From 18-35 crop to 24-70 full frame

[TonyUSA]

Currently using Canon 50D with Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 so it would be around 29-56mm. Would it be better to get rid of Sigma 18-35mm and get 24-70 f/2.8 and use it on 5D? If not then I can use that $1,100 to buy other lens.

Thank you,

 

[chris]

Forget about Full Frame - Crop equivalents. A 24-70 mm is 24-70 mm regardless of what camera it is attached to, only the field of view changes, so if you replace your current lens you will lose out on the 18 mm to 24 mm range.

I am not familiar with Canon cameras and lenses so I do not know what alternatives are available. If you need a wide aperture lens then the FF one may be worthwhile but you will lose out on the wide angle range. If you are planning to change to a FF camera in the future then the 24-70 mm can be used with that.

 

[bratkinson]

I bought my Canon 16-35 f2.8 L so I could get 'wider' views on my crop sensor 60D. I also knew I'd be moving to full frame as I came from 35mm slide film photography. I 'complemented' that with a 24-105 f4 L to get the longer shots when needed. As I've been doing mostly indoor work at church events for the past 8-9 years or so, the 16-35 got a good workout. But since moving to a 5Diii 4 years ago, the 16-35 doesn't get much use. About the only time I'm using it these days is for larger group shots and shots I take to post stuff on ebay. I really like that focal length range when I need it, so I'm not going to part with the lens. My 16-35 was also my emergency backup when my 24-105 failed in the middle of a shoot. I did a lot of cropping in post as a result.

For a while, while I still had my 60D, I was undecided between the 16-35 and 24-70 f2.8 L (mark i), as I bought the latter to see how well it fit my needs. Being retired, I found the 24-70 a bit on the too heavy side to shoot with for a 3-4 hour event. I sold it after my first event with it. As a 'replacement' to get the 'wider' angle shots the 16-35 got on crop sensor 60D, it's a good fit. The 24-70 also fills the 'gap' in zoom lens focal lengths to your 70-200.

However...

Depending on what kind of shooting you're doing, having a backup camera such as the 50D is a good idea. I think I'd keep the Sigma on that camera as a backup and add a 24-70 to your camera bag. Good used mark i versions are under $1000 these days.

 

[Braineack]

Forget about Full Frame - Crop equivalents. A 24-70 mm is 24-70 mm regardless of what camera it is attached to, only the field of view changes, so if you replace your current lens you will lose out on the 18 mm to 24 mm range.

And FOV, in this case, is very important.

If the OP is used to shooting 18-35 on a crop body, if he starts shooting 18-35 on a FF body it's going to be a much different experience in his viewfinder.

If he replaces his 18-35 with a 24-70 on a FF, he GAINS FOV, on both ends, as it would be like shooting a 15-44mm lens on his current body.

 

[TonyUSA]

Thank you everyone for your advice.

 

[greybeard]

Well, you would be going from a lens that is Wide angle (18) to normal (35) to a lens that is wide/normal (24) to short telephoto (70). It is all about the zoom range and how it will benefit you.

 

[Braineack]

Well, you would be going from a lens that is Wide angle (18) to normal (35) to a lens that is wide/normal (24) to short telephoto (70). It is all about the zoom range and how it will benefit you.

objectively, yes. this is factual true. However, you failed to factor in the difference in sensor size and how the focal length of those lens work on crop vs. full frame sensors.

This is that ONE time that equivalent size actually matters in this sort of discussion and you're all failing to bring it up...

 

[greybeard]

oops, I didn't realize you were planning on using the 24-70 on FF. hmmmmmmmmmmm. I think I would just sell the 18-35 and buy exactly what I needed.

 

[astroNikon]

OP currently has a
"Canon 50D with Sigma 18-35 f/1.8" -- crop camera

is contemplating going to a
"24-70 f/2.8 and use it on 5D" -- Full Frame camera

thus the reason FOV is very important here.
Unless it was a typo 5D and should have been 50D

 

[TonyUSA]

Thank you everyone for your input.

At the moment I am using Canon 50D with Sigma 18-35mm and Canon 5D mk III with 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.

How about this, Between option A and option B, which option will give me better picture such as the picture quality, sharpness of the picture, and etc. If not concerning about length of both lens. The main thing is optical quality, just the output of pictures.

Option A: Canon 50D with Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8.

Option B: Canon 5D mkIII with 24-70mm f/2.8 II USM

Let's say if option B will get much better picture quality than option A, then I have to buy 24-70mm f/2.8 lens. But if picture quality of option B is not a huge different than option A then I will not have to buy 24-70 and will keep using option A and I can use extra money to buy some monolight or other lens.

 

[astroNikon]

In perfectly lit subjects you won't notice much of a difference. But in *not* perfectly lit scenarios is when you'll notice a big difference.

In Macro, the crop can be very beneficial too. Both have pluses and minuses. But if you put cheap lenses on either it will affect the pictures quality. If you put Pro lenses on both you'll get optimal picture quality.

 

[Braineack]

between the two it may be a wash in decent lighting -- but I'm assuming the 5D sensor is a good bit better (not to mention how much better the body itself is).

I'd shoot Option B if I had the choice.

 

[TonyUSA]

Thank you,