Is full frame only for the super-rich???!!!!

travellingcello

travellingcello

Messages
1,841
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi everyone,

I was just exploring the lens options available for full frame and I just realised that unless you are ultra-rich there really aren't a lot of options are there? I'd heard this was the case but hadn't fully realised the limitations here.

I'm looking for a lens to fill the wide-angle, since my current lenses are both apsc lenses (Tamron 17-50 and Tokina 11-16) - I will probably sell both to fund this lens in question.

However now I'm on a serious search I've seemingly discovered that unless you are willing to spend really big there isn't anything really good.

I was on DXO comparing lenses just now- the lenses I was looking at were the:

17-40L (very limit of budget!)
35mm F2
28mm 1.8
24-105L (out of budget)

and comparing them with just to get an idea because I have them:

Tamron 17-50
Tokina 11-16

The 17-40 seems to be the only half-decent lens without selling a kidney, and even that is a disappointing when compared with the Tamron 17-50 on a crop sensor. (on DXO, both on the crop 50D settings). If only the Tamron worked on a full frame sensor and the IQ.....

The 35 F2 and 28mm 1.8 seem far too disappointing to even consider.

Does anyone have any suggestions here ? I know about the amazing Samyang 14mm but I think I am ideally looking for a zoom here, or a not-so-wide prime (24mm, 28mm?) - if I went for the prime option then i would keep the Tokina since it works at 16mm on FF with decent results. Are there any manual lenses I should look at? (of course if there are any great cheapy manuals that would be fantastic)

Any advice would be appreciated!
 
Last edited:
Good old Siggy make 20, 24 and 28mm f1.8's and everyone seems to make a 50mm, there are a few 24/28-70mm's and the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 seems reasonable and it has a following that think it's good.

Wider there's the Siggy 12-24mm, I have one, and I also picked up a used Canon 20-35mm USM that seems ok, not made any more though.
 
Only if you go digital... otherwise it's cheap as. Of course then you get the bug and realize that 35mm just sometimes isn't big enough so you know ;)
 
Well you got to have some spare cash to go that way for sure but it is not the cash that is my main problem, it is the weight of bodies and especially of the massive lenses.
 
woof woof said:
Good old Siggy make 20, 24 and 28mm f1.8's and everyone seems to make a 50mm, there are a few 24/28-70mm's and the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 seems reasonable and it has a following that think it's good.

Wider there's the Siggy 12-24mm, I have one, and I also picked up a used Canon 20-35mm USM that seems ok, not made any more though.
Click to expand...

Hmm I compared the Tamron on digital-picture and it didn't look impressive. At all.

The Sigma 12-24 doesn't look that great either ... maybe I'm just spoilt on crop with cheaper/good performing lenses. Maybe this is the downfall I've been waiting for.

Will check out the other primes you listed, forgot about those completely!

Thanks.

edit: I just looked at reviews for Sigma 20mm, definitely giving that a miss!
 
Last edited:
Superewza said:
Only if you go digital... otherwise it's cheap as. Of course then you get the bug and realize that 35mm just sometimes isn't big enough so you know ;)
Click to expand...

I think processing costs and film and associated costs mean that you spend more in the long run.

Also I'm a child of the digital age, I fear I will have not enough patience or skill with film to be honest.

Also Vrapan, I'm not looking for long lenses here, so no need to be massive !!!
 
Last edited:
Isn't 17-50 + 11-16 (used) = 24-105 (used) - in which case it is a problem solved. I'd definitely go with that for general walkabout.

woof woof uses crop so he doesn't get to see how bad all these siggys are on full frame. Tamron 28-75mm is a possibility, but I'd have 24-105 any day.
 
travellingcello said:
Hmm I compared the Tamron on digital-picture and it didn't look impressive. At all.

The Sigma 12-24 doesn't look that great either ... maybe I'm just spoilt on crop with cheaper/good performing lenses. Maybe this is the downfall I've been waiting for.

Will check out the other primes you listed, forgot about those completely!

Thanks.

edit: I just looked at reviews for Sigma 20mm, definitely giving that a miss!
Click to expand...

I have the Siggy 12-24 (I had a Canon 10-22mm and the Siggy displays less distortion and vignetting) and 20mm f1.8 and I'm happy to report that they're both sharp. Here's a little test shot I did of a pink lady with the 20mm at f1.8...

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=321997
 
Last edited:
There's also the Sigma and Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4, which cover the wide angle on full frame.
 
"Hmm thanks for that. I had written it off already when I saw some rather poor reviews but I guess in the right hands its capable."

I think that there are oodles of people with questionable technique who get poor results at wide apertures but reviewers should be doing it right. Maybe there's copy variation? Maybe I'm just lucky?
 
woof woof said:
Here's a little test shot I did of a pink lady with the 20mm at f1.8...

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=321997
Click to expand...

OK to be fair that test shows little to nothing... for those that don't see this so obviously. It only tested the very centre of APS-C frame of FF lens against a non-detailed subject. It gives no idea how good / bad FF or even 1.6x corners are. Sorry I am going to ignore the statement "sharp" from now on.
 
oh for God sake. Do you expect fast primes to be sharp across the frame? If you do think again...

The shot does show centre sharpness at F1.8 which is all I intended from a quick test shot and it'll be just as sharp on FF. If anyone is seriously thinking of buying one of these and wants another test I'll gladly do one, or you can just believe me when I say that in real world use at f1.8 it isn't razor sharp, just good enough, and once closed down a little it'll have your stubble off your face.

PS. Non detailed subject? Being able to see the individual ink dots not enough? Sorry but you're talking twaddle.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
oh for God sake. Do you expect fast primes to be sharp across the frame? If you do think again...

The shot does show centre sharpness at F1.8 which is all I intended from a quick test shot and it'll be just as sharp on FF. If anyone is seriously thinking of buying one of these and wants another test I'll gladly do one, or you can just believe me when I say that in real world use at f1.8 it isn't razor sharp, just good enough, and once closed down a little it'll have your stubble off your face.

PS. Non detailed subject? Being able to see the individual ink dots not enough? Sorry but you're talking twaddle.
Click to expand...

Having owned the Canon 85 1.8, and 100 F2.8, I say yes, I do expected fast primes to be sharp across the frame.

I had the Sigma 20 1.8, and the 10-20 for a while. The 20 is very soft in the corners, even on a crop. The 10-20 was much better.

Still, the 20 is a fun lens, the MFD is about 6 inches so you can get some crazy perspective.
 
I have a Sigma 12-24, Canon 17-40 and 24-105 and a 5D2 - so I must be super rich!

Of the three lenses the 17-40 gives the best looking photos. Since I've had the 17-40 the 12-24 hasn't been on the camera. The 12-24 isn't fully sharp on full frame in all but the centre of the frame and needs to be stopped down quite a bit to get the edges as good as possible. The 17-40 just blows it away for both colour rendition and sharpness and only needs to be stopped down a little to get pretty good corners. I am keeping the 12-24 as 12mm is just fantastic for architectural shots and we're off to the USA in 6 weeks so will use it there :)

The 24-105 is a great walkabout lens but doesn't quite have the colour pop the 17-40 has. Unfortunately, illuminating a full frame sensor well is a costly business....

Right... now which Sunseeker shall I order...
 
arad85 said:
I have a Sigma 12-24, Canon 17-40 and 24-105 and a 5D2 - so I must be super rich!

Of the three lenses the 17-40 gives the best looking photos. Since I've had the 17-40 the 12-24 hasn't been on the camera. The 12-24 isn't fully sharp on full frame in all but the centre of the frame and needs to be stopped down quite a bit to get the edges as good as possible. The 17-40 just blows it away for both colour rendition and sharpness and only needs to be stopped down a little to get pretty good corners.
Click to expand...

I have had all three of these lenses too and would definitely agree with the above - my 12-24 got so little use that I ended up selling it as I was willing to give up the extra width for the better IQ. For me the 17-40 gives better images than the 24-105, that's why the 17-40 is the only one of the three I still own.
 
travellingcello said:
The Sigma 12-24 doesn't look that great either ... maybe I'm just spoilt on crop with cheaper/good performing lenses. Maybe this is the downfall I've been waiting for.
Click to expand...


The Sigma isn't a bad lens by any means. In fact for the costs its pretty good. There are one or two weaknesses, but on the whole, pretty good for the money. From its reputation though, its worth testing for decentred elements before you buy
 
From what I read the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 is a pretty amazing lens, and very cheap too.

Ignore the Digital Picture review, he even says at the beginning he thinks his is a bad copy - and if you google "Tamron 28-75 on 5D" there are loads of reviews and peoples feedback on that combo with very positive things to say.

Alternatively a flickr search, or indeed a google images search shows examples of this combination and I think it looks good.

I know when I finally find a decent 5D thats the lens I will be trying out first!
 
Im far from rich, but I can afford FF and decent lenses. Just save hard and sell some body parts.

Ive salso used the siggy 12-24 and its pretty good for the money. Its not all that sharp in corners, but its 12mm FFS, what do you expect!

I sold it and regretted it straight away, but I decided to replace it with the Nikon 16-35 F/4.
 
travellingcello said:
I was on DXO comparing lenses just now- the lenses I was looking at were the:

17-40L (very limit of budget!)
35mm F2
28mm 1.8
24-105L (out of budget)
Click to expand...

Do you mean dxomark.com?

AFAICT, out of that list, they've only got test results for the 24-105

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lens-with-Camera/All-tested-lenses#lens_Canon

:shrug:

Maybe you've been spoiled a little. The Canon 85mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2.8 are exceptionally good lenses, especially considering their price. Canon do cheap, short-ish telephotos very well.

In the real world, I have no problems with IQ with either my EF 35mm f/2 or my 17-40 f/4L on a 5D.
 
Good morning!! Thanks for your replies everyone....

I meant the digital picture comparison tool, not dxo actually....

And I've looked at several reviews for the Tamron 28-75, on full frame tests it doesn't seem to fare very well. It appears to be a stellar lens on a crop sensor though.

I think I'm going to rule out the Sigma 12-24 on the grounds that IQ doesn't appear to be that great, and because I'm not sure if I would use that focal length that often.

Also I checked out more 20. 1.8 reviews and have ruled that out too.

It sounds as though the general consensus is the 17-40L?

EDIT: I checked out the Tokina, 16-28, seems nice but the price seems to be in the sky.
 
travellingcello said:
Hi everyone,

I was just exploring the lens options available for full frame and I just realised that unless you are ultra-rich there really aren't a lot of options are there? I'd heard this was the case but hadn't fully realised the limitations here.

I'm looking for a lens to fill the wide-angle, since my current lenses are both apsc lenses (Tamron 17-50 and Tokina 11-16) - I will probably sell both to fund this lens in question.

However now I'm on a serious search I've seemingly discovered that unless you are willing to spend really big there isn't anything really good.

I was on DXO comparing lenses just now- the lenses I was looking at were the:

17-40L (very limit of budget!)
35mm F2
28mm 1.8
24-105L (out of budget)

and comparing them with just to get an idea because I have them:

Tamron 17-50
Tokina 11-16

The 17-40 seems to be the only half-decent lens without selling a kidney, and even that is a disappointing when compared with the Tamron 17-50 on a crop sensor. (on DXO, both on the crop 50D settings). If only the Tamron worked on a full frame sensor and the IQ.....

The 35 F2 and 28mm 1.8 seem far too disappointing to even consider.

Does anyone have any suggestions here ? I know about the amazing Samyang 14mm but I think I am ideally looking for a zoom here, or a not-so-wide prime (24mm, 28mm?) - if I went for the prime option then i would keep the Tokina since it works at 16mm on FF with decent results. Are there any manual lenses I should look at? (of course if there are any great cheapy manuals that would be fantastic)

Any advice would be appreciated!
Click to expand...

The 35mm f/2 is a stunning lens, it gives absolutely gorgeous images. It's my new fave lens.
 
travellingcello said:
Ah but you are on a crop sensor. I think if you look at reviews on full frame its not so rosy.
Click to expand...

I've not tried it on full frame I must admit, so I can only go by what I see on the 50d.

However, I will say that on the 50d it's as sharp across the frame as my Canon 85mm f/1.8 which is regarded as arguable the best non L prime for Canon mount for IQ.

And on full frame I thought it was regarded as quite a nice wide-angle?
 
travellingcello said:
I think I'm going to rule out the Sigma 12-24 on the grounds that IQ doesn't appear to be that great.
Click to expand...

No you are right, its a shocker


The Blue Room by TCR4x4, on Flickr


Self Portrait desat by TCR4x4, on Flickr


Cloisters 4 by TCR4x4, on Flickr​


All these DXO charts and tests are a load of crap. Stop looking at charts and pictures of brick walls and look at the real life usage of a lens. No, the siggy isnt perfect, but for the money and the focal range, its a bloody good buy.
 
Well I haven't tried one, you are right. However if all the reviewers have bad copies then I'm not wanting to go through the stress of trying to get a good copy!

Anyway I more ruled it out in the first place because I wouldn't use the focal length all that much I'm pretty sure.
 
Is full frame for the super rich?...huh?

It's all relative, it's professional level equipment so the price will reflect as such.
 
travellingcello said:
Did you worry at all about the supposed QC issues with this lens? I have heard of people say this is the L with the worst QC issues and this worries me a bit.
Click to expand...

Never heard of any QC problems with that lens. (Edit: Canon 17-40L)

In fact, as a general rule poor copies of any lens are rare. Of the reported issues on the web, I would guess that only 10% are actually real - the rest are just user error. Testing a lens properly for image quality is not easy and (for once ;)) I agree with Daugirdas above.
 
Last edited:
I've also never heard of QC issues with the 17-40L...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top