Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/aviation_photography/read.main/378143/

Topic: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: HarryImp
Posted 2013-01-07 06:57:22 and read 5060 times.

Hi all,
I currently have a 20D 1.6x crop factor camera. I have been saving up for a while thinking of getting a 400 f/5.6. The IQ and I am not worried about IS. I mainly want it for airshows and Military bases. I know it will be good at Air Shows but is the 640mm reach just too much at bases? Does anyone have any experience of a 400 prime on a crop sensor? (or a 600mm prime on a full frame)

Harry

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: waketurbulence
Posted 2013-01-07 07:50:37 and read 5041 times.

Over the years I have found you can never have too much focal length. All of these were shot with a 1.6 crop body + 500mm f/4 (and some with a 1.4x teleconverter). Some shots were standing fairly close and others were from quite a distance away. Military jets are small. If you are too close you can stand back, take the picture with the aircraft farther out, or learn to crop creatively.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Matthew Wallman - Jetwash Images
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Matthew Wallman - Jetwash Images


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Matthew Wallman - Jetwash Images
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Matthew Wallman - Jetwash Images


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Matthew Wallman - Jetwash Images
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Matthew Wallman - Jetwash Images



I have some friends that love the cost benefit of the 400 5.6. If you are budget limited and don't need very good low light capability, it is a great way to go.
-Matt

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: vikkyvik
Posted 2013-01-07 08:00:02 and read 5033 times.

Quoting HarryImp (Thread starter):
I know it will be good at Air Shows but is the 640mm reach just too much at bases?

It's pretty simple to figure this out if you've already shot at the locations at which you will be shooting. If you shot your current images at 200mm, and the aircraft fills up half of the frame, then at 400mm it'll fill up the whole thing. If you shoot at 300mm currently and the aircraft fills up half the frame, at 400mm it'll fill up 2/3 of the frame. It's just the ratio of the focal lengths.

You might see a perceived drop in quality, just due to the fact that there will be more atmospheric phenomena visible, like heat haze.

Also, make sure you have steady hands - remember you'll be shooting at 400mm without IS!

I haven't shot with the 400, but I've shot with the 300 F4L plus the 1.4 teleconverter, so 420mm at F5.6 min (672mm if you take the crop into account). It was good for front-half-of-aircraft shots from Imperial Hill, about 2000 feet away from the aircraft I was shooting. It was difficult for me, because I hadn't shot at 400+mm before, and having no IS made it even more fun (difficult).

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: SNATH
Posted 2013-01-08 04:51:29 and read 4911 times.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 2):
but I've shot with the 300 F4L plus the 1.4 teleconverter

+1 to consider this combo as an alternative to the 400mm 5.6. The combo will give you a bit more flexibility (300mm or 420mm) in addition to IS and an extra stop at 300mm, which can be handy in low-light conditions:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tony Printezis



Also, keep in mind that Canon recently released version III of their extenders. So, you might be able to pick up version II of the 1.4x extender for a reasonable price.

Tony

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: vikkyvik
Posted 2013-01-08 07:55:57 and read 4893 times.

Quoting SNATH (Reply 3):
+1 to consider this combo as an alternative to the 400mm 5.6. The combo will give you a bit more flexibility (300mm or 420mm) in addition to IS and an extra stop at 300mm, which can be handy in low-light conditions:

Tony - note that I was talking about the non-IS version of the 300 F4L, since that's the one I rented.  

I did, however, end up ordering the 300 F4L IS. Should be arriving today or tomorrow.

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: SNATH
Posted 2013-01-08 10:18:44 and read 4881 times.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 4):
Tony - note that I was talking about the non-IS version of the 300 F4L, since that's the one I rented.

I did, however, end up ordering the 300 F4L IS. Should be arriving today or tomorrow.

Enjoy.   I have to say that I'm totally addicted and dependent on IS for any long-ish lens. In this case, the IS is a nice addition and helpful to have!

Tony

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: HarryImp
Posted 2013-01-09 08:17:35 and read 4822 times.

But I have heard with the TC the image quality is nowhere near that of the 400?

Would I be better with a 100-400, would this have similar quality to the 300+1.4x?

I must say I do still quite like the idea of a 400 prime though!

Harry

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: vikkyvik
Posted 2013-01-09 09:28:43 and read 4819 times.

These was taken with the 300 F4 (non-IS) plus the 1.4:

http://www.vksphoto.com/photos/i-4JfHBZq/1/O/i-4JfHBZq-O.jpg

http://www.vksphoto.com/photos/i-4s33Dnb/1/O/i-4s33Dnb-O.jpg

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: JakTrax
Posted 2013-01-09 09:58:13 and read 4812 times.

They are pretty sharp Vik. What ISO? 1.4x II or III?

My 100-400 is starting to suffer IS issues, although at the moment it's not affecting the effectiveness of the IS. Nor is it affecting image quality, but I believe these issues can develop.

Shame as I have a superb copy, but should the worst happen I'd be very tempted to off-load it and go down the prime lens route - i.e. purchase the 300 or 400. It'd be interesting to see how the 300 + 1.4x compares to the 400.

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: vikkyvik
Posted 2013-01-09 10:21:33 and read 4809 times.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 8):
They are pretty sharp Vik. What ISO? 1.4x II or III?

I have the 1.4x III.

The UA is 1/500, F5.6, ISO200.

The EVA is 1/640, F5.6, ISO250.

They're a bit grainy due to underexposure - I was MUCH more concerned about tracking something at 420mm with no IS than I was about nailing exposure.  

Couldn't tell you why I was shooting at F5.6 - probably because I was concerned about shutter speed (again, tracking something at 420mm with no IS).

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: JakTrax
Posted 2013-01-09 10:48:16 and read 4803 times.

I did wonder about the noise but a grainy, sharp image is much better than a silky-smooth, blurry one. I often do that - underexpose deliberately to preserve a faster shutter. Grain can be sorted; blur cannot.

I'm guessing results from a 1.4x II might not be quite so good. I do like the flexibility of a 300 prime with a 1.4x though.

Karl

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: DL747
Posted 2013-01-09 10:59:05 and read 4796 times.

Karl, I think he shot those two with the TC on. You're right, those are really sharp.

Reference:

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 10):
tracking something at 420mm with no IS).

300x1.4=420.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 10):
I did wonder about the noise but a grainy, sharp image is much better than a silky-smooth, blurry one. I often do that - underexpose deliberately to preserve a faster shutter. Grain can be sorted; blur cannot.

Completely agreed. Sometimes, I also shoot wide-open to preserve shutter speed, although not very often. But hey, the weather usually sucks in Seattle, so it happens occasionally!

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: vikkyvik
Posted 2013-01-09 11:56:31 and read 4788 times.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 8):
My 100-400 is starting to suffer IS issues, although at the moment it's not affecting the effectiveness of the IS. Nor is it affecting image quality, but I believe these issues can develop.

What sort of issues, out of curiosity?

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 10):
I did wonder about the noise but a grainy, sharp image is much better than a silky-smooth, blurry one. I often do that - underexpose deliberately to preserve a faster shutter. Grain can be sorted; blur cannot.

Absolutely. My view on this has done a 180 as my photographic, and especially editing, skills have developed.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 10):
I'm guessing results from a 1.4x II might not be quite so good.

I don't think I've ever tried the 1.4x II, though from everything I've read, people have good experiences with it.

Quoting DL747 (Reply 11):
Karl, I think he shot those two with the TC on. You're right, those are really sharp.

He knows, he was just asking whether it was the 1.4x Mark II or Mark III.

Quoting DL747 (Reply 11):
Completely agreed. Sometimes, I also shoot wide-open to preserve shutter speed, although not very often.

I actually shoot wide-open all the time in low light. My 70-200 F4L non-IS performs beautifully at F4. Images are still tack-sharp.

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: HarryImp
Posted 2013-01-09 12:00:09 and read 4786 times.

OK so what would people reccomend

300 f/4 IS with 1.4X II
400 f.5,6
100-400.

The IS isnt a major factor for me. The only worry with the 400 is the fact it may be TOO much reach!

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: DL747
Posted 2013-01-09 12:02:30 and read 4784 times.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 12):

I actually shoot wide-open all the time in low light. My 70-200 F4L non-IS performs beautifully at F4. Images are still tack-sharp.

Good to hear, Vik. Hopefully the nikon counterpart is as good. I am thinking of ordering one with VR. Out of curiosity, what body do you have?

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: JakTrax
Posted 2013-01-09 12:23:36 and read 4781 times.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 12):
My 70-200 F4L non-IS performs beautifully at F4. Images are still tack-sharp



It's a good lens even wide-open but I often find myself requiring more DOF than f/4 offers. As you'd expect parts of the frame are slightly softer at f/5.6 and below but I am a terrible pixel-peep.........

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 12):
What sort of issues, out of curiosity?



It started only a couple of weeks ago. Even when the IS is turned off the image in the viewfinder 'jumps' whenever the shutter release is pressed half-way to focus. After this initial 'jump' everything behaves normally. Another thing that happened which was possibly related was 'palpitations' of the focus motor - almost as if it were stuck and trying to focus over and over. This would happen randomly but only while the camera was idle in my hands.

Karl

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: vikkyvik
Posted 2013-01-09 13:08:14 and read 4769 times.

Quoting DL747 (Reply 14):
Good to hear, Vik. Hopefully the nikon counterpart is as good. I am thinking of ordering one with VR. Out of curiosity, what body do you have?

Canon 50D.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 15):
As you'd expect parts of the frame are slightly softer at f/5.6 and below but I am a terrible pixel-peep.........

I'm pretty bad about pixel-peeping too. Even on the full-size photos, I've gotten incredible pixel-to-pixel sharpness across the frame at F4. I'll have to post a photo taken with my old 1000D and the 70-200 at F4. That camera/lens combo was just out-of-this-world sharp.

Quoting HarryImp (Reply 13):
The IS isnt a major factor for me. The only worry with the 400 is the fact it may be TOO much reach!

In that case, I'd recommend the 300 + 1.4.

Pros:
Two focal lengths.
IS (if you get the 300 IS)
At 420mm, you get the same max aperture as the 400 prime; you get a larger max aperture at 300mm

Cons:
A bit more expensive for the combo, though with the 300 non-IS, it's probably pretty comparable
Results may vary with the 300 + 1.4. I'd suggest renting them and testing if you can.
Two pieces of equipment to care for.

Note that I haven't tried the 100-400, but I decided to get the 300 F4 IS instead. I'm reluctant to get the 100-400 for whatever reason.

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: vikkyvik
Posted 2013-01-10 09:26:23 and read 4732 times.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 15):
It's a good lens even wide-open but I often find myself requiring more DOF than f/4 offers. As you'd expect parts of the frame are slightly softer at f/5.6 and below but I am a terrible pixel-peep........

Uploaded a couple full-size shots at wide apertures. Rebel XS / 1000D + 70-200 F4L:

F5.6 / ISO400:
http://www.vksphoto.com/photos/i-hTRz2dF/0/O/i-hTRz2dF-O.jpg

F4 / ISO400 (I've had sharper at F4, but I couldn't find them in my brief search last night):
http://www.vksphoto.com/photos/i-C5mnN7v/0/X2/i-C5mnN7v-X2.jpg

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: JakTrax
Posted 2013-01-10 09:45:23 and read 4726 times.

Vik,

Safe to say that the consistency of sharpness at the wider apertures isn't quite that of the narrower values. I've had some extremely sharp f/4.5 and f/5 shots (on a par with those at f/8) but the quality can fluctuate between pin-sharp and mediocre. I guess it also depends on how far you are away from your subject and at what focal length you are, due to DOF. In fact I'd say the softness issue at wide apertures is 50% attributed to insufficient DOF - which is why I'd typically rather bump up the sensitivity than drop a stop.

Karl

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: CFD208
Posted 2013-01-13 09:18:00 and read 4602 times.

HarryLMB,

I currently use the 400 f/5.6L with a 1.6 crop sensor. I shoot with a 40D.

If you are looking for a 400mm, you really have 2 options, the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM and the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM. Before I bought mine, I compared the two, and found that the quality on the 400mm was significantly better. But that shouldn't be much of a surprise since most of the time, a prime will have better quality that a zoom lens zoomed to the equivalent.

Speaking on the IS:
I don't have significant issues without the IS, and that's because I shoot with this on a monopod or tripod. Being a long lens, its almost a requirement. There have been a few times where I've shot handheld, but that was on a bright day with the sun behind me. I was then able to use a fast shutter. So most of the time I shoot supported, but under the right conditions it is hand holdable.

Airshows:
Its great. 400mm my mind is a perfect range. No complaints.

I also shoot it with the 1.6x converter. It brings it down a stop, so you'll have to compensate with ISO, or shutter for example, and there is a slight reduction in quality, but that isn't a problem with the lens, but a factor of the teleconverter.

Hope this helps.

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: vikkyvik
Posted 2013-01-13 21:01:54 and read 4555 times.

FYI to the OP, I received my 300 F4L IS, and I'm quite happy. Quality is excellent; still good with the 1.4x.

Quoting CFD208 (Reply 19):
If you are looking for a 400mm, you really have 2 options, the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM and the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM.

As has been stated, the 300 + 1.4 is another (quite valid in my opinion) option.

Quoting CFD208 (Reply 19):
I shoot with this on a monopod or tripod. Being a long lens, its almost a requirement.

Not with IS. Or even without, long as you keep the shutter speed up. Those shots of mine in reply 7 were handheld at 420mm without IS.

Quoting CFD208 (Reply 19):
I also shoot it with the 1.6x converter.

1.4x?

Also, with the 400 F5.6 and the 1.4x, max aperture is F8, and only certain cameras can autofocus at F8. I'm not sure which cameras those are, aside from the 1D/1Ds line.

Also also, sorry Karl, that second shot in my last post was supposed to be the full-size version. Here it is if you're interested:

http://www.vksphoto.com/photos/i-C5mnN7v/0/O/i-C5mnN7v-O.jpg

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: HarryImp
Posted 2013-01-14 05:21:17 and read 4520 times.

Definately swaying to the 400. the 100-400 has been ruled out. Still unsure about how much i need IS.

How much difference does just a cheap monopod make may i ask?


Harry

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: Dehowie
Posted 2013-01-17 21:30:55 and read 4380 times.

Not sure why you would "rule out" the most successful aviation lens that has ever seen the light of day and is used by more photographers all over the world than any other.
But hey what would they know???
400 prime vs zoom.
400 prime will give a good image with the TC..again due to speed issues only in good light..a 100-400 may have to be stopped down but you can only shoot good light anyway so its a non issue.
400 prime is lighter if weight is a problem.However if you cant carry a 100-400 dont ever plan on using pro gear down the track it only gets heavier as the desire for sharper images and faster lenses increases.
Same speed lens so in poor light you lose immediately due to no IS.
A non ultra sharp image is better than a blurry one.
Inability at an airshow to do close taxiing aircraft without a lens swap letting is dust etc and probably missing the shot.
Use of IS in windy and poor light conditions will save your shots far more often than inhibiting a sharp one.
Use of IS for panning slow shutter speed work.
The reason there is several hundred thousand 100-400 shots here and at other places is its sharp,light,has IS,great colors and gives great results for its price.
I dont know one Canon aviation shooter who doesnt have a 100-400 in his bag..conversely i dont know one Canon shooter with a 400/5.6.
Still if your scared of the 100-400 for reasons i cant fathom get a 70-200/2.8II and a 2x it gives you amazing flexibility and great quality with the TC's.

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: HarryImp
Posted 2013-01-18 02:15:10 and read 4362 times.

Thanks for the reply.
Yes the 100-400 is a great lens, however it loses a lot of sharpness above 350.
I have 2 bodies so the swapping of bodies would not be neccesary for nearby shots, as I have a very good IQ 70-300 IS USM.
I know th 100-400 is very popular and obviously flexible but I think the fast AF and great IQ of the 400 f/5.6 beats that.
I havenot 100#% decided so you are welcome to challenge my view, as the advice is muchly appreicated

Thanks
Harry

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: Samuel32
Posted 2013-01-18 07:23:10 and read 4333 times.

I have the 100-400L and the 400 F/5.6 on both 1.3 and 1.6 crop. For Sunny airshows the 400 F/5.6 is the lens you want. I never go below ISO 200 with that lens because it needs atleast 1/640 for sharp shots. (I have shaky hands). Its sharper than the 100-400L.

If you also shoot airliners get the 100-400L. I am using it more and more these days. It's just more versatile.

Sam,

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: Dehowie
Posted 2013-01-18 18:20:37 and read 4310 times.

Gday Harry
If you think the 70-300 has good IQ then you will have no issues with the IQ on the 100-400 at any focal length.
The reason for the apparent drop in IQ of the 100-400 is more to do with its use rather than the glass.
As the majority of users are putting it on a 1.6 crop body you are at 400mm getting a similar view angle as a 640mm lens.
With most people hand holding and with generally poor technique is it any wonder people wonder why they are getting soft images at 300+.
Combine that with atmospheric softness you get with 500+mm view angle and all of a sudden people scratch there heads as to why this supposed great lens is giving soft images..
Take one out in the last hour before sunset and it clearly shows as it provides beautiful images from 100 all the way to 400.
Just simply off the numbers sold you will get more complaints about IQ with people thinking you just need to put it on and push the shutter.
Like a big prime it takes technique to get the best from a 100-400 at the long end..the 400 is the same but will be far harder in results without IS.
The 400 prime is a lovely lens sharp at 5.6 and light.
No IS with a light lens in any wind means the speed advantage of shooting at 5.6 compared to 6.3 or 7.1 with the zoom for max sharpness is lost as you will need to bump the ISO to increase shutter speed.
Ive seen some wonderful shots with the 400 but the extra flexibility of he zoom combined with great IQ is an unbeatable package if you can only have one lens.
I own some of the best lenses in the world and my 100-400 comes on EVERY trip i take and if it died i would buy another in a minute.
When covering airshows it lives on one of my bodies full time.
Good luck with deciding but id sell the 70-300 immediately and grab a 100-400 tomorrow.

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: viv
Posted 2013-01-19 03:41:39 and read 4277 times.

Crop factor does not increase reach. It just reduces the size of the frame.

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: vikkyvik
Posted 2013-01-19 13:27:26 and read 4271 times.

Quoting viv (Reply 26):
Crop factor does not increase reach. It just reduces the size of the frame.

That would be exactly true if the pixels were the same size on a full-frame and crop body, so that you had less pixels on the crop body. But if you have a 15-MP full-frame and a 15-MP crop body, the cropped body is effectively increasing reach, since you have a higher pixel density. Technically it's not increasing reach (magnification is the same), but effectively....

That said, I don't bother thinking that my 300mm is 480mm on a full-frame. Doesn't matter at all to me.

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: Dehowie
Posted 2013-01-19 20:02:13 and read 4254 times.

By altering the viewing angle it is effectively increasing reach.
Yes the lens doesnt get any longer but it provides on a crop sensor a smaller viewing angle matching that of a longer lens on a FF body..
500 on my 7D = effective 800mm viewing angle.
800 on my 1Dx= 800mm same viewing angle as above..

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: viv
Posted 2013-01-20 02:58:40 and read 4221 times.

The narrower viewing angle is a function of the smaller frame and does not increase magnification, aka reach. More pixels give more resolution, not more reach.

If crop factor gave more reach, we would all be shooting with the smallest possible sensor coupled with the longest possible lens. But we are not.

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: Dehowie
Posted 2013-01-20 18:56:16 and read 4158 times.

Actually disagree many people are.
Many birders shoot with a crop sensor for that exact reason.
1.6 crops are very popular with nature photographers requiring max reach for the reasons i and you have just explained.
Canons switch from a 1.3 crop sensor to FF on its premier 1series has been a major gripe with Birders and anyone else relying on maximum reach.
Effective focal length and focal length are different.
If they were not then according to your logic a 14mm wide angle would give you exactly the same image on a crop vs non crop body.
Magnification ratio does not allow for smaller image sampling area as old school film never changed size in an SLR.
If it did and it should as magnification is defined as image size on film/ image size it would clearly change as a crop sensor equates to smaller film size.
Semantics aside crop sensors equate to greater effective focal length...magnification plays no part in focal length calculations only field of view on the film plane.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lenses.htm

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: vikkyvik
Posted 2013-01-20 20:38:30 and read 4153 times.

Quoting viv (Reply 29):
The narrower viewing angle is a function of the smaller frame and does not increase magnification, aka reach. More pixels give more resolution, not more reach.

Isn't that basically what Darren and I said?

Quoting viv (Reply 29):
If crop factor gave more reach, we would all be shooting with the smallest possible sensor coupled with the longest possible lens. But we are not.

Except that smaller sensors will generally increase noise, and decrease pixel-to-pixel resolution. So a 15-MP full-frame will likely give you better quality than a 15-MP crop.

More resolution gives you more effective reach, since you can resolve more detail. But obviously that has its limitations in the real world.

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: mikek1357
Posted 2013-02-04 09:27:23 and read 3834 times.

I'm having the same dilemma.

A 400mm F5.6 or a 300mm F4 IS with 1.4 tc. No zoom for me as 90 percent of my shots are taken with my old 70-300 at 300mm.

I am wondering however a 400mm on a 1.6 crop sensor, is it too much or isn't it enough. On airbases or airports with landing and departing aircraft I believe it's too much, but at airshows, with tiny Extra's, or yes a small F-16, it might not be enough.

Anyone who has theories on this? I've seen 400mm lenses on FF bodies and people were more then happy with it. And I heard of people who have a 400mm on a crop sensor and say they want a 500 or 600mm lens.

Topic: RE: 400 F/5.6 On 1.6x Crop Camera
Username: Silver1SWA
Posted 2013-02-04 10:03:29 and read 3829 times.

Quoting viv (Reply 29):
If crop factor gave more reach, we would all be shooting with the smallest possible sensor coupled with the longest possible lens. But we are not.

Many do, which Darren has explained above.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 31):
Isn't that basically what Darren and I said?

Yes.

In terms of field of view and how the subject fills the frame, you effectively increase reach on the cropped sensor. However, since you aren't actually getting more zoom, depth of field does not behave like it would if you increased zoom.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/