Is it a good idea to buy a good lens for an entry-level body?

One one hand it will be longer than on a full frame (112-320mm equivalent) which means it may be a little tight for portraits but will have a little more reach for sports and wildlife. It also won't be as fast as on a full frame, F4.48 equivalent. On the other hand all lens will be in the same boat so even if it is slower than it would be on a full frame it still compares well to other lenses on the same body.

>>2923221
>It also won't be as fast as on a full frame, F4.48 equivalent.
Why is this?

>>2923224
Don't pay attention to that. It is factually incorrect. The aperture of the lens has nothing to do with the body.

Overall, lenses matter more to a final image than bodies do. Just be sure the focal length and field of view the 70-200mm gives you on that camera are what you want. 70mm on a crop body is pretty tight.

>>2923224

You need to multiply aperture by crop factor, not just focal length. I've seen some comparison photos where they used both a full frame and a crop sensor, both were adjusted to the same field of view. To get the same exposure the stopped down the aperture on the full frame and it turns out to be the same as the aperture on the crop sensor times the crop factor.

>>2923230
>>2923232
t-thanks

>>2923230

Aperture width is on the lens but f-stop is a ratio of the focal length to the aperture width. In the same way that field of view and effective focal length changes with a smaller sensor so does effective f-stop.

>>2923232
This isn't true at all. For the same aperture, shutter speed and ISO for proper exposure will be the same no matter how big the sensor is.

The only time you factor the crop into aperture is when comparing depth of field, not actual exposure settings. (The same lens with the same framing will tend to have about a stop wider DoF, i.e. 2.8 on crop will look like 4 on FF.)

>>2923232
No, you are fucking wrong and spreading misconceptions as if you knew what you're talking about.
Crop factor DOES affect field of view, and the bigger the sensor the shallower the depth of field at the same apperture.
But crop factor/sensor size DOES NOT have anything to do with the exposure.

A picture that is correctly exposed at iso 100, 1/125 f/8 on a full frame sensor will be equally well exposed on a micro 4/3 with the same settings. Depth of field and field of view will be different, but exposure will be the same.

And back to OPs question good glass is always preferable to a good body as your first investment. Maybe a 70-200 is a little overkill and you could be equally good investing in a better body+variable apperture great telezoom like a tamron 70-300, but it's definitely better to shoot great glass on a basic body than crappy glass on a 5DmkIII.

>>2923257
Does the tamron 70-300 take pretty sharp photos? I love my nifty fifty for the sharpness, and my stock 18-55 doesn't seem to match up, which is why I was hesitant on buying another zoom lens that wasn't high quality. How does the tamron match up?

>>2923211
>Is it a good idea to buy a good lens for an entry-level body?
In many instances, yes.

Not entirely sure if I'd do it on a Rebel T3i.

I'd probably upgrade the camera along with the lens. But YMMV depending on what you shoot.

> Canon full frame
You could just use a Sony full frame. Or even Sony APS-C (A6300...) with or without a speedbooster.

you can't go wrong with the 70-200. the handling alone is enough to get me off my ass and snap some shits

>>2923232
>>2923250

lol no. A lens projects the same amount of light no matter how small the sensor is. If you crop an image, does it get darker? If you mounted a lens to a full frame sensor and told the camera to only use the center pixels, why would you need more exposure?

>>2923232
>>2923221

Does this apply when using crop sensor lenses on a crop sensor camera?

e.g. Nikon DX lenses on a DX body.

>>2923595

It doesn't apply to any kind of camera. Those guys are idiots.

>>2923232
wrong only bokeh whores are affected

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDbUIfB5YUc

>>2923232

You are truly talking out of your arsehole.

>>2923211
>Is it a good idea to buy a good lens for an entry-level body?

Only lenses that are very sharp in the center.
Which the 70-200 happens to be.

And, yes, in terms of NOISE PERFORMANCE it will look just like a 112-320 f/4.5 on a full frame camera from the same generation.
No matter what the artificial ISO simulation says.

>>2924063

Lol okay northcuck. Keep learning all of your stuff from YouTube.

>>2923644

Evidently Tony Northrup is an idiot as well.

>>2924063
Dab

>>2926716

He is. You must be new.

>>2924063
>>2923232
tfw people still take the bait

Tony was a fucking genius when he made those videos. The madman actually got people to believe that lenses work differently other than angle of view on different sensors/film sizes.

People eat it up because the type of people who watch his videos are bokehfags and gearfags anyway.
>>2926716
Fuck off Tony.

File: IMG_4997_lzn.jpg (119KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1000x665px

>>2923211
I have a t3i and got the f2.8 70-200mm, it's not quite as good as it would be with a good body (af seemed slightly slower than it was when i tried it in the store on the mark 5) but it's definitely not useless it's an amazing lens and i plan on getting a full frame at some point not too long from now.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS REBEL T3i
Camera Software	LightZone
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5192
Image Height	3455
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:05:21 17:23:12
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	160
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	200.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2923211

>should I buy this awesome lens for my ok body?

Of fucking course. WTF is wrong with you? Buy it. Then get a better body when you can.

All you weebs talking about f stops:
The dof on a crop at f stop will be same as a full frame using a lens at f stop * crop factor.
Also the total light falling on the sensor for crop is also that as obviously less light hits the smaller sensor.

For noise performance it's a bit weirder because iso 100 for a large and small sensor don't mean the same shit. The small sensor is collecting less light but is expected to produce the same output as the larger sensor. Therefore some people say that the effective f stop on a crop is the actual f stop * crop factor.

>>2931061

You're a dummy. ;)

>>2923344
Well because to get the same noise performance on the crop sensor you need to lower your iso and thus raise the f stop. Try it yourself man it's true. Iso 400 on a crop and ff mean different things

>>2931062
Actually fucking read the iso standardizations you retard

>>2931065

I read them long before you were even "into photography".

They don't apply here.

>>2931064

ISO 400 means different things on different FF bodies, too. ;)

>>2923232
Next lens thread I see I'm posting this.

>>2931135
You gonna get a lot of people mad. Specially people that buy into MFT for the wrong reasons, such as "cheap" "ultra fast" lenses.

>>2923211
While the thread has completely devolved into lens physics. I think the general consensus OP is that yeah it's worth getting. Plus it'll still be good if you ever upgrade.

File: IMG_3770.jpg (1MB, 5184x3456px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 5184x3456px

years ago i bought a sigma 70-200 2.8 for $900
the 22mm cannon eos m prime blows it away for sharpness at $120
buy 1 good prime and use it for a year. use your feet to zoom. you will learn more

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS M
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:24 23:22:01
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	22.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	5184
Image Height	3456
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2933701
are you actually retarded? of course a wide angle prime will be sharper than a tele zoom. maybe people dont want to always shoot things close to them and suffer from lens distortion? how about you go try shooting portraits with the sharp 22mm of yours, I'm sure that will work out.

>>2933709
i said to get a prime. not a wide angle prime. learn how to read.
you dont have to spend alot to get a good lens.
buying an expensive zoom is the stupidest thing a beginner can do.

>>2933713
>buying an expensive zoom is the stupidest thing a beginner can do.
Not really. I don't think it's necessarily the smart move, but a used 70-200 that's decently cared for will easily get back everything someone paid for it.

>>2933701
Of course all things being equal a smaller focal length will give you shaper pics, but sometimes it's not possible to get a few feet from your shot. Like if you're only doing portraits that's fine, but for sports or wildlife good luck with your 22mm. Seriously try shooting a bear with that thing I fucking dare you.

Also I prime probably isn't the best for a beginner, work with your kit lens for awhile and see what focal length you shoot at the most, before you lock yourself down on just one focal length.

>>2934497

Longer focal lengths are actually usually sharper. I have no fucking idea what you're talking about, which makes two of us.

>>2934497
go away troll.
everyone knows its better to learn one focal length first. and a zoom is inferior to a prime.

>>2934501
Not in versatility it isn't. Yeah, why don't you go ahead and drop +$100 on a prime with a fixed focal length as a beginner with little experiance.

Looks like you fell for the whole "use your feet as the zoom" kai-cuck meme. Go back to jacking off to gear vids on YouTube you fat neckbeard.

>>2934511
you blew it, troll.
and $100 is cheap for lens.
pros never use zoom lenses

>>2934518
Yeah, because pros know what they're doing and know what focal length they need for what they're shooting. That's not some shit you tell a beginner. And while $100 is cheap for a lens, it's not cheap for something you'll take a few snapshits with and then forget because it's not the focal length you want.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about so stop giving bad advice and go back to sucking that scrawny Asians dick you fat neckbeard.

>>2934521
exactly. having one focal length makes you think about the shot more and become more creative. im talking about real photographers. not wedding or portriat hacks like you.

>>2934521
a wide angle is the most used lens period. take a few shots and forget about it?
have you ever operated a camera?

>>2934523
Oh lawd. Look primes are great, they have good apertures and quick autofocus, but if you're getting one because "it makes you think about your shot," and "makes you more creative," you're a dumbass who has no business behind a camera.

>>2934531
i said for a beginer its a good reason.
i have 6 primes. my zoom is up for sale because its useless.
some wannabe like you will buy it

>>2934525
I worked in the camera department at best buy in high-school. You should see all the "photographers" coming in buying nifty-fifties and sticking them on there crop sensor bodies and returning them a week later because it wasn't the focal length they wanted.
The point is don't buy a prime unless you know it's a focal length you're going to use alot.

>>2934536
>best buy
you can stop posting now

>>2934533
I sold all my primes earlier this year and got 2 zoom l lenses that cover all there ranges. I lose a little aperture, but there still tack sharp and I don't have to carry around 6 primes like a dumbass.
You're the one who said you use primes cause hurr durr "that's what the pros use" your the one that sounds like the wanna be.

>>2934540
Where did you work in highschool? Or have you gotten there yet.

>>2934542
2 zooms would weigh more than 6 primes. no reason to carry 6 lenses anyway. maybe 2 or 3.

>>2934544
i never graduated hs.

>>2931061
Exposure is based on light/area and not on not total light. Other wise we'd try to make sensors/film the size of car windows dum-dum

Get it if you can afford it. But the 55-250 is STM is an amazing EF-S lens at a fraction of the cost. Obviously not as good as the 70-200, but I never regretted getting it for my T3i. It's amazing value

>>2931061
>The dof on a crop at f stop will be same as a full frame using a lens at f stop * crop factor.
>watch me here ignore the fact that you'll be a different distance from the subject for the same framing with a crop versus a full frame which DOES affect the depth of field.

When people are talking about the depth of field and how crop affects it, they're not talking about taking the picture from the same distance from the subject. They're talking about equivalent framing.

>>2923211
I shoot a 70-200 2.8 II on my 6D, its fucking incredible. Pretty much renders everything else in that range pointless, and thats coming from a guy who swears by primes.

It certainly wouldn't be my first lens if I was jumping into photography, id get some good medium length primes first. But if you want some Tele, there's not too much better than the 70-200.

>>2934935
i wanted to get the 55-250 stm for my eos m, but it's still too expensive for a lens i will never use.

>>2923211
No.

Buy an E-M1 Mark II and a 12-40 2.8 or 12-100 4.

>>2923211
Always better investing in lenses, while your body may change every few years a good lens will never be obsolete. (Well you know new autofocus motors etc will come out but a good 70s lens will still beat a shitty 00s lens no problem)