Downsides of having a cropped lens (other than obvious)

[Syringer]

So I saw a Sony A99 on Craigslist for a really good price and couldn't resist. Before I had a Sony A65 with a Sony DT 16-50mm lens and a Tamron 28-75mm lens.

I was planning on using the Tamron since it's a full frame lens while the Sony isn't and as a result I get just 10.3mp rather than 24mp.

While the image quality of the Tamron is great, the AF is way too slow compared to the Sony lens so I find myself going with the Sony for now..and I'm not really sure I ever need more than 10mp anyway.

And after getting a few shots at 10mp I actually find the convenience of 10mb RAW files vs 24mb ones to be fairly appealing.

So other than the lost megapixels, which I'm not sure I'll miss too much, does using the Sony lens have any downside in terms of the AF, noise, etc?

There really aren't any other good mid-range lens for the A99 in that price range (CZ 24-70mm is incredibly pricey)

 

[fralexandr]

I'm assuming you want to stick with a fast fixed aperature lens?
if so, there's also the sigma 24-70 f/2.8 HSM for ~800 and the Sony 28-75 for ~900 new 700 used
though those lenses are still close to 2x the price of the tamron, they're about the same as the DT 16-50mm.

Other than the obvious, there isn't too much of a problem going with crop lenses on a FF.

 

[ElFenix]

at the same image size (and i mean in inches) noise will be greater with the crop simply because you're working with a lot less signal. with well lit scenes that's not going to be so noticeable.

 

[CptObvious]

Also you get more depth-of-field control with full-frame lenses. For a given distance from your subject, you have to use a longer focal length on full-frame to get the same composition (24-70mm vs. 16-50mm). Longer lenses generally throw out backgrounds better than short ones.

 

[gevorg]

OP, it would be a shame if you wouldn't put a CZ 24-70 on that A99

Zeiss colors, SSM motor, F2.8 all around, and unlike Canon or Nikon equivalents it would take advantage of A99's in-body image stabilization

 

[Syringer]

"it would take advantage of A99's in-body image stabilization "

How is this? Doesn't the in body image stabilization work the same across all lenses basically?

I would love the CZ 24-70 but after spending $2k (awesome deal) on a body it's hard to justify spending that much more on a lens.

 

[Slick Fork]

There's a tamron 24-70 2.8 that's supposed to be close to the zeiss for about half the price. You'll want to upgrade the lens sooner or later, the a99 is just too good for cheap glass!

 

[Throckmorton]

"it would take advantage of A99's in-body image stabilization "

How is this? Doesn't the in body image stabilization work the same across all lenses basically?

I would love the CZ 24-70 but after spending $2k (awesome deal) on a body it's hard to justify spending that much more on a lens.

I think he's saying with a Nikon or Canon the same CZ lens would be unstabilized.

 

[Syborg1211]

I would love the CZ 24-70 but after spending $2k (awesome deal) on a body it's hard to justify spending that much more on a lens.

This is kinda like saying "after spending so much money on a Porsche, I just can't justify putting good tires on it." Sure you can use the Porsche with some cheap Walmart tires, but you aren't taking full advantage of the car's abilities so what's the point of having the car? IMO glass is more important than bodies. Good glass can make a mediocre sensor look good while poor glass can't be salvaged by the best sensor in the world.

 

[gevorg]

I think he's saying with a Nikon or Canon the same CZ lens would be unstabilized.

Yep!

the a99 is just too good for cheap glass!

Exactly!

 

[Syringer]

This is kinda like saying "after spending so much money on a Porsche, I just can't justify putting good tires on it."

If the Porsche tires cost as much as the Porsche itself then I'd probably go with the Wal-Mart tires

 

[MrSquished]

"it would take advantage of A99's in-body image stabilization "

How is this? Doesn't the in body image stabilization work the same across all lenses basically?

I would love the CZ 24-70 but after spending $2k (awesome deal) on a body it's hard to justify spending that much more on a lens.

it makes a lot of sense to spend more than you did on the body on glass. glass is where the investment lies. you will keep lenses throughout body upgrades.

for example the Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS lens came out in 2001. It did not get updated until 2010. Think about how many bodies canon came out with in that time that became top of their class. Yet that lens was still considered near or at the top in class that entire time all those bodies were coming out, and in fact is still pretty much a top lens, and will be for years to come.

you don't always have to spend a ton on good glass, there are gems for IQ found at lower price points (from 3rd party manufacturers mostly) and one should hunt for those deals - but think of the glass as the longer term part of your kit.

the best thing to do is to commit to a system (and its relevant mount) longer term, so you can accumulate glass that will stay with you as you upgrade bodies. and good glass, because of its longevity, retains resale value far better than camera bodies. so if you do decide to switch systems some years down, it's the glass that's going to recoup your money, not the bodies.

 

[blastingcap]

Lol our self-styled genius in these forums came back. Without an apology in the other thread for being a total jerk who misread others' posts TWICE, of course.

Lenses tend to retain their value better relative to bodies, but neither should be viewed as an investment because lenses often depreciate too, just not as quickly as bodies.

That said, there are instances where a top-end lens costs so much that it doesn't make as much sense as upgrading the body first, e.g., http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/a-24-70mm-system-comparison So there are exceptions to the rule, particularly if you don't plan on buying many lenses for a mount.

 

[iGas]

If the Porsche tires cost as much as the Porsche itself then I'd probably go with the Wal-Mart tires

In this case the tire is possibly is the camera body, and the car is the lenses.

Technologically lenses doesn't improve much in a couple of decades, but a camera is several generation out of date and worthless in a couple of decades.

 

[iGas]

it makes a lot of sense to spend more than you did on the body on glass. glass is where the investment lies. you will keep lenses throughout body upgrades.

for example the Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS lens came out in 2001. It did not get updated until 2010. Think about how many bodies canon came out with in that time that became top of their class. Yet that lens was still considered near or at the top in class that entire time all those bodies were coming out, and in fact is still pretty much a top lens, and will be for years to come.

70-200L non IS came out in 1995 that still demand a pretty good price, and IS & IS II versions aren't much better beside having stabilization. Heck, even the 80-200L that came out in 1989 still is a great lens and perhaps still better than many Canikon current lineup lenses.

 

[MrSquished]

70-200L non IS came out in 1995 that still demand a pretty good price, and IS & IS II versions aren't much better beside having stabilization. Heck, even the 80-200L that came out in 1989 still is a great lens and perhaps still better than many Canikon current lineup lenses.

that's a good point. i was being too conservative in my comparison.