How to get to full frame without breaking the bank

[Bryston3bsst]

The downside to using EF lenses on a crop body is that the field of view is greatly diminished.

A result, but not necessarily a downside.

How so? How is a narrower field of view a good thing? And please don't regurgitate the additional reach' thing. Unless, that is, you're a fan of the old 'digital zoom'. Which is effectively what you have.

I guess to some the restricted field of view is tolerable. It wasn't for me.

It's a good thing when one shoots wildlife or sports and can't afford a $10k super telephoto lens.
Sorry if my regurgitation bugs you.

Doesn't bug me at all. It's just incorrect.

I know you think I'm full of crap so maybe call or email Canon or Nikon engineering. They can probably explain it better that I can.

But you can continue to believe what you like. I think it's called flying in the face of reason.

 

[ronlane]

The downside to using EF lenses on a crop body is that the field of view is greatly diminished.

A result, but not necessarily a downside.

How so? How is a narrower field of view a good thing? And please don't regurgitate the additional reach' thing. Unless, that is, you're a fan of the old 'digital zoom'. Which is effectively what you have.

I guess to some the restricted field of view is tolerable. It wasn't for me.

Bryston, I'm not trying to be a smart@$$, but what you are saying is basically that you use an ultrawide lens for all of your photos. Because any lens with less field of view than what your eyes can see (which is more than 180 degrees) would restrict your field of view.

I don't see using a FX lens on a crop sensor to be any different than using a TC on on a FX camera. I don't know a lot of people that have over $10K to go out and purchase the Super Telephoto lenses for sports or for birds/wildlife.

 

[astroNikon]

Actually with Wide Angle,
using a crop camera with a 10-xx mm lens would be far cheaper than a FF with a 14-xx mm lens. So roughly the same FOV but crop has options to make it alot cheaper.

the widest lenses I have are my 18-105 DX for my d7000 and a 18-35 FX for my d600.

But even buying a d3x00 and a tamron 10-24 would be super cheap
as even a used FF d600 is going to cost 3x or more the price of a used d3100/3200 body.

A good used AF-D 18-35 FX like I have is roughly the same price as a used tamron 10-24 DX. So, when on a budget, the body price makes a difference with the DX being less money. And you already have a Canon crop body.

*if* specific UWA and price is the only consideration i'd might stick with DX
But if one has dreams of FF then there's only one long term solution.

 

[Peeb]

Oh gosh, so this is just a validation thread. How stupid of me for not seeing where this was going in the first place.

Enjoy your new equipment.

This is not a "should I do this" thread.
This is a "How do I get this done" thread.

I'm not looking for validation from you, friend.
I'm looking for advice from people who know more than I do.

Thanks for all the kind replies, folks.

Which is exactly what you're getting. But it's interesting that the advice you choose to listen to are the ones that are saying 'do it, do it'. Which is exactly my point. I mistakenly thought that you were undecided and as a result I was agreeing with another poster in thinking that your reasoning for doing this was flawed.

Clearly, by your own admission, you've already decided to this. How you get it done is up to you and your wallet. I'll leave you be.

Again, enjoy your new stuff.

Disagree away, folks.

No one 'advised' me to go FF, I came to that conclusion on my own, and that decision process is not the subject of this thread.

Thanks for your clarification. I merely disagreed with your original statement because you were wrong.

I 'liked' your follow up comment, because- well, I liked it. Be well.

 

[JacaRanda]

The downside to using EF lenses on a crop body is that the field of view is greatly diminished.

A result, but not necessarily a downside.

How so? How is a narrower field of view a good thing? And please don't regurgitate the additional reach' thing. Unless, that is, you're a fan of the old 'digital zoom'. Which is effectively what you have.

I guess to some the restricted field of view is tolerable. It wasn't for me.

It's a good thing when one shoots wildlife or sports and can't afford a $10k super telephoto lens.
Sorry if my regurgitation bugs you.

Doesn't bug me at all. It's just incorrect.

I know you think I'm full of crap so maybe call or email Canon or Nikon engineering. They can probably explain it better that I can.

But you can continue to believe what you like. I think it's called flying in the face of reason.

Wrong! I don't think you are full of crap.

 

[astroNikon]

I don't see using a FX lens on a crop sensor to be any different than using a TC on on a FX camera. I don't know a lot of people that have over $10K to go out and purchase the Super Telephoto lenses for sports or for birds/wildlife.

Or for $1,100.00 just go buy a tamron/sigma 150-600 and be done with it.

 

[ronlane]

I don't see using a FX lens on a crop sensor to be any different than using a TC on on a FX camera. I don't know a lot of people that have over $10K to go out and purchase the Super Telephoto lenses for sports or for birds/wildlife.

Or for $1,100.00 just go buy a tamron/sigma 150-600 and be done with it.

For birds/wildlife, that seems to be a great option for most people. However, for shooting H.S. Football at night, I don't think it's fast enough. (I struggle with my f/4)

 

[astroNikon]

I don't see using a FX lens on a crop sensor to be any different than using a TC on on a FX camera. I don't know a lot of people that have over $10K to go out and purchase the Super Telephoto lenses for sports or for birds/wildlife.

Or for $1,100.00 just go buy a tamron/sigma 150-600 and be done with it.

For birds/wildlife, that seems to be a great option for most people. However, for shooting H.S. Football at night, I don't think it's fast enough. (I struggle with my f/4)

That's one advantage my FF has over my DX body. Low light ability. For doing evening sports my d600 has helped so much over my d7000 using f/2.8 and f/4 lenses. Even with the variable Tamron 150-600 the d600 doesn't have issues in handling higher ISOs like the d7000.

 

[ronlane]

@astroNikon, and that is why I am wanting to go FF. (But I'm going to try to get a 300mm f/4 before I go, that way I'll have the 300 lol)

 

[astroNikon]

@astroNikon, and that is why I am wanting to go FF. (But I'm going to try to get a 300mm f/4 before I go, that way I'll have the 300 lol)

The nice thing about Nikon is getting older lenses. My 300/4 AF is an older screw focusing lens. Not the fastest, not the lightest, not the best. But low cost comparative to the new in-body focus motored 300/4s. I spent $300 for it versus $1400 or more for newer used variations of it.

 

[Bryston3bsst]

The downside to using EF lenses on a crop body is that the field of view is greatly diminished.

A result, but not necessarily a downside.

How so? How is a narrower field of view a good thing? And please don't regurgitate the additional reach' thing. Unless, that is, you're a fan of the old 'digital zoom'. Which is effectively what you have.

I guess to some the restricted field of view is tolerable. It wasn't for me.

Bryston, I'm not trying to be a smart@$$, but what you are saying is basically that you use an ultrawide lens for all of your photos. Because any lens with less field of view than what your eyes can see (which is more than 180 degrees) would restrict your field of view.

I don't see using a FX lens on a crop sensor to be any different than using a TC on on a FX camera. I don't know a lot of people that have over $10K to go out and purchase the Super Telephoto lenses for sports or for birds/wildlife.

You're not being a smart ass at all. Your statement " any lens with less field of view than what your eyes can see (which is more than 180 degrees) would restrict your field of view." is profound. Of course it does. Most all lenses do. Wouldn't it be great if we had lenses, and bodies for that matter, with the field of view, focal length capabilities and dynamic range of our eyes? God's a pretty darn good engineer to design our eyes to work they way they do. Of course I realized not everyone can afford the long glass. My only contention is the unfortunately popular belief that using a crop body camera increases any given lens' focal length. It quite simply does not. It decreases FOV by the crop factor. Your 200mm focal length is still 200mm however you have the FOV of a 320mm lens....assuming a 1.6 crop.

With regard to lenses, we still certainly need the focal length when shooting distant subjects. Unfortunately, optics are such that as focal length increases FOV decreases. I don't think any optical company has ever designed long glass with a 100+ degree FOV. At least I have never heard of one. Can you imagine a lens that's a foot and a half long with a glass hemisphere on the end like a 6mm has? 600mm with a 125 degree FOV all for only $500,000! Hey, I'm there!

So.....let's carry on.

 

[ronlane]

Hmm, I don't think my wife is going to let me have that half million dollar 600mm without her spending an equal amount on a house and property. lol.

Very good points @Bryston3bsst.

 

[Bryston3bsst]

No one 'advised' me to go FF, I came to that conclusion on my own, and that decision process is not the subject of this thread.

Thanks for your clarification. I merely disagreed with your original statement because you were wrong.

I 'liked' your follow up comment, because- well, I liked it. Be well.

WRONG......WRONG YOU SAY????? How dast you! Why.........that's simply not possible. I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken. So......that for you......

 

[Peeb]

So.... back to FF cameras.

If I'm willing to trade by mail, did I hear that adorama takes used gear?

 

[gr8five]

If you think strongly you want to go ff then you should do it and once you there you won't want to go back. Good luck, and yes adorama does take trades.