If you own APS-C and Full frame do you use your mid range zoom?

Sorry, I over simplified…… and may have missed some of my words.

But I feel my point is still valid. Shooting 17mm on a crop and 24mm (rounded) on a FF isn't going to give you the same image. Shooting 24mm on both mediums and moving to give you the same framing isn't either.

Indirectly Focal Length plays the entire part of perspective. You can't shoot a full body shot with a 300mm from 3 feet away. You would either need to go with a wider lens or move back, thus changing your perspective.

As for the question at hand. Do you use both bodies simultaneously? How do you like the 24-70 on crop?
Is that more of the focal length you like? It all comes down to what you need, and how you shoot.

Johnsoir wrote in post #11988183
Putting a 16-35 on a crop might give you a different field of view, but the distortion and perspective is going to be the same as if it was on a FF.

Johnsoir wrote in post #11988703
Sorry, I over simplified…… and may have missed some of my words.

But I feel my point is still valid. Shooting 17mm on a crop and 24mm (rounded) on a FF isn't going to give you the same image. Shooting 24mm on both mediums and moving to give you the same framing isn't either.

Indirectly Focal Length plays the entire part of perspective. You can't shoot a full body shot with a 300mm from 3 feet away. You would either need to go with a wider lens or move back, thus changing your perspective.

Methinks you would learn a lot by reading our extensively illustrated tutorial on perspective.

For more information on perspective and how to control it, please read our "sticky" (now found in the General Photography Talk forum) tutorial titled Perspective Control in Images - Focal Length or Distance?.

I found my 28-75 to be most useful and versatile at 1.6 crop factor camera, because my 18-55 EF-S was very often at 55mm and it was too short.
And in opposite I like to use my 50 1.8 on FF, compare to my 28-75.

Tommy! I own FF & crop and haven't had a "normal" zoom in years. I don't - I repeat DO NOT - miss it one bit. The 24-70 is big and heavy compared the the 16-35L (mkI) that I own and you are right about the 16-35 making a cracking 25-56mm FF equiv on crop.

Here's my thing: as a PJ I often go into situations blind and when I do I bring 2 bodies and 2 or 3 lenses. Those 2 or 3 lenses have to be able to cover anything I come across 'cause there's no time to run back to the car. Often I bring the 70-200II, the 16-35L mkI and maybe a fast 50mm or 28mm inside of a pocket. In this scenario, the 24-70 has no place imo, as it is neither wide enough or long enough. Plus it is just too unwieldy, imo.

If I were you, I'd be thinking about a 16-35L mkI (77mm filters) at around $900 used. Whether or not you sell the 24-70 is up to you, but I think you'll find the latter to be largely unnecessary once you get the former.

Field of view and perspective aside, I don't believe the optical performance of an UWA zoom and a standard zoom are going to be the same. In addition, FF is so far reserved for better grade of cameras and generally they give a better result. Therefore, of the two hypothetical scenarios below, I would opt for option 2:

1) APS-C + 16-35L
2) FF + 24-70L

If a midrange is going to be used most, I would invest my money in the combo that gives best results in that range.

I am going to stick with the 24-70 and just add an UW sometime soon. Both scenarios really make sense and if I go the route of UW plus 70-XX I would get the UW and use it for some time before I decide to sell my 24-70.

Side note: not sure if its a coincidence to the 24-70 2 rumors but I see lots of 24-70's on CL since that post on canonrumors.

I have 1.6x crop and FF, and mid range zooms and primes to cover most everything twice, in short I use them all, theres no lens I feel goes unused, then again my shooting style might be the reason.

One third the time I'm only carrying the crop, one third I'm only carrying the FF, depends on where in the country I'm located and what I plan on shooting.

I've never been a fan of the EF-S 17-55 and I sold my 70-200 because I loved the lens but the focal range combined with the crop factor just didn't fit with how I shoot.

Now that I have added a full frame camera to my kit, I'm thinking that a 17-55 on the crop and a 70-200 on the full frame could be a really nice combo. Or I could use my 24-105 on the full frame and put a 70-200 on the crop. There are also times where my 100-400 on a crop and a 70-200 on the full frame would work great.

Regardless of having two cameras I use my 24-105 often. The point is that its a very versatile lens and can do many jobs pretty well. I could probably do without it if I wanted to bring both the 40D, the 5D and the 17-40, and 70-200 along. But that would defeat the point of having a one lens solution for walkaround shoots.

Still using my 24-70L on 5D mark II, never think about getting rid of it.

Tommydigi wrote in post #11988129
A friend of mine suggested to me that having both APS-C and full frame eliminates the need for a mid range lens like 24-70/105. I was interested in some of your thoughts on this. I really like my 24-70 but I am now thinking a 16-35 seems to make more sense.

16-35 on APS-C = 25mm - 56mm

why didn't i think of this. (i have a separate f/4 UWA for FF and midzoom for crop, maybe i should have just gotten the 2.8 UWA to use on both)

only thing you'd lose is IS for the crop zoom as opposed to just getting the 17-55 IS or 17-50 VC

I use a 17-55 on crop and 70-200 on FF.

If I need to go the other way, I put a 17-40 on the FF.

Seems to work for me.

I thought I was aware of the theory, I have been shooting professionally for 6 years now.
Would you mind pointing out where in my theory I have strayed?

Johnsoir wrote in post #11994025
I thought I was aware of the theory, I have been shooting professionally for 6 years now.
Would you mind pointing out where in my theory I have strayed?

It may not be your theory that's flawed, but simply the way you wrote things. Sometimes it isn't easy to get one's ideas across in a way that cannot be misunderstood by those lacking our experience.

The two quotes just below this could easily lead a newbie to assume that perspective is tied to the focal length of a lens. It is not. Perspective is purely a function of the distance between the camera (or a person viewing a scene) and the various elements of the scene.

Johnsoir wrote in post #11988183
Putting a 16-35 on a crop might give you a different field of view, but the distortion and perspective is going to be the same as if it was on a FF.

Johnsoir wrote in post #11988703
Indirectly Focal Length plays the entire part of perspective. You can't shoot a full body shot with a 300mm from 3 feet away. You would either need to go with a wider lens or move back, thus changing your perspective.

The "indirectly" in the above quote is true, of course. However, when reading the last sentence in the quote, the the newbie could infer that by going to a wider (shorter focal length) lens that the perspective would change.

When I suggested that you read our tutorial, I assumed (please forgive me if I was wrong) that you may not have fully understood the true nature of what controls perspective in images (distance). My original comment was directed as much at the newbies reading your posts as to you.

A lot of old-timer photographers still feel that focal length still directly affects perspective and though this is not true it gets published here a lot, thus the constant need to help the newbies learn the truth.

Ah, Thank you SkipD.

Looking at them from a second point of view, I can see how that may be interpreted. Understanding is one thing, being able to explain it is another......