Surely not quite the same? If you took the same photo on the FF body with a true FF 160mm lens you get everything the superior sensor can deliver. Crop a shot taken at 100mm and you're kind of doing a "digital zoom" - losing some of that FF sensor resolution?

That's more to do with the body than the lens tho more of a FX vs DX debate... shall we start another thread for that?

Yes, but the point is, you would NOT HAVE to UPGRADE your lens to get the SAME shot, as has been INCORRECTLY suggested on here.

Alan.

No, it isn't valid. The point is, you would still get the same shot, you would just have to crop it yourself to the effect of the crop factor sensor.

And of course, you are only talking about Telephoto lenses. No mention of the money wasted on wide angle lenses that you can't use the full width of.

I realise if you wanted full frame resoltuion, then yes, you will have to buy a longer lens, but the point is, moving up to FF doesn't mean you will be any worse off.

Unlike buying EF-S lenses, which will not fit a FF body full stop.

Alan.

Hi Guys - please carry on the Full Frame vs cropped body discussion here:

Full Frame... or Cropped Bodies ...?

I'll remove the off-topic posts from this thread in a mo (so the thread stays on the topic of buying ff lenses for cropped bodies or not).

Buy the best lens you can afford for the camera you have I reckon, at some point you may get a ff camera and then again you may not. A lot of ff camera's have a crop mode so you can use the dx (Nikon term ) on the ff camera anyway!!

so what lenses are FF compatible? I'm thinking abut a D700 - and wondering what effect would be had on my current 3 lenses? mainly the sigma 50-500mm as that is my main lens.

xx

I think the 50-500 will be fine.

Usually - they will say if they are not full frame, with Nikons for example they will say it's a 'DX' lens.

Surely the arguement should also be based on how deep into photography one wants to go. Serious photographers and professionals would I assume go for FF cameras and lens. The type of person who has photography as a hobby but wants good results and the ability to be flexible in the photos they take would go for the DSLR consumer/pro type of camera which most of us have. Then there are those who want to take good photos but don't want to lug around large bits of kit, so they go for the compact camera.

As to which is best to buy camera or lens, it doesn't matter a hoot which one goes for if the person behind the gear hasn't got a clue ( have you seen the photo on the net of the lady holding a camera the wrong way around), although it has been proven time and time again that some of the very best photos are those which are captured by being there at the right time and place.

So its not so much which side of the fence your on its more of the style of photography one wants to pursue.
On top of this cost also comes into the equation. It is human nature to want the best of everything ( anyone got a spare Rolls Royce they don't want), but its very few can afford the best, so we try and do the best with what we can afford.

Bazza

I buy whatever i can afford i still use my 400D because i actually quite like using the kit lens as it weighs next to nothing and if i have the light available whilst i am crawling around on the floor with the dogs i can get better shots with that as i am not so worried about damaging that lens as i am my more expensive stuff.

Ok so i now have the 5D, but at the moment i am borrowing a friends 10-20mm sigma lens on the 400D so i can see what it is like (x 1.6 crop factor brings it in line with the 17-40mm that i am after), however if i can't afford the 17-40mm i will probably get the sigma even though it is EF-S (well sigmas version).

If you are a good enough photographer you will use any lens to your best ability regardless of lens quality