File :-(, x, )
Haietiei Anonymous
Ok, nub question, but I'm trying to learn..

I've read things like standard lens is ~50mm, wide angle lenses less, telephoto more...

So if you have a lens in a range, like 20-60mm (random number example), can you use the lower end (20mm) like more of a wide-angle lens, and the ~50mm-ish as more of a standard lens?

:/
>> Anonymous
yes
>> Anonymous
yes.. you will be able to "zoom" within that range.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
Yes, but prime lenses in each different focal length are usually better. Primes are optimized to work well for their focal length, but zooms need to be able to perform decently at all focal lengths so they are inherently more complex.

You need to take crop factor into consideration too, since most consumer DSLRs are crops. On a crop, 50mm is a medium tele (50mm = 80mm on crop), and 28-35mm is the range for the more normal lenses. 20mm isn't very wide on crop, either.
>> Anonymous
Thanks!

So basically if you had a lens like that (like 20-50) already, to buy a lens like 10-20mm or something like that would just be to increase the effect a bit more?
>> Anonymous
>>222800
I missed this before I posted :P
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
Just to give an example, my primary lens is a 17-35mm and that covers a medium wide to normal range. I also use a 50mm lens a lot because it's convenient and almost ideal as a portrait length lens and it works well for objects, too.
>> Anonymous
>>222804
Well I'm going to be buying a DSLR, and I'm trying to have the lenses I'd buy picked out (making sure they fit the camera and everything) before I get it...

A lot of people are saying to go into the Canon EOS digital rebel series, so probably one of those (XT?)
>> Anonymous
17mm is not a medium wide. It's just wide without an adjective.
>> Anonymous
Well lets say I were to get a rebel (XT or XTi) to start, they have a 1.6x crop right?

I am big on landscapes and the like, and I'm fairly sure something at least decently wide is a must.. How low should I go?

Would it be worth having a general lens, and buying say a 10-20mm lens?
>> Anonymous
>>222806
Get it with the 20/2.8, 28/2.8, 50/1.8, and the 55-200 and you're set for almost everything. Get the 28 and 50 first; they're the cheapest and most useful.
>> Anonymous
>>222815
thanks, I'll look into that
>> photography Anonymous
Canon has an xsi now that is much better than the xti and costs the same as the xti when it came out. 15-55 lens is usually standard with the kit. i love mine
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>222808
whatever, I just refer to it as that because 17mm is noticeably wider than 24mm, which is wide, but not as wide as 15mm or below
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>222830
The XSi kit comes with an 18-55 IS, not 15-55. XTi's come with an 18-55 too, it's just the poorer non-IS version of the lens.
>> Anonymous
>>222835
is 18-55 reasonably wide for good landscape-type shots?
>> Anonymous
>>222837


If I were you, I would shoot with the 18-55 kit lens for a while until you figure out what you shoot at more often.
>> Anonymous
OP here with an update....
I'll give some more details this time...

I plan on building a collection of lenses over time, BUT I've got a short term issue to deal with:
I live in a boring canadian city, but in 2 or 3 weeks I'm going to be going to new york for 5 or 6 days. I plan on taking a LOT of city shots.. the whole city, within the city, on some high buildings, skyline, etc. (I love those kind of shots :3)

Well, I found a deal (IMO): Rebel XT with the 18-55mm lens at $450... I have about a 900-1000 dollar budget... Will the 18-55mm lens do new york justice, or should I use the other 4-5 hundredish on a specific lens?

I'll get more lenses later in time, after seeing how I shoot (like the above poster suggests, thanks).. But I definitely know I want to get some good city shots...

(I was looking at a good rated sigma 10-20mm lens at $450, would that be good for my task, or am I looking at the wrong kind of lens?)

Lol anyway, yea... Really, thanks to everyone who replied so far, its helped lots!
>> AnonyBob !!bHK6FUTAyi2
>>222889
seems like you have about $550 in leftover cash. If I were you I would get a nice tripod(~$100+++) and a 580 EX II flash(~$450)

if you get a tripod it will be nice to get a remote shutter trigger( wired ~$40 or wireless$??)
If you get a flash It will be nice to have something to use the flash of camera, wither by a wire(about $50) or a wireless remote flash trigger (ebay ~$20) the ebay flash triggers are not the best quality/durability but well worth the 20 to 30 you pay for them.

I wouldn't spend the money on a lens till you know exactly what you want in that department, and that only you will know over time.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)
UWA is fun, but tough to master. A 10-20 will be the equiv of 16-32 on a crop body. I actually prefer shooting at 17 or 18mm on a crop, giving me 28 equiv.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS-1DSCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:06:14 22:21:39Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating50Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlashFocal Length17.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1016Image Height676RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
newbie throving himself into the thread here..

have i understood things correctly if lets say a 20mm lens on a camera with 1.6 crop is the same as a 20*1.6=32mm lens on a camera with no crop? And what is crop excactly? is it just a measure of something to make sure a picture on two different cameras will look the same with the same lens, regardless of how the camera is constructed inside the casing?
>> Anonymous
Newbie throwing himself into the thread here..

have i understood things correctly if lets say a 20mm lens on a camera with 1.6 crop is the same as a 20*1.6=32mm lens on a camera with no crop? And what is crop excactly? is it just a measure of something to make sure a picture on two different cameras will look the same with the same lens, regardless of how the camera is constructed inside the casing?
Or am i wrong?
>> Anonymous
yes
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>223322
not quite, sort of close though.

Crop means it has a smaller sensor, not full frame. You're applying the crop factor backwards, though. The focal length of the lens is 35mm equivalent, so what would be a 20mm lens on a full frame body would be 32mm equivalent on a 1.6 crop sensor.
>> Anonymous
>>223325

uh no, he had it right

>> a 20mm lens on a camera with 1.6 crop is the same as a 20*1.6=32mm lens on a camera with no crop?

a 20mm on 1.6 crop gives the same field of view as 32mm on no crop (ie full frame)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Here's an image to help illustrate the crop factor. Your eos 350d (blue) would be capturing a smaller field than a full frame camera (red)
>> Anonymous
i'm really bad at math

does this mean aps-c is about 60-66% the size of full frame, or it's 60-66% smaller
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>223330
I guess it depends on how you read what he said.

I read "20mm lens on a camera with 1.6 crop is the same as a 20*1.6=32mm lens on a camera with no crop?" as him asking if a lens marked as 20mm on a crop body was the same as 32mm on a full frame, and yeah the numbers are correct, but it would be 20mm on full frame and 32 on the crop, not the other way around.

The way he worded it was just kind of ambiguous.
>> Anonymous
>>223330
He said lens, not field of view. The lens would be marked with no crop factor. Sage is right on a technicality.
>> Anonymous
>>223337read "20mm lens on a camera with 1.6 crop is the same as a 20*1.6=32mm lens on a camera with no crop?" as him asking if a lens marked as 20mm on a crop body was the same as 32mm on a full frame, and yeah the numbers are correct, but it would be 20mm on full frame and 32 on the crop, not the other way around.

okay, hold up here

>> 20mm on full frame and 32 on the crop

this part

20mm on full frame != 32mm on crop

20mm on crop (squiggly equal sign) 32mm on full frame
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>223342
Um...you're wrong, sorry?

For instance, on my 400d...Sigma 17-35 on it. I zoom the lens to 20mm. On the 400d's 1.6 crop the lens is effectively a 32mm lens at that focal length. On a full frame body, 20mm would be 20mm, but on a crop body 20mm lens = 32mm.

Lenses are marked for their 35mm equivalency, not their crop factor. A 20mm lens on a crop body would be 32mm, not 20mm. And a 20mm lens on a FF body would be 20mm.
>> Anonymous
>>223343

uhhh read what i'm saying? and then compare it to what you're saying

>> I zoom the lens to 20mm. On the 400d's 1.6 crop the lens is effectively a 32mm lens

20mm on crop, would be effectively 32mm

good?

now read what i said

>> 20mm on crop (squiggly equal sign) 32mm on full frame

20mm on crop, would be effectively 32mm

even you know it does when you say:

>> but on a crop body 20mm lens = 32mm.

so why the fuck are you saying shit like this:

>> but it would be 20mm on full frame and 32 on the crop

that does not make sense

which is what i called you out on in>>223342
>> Anonymous
god this isnt that complicated people
i see we are using 20mm for examples

FULLFRAME = 20MM
1.5X Crop = 30mm equiv
1.6X Crop = 32mm equiv
2x Crop = 40mm equiv

the equiv means its equivalent to a 30/32/40 mm on a 35 mm camera.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>223348
And you're the one who tried to correct me, even though I said the same thing in my first post.

I'll say it again and again until you understand it. But first, I'll quote the post that I was responding to;

>> a 20mm lens on a camera with 1.6 crop is the same as a 20*1.6=32mm lens on a camera with no crop?
>>a 20mm lens....1.6 crop

Again. Lenses are marked by their 35mm equivalency, not their crop factor. A 20mm lens is not a 20mm lens on a crop body and a 32mm lens on a full frame body, it's a 32mm lens on a crop body and 20mm on a full frame body. What is so difficult to understand about that? You're trying to prove me wrong and in the process you're just making yourself look stupid.

You said, and I quote;
>>20mm on full frame != 32mm on crop

Which is 100% incorrect. 20mm on full frame IS 32mm on crop.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>223349
this
>> Anonymous
>>223363Which is 100% incorrect. 20mm on full frame IS 32mm on crop.

how the fuck are you that goddamn stupid?

you fucking said yourself

>> on a crop body 20mm lens = 32mm.

TWENTY mm on full frame does NOT equal THIRTY TWO on crop

holy shit
>> Anonymous
>>222927

Remarkably shitty photo, DC. Good job.

Oversharpened, terrible lighting, and makes the models both look used up and ugly.

Congrats on your magnificent success at using an EOS-1DS like it was a fucking silver-bodied Rebel.
>> weatherreport !UPBQK5lNSw
>>223363Which is 100% incorrect. 20mm on full frame IS 32mm on crop.

I'd like to state for the record that sage is the #1 moron on /p/.

20mm on full frame = 32mm on crop

BRILLIANT thinking.
>> Anonymous
SPOLIERS: Lenses are named by their focal length. Focal length is a physical property of the lens itself and is independent of the size of the film or sensor. A lens with a 20mm focal length still has a focal length of 20mm no matter what body you put it on, crop or full frame.

Field of view IS dependent on the size of the sensor. A 20mm lens on a 1.6x crop will have the same field of view as a 32mm on 135 film. But it still has a 20mm focal length.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
     File :-(, x)
>>223369
>>223365
I'd like to state for the record that either there is a major communication/semantics error here...or you two are complete idiots.

I mean, really...do you two not know how to apply crop factor?

Picture related. That's a 20mm lens. On a 5D, that would be a 20mm lens. On a 400D, that would be equivalent to 32mm.

So yes, 20mm on full frame is 32mm on 1.6x crop. Just like 50mm on full frame is 80mm on 1.6x crop.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>223373
This is true, but for all extensive purposes a 20mm focal length lens acts on a 1.6x crop body as a 32mm lens would on a full frame. And that's what I've been talking about all along.
>> weatherreport !UPBQK5lNSw
Okay, let's take your statement here:

>> 20mm on full frame IS 32mm on crop.

You really need to make yourself clear.

You can read it as:

>> 20mm (field of view) on full frame IS 32mm (field of view) on crop.

which it isn't.


>> 20mm (lens) on full frame IS 32mm (lens) on crop.

which it isn't.

I know what you are wanting to say but 20mm on full frame isn't 32mm on crop.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>223380
This is all basically semantics because of the way>>223322worded his question by including the word lens in it. It can be a true or a false statement depending on how you read it.

I did make myself clear previously, that's why I didn't bother that time.

>> 20mm (lens) on full frame IS 32mm (lens equivalent) on crop.
>> Anonymous
>>223376

>all extensive purposes

It's all intents and purposes.. get your idioms right.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>223389
All extensive purposes = wide range of purposes

You're right, though, the idiom is all intents and purposes.
>> Anonymous
>>223389
>>223392
i always thought it was intensive, i guess thats basically the same
>> Anonymous
>>223397

uhhh no

all intents and purpose is the correct way and generally accepted expression

all extensive, whatever if you want to shoe horn it, still makes sense

all intensive, no, just no