Elmo55 Loc: Illinois

1. On a crop the 18-55 is considered to be the "kit lens". On a FF would a 24-85 be a comparable "kit lens"?

2. If my thinking and calculations are correct, a FF RAW image is about 3 or 4 times larger than a crop RAW image. Which begs to ask, to save storage space on my 'puter do I really want or need to also save the JPEG if I am saving the RAW?

Quixdraw Loc: x

#1 as I understand it the DX / FX conversion factor is x 1.5, so close enough.

#2 I don't care to do raw, but why not get yourself an nice Western Digital Hard Drive 4TB for under $100. No worries.

Elmo55 Loc: Illinois

Thanks. Just moved up to FF and I am looking for a a short telephoto for a walk around lens. Currently shooting both RAW & JPEG. I already have two 1 TB external hard drives. I guess when I fill them up I can always get more.

Quixdraw Loc: x

24-85 was the first modern zoom I bought when I moved up to FX. Very handy and it still gets plenty of use. Smaller & lighter than the 24-100, another very useful walk around lens with a touch more reach.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

#2 Why not instead spend the money on an enterprise class HD or SSD which will be MUCH less likely to fail than that cheap external. Can you buy 4TB for $100 with either of those solutions? No. Are they much less likely to fail in an untimely manner and take your hard earned data with them? Yes! Those cheap externals typically have no fan cooling and the cheapest drive that can be hidden inside them. You just cannot build, QC, market and sell (at a profit) a quality drive, interface, case and maybe a cable and power supply for $100. You get what you pay for, and in the end, all the money you spend on camera gear is for one purpose - to produce data, so unless it’s valueless to you, spend another $100 to protect it with high quality storage.

#1 depending on your FF camera, you might consider something like a 24-70, 24-85, 24-105 or 24-120 as a versatile zoom with a reasonable range. Buy the best lens you can afford in that range - like storage, quality = $ well spent, but only you know your budget.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

1. more or less.

2. No need to keep jpegs if you have raw files. In fact, one of the nice things about raw files, aside from the image quality benefits, is the ability to generate any jpeg you need for any specific requirement - posting on social media, a website, email, submitting to a contest or competition, distributing to a client etc. - each of these can, and often do have different submission requirements. I use Lightroom and this is easily handled with a custom export setting - I have about a dozen different ones, one for each of the recipients I noted above and a few more. I save the export settings by name, but I have no use for the jpegs they generate, so I delete them all when they have reached their intended destination.

As far as hard drives, if you need additional room, resist the temptation to buy consumer junk. It's a false economy to buy a 4 tb drive for $100 when you can get an enterprise/data center-quality bare drive with the same capacity and a 5 yr (not a 1 or 2 yr) warranty for $150-$170. The extra $$ buys you piece of mind and it is totally worth it. I like Western Digital Ultrastar (the old Hitachi) and Black or Gold drives - or any drive with a 5 yr warranty.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

1. A "kit" lens is one that comes with the camera in a standard off-the-shelf camera "kit", not a nomenclature for any particular lens or set of lenses.

2. That is an individual volition, depending on the user's requirements or desires. Saving only RAW saves card/disk space; you can always create a JPEG from the RAW; some people like to use/share the JPEG immediately without having to go through an editor; lots of reasons to justify a decision. Me personally, I like perusing the JPEGs in Windows Explorer and decide if I want to edit the RAW as I don't use a cataloger. Disk space is cheap. Whatever trips your breaker.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Definitely! I buy WD Gold drives. Might be up to twice as much as a less expensive drive, but they have been burned-in to eliminate the early life failures. I like the 2 million hour MTBF.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Shooting raw and jpeg means that you have the exact same exposure for both, and you are missing out on the RADR (raw accessible dynamic range), and shooting to protect highlights while having the most amount of light recorded by the sensor (shooting to the right). In most cases what you are doing now will work fine, but when you explore the limits of your camera in high contrast situations, the "correct" exposure for a raw file will often generate a completely unusable jpeg. Something to consider.

pmorin Loc: Huntington Beach, Palm Springs

[quote=Elmo55]Thanks. Just moved up to FF and I am looking for a a short telephoto for a walk around lens. Currently shooting both RAW & JPEG. I already have two 1 TB external hard drives. I guess when I fill them up I can always get more. [/quote

Deleted

BebuLamar

Question #1: Yes the 24-85 has about the same angle of view as the 18-55. It's wider at the short end by a rather significant amount (about 10 degrees wider).
Question #2: How large is the image or the file sizes depending on the number of pixels not on how large the sensor is. In general the larger the sensor it tends to have more pixels but that's not always true. Many cameras have 24MP whether it's APS-C size sensor or FF.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

1. yes
2. not quite
https://www.google.com/search?q=full+frame+and+crop+sensor+difference&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=lvnkTWSJCDofBM%252CIHDO8Mg5eEBf-M%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kQtrkK-x4z3V-TUmQMfNWSSsv63TA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiIn72u45rsAhVxknIEHYTTBfkQ_h16BAgHEAU#imgrc=lvnkTWSJCDofBM

R.G. Loc: Scotland

According to DXO the 24-85 gives performance figures that are very similar to those of the 24-120 f/4. I don't own either but I've never seen anyone express disappointment about either of those lenses.

Raw file size is a function of resolution, not sensor size. When people say they save both raw and jpg it's usually because they like to use the jpg for speed and simplicity but they also like having the raw for when extra editing is needed. If you're happy doing your own editing for all of your raw files you don't need the jpgs as well.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

If you were to buy the 18-55mm lens is it always known as the "kit lens"?

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

As people say so often, storage is ridiculously cheap these days. The minimum size drive I would buy now is 4TB. I save raw files that I like, even after I process them into JPEGs. I might want to process them again differently some day. Every so often, I go back and delete raw files that I know I'll no longer need. I recently "cleaned" my D drive, and I now have 2.84 of 3.63TB free. I had lots of duplicates and files that I no longer needed.