Black Pearl

Couple from this morning - X-T1 + 55-200mm
 

 

Couple from this morning - X-T1 + 55-200mm
 

 

I've got the 35/1.4 and love it to bits but I'm seriously considering the f2 for the WR.
When the weather is inclement it would make a great companion to the X-T1 making it possible to just sling over your shoulder and not worry about it getting wet. I do this all the time with my Pentax WR gear and its a hard habit to break.

It would be close with only the difference between the way a 56mm and 85mm renders an image.
 
If you take in the perceived DoF between the two systems you want one stop larger aperture on the crop system to get as narrow a depth of field or one stop smaller on a full frame system to achieve as much DoF.

An f stop is an f stop is an f stop - well in photographic exposure terms it is where the infinitesimally small differences in light transmission due to the glass don't matter in the same way they do in the movie world where they have lenses marked in t stops which are corrected a little further.
 
Essentially the person you're quoting is wrong, or at least is interpreting things the wrong way.
It is very easy to test if you have a Nikon and a few lenses. Put a FX lens on a Nikon FX body and take a shot at (for example) f2.8 then swap it out for a DX lens and set that to f2.8 - the exposure will be the same. You can actually use some DX lenses on FX bodies and get a full frame exposed. The AF-S 35mm f1.8 G DX can just about do this once its stopped down a little and many zooms do the same as you alter the focal length- the Sigma 10-20mm from memory is full frame from about 16mm.
 
I think what the person in the quoted article is misunderstanding is the apparent difference in depth of field between the two systems for a given aperture. If you stood in one spot with a FX body and a 85mm f1.4 and took a picture at f1.4 then did the same with a crop sensor camera using a 56mm f1.2 set to f1.4 you would get about one stop extra depth of field - the exposure would be the same. By opening the 56mm up to f1.2 you would then get a picture with a similar DoF to the 85mm.

An f stop is an f stop is an f stop - well in photographic exposure terms it is where the infinitesimally small differences in light transmission due to the glass don't matter in the same way they do in the movie world where they have lenses marked in t stops which are corrected a little further.
 
Essentially the person you're quoting is wrong, or at least is interpreting things the wrong way.
It is very easy to test if you have a Nikon and a few lenses. Put a FX lens on a Nikon FX body and take a shot at (for example) f2.8 then swap it out for a DX lens and set that to f2.8 - the exposure will be the same. You can actually use some DX lenses on FX bodies and get a full frame exposed. The AF-S 35mm f1.8 G DX can just about do this once its stopped down a little and many zooms do the same as you alter the focal length- the Sigma 10-20mm from memory is full frame from about 16mm.
 
I think what the person in the quoted article is misunderstanding is the apparent difference in depth of field between the two systems for a given aperture. If you stood in one spot with a FX body and a 85mm f1.4 and took a picture at f1.4 then did the same with a crop sensor camera using a 56mm f1.2 set to f1.4 you would get about one stop extra depth of field - the exposure would be the same. By opening the 56mm up to f1.2 you would then get a picture with a similar DoF to the 85mm.

Took a wander around Whitburn Village and then along to Sunderland with my new X-T1 and lenses - really enjoying exploring with the Samyang 12mm...
 

 

 
 
Ps. Milandro - I started my SLR photography with a Konica Autoreflex A which was shutter priority and manual. I recall it went off with one hell clatter and that the 50mm lens was fantastically sharp.

Took a wander around Whitburn Village and then along to Sunderland with my new X-T1 and lenses - really enjoying exploring with the Samyang 12mm...
 

 

 
 
Ps. Milandro - I started my SLR photography with a Konica Autoreflex A which was shutter priority and manual. I recall it went off with one hell clatter and that the 50mm lens was fantastically sharp.

Took a wander around Whitburn Village and then along to Sunderland with my new X-T1 and lenses - really enjoying exploring with the Samyang 12mm...
 

 

 
 
Ps. Milandro - I started my SLR photography with a Konica Autoreflex A which was shutter priority and manual. I recall it went off with one hell clatter and that the 50mm lens was fantastically sharp.

One of the reason I switched to the Fuji X-T1 was the reputation of their home grown X-Trans sensor - which from initial testing seems to be well founded. It was this one thing that had put me off my Nikon D300s, I loved the camera don't get me wrong but I couldn't live with the output any longer.
 
Below is a jpeg from the camera and a raw file I processed in ACR. The head room is huge with lots of recoverable highlight detail while lifting the shadows does very little to damage the file - preaching to the converted I realise but I have to say I'm hugely impressed.
This was taken with the Samyang 12mm f2 which I've applied a little correction to as the verticals were converging dramatically - my fault for pointing a super-wide upwards. Haven't corrected for actual distortions though as it seems good and straight right from the off. Plenty of detail too which baring in mind what is being asked of a £250 lens is remarkable.
 

 

I'll second that superb advice!

Couple from this morning - X-T1 + 55-200mm
 

 

One of the reason I switched to the Fuji X-T1 was the reputation of their home grown X-Trans sensor - which from initial testing seems to be well founded. It was this one thing that had put me off my Nikon D300s, I loved the camera don't get me wrong but I couldn't live with the output any longer.
 
Below is a jpeg from the camera and a raw file I processed in ACR. The head room is huge with lots of recoverable highlight detail while lifting the shadows does very little to damage the file - preaching to the converted I realise but I have to say I'm hugely impressed.
This was taken with the Samyang 12mm f2 which I've applied a little correction to as the verticals were converging dramatically - my fault for pointing a super-wide upwards. Haven't corrected for actual distortions though as it seems good and straight right from the off. Plenty of detail too which baring in mind what is being asked of a £250 lens is remarkable.
 

 

Not quite the same but the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM is an outstanding lens with next to perfect resolution figures across the image frame.
 
I do agree that they protect their higher end cameras by not fully supporting those who use the APSC bodies and I'll also add I'm not a Canon fan - I've lost sympathy with Nikon too which I've used for 30+ years for the same reason hence the switch to Fuji. I honestly don't understand the reasoning behind the Big Two and their refusal to see there is a future without a mirror. We'll see how things pan out but we live in interesting times and I love to be shooting at the leading edge of what is possible and not what we are given.

I kept a few random lenses when I recently switched over to Fuji so ordered an adapter to start giving them a go.
 
The smc PENTAX-F 50mm f1.7 which I've had from a film camera way back has wonderfully old fashioned hexagonal aperture blades which give a strong shape to out of focus spectral highlights which in the right shot I absolutely love - tried it today but as its flinging it down with rain I couldn't do much but know it works, know its easy to focus and the X-T1 operated perfectly in Aperture Priory mode making exposure a cinch.
 

 

 
From the same lens but taken previously with a K30:

One of the reason I switched to the Fuji X-T1 was the reputation of their home grown X-Trans sensor - which from initial testing seems to be well founded. It was this one thing that had put me off my Nikon D300s, I loved the camera don't get me wrong but I couldn't live with the output any longer.
 
Below is a jpeg from the camera and a raw file I processed in ACR. The head room is huge with lots of recoverable highlight detail while lifting the shadows does very little to damage the file - preaching to the converted I realise but I have to say I'm hugely impressed.
This was taken with the Samyang 12mm f2 which I've applied a little correction to as the verticals were converging dramatically - my fault for pointing a super-wide upwards. Haven't corrected for actual distortions though as it seems good and straight right from the off. Plenty of detail too which baring in mind what is being asked of a £250 lens is remarkable.
 

 

I will "third" that excellent advice. Forget about "equivalence." It's an illusion.
 
Use the format. Learn the format.
 
I laugh when people call 24x36 "full frame." I learned on Medium Format and I never really accepted 135 as the quality choice. Newspapers? Sure - convenience and portability win in that environment. But for quality film work - even MF is a compromise. "Full frame" is 8 inches by 10 inches. 300mm is a "normal lens." 

Another perspective for you. The whole question of equivalency is a hangover from the days when 35mm film was dominant and focal lengths and DoF were relative to that size. We're long past those days now. Forget about equivalency. The best thing you can do (IMHO of course) is to take you camera (or cameras) and lenses and shoot with them at whatever focal length and multiple f stops until it becomes second nature to you to understand what kind of image a particular camera / lens / f-stop combination is going to give you.

Not quite as you aren't increasing the focal length by putting a lens on a crop body you are simply altering the field of view recorded. If it says its a 35mm f1.8 lens on the barrel then its a 35mm f1.8 lens regardless of what camera you put it on. 

An f stop is an f stop is an f stop - well in photographic exposure terms it is where the infinitesimally small differences in light transmission due to the glass don't matter in the same way they do in the movie world where they have lenses marked in t stops which are corrected a little further.
 
Essentially the person you're quoting is wrong, or at least is interpreting things the wrong way.
It is very easy to test if you have a Nikon and a few lenses. Put a FX lens on a Nikon FX body and take a shot at (for example) f2.8 then swap it out for a DX lens and set that to f2.8 - the exposure will be the same. You can actually use some DX lenses on FX bodies and get a full frame exposed. The AF-S 35mm f1.8 G DX can just about do this once its stopped down a little and many zooms do the same as you alter the focal length- the Sigma 10-20mm from memory is full frame from about 16mm.
 
I think what the person in the quoted article is misunderstanding is the apparent difference in depth of field between the two systems for a given aperture. If you stood in one spot with a FX body and a 85mm f1.4 and took a picture at f1.4 then did the same with a crop sensor camera using a 56mm f1.2 set to f1.4 you would get about one stop extra depth of field - the exposure would be the same. By opening the 56mm up to f1.2 you would then get a picture with a similar DoF to the 85mm.

Thanks Black Pearl.  
 
I think I understand it about as much as I am going to 
 
I'll have to get my hands on a FF Camera and Lens to fully figure it out so I can do some side by side comparisons and compare.
 
Thanks again,
 
John

Sort of...
 
A full frame lens throws a circle out the back onto the sensor with a diameter of around a 43mm. On a 35mm camera or a digital camera with a sensor the same size (referred to as Full Frame) you will be using all of that circle - see below - with a cropped sensor you simply use a smaller part of the circle. 
 

 
As you can see from the diagram below a FF lens produces a circle large enough for a FF sensor as well as working fine with smaller sensors which just crop off the edges - a lens designed for a cropped sensor produces a smaller circle that isn't large enough to cover the larger FF sensor. What you can also see is the subject - the mountains in this case - are always the same size as the focal length of the lenses in question are the same. The ONLY thing you change is the field of view due to how big (how much crop) the sensor is. You are not increasing the focal length of the lens by putting it on a crop camera and regardless of which camera you put it on a lens will ALWAYS be the focal length printed on the barrel - same goes for the aperture, it will always be the one you select.
 

Black Pearl's explanation is perfectly correct but may also confuse a little bit as it mentions "full frame lens".
All 56mm lenses have a deeper depth of field than 85mm lenses. It does not matter if the lens is made for full frame, APS-C or MF4/3 or any other format.
(Or more general longer focal length give less depth of field and vice versa.) And lower aperture numbers also give less depth of field.
 
For a typical portrait lens you would choose 85mm on a full frame but 56 on a APS-C. They will give the same field of view but at a given aperture the depth of field is different, shallower on the 85mm. You can compensate this by a lower aperture number on the 56mm i.e. 1.2 on the 56 instead of 1.8 on the 85. If you want to compete with with your Fuji with an 85/1.2 on a full frame you are screwed. You would need a 56.6/.80. To the best of my knowledge there is no  such lens.
 
But Bokeh is just one side of taking pictures. Sometimes I would prefer more depth of field for example often for documentary and street photography. In this case I can open my aperture by one half stop to get a faster shutter speed for less motion blurr but still get the some depth of field as on a full frame.
 
Exposure wise a 1.2 lens is a 1.2 lens regardless on what format it is used and for what format it is made.(Of course, some lenses have a better transition than others. This is the reason why cinematographers are using t-stop rather than f-stops, as Balck Perl has explained.

@zuluviper
I played a little with the manual focus. At one point I also felt that the EVF gets soft when I press the release button half way. But when I looked carefully I noticed that just the focus peaking goes off. I had high lighted straight edges which pretended sharpness. This is about the same what happens when you do an unsharp masking in Photo Shop.
Are you sure this is not what you have seen?