges). Where they would see more keepers however, is the bigger focal range a bridge would provide them with.

I agree with both of you on the above , and for a while if friends ( who I knew just wanted a point & shoot for family photos etc ) I’d just point them to something like , for example , the Canon S90 , knowing they were more likely to carry and actually use it than something bigger .

When I started out with my first SLR ( after a couple of rangefinders and a TLR ) I bought the usual body bundled with a 50mm f1.7 , then made the classic mistake ( or was it ? ) of buying a 135mm , before buying the 28mm I perhaps should’ve got first ...

Back in those days , towns abounded with camera shops full of used gear and it was easy to pick up kit without breaking the bank . Nowadays , of course , there is eBay .

 

[fishy wishy]

It may come down to market research, that most buyers of crop cameras never buy more than the kit lens...

Without wanting to digress (and I do agree with this point), it's always baffled me.

Whenever someone asks me to recommend a DSLR, the first thing I ask is "what lenses are you planning to buy?" - the answer is pretty much always "the lens it comes with", with my response being "then just buy a bridge camera"

Absolutely no idea why people don't share this logic.

But when people assume a DSLR will get them a better quality of photo than bridge cameras, their assumption is right due to the far larger sensor, as long as they can get close enough.

A lot buy into a DSLR knowing they can grow into it, but never progress much. That's okay and normal.

The funnier thing is when people on these forums ask all the time about 18-300 lenses. It's not really worth asking whether it approaches the quality of a collection of lenses, because your common sense should tell you it isn't, right? Or why would people buy a collection of lenses instead? The idea of a DSLR is that you can change lenses to suit the task best and see the correct framing.

And the lens element is what I'm eluding too with bridge cameras too. Those who don't venture outside of the kit lens really aren't going to notice the difference in IQ between a APS-C DSLR and a slightly smaller sensored bridge (although there are APS-C bridges). Where they would see more keepers however, is the bigger focal range a bridge would provide them with.

If people asked, I just used to advise people that a bridge camera was a compact way of getting a really long zoom and show them what a Tamron 150-600 for a DSLR looks like. When they push the size of the sensor up in a bridge camera it pushes the price up massively and shortens the zoom, so it was easy for the thoughtful consumer to see the diminishing returns in this direction. I think a 1" sensor is plenty for a bridge camera and it's not worth blurring the boundaries further.

It can be easier to sell to people the idea that they can grow with a system, even if they never bother. It's like people who buy APS-C cameras but only FF lenses hedging their bets thinking they're going to upgrade later. I think they're wrong and they're wasting money in the meantime, but it's their money.

 

[SoCalWill]

The 70-200 f/2.8 is just as awesome on an APS-C camera..







--
Digital Camera and Adobe Photoshop user since 1999.
Adobe Lightroom is my adult coloring book.

 

[Glen Barrington]

Did you just make up that 'holy trinity' stuff up?

 

[kvnsn]

Did you just make up that 'holy trinity' stuff up?

 

[Chris Malcolm]

Depends which kind of holiness you believe in. As an unorthodox, possibly even heretical, APS-C sensor user my own chosen trinity of good image quality zooms is 8-16mm, 16-50mm, 80-200mm.

 

[richj20]

I've seen a few threads about this very topic on various message boards. The most common answer i see, though not all the same constant aperture is....

EF S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5

EF S 17-55 f/2.8

EF 70-200 f/4 L (and/or the IS version)

That was my three in my Canon days. Excellent lenses, all of them.

- Richard

 

[Rickclapton]

I have come full circle from a 5d and the requisite L lenses back to crop sensor 80d. My current “trinity” is a Sigma 8-16, canon 15-85 and Canon L 70-300mm. Those 3 get me through 90% of my largely landscape shooting. These three cover full frame equivalent of 14-420mm. If low light is an issue I will swap the 15-85 for a 17-55 image quality is too close to call so I will normally opt for the bigger range and lighter weight of the 15-85m

For other situations I use a Canon 100 is macro, Sigma 30 1.4 art, 24 2.8 pancake and a nifty 50 1.8

 

[BattleBrat]

I have come full circle from a 5d and the requisite L lenses back to crop sensor 80d. My current “trinity” is a Sigma 8-16, canon 15-85 and Canon L 70-300mm. Those 3 get me through 90% of my largely landscape shooting. These three cover full frame equivalent of 14-420mm. If low light is an issue I will swap the 15-85 for a 17-55 image quality is too close to call so I will normally opt for the bigger range and lighter weight of the 15-85m

For other situations I use a Canon 100 is macro, Sigma 30 1.4 art, 24 2.8 pancake and a nifty 50 1.8

I was looking at the 15-85 as a general purpose zoom, how’s the shallow depth of field for portraits on that lens? How’s the contrast and sharpness? I had a 24-105 f/4 L on my 60D and was more impressed by the 17-55, but I always felt that more zoom would be preferable..

 

[ToxicTabasco]

For APSC in DSLR there isn't any. Thus you can create your own. Or use the FF equivalent.

Thus, If I had to choose, it would be the Sigma 8-16, Sigma 17-50, and Sigma 50-150. They are the best optics for the Nikon DX system. Canon and others may vary.

 

[Milan SK]

It may come down to market research, that most buyers of crop cameras never buy more than the kit lens...

Without wanting to digress (and I do agree with this point), it's always baffled me.

Whenever someone asks me to recommend a DSLR, the first thing I ask is "what lenses are you planning to buy?" - the answer is pretty much always "the lens it comes with", with my response being "then just buy a bridge camera"

Absolutely no idea why people don't share this logic.

Really true. As an amatouer photographer I decided to buy the bridge camera = one inch sensor fz1000 with 25-400 my reach. At the time of purchase I was discouraged by the price of body plus lens combination and the limited reach of the kit lens. My next camera will probably be the Panasonic LUMIX G90/95 20 mpx plus the kit lens 12-60mm F3.5-5.6 Micro Four Thirds Lens. The lens with the same reach and f2.8 is very expensive. I intend to use this combo for landscape, architecture and portrait only. The "holy trinity" is expensive even in mft group and it must be bothersome to change the lenses for an amatouer.

The decision making has two points: what one needs and how much money one wants to spend.

Regards,

Milan

 

[Rickclapton]

You will want something faster for shallow dof. I use the 50 1.8 or the 100 macro to fill that need. The 17-50 is fast and gets you in the 80 mm equivalent area that is great for head shots.

 

[mahidoes]

If you aren't prime shooter then Fuji has Aps-C dedicated f/2.8 zooms.

See this thread for more info about my holy trinity

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62590033