Cropping vs longer lens

topcatproduction

topcatproduction

Messages
500
Edit My Images
Yes
I understand this comes down to the amount of pixels the camera has comapred to another one, and also the quality of the lens- but what would give a better result: A cropped image from a better quality shorter lens- or an un cropped image from a lower quality lens?

I also understand I have probably opened a tin of worms here :lol:

For an example, my camera, a 40D, with my 70-300 lens taking a moon photo which would need to be cropped a lot, compared to my 40D again with say a cheap 600mm lens or similar size which you can get new for cheap from places like e bay etc, which would be worse IQ but need no cropping.

Also interested in results of a cropped image taken with a 70-200 canon compared to a full image taken with the 70-300 etc. The purpose is to help me decide which way to go with my gear in the future!
 
Cheap 600mm lens??? I do hope you do not mean a mirror lens which should be avoided at all costs. In general if you want reach, the longer lens will always give better IQ than cropping.
 
I've owned the 70-300 IS, 70-300 DO IS, 70-200/4L IS and 70-200/2.8L IS II and while I agree in principle that it's always best to get the lens that will fill the frame instead of cropping, personal experience here has led me to sell the 70-300 and stick with the 70-200. Pictures were too soft in the 220-300 range on the 70-300 and I've had better luck cropping or using the 1.4x TC with the 70-200s.

And as Donna said, the cheap 600mm lenses are mirror teles, they're mostly in the toy department...

Look at the Canon 100-400/4.5-5.6 also, it has the +100mm and the IQ is better than the 70-300 even though not up to the 70-200. A heavy lens though but works ok on a 40D.
 
topcatproduction said:
I understand this comes down to the amount of pixels the camera has comapred to another one, and also the quality of the lens- but what would give a better result: A cropped image from a better quality shorter lens- or an un cropped image from a lower quality lens?

I also understand I have probably opened a tin of worms here :lol:

For an example, my camera, a 40D, with my 70-300 lens taking a moon photo which would need to be cropped a lot, compared to my 40D again with say a cheap 600mm lens or similar size which you can get new for cheap from places like e bay etc, which would be worse IQ but need no cropping.

Also interested in results of a cropped image taken with a 70-200 canon compared to a full image taken with the 70-300 etc. The purpose is to help me decide which way to go with my gear in the future!
Click to expand...

If it was just about pixels, then you could put your 300mm lens on a compact and get 14m of them with an equivalent field of view to about 1500mm. That's what digiscoping does, and it looks horrible.

Equally, if it's just about cropping, then nobody would bother to buy a longer lens at all.

The most important factor is the physical size of the imaging area.
 
avoid the mirror lenses and the other 600mm lenses that come form the states i think on ebay. they are CAK!!!
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Have you seem the bokeh (:gag:) that a mirror lens produces? :gag: again
Click to expand...

yep - I didn't say I liked them I'm just saying they have their place (maybne thats in the bin) but some people do have uses for them and manage OK results, or results that don't warrent the 'should never of been invented' type coments
 
topcatproduction said:
No I meant this sort of thing http://www.foto-tip.pl/sklep/samyang_preset_500mm_ed_mc_f_8_0_nikon-p-1338.html

What I meant regarding mp is that a big crop would look a lot better from a 7D or 50D than a 10.1mp 40D.

I'm sure I used to but I dont seem to hear anything about 100-400L at all now- :thinking: is it a poor L or has it just not been talked about because it's getting old or some chance??
Click to expand...

You would certainly get a better image with that lens than cropping to equivalent framing.

A big crop from a 40D would not look that much worse than the same from a 7D, which is as much to do with a better/newer sensor as more pixels. It's certainly nothing like the 80% difference you might expect by comparing pixel count, because regardless of the number of pixels the light gathering area of the sensor is the same. And that's assuming you have the lens resoluition to deliver that level of detail, which is very testing in itself even for the best lenses.

Nothing wrong with the 100-400L :thumbs:
 
boyfalldown said:
yep - I didn't say I liked them I'm just saying they have their place (maybne thats in the bin) but some people do have uses for them and manage OK results, or results that don't warrent the 'should never of been invented' type coments
Click to expand...

Actually I know a rather good photojournalist who has been using one for years and you'd never know it, so :shrug:

topcatproduction said:
No I meant this sort of thing http://www.foto-tip.pl/sklep/samyang_preset_500mm_ed_mc_f_8_0_nikon-p-1338.html
Click to expand...

You'd be better off with a bog roll, some white paint and the bottom of a milk bottle....
 
While I would say the cheap mirror lenses are rubbish, the mirror lens principle extends to SCT telescopes which are ideal for lunar and planetary photography.

The sigma 600mm isn't to bad as mirror lenses go but a long focal length refractor type lens ( ie normal telephoto) will produce much more contrasty images.

As to the original question, I would choose the longer focal length lens over cropping, the reason being it can only focus on the detail it see's, with shorter focal length lenses they cannot zoom in so to speak on the detail of the subject, the longer focal length lens can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top