Jman13 wrote:
It depends on what you want to make equivalent. If you demand the same depth of field as you get on full frame, then no. Of course not. If you need ultra shallow DOF from big lenses then get full frame. The advantages come if you're ok with losing a bit of blur while still getting top notch glass in a smaller package. On most FF systems, the slower and smaller glass is also cheaper and crappier glass.
Most Canon and Nikon primes are very very good lenses, with their faults dramatically and ridiculously over exaggerated.
Jman13 wrote:
It depends on what you want to make equivalent. If you demand the same depth of field as you get on full frame, then no. Of course not. If you need ultra shallow DOF from big lenses then get full frame. The advantages come if you're ok with losing a bit of blur while still getting top notch glass in a smaller package.
And it works the other way around too. I like low light shooting and I'm glad I get a bit more DOF from my Fuji at the same aperture.
lexvo wrote:
And it works the other way around too. I like low light shooting and I'm glad I get a bit more DOF from my Fuji at the same aperture.
You can stop down any FF lens and get just as much DOF as an APS-C lens. The the "advantage" of an APS-C lens is mostly mythical. You cannot open up an APS-C lens wider to control DOF equal to a FF lens.
In today's world of completely useable ISO6400 and up, low light issues hardly exist.
Jul 18, 2015 at 04:59 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
rattymouse wrote:
You can stop down any FF lens and get just as much DOF as an APS-C lens. The the "advantage" of an APS-C lens is mostly mythical. You cannot open up an APS-C lens wider to control DOF equal to a FF lens.
In today's world of completely useable ISO6400 and up, low light issues hardly exist.
A smaller sensor camera's advantage in being able to shoot further stopped down depends totally on what camera it is compared to. So, the cameras with the current Fuji sensor clearly do have this advantage over a Canon 1Ds II, (which has the same resolution and would have a similar price to let's say a Fuji XT1), but they don't over the Sony A7s (which would easily let you stop the lens down a stop and up the ISO a stop, but this lens has less resolution and costs a lot more). It is pretty easy to talk about equivalency when we talk about depth of field (lenses act fairly similarly when we stop them down to create DOF), but when we talk about high ISO performance the idea of equivalency is hard to figure out, cameras--sensors actually--do not act the same as we turn up ISO, some handle high ISO much better than others. When comparing Fuji cameras to FF cameras one must also keep in mind that X-trans does provide real help (i.e., reduced noise) at high ISO. The Fuji cameras aren't as good as most FF sensors, but the FF sensors themselves vary so much that the amount that Fuji loses to them varies from not very much if any (like with the Canon 1Ds II) to a lot (like with the Sony A7s). Consequently, you really have to know the specific camera if you want to talk about equivalency in terms of the FF system being able to stop down and turn the ISO up.
Steve Spencer wrote:
The Fuji cameras aren't as good as most FF sensors, but the FF sensors themselves vary so much that the amount that Fuji loses to them varies from not very much if any (like with the Canon 1Ds II) to a lot (like with the Sony A7s). Consequently, you really have to know the specific camera if you want to talk about equivalency in terms of the FF system being able to stop down and turn the ISO up.
The Canon 1DS II is a really old camera now. Compare the Fuji to the 1DX, which isnt exactly new either, but is the current Canon FF sensor leader. Or compare the Fuji to the Nikon DF, which is a real powerhouse at low light, and the same resolution as the Fuji.
I agree that it is MOSTLY mythical. Still the Zeiss Batis 85/1.8 is slightly larger and heavier than the directly comparable Fuji 56/1.2. The 70-200/4 and 50-140/2.8 are about the same size but the Sony lens is 30% heavier. The difference is slight but it's still some. If one would really be thinking about size m43 is the system to be looking at.
The advantage of Fuji (if there is any) is how the cameras operate and the quality of the lens selection. You make compromises by choosing an APS-C mirrorless system but instead get exceptionally good lens system where sensible is valued higher than ultimate. If "ultimate" was my objective I'd into medium format not FF anyways.
So stating that weight advantage is a myth and then comparing the 90/2 directly to the bigger heavier 135/2 L makes no sense. We should be comparing it to the 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus ..but that would be unfair, right? While no FF system has a top quality 135/2.8 there is a true size advantage with the 90/2. ...it's all subjective.
APS-C sensor is the preference to the wildlife shooters. I can't wait to touch 100-400 zoom, and we'll see, once Fuji releases it, how it compares to Tamron 150-600, or Sigma. I bet, it'll be significantly smaller and lighter. When you attach converter to it, you get equivalently FF 800 reach. This is where people may get to respect Fuji even more. That was one of the reasons, I turned from Nikon to Fuji. I would assume, and I hope, that Fuji will preserve very high IQ on that zoom, knowing the other lenses so far.
I was simply acknowledging the size is where it should be (about the size of a 135/2.8) and left it at that. Then we got pulled into this as a debate. It's a pointless debate. If you need ultra shallow depth of field, shoot full frame. If you're an APS-C shooter, look at the lenses for the system. We don't go around arguing how a 50mm f/2 lens is only like a medium format 80mm f/2.8. Because they're different systems. It made some (very small) bit of sense when talking about systems with both Ff and APS-C lenses that share a mount. But for Fuji or m4/3 it's just irrelevant.
rattymouse wrote:
If you didnt want an equivalence debate, you should not have broached the subject when you wrote:
"Compared to a 135mm on full frame, it's smaller than an f/2."
That statement is making an equivalence argument. What posts came after you posted that text was a natural progression from this.
rattymouse wrote:
You can stop down any FF lens and get just as much DOF as an APS-C lens. The the "advantage" of an APS-C lens is mostly mythical. You cannot open up an APS-C lens wider to control DOF equal to a FF lens.
In today's world of completely useable ISO6400 and up, low light issues hardly exist.
Yes, but with APS-C I have the advantage of one stop faster shutter speed and less weight.
So stating that weight advantage is a myth and then comparing the 90/2 directly to the bigger heavier 135/2 L makes no sense. We should be comparing it to the 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus ..but that would be unfair, right? While no FF system has a top quality 135/2.8 there is a true size advantage with the 90/2. ...it's all subjective.
No, not unfair at all. That's the lens you should be using as a reference and even there, the Fuji is not close in weight to the full frame lens. It is higher.
Fuji's need to have one stop faster aperture for their lenses adds a substantial amount of size and weight to the lens, far exceeding any "damage" that a FF camera would suffer by bumping ISO values up 1 stop to equal the faster aperture (using f/2.8 in this case vs f/2).
We see a significant difference in size of nikon 55mm 1.4 FF and Otus 50mm 1.4 also FF, and the nikon has af. The explanation must be related to the quality of glass. If fuji is heavier, it suggests that it's a better lens than the canon 135mm L.
fsiagian wrote:
We see a significant difference in size of nikon 50mm 1.4 FF and Otus 50mm 1.4 also FF, and the nikon has af. The explanation must be related to the quality of glass. If fuji is heavier, it suggests that it's a better lens than the canon 135mm L.
He was talking about the (non-L) Canon 135/2.8. The L-lens is a 135/2.0.
I think quality wise, the Fuji 90mm is indeed more comparable with the Canon 135/2.0
Well, I meant unfair to the Canon lens since it's a 30 year old plastic lens that's not even available anymore. I had the 135/2.8 SF for few months and it actually quite nice glass if you don't use the soft focus feature. But it is cheaply built plastic lens and rather slow to focus (no 135L). The extra 100 grams probably come from the metal and (probably) better glass. ....but the most directly comparable lens available.
