1.3 Crop - discuss......

dinners

dinners

In Memoriam
Messages
15,745
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
Yes
I'd rather get a few views before saying too much but I was just wondering what other people's experiences / views were when it came to using a 1.3 crop as a general 'everything' camera ?

Jack of all trades or Master of none ?

The camera certainly has a place but the lens options take a bit of thinking about.

Landscape - Compared to FF 17-40 & 16-35 - are no longer true wide.
General - Compared to FF 24-70 and 24-105 start to feel a bit long at the short end.
Wildlife - Longer lenses obviously sit between FF and 1.6

Thanks in advance (y)

Phil
 
Last edited:
The continued popularity of Canon's 1D series proves that it's an enduringly successful compromise.

Not far off full frame quality, more telephoto reach, faster frame rate, great AF. The biggest drawback as an all-in-one format seems to be the lack of super-wide lenses.

I think that if Canon made a cheaper and smaller 1.3x camera (without the integral grip) with one or two dedicated super-wide lens options, it would find a lot more takers. Like me :)
 
I've just altered my post Hoppy to say that the crop idea (1.3) is less the issue but it's the lens options that are leaving me scratching my head...
 
If I could bolt on an EF-S 17-55 2.8 I'd be more than happy.
 
I have to say that since I acquired my 1D3 back in February, it has for the most part been my body of choice. Naturally it also has to do with the other characteristics of the camera. Although I hear what you say on UW no longer being UW, the 1.3x crop factor doesn't bother me too much. A 16-35 becomes a 20.8-45.5 which makes it a very useful lens for candid photography at close quarters and the ' extra reach ' comes in rather handy with a longer lens. It depends on what you shoot as well. A 24-70 for instance gives one 91mm at the long end which comes into the portrait zone and the wider end at 31.2mm makes this lens quite a competent take anywhere lens again, for an event shoot.

I think 1.3x makes a nice compromise between FF and 1.6x crop factor. Can't have everything in life but I'd take a 1.3x in preference most of the time.


Cheers


a010.gif


H
a035.gif
 
I think its the perfect compromise, although if they made a 1Ds that reeled off 8+FPS I'd maybe move back to FF. Coming from a FF 5D mkI I feel the photos actually look better (not just because I'm using the better part of the lens) the dynamic range of the sensor is so FF like it's superb.

The 16-35 f/2.8L converts to 21-46mm which for me is wide enough for landscapes. Sigma do a 12-24 IIRC which would start at 16mm if you really need that.

My 24-105L is still perfectly suitable for all my general shots, including landscapes. 30mm at the wide end is still pretty wide and only ~2mm longer than the 17-55 on a regular cropper.

Also, the added reach and crazy burst mode is superb for sports/action. Sometimes when I'm angry at the pace of Lr importing the files I pick the camera up and fire a few rounds off at the monitor, instant satisfaction! :LOL: :LOL: (okay, maybe I'm nuts...)
 
Even the 17-40 f/4 aint that compromised by a 1.3 crop sensor, 22 mil at the wide end - until I save the cash for a 16-35 - mostly for the extra stop over the extra 1 mil.
I'm old enough to remember when a 24 mil was considered wide and cost a fortune.
Maybe that's what colours my perspective? Just my 5p worth though.
 
Just got one... and quite like it. It cuts out the worst bits of the lens, unlike 1.6x which is far too aggressive cropping. 24-70mm is still very usable - wide enough for events, and has that nice 'extra' reach (well 1Ds mkII has the same pixel density so I could just crop it, and 5DII in fact has more reach).
WA needs are catered for by Tokina 12-24mm - good from 14mm onwards.
 
Cheers for the feedback folks.

I've had a bit of a wipe out kit wise so I'm starting from the ground up.

On my 1.6 crop 40D with 17-85 I always wanted a little more width so went with a Sigma 10-20. Having looked back over my 'favourite' shots I think I seldom went as wide as 10 so a 17-40L on the 1.3 will give me that little bit more width for my landscapes where aperture isn't an issue.

24-105L or 24-70L would be a 'nice to have' walk about but to be honest I might not bother with another and go with a Canon 28-135 as I'm just a fair weather snapper of kids and dogs in this kind of range.

Longer - I've already got the 100-400 which can AF with a TC so I'll stick with that for now.
 
Last edited:
I think it's the best of both worlds. I shoot mainly motosport and aviation. FF would mean I would have to invest in longer lenses than I currently use and to be honest I find the 17-40 wide enough for all but the most extreme of wide shots. If your thing is photos so wide buildings are totally curved then you would need specialist lenses I guess.

I use the 17-40 as a walk around lens on my 7D but on the 1D it makes a nice mid to wide and is very nice in partnership with my 24-70. For long end I use 70-200. They are a very nice set on the 1D. Something a bit longer then 200mm would be nice but given the high mp count on my mkIV I can get away with cropping heavily and getting the extra reach that way (though that could be considered cheating a bit!)
 
EMA747 said:
I use the 17-40 as a walk around lens on my 7D but on the 1D it makes a nice mid to wide and is very nice in partnership with my 24-70.
Click to expand...

I think that's the conclusion I'm coming to Andy

17-40L (mid to wide) for landscapes on my 1D but compromise a little 'cost wise' on my less used 'walkabout' range and replace the 17-85 / 40D with a 28-135.
 
Last edited:
Trouble is that everyone keeps trying to redefine what wide is.

A wide angle lens is any lens with a focal length shorter than 50mm.

An ultra wide angle is any lens with a focal length less than 28mm.

A fish eye lens is any lens with a focal length below 16mm

These have always been the accepted norms and definitions.

On a 1.3 crop:
A 17- 40 comes out as roughly 22mm- 52mm, that makes it a wide angle to standard zoom lens.

A 24-70 comes out as 31mm - 91mm that makes it a standard to short telephoto zoom

A 10-22 comes out as a 13mm - 28.6mm that makes it not only an ultra wide zoom but also a fish eye at the bottom end of its range.

If we go to 1.6 crop factor:

17-40 = 27mm - 64mm - wide to standard zoom
24-70 = 38mm - 112mm - standard - short telephoto zoom
10-22 = 16mm - 35mm - ultra wide to wide zoom

2x crop factor for M43

17-40 = 34mm - 80mm - wide to short telephoto zoom
24-70 = 48mm - 140mm - standard to medium telephoto zoom
10-22 = 20mm - 44mm - ultra wide to wide angle zoom

So if a 17-40 is to "long" for you then you need an ultra wide angle zoom, you already have a wide angle zoom, if the 24-70 is to long you need a wide angle zoom as opposed to the standard zoom you have.

Lets not move the goal posts and get confused just because technology has changed
 
Last edited:
^^^ Not sure I agree with those definitions Ian, they're certainly not 'accepted' and you've just gone and moved the goal posts again! ;)

The problem on 1.3x crop is that you can't fit EF-S lenses, or if you do by bodging it, they don't cover the full image circle.

So if you want a wide Canon zoom, you're stuck with a 17-40L or 16-25L, which is 21-22mm eqivalent and not that wide these days. Or third party.

It's maybe not a deal breaker, but it's certainly a long way from ideal.
 
iancandler said:
Trouble is that everyone keeps trying to redefine what wide is.

A wide angle lens is any lens with a focal length shorter than 50mm.

An ultra wide angle is any lens with a focal length less than 28mm.

A fish eye lens is any lens with a focal length below 16mm

These have always been the accepted norms and definitions.

On a 1.3 crop:
A 17- 40 comes out as roughly 22mm- 52mm, that makes it a wide angle to standard zoom lens.

A 24-70 comes out as 31mm - 91mm that makes it a standard to short telephoto zoom

A 10-22 comes out as a 13mm - 28.6mm that makes it not only an ultra wide zoom but also a fish eye at the bottom end of its range.

If we go to 1.6 crop factor:

17-40 = 27mm - 64mm - wide to standard zoom
24-70 = 38mm - 112mm - standard - short telephoto zoom
10-22 = 16mm - 35mm - ultra wide to wide zoom

2x crop factor for M43

17-40 = 34mm - 80mm - wide to short telephoto zoom
24-70 = 48mm - 140mm - standard to medium telephoto zoom
10-22 = 20mm - 44mm - ultra wide to wide angle zoom

So if a 17-40 is to "long" for you then you need an ultra wide angle zoom, you already have a wide angle zoom, if the 24-70 is to long you need a wide angle zoom as opposed to the standard zoom you have.

Lets not move the goal posts and get confused just because technology has changed
Click to expand...

I'm with you all the way with your reply Ian.

Buachaille Etive Mor - I pass every week so using that as a cheesy example......

40D (1.6 crop) with a 17-85 kit lens gets you 'just' the typical shot from the obvious viewpoint.

40D (1.6 crop) with a Sigma 10-20 lens allows you to get the typical shot from the obvious viewpoint but include the waterfall.

Sticking with 17mm in mind (albeit the EF 17-40L rather than EF-S 17-85) I can obviously capture more using 1.3 than 1.6 but not quite as much as with a 10-20 on a 1.6.

So if I wanted to go wider with 1D - (not suitable for EF-S) then that's where I come a bit unstuck with Canon lenses.
 
HoppyUK said:
^^^ Not sure I agree with those definitions Ian, they're certainly not 'accepted' and you've just gone and moved the goal posts again! ;)

The problem on 1.3x crop is that you can't fit EF-S lenses, or if you do by bodging it, they don't cover the full image circle.

So if you want a wide Canon zoom, you're stuck with a 17-40L or 16-25L, which is 21-22mm eqivalent and not that wide these days. Or third party.

It's maybe not a deal breaker, but it's certainly a long way from ideal.
Click to expand...


Might not be amongst the new crowd but has been for donkeys years. only recently (last 20 yrs) has the digital factor come in, but it still doesn't change what a lens is, just for the user its not enough with the crop factor taken into account.

21-22 might not seem that wide, but its still an ultra wide focal length.
 
I'm old enough to remember when a 24 mil was considered wide and cost a fortune.
Click to expand...

Me too. The lens choice takes no more thinking about than in the days of film or FF Digi.
 
dinners said:
So if I wanted to go wider with 1D - (not suitable for EF-S) then that's where I come a bit unstuck with Canon lenses.
Click to expand...

What about the EF8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/lenses/EF8-15mm_f_4L_Fisheye_USM.do

The EF14mm f/2.8L II USM
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/lenses/14mm.do

Or the EF16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/lenses/1635mmf28.do

One thing you can say with Canon is that they have a huge range of lenses.
 
iancandler said:
A fish eye lens is any lens with a focal length below 16mm
Click to expand...

What about all the ultra wide rectilinear lenses shorter than 16mm?

nikkor 14-24mm?
sigma 12-24mm?
sigma 8-16mm?


I always thought a fish eye was an ultra wide that that is built to have particularly strong distortion?
 
Having just moved from a 1D4 I can say that I hated the 1.3 factor.I found it too short at the long end and not wide enough at the other.
The long end wouldn't have been a problem if I could have afforeded a 500 F4 but that was out of the question.I found that I was always needing a 1.4 tcon on my 400 F5.6 and quite often on the 100-400.
The short end was the real problem.I like to shoot wide and at the minute you are restricted to the 16-35 which wasn't quite wide enough for me.I also tried the Sigma 12-24 but found the lack of being able to use filters "simply" a pita.
I've moved back to a 5D2 and 7D and am happy with the decision-until Canon release a 12-?(then I'll probably regret it).

Jack of all trades or Master of none ?
Click to expand...

That summed it up for me.

Gary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top