dear All,
I'm going to made a " little" upgrade to my photo equipment... passing from the 400d to the 6d but... but before I need some help about lenses...
I already have:
- 8-16 Sigma (What will be the result on a FF? it's important because I love this piece of glass)
- 50 f1,8
- 24-70 sigma macro
- 75-300 canon (very old style, so old that I don't remember the model :blink 
I don't know which lenses I'm going to use on FF without problems!!
Can someone helping me :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: ?
thank you
Lorenzo
Quote:dear All,
I'm going to made a "little" upgrade to my photo equipment... passing from the 400d to the 6d but... but before I need some help about lenses...
I already have:
- 8-16 Sigma (What will be the result on a FF? it's important because I love this piece of glass)
- 50 f1,8
- 24-70 sigma macro
- 75-300 canon (very old style, so old that I don't remember the model :blink
I don't know which lenses I'm going to use on FF without problems!!
Can someone helping me :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: ?
thank you
Lorenzo
Sigma 8-16 is crop only, it will heavily vignette. You'd need the sigma 12-24 lens for FF then.
50 f1.8 is an EF lens, will be just fine.
The Sigma 24-70 is a standard lens for FF cameras (like an 18-55 for crop).
The 75-300 is an EF FF lens, but it's image quality is lacking, it was a cheap consumer zoom from film days (though still being sold). You might wish to find something better for the 6D.
Quote:dear All,
I'm going to made a "little" upgrade to my photo equipment... passing from the 400d to the 6d but... but before I need some help about lenses...
I already have:
- 8-16 Sigma (What will be the result on a FF? it's important because I love this piece of glass)
Usually you can apply the crop factor to determine what will be the usable range on FF, with these UWA APS-C lenses. So in case of this Sigma, that would mean 8 x 1.5 (it is fine on 1.5x crop factor APS-C) = 12mm to 16mm on FF. You sure can use it at 16mm anyway, so even if my rule of thumb would not go for this particular design, you can still use it as a 16mm UWA "prime".
Quote:- 50 f1,8
This lens will work better on the 6D even, so no problems there. Nice cheap normal lens to have on APS-C.
Quote:- 24-70 sigma macro
This never was a super lens, but will perform adequate anyway on the 6D. So, untill you run into performance limitations, you will not have to get a different standard zoom for FF.
Quote:- 75-300 canon (very old style, so old that I don't remember the model :blink
All the 75-300mm Canon lenses were ok-ish to rather disappointing (image quality wise, especially at 300mm). So this lens would be the 1st on the list to be replaced, in my opinion. On a budget, look at the Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM or the Tamron 70-300mm f4-5.6 USD VC. Both have rather good optics over the entire range, good IS. The Tamron will perform a tad quicker/better when AF tracking in AI-Servo mode, and has no rotating front element, handy for when you want to use a pol. filter. Also, the Tamron has the sun hood (great impact protection) included, with the Canon you have to buy it separately, adding a bit to the price.
Quote:I don't know which lenses I'm going to use on FF without problems!!
Can someone helping me :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: ?
thank you
Lorenzo
08-29-2013, 05:05 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-29-2013, 05:08 PM by Rover.)
I'm not sure the 75-300 is even sellable... Like Brightcolours, I would probably recommend to use Tamron 70-300 VC, as it's better than the Canon 70-300 (and naturally the 75-300) mechanically, and surely optically as well.
The Sigma 8-16 may not work at all... I tried a 10-20/4-5.6 on my APS-H bodies during a recent trip, and not only it had black corners at 10mm, but also strong vignetting everywhere else, even at 20mm (and that on 1.3x crop, mind you!) If the 8-16 uses the same principle, it may not be work at any focal length on FF. But I've never handled that lens, so it's just a guess.
24-70 macro... funny, I've seen a guy using one on a 6D at the Venice's Biennale in early August. Though there aren't many tests of this lens around, it'll probably be okay'ish in the center, with pretty blurry corners. Here's one review, so you know what to expect:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revie...eview.aspx
Quote:Usually you can apply the crop factor to determine what will be the usable range on FF, with these UWA APS-C lenses. So in case of this Sigma, that would mean 8 x 1.5 (it is fine on 1.5x crop factor APS-C) = 12mm to 16mm on FF. You sure can use it at 16mm anyway, so even if my rule of thumb would not go for this particular design, you can still use it as a 16mm UWA "prime".
This lens will work better on the 6D even, so no problems there. Nice cheap normal lens to have on APS-C.
This never was a super lens, but will perform adequate anyway on the 6D. So, untill you run into performance limitations, you will not have to get a different standard zoom for FF.
All the 75-300mm Canon lenses were ok-ish to rather disappointing (image quality wise, especially at 300mm). So this lens would be the 1st on the list to be replaced, in my opinion. On a budget, look at the Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM or the Tamron 70-300mm f4-5.6 USD VC. Both have rather good optics over the entire range, good IS. The Tamron will perform a tad quicker/better when AF tracking in AI-Servo mode, and has no rotating front element, handy for when you want to use a pol. filter. Also, the Tamron has the sun hood (great impact protection) included, with the Canon you have to buy it separately, adding a bit to the price.
Quote:I'm not sure the 75-300 is even sellable... Like Brightcolours, I would probably recommend to use Tamron 70-300 VC, as it's better than the Canon 70-300 (and naturally the 75-300) mechanically, and surely optically as well.
The Tamron is not better than the Canon, optically. They are more or less equal.
Quote:The Sigma 8-16 may not work at all... I tried a 10-20/4-5.6 on my APS-H bodies during a recent trip, and not only it had black corners at 10mm, but also strong vignetting everywhere else, even at 20mm (and that on 1.3x crop, mind you!) If the 8-16 uses the same principle, it may not be work at any focal length on FF. But I've never handled that lens, so it's just a guess.
The Sigma 8-16mm is vignetting free at 15-16mm, on FF.
Quote:24-70 macro... funny, I've seen a guy using one on a 6D at the Venice's Biennale in early August. Though there aren't many tests of this lens around, it'll probably be okay'ish in the center, with pretty blurry corners. Here's one review, so you know what to expect:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revie...eview.aspx
That is not the lens the original poster has. He does state he has a 24-70mm macro version.
The Tamron is better than the 75-300 (I tried the latter and it was no good above ~150mm). I might've not phrased it clear enough.
Quote:The Tamron is not better than the Canon, optically. They are more or less equal.
The Sigma 8-16mm is vignetting free at 15-16mm, on FF.
That is not the lens the original poster has. He does state he has a 24-70mm macro version.
Huh? The review I posted the link to is for the old Sigma 24-70 macro, not the HSM one. I assumed that was the lens the OP was talking about. Quote from the review: "With a minimum focusing distance of 15.7" (40 cm), the Sigma 24-70 has a maximum magnification of .26x. This is enough magnification for Sigma to give this lens a "macro" designation."
Quote:The Tamron is better than the 75-300 (I tried the latter and it was no good above ~150mm). I might've not phrased it clear enough.
Huh? The review I posted the link to is for the old Sigma 24-70 macro, not the HSM one. I assumed that was the lens the OP was talking about. Quote from the review: "With a minimum focusing distance of 15.7" (40 cm), the Sigma 24-70 has a maximum magnification of .26x. This is enough magnification for Sigma to give this lens a "macro" designation."
Yes, you are right of course... I blame the reviewer for consistently not using the full name of that lens in that review, which gave me the impression it was a different version. Sorry!
No worries, up until recently the Sigma and Tamron nomenclature has been way too confusing.
|
