Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26
  1. Collapse Details
    Canon 70-200 2.8
    #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    148
    Default
    Hello guys.

    Do you think it's worth the investment in this lens in a crop sensor?

    It would be for any type of video, including short films.

    Thanks


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    23
    Default
    The effective focal length of that lens on your APS-C camera is going to be 112-320mm. It would make it hard to shoot a lot of things, outside of landscapes or wildlife videos.

    If you have few lenses, realistically, you may want to start by covering the basic focal lengths first: 35mm (wide) - 50mm (normal) - 85mm (close-up).

    On a crop sensor camera, a couple of zoom lenses come to mind: Tamron 17-50mm Non-VC, Sigma 17-50mm or the Canon 17-55mm.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    148
    Default
    Thanks a lot for your reply. I'll then save that money and opt for other lenses.

    The difference in focal length with crop sensor it's something that confuses me.

    For example, i think i'm going to buy a Sigma 35mm 1.4 as i've seen really good reviews and videos about it. But in a crop sensor that would be something like 50mm, right? and a 50mm would be like 70mm?
    Last edited by mikcheck; 08-28-2014 at 06:12 AM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    23
    Default
    You are correct. Your 35mm becomes an effective 56mm (35 x 1.6).

    The crop factor is 1.6x on APS-C sized sensor cameras.
    Iif you take a 50mm lens, and stick it on your APS-C camera, you end up with an effective 80mm (50 x 1.6).


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    148
    Default
    Thank you.

    So effectively, to cover the wide, normal and close up it can be for example something like this for a crop sensor: 19mm lens for a wide, 35mm for normal and 50mm for close up?


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #6
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    23
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by mikcheck View Post
    Thank you.

    So effectively, to cover the wide, normal and close up it can be for example something like this for a crop sensor: 19mm lens for a wide, 35mm for normal and 50mm for close up?
    Yup!

    By the way, focal length for coverage comes down to personal taste and your shooting environment. You don't have to have all of your bases covered, but at least get a lens that fits your need.

    Personally, I love the look of 35-40mm in my projects - I could shoot an entire short at those lengths. And using it on a full frame gives me a fighting chance of pulling focus at bigger apertures (** wider lenses give you deeper depth of field - longer lenses give you smaller depth of field at comparable apertures).

    Consider your shooting environment as well: longer focal lengths inside of tight spaces can get complicated, and limit shot choices.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #7
    Senior Member ReelWorksMedia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Richmond Va
    Posts
    1,000
    Default
    On a good note...the 70-200 2.8 II is a fantastic lens on FF or APSC. You definitely would not regret it. You would most likely need a few others obviously...but this lens is definitely worth every penny. I have always loved the look of that one.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #8
    Senior Member Andrius Simutis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1,133
    Default
    Have either of you guys ever used one?
    The 70-200 2.8 IS II is quite possibly the best lens that Canon makes. Before you go poopoohing it based on some numbers, try one out. It ain't cheap, it ain't lightweight, but the image it gives you is simply amazing.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    214
    Default
    Have either of you guys ever used one?
    The 70-200 2.8 IS II is quite possibly the best lens that Canon makes. Before you go poopoohing it based on some numbers, try one out. It ain't cheap, it ain't lightweight, but the image it gives you is simply amazing.


    I don't think anyone is poopooing the lens. Just giving some practical advice before they spend $2.5k on a lens.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #10
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    23
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrius Simutis View Post
    Have either of you guys ever used one?
    The 70-200 2.8 IS II is quite possibly the best lens that Canon makes. Before you go poopoohing it based on some numbers, try one out. It ain't cheap, it ain't lightweight, but the image it gives you is simply amazing.
    Nobody dissed the lens - re-read the posts. I simply addressed the effective focal length of that lens on a crop-sensor camera.

    I wouldn't shoot a short with just 112mm to 320mm - would you?


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •