L lenses are wasted on a crop body...

MT Stringer wrote in post #13807429
I guess I should do something different.

that's such an awesome waste of money! I'd love to waste my money this way but my time will come lol

MT Stringer wrote in post #13807429
I guess I should do something different.

Hot Diggidy Dog I'M EXCITED after seeing that big sucker haha

kf095 wrote in post #13807432
IMO, some EF lenses are kind of wasted on crop.
Like 17-40, because several EF-S lenses are available for better range and faster aperture.
Or 50mm primes, never liked my 50 1.8 on my Rebel, but it is perfect on 5Dc.

Thanks, but they work for me though, it's something about the build, colors,contrast. And i really dont like extending lenses. .Hopefully i'll have a FF down the line.

I don't know what there is to discuss. Without knowing which gear list the quoted poster was referring to, the statement is probably false.

If the person that believes that can show us where the appropriate EF-S replacements are that still give constant aperture or many of the prime or longer zoom focal lengths then maybe there would be an argument.

However, as some folks have pointed out, there are a few L lenses that get picked up even though there are better performing EF-S equivalents out there. It's just that as a blanket statement, that idea is ridiculous simply because there are not EF-S/EF mount lenses that cover all of the focal lengths that the L lenses do. <shrug>

I noticed the biggest difference between L glass and "non-L" glass when I got my 7D. At that pixel density having the higher quality glass has made a difference.

You could easily swap the argument and have a case based on pixel density alone. Although... I'd never attempt to make that case. As my kids might say, that's just silly talk. L's make sense regardless of the sensor size...

Of course this is false. Is there need for discussion? Really?

rebby wrote in post #13807621
I noticed the biggest difference between L glass and "non-L" glass when I got my 7D. At that pixel density having the higher quality glass has made a difference.

You could easily swap the argument and have a case based on pixel density alone. Although... I'd never attempt to make that case. As my kids might say, that's just silly talk. L's make sense regardless of the sensor size...

i agree!

All of my lenses fit either body I currently own. That's the method to my madness.

As one of the thousand 1D owners, I must say I am not wasting it haha.

Dooms_day wrote in post #13807956
As one of the thousand 1D owners, I must say I am not wasting it haha.

That's not really a crop sensor:p

windpig wrote in post #13807958
That's not really a crop sensor:p

Thats what 5D owners tell themselves at night to make themselves feel better

Well, I tried to buy a Canon 100-400mm EF-S, but last I looked, they don't sell one.

So I decided to waste all that superior build of an L on my measly T3i.

Oh, wait, is it the case that since I have a cropper I should be using the 55-250mm EF-S because it is the equivalent field-of-view as a 100-400L on a FF? So I shouldn't take advantage of the greater pixel density of the center-cropped image on my cropper's sensor, giving me a smaller FoV while maintaining excellent IQ? Oh wait, I have a cropper - not possible to have excellent IQ.

Sigh, when will it end...

shinksma

If you use an L on a low end crop you are also violating another pro rule, as posted a few weeks ago.

jrbdmb wrote in post #13808077
If you use an L on a low end crop you are also violating another pro rule, as posted a few weeks ago.

I forgot about that one. Oh well, nothing like a little levity now and then

kin2son wrote in post #13792211
yea i agree. Looking at OP's gearlist it's full of L's. It makes absolutely no sense to use them on a 50D....such a waste...

Why bother editing.