Top quality crop sensor lenses?

(I am a very new member to this forum, so if this topic has been done before (I haven’t found it) please point me there.)

My thinking is this. The latest APS-C cameras are extremely capable, whether we are talking the 70D or the N**** D7100, as examples. I know there is an ongoing debate as to whether “real photographers shoot full frame”, but for me (currently with a 600D but thinking where to go next, for reasons that I do know) I doubt whether I would ever want to: a 70D would provide me with all the growing space I am likely to need.

I also want to keep weight down as low as I can (ageing body ).

However, Canon’s top line “L” lenses are designed to work an all today’s Canon bodies, by definition – that’s what an “L” lens has to do.

That means, with a crop body, I would only be using about half the glass, if I traded up to “L” lenses.

I don’t mean to start a debate about the relative merits of different lenses. My question is simply “Is there a market for top quality Canon lenses designed for crop cameras?”

In my case, I think yes. Obviously depending on quality of image and manufacture, cost, size and so on.

Any views?

Dave

Not among anyone worth listening to. Many of the best photos I have seen were taken with crops, and I have been out in the field with pros using crops. I own both, and the fact is that under many conditions, you would not be able to tell the difference. For some purposes, a crop is superior (e.g., if you need maximum reach, or maximum pixel density at 1:1 macro distances.)

There are excellent lenses designed only for crops, such as the EF-S 15-85 and the EF-S 60mm macro. But if a FF-capable lens, either an L or something else, is the best for your needs, why worry about it? I shot crop for years and used both 2 L lenses and one FF-capable Tamron. True, they were heavier than a corresponding crop-only lens would have been, but so what? They worked just fine.

There are lots of crop bodies out there, so there is a market for good quality lenses for them. But that said there are a couple things to consider. The crop only lenses are more likely to be designed for the wide part of the focal range, as thats where the difference between full frame and crop appear. For anything longer than the wide angle, or zooms that start at wide angle it would be short sighted for a manufacturer to limit the design to crop only.

Top quality camera lens for a crop, they already make them, they are the 10-22 and the 17-55 2.8 IS

You want a good lens for a crop body you can't get any better than the tamron 17-50 2.8. It's a brilliant lens, and I must say (and I know I'm opening myself to criticism here, and maybe starting a fight) I find my 17-50 on a calibrated 40D to be as sharp, if not sharper than a 24-105 L taking the same photos under the same conditions.

davidedric wrote in post #16458524
I know there is an ongoing debate as to whether “real photographers shoot full frame”,

Debate among idiots maybe, unless you think real photographers do not and never have used 1D series bodies. Until the 1DX, canons top of the line was a crop camera, the 1.3 crop mkIV.

As for EF-S lenses the 17-55 f2.8 in right up there with any canon L lens.

Thanks for the feedback. A couple of points:

Weight can be important. Apart from the sheer physical heft, my particular interest is in African wildlife (as an amateur, certainly a niche). This often involves light aircraft flights with a strict weight limit (and I do know about hiding stuff in a photographer's jacket - but this is a serious safety issue).

Thanks, too, for the pointers to some excellent EF-S lenses (though don't THINK any of them are weather sealed - see point above. I know that not all L lenses are weather sealed, either!). You do have to go looking a bit.

In a way, it was more a marketing question. If Canon announced a range of "L equivalent" (can't think of a better term) for crop cameras,would there be a market?

I had the same dilemma a few years back when I decided to move from a P&S to a DSLR. I can afford a full frame camera, but I wanted a camera mostly for travel. A 5D (any version) was much bigger than any crop camera, and the lenses were much heavier than those designed for crops. Now there is the 6D that is also light, but the lenses for it are still the same heavy lenses.

Yes, there are excellent crop only lenses. Among them at 17-50 (or 17-55, depending on a manufacturer), there is a great 15-85, etc. Now that you are talking about Africa, a crop camera is your friend!

whiteflyer wrote in post #16458628
Debate among idiots maybe, unless you think real photographers do not and never have used 1D series bodies. Until the 1DX, canons top of the line was a crop camera, the 1.3 crop mkIV.

As for EF-S lenses the 17-55 f2.8 in right up there with any canon L lens.

The 1.3 crop cameras could not use ef-s lenses so this is a bit of a side track.

davidedric wrote in post #16458524
(I am a very new member to this forum, so if this topic has been done before (I haven’t found it) please point me there.)

My thinking is this. The latest APS-C cameras are extremely capable, whether we are talking the 70D or the N**** D7100, as examples. I know there is an ongoing debate as to whether “real photographers shoot full frame”, but for me (currently with a 600D but thinking where to go next, for reasons that I do know) I doubt whether I would ever want to: a 70D would provide me with all the growing space I am likely to need.

I also want to keep weight down as low as I can (ageing body ).

However, Canon’s top line “L” lenses are designed to work an all today’s Canon bodies, by definition – that’s what an “L” lens has to do.

That means, with a crop body, I would only be using about half the glass, if I traded up to “L” lenses.

I don’t mean to start a debate about the relative merits of different lenses. My question is simply “Is there a market for top quality Canon lenses designed for crop cameras?”

In my case, I think yes. Obviously depending on quality of image and manufacture, cost, size and so on.

Any views?

Dave

The latest cameras regardless of sensor are extremely capable.


While there is forum sponsored debate as to who may use what, as in the existence of a forum encourages the debate, in practice if you don't turn out quality work, there is little to debate. This forum seems to thrive on sensor measurebations... Fredmiranda has conflict of interest problems, while GetDPI is just a low user base forum.


To make things interesting, When YOU say full frame, YOU(and many here) are referring to 35mm sensors. Almost ALL of these sensors, save for two from sony, one from pentax and two from nikon have anti-aliasing filters, which significantly smears fine details(the 7D was awful in this ONE regard).

Others may refer to full frame as the full 645 format, or the full 6x7 format. There are cropped and full frame medium format digital sensors available. The one I use is something around a 1.1ish "full frame" crop, but I use that on a 6x7 camera... which makes it a 1.8x crop if you want to go from 35mm format to 6x7 format lenses, as my 90mm acts like a 50mm with an extremely wide aperture.

I absolutely despise the full frame moniker as it is used to imply superiority where there is none(all you absolutely insane 5D2 owners...sorry your cameras are not worth $1500 used!) and used to demand much higher prices(hi 5D3 owners).

Ultimately, you want a system that delivers high image quality with low weight. The expensive end of the EF-S lenses deliver excellent image quality on any of the cameras that canon offers. However, nikon offers crop cameras WITH OUT an anti-aliasing filter, so if we hold the systems constant for weight, and then compare on image quality, the system without the AA filter is going to handily out-resolve anything canon has.

The now older canon 7D and a 17-55mm F2.8 IS USM lens was and remains to be a supremely terrific combination. I wish I had not sold that camera and lens STILL, even after switching to medium format digital - but there was a very rare and unique price point opportunity I could not ignore.

Nikon's standard zoom for crop has weather sealing...where as we get image stabilization.

davidedric wrote in post #16458524
My question is simply “Is there a market for top quality Canon lenses designed for crop cameras?”

I would say maybe. Like others have said, the 17-55 is a very good crop lens. However I don't see canon producing many lenses like that that could rival some of their L lenses.

The thing is, most people who buy a $3000 body have no problem justifying a $1000 or $2000 lens. Where as most people who buy a $400 body might have a hard time dropping $1000-2000 on a lens espically if its a crop only lens

That's not to say some of us won't. But the question is, are there enough of us for canon to actually justify making those type of lenses?

Look at a company like sigma who has a few, absolutely amazing, crop only lenses. Their 30mm f1.4 seems to be a good seller. Their 18-35mm f1.8 is receiving a lot of praise and seem to be doing very well in sales as well. Their 50-150mm f2.8 OS is an amazing lens....but you will not find many people using it even though it is such a great lens (just look at its dismal sample thread on here)

So just looking at that you have a crop only prime that does well, a wide to normal zoom that is doing well (plus their 17-50 OS does well too), but a telephoto zoom that does ok (sales wise...again it's performance is amazing!)

Even then you are talking about lenses that are under $1000 and would be several hundred less then a canon counterpart (I do wonder how much canon would charge for a lens similar to the 18-35 f1.8?). So how many people would buy a $1200-$1500 (as an example) wide to normal zoom that only works on a crop?

davidedric wrote in post #16458524
That means, with a crop body, I would only be using about half the glass, if I traded up to “L” lenses.

Dave, you are apparently misinformed. Every point in an image made by a camera's lens is made from photons that have passed through every bit of the lens' front element surface area.

Using a lens made for the 35mm film format (including so-called "full-frame" DSLRs) on a camera with a smaller format camera only means that part of the image formed by the lens is captured by the smaller format camera. If anything, there's an advantage to this because the outer edges of an image formed by a lens usually has a bit less desirable image quality than the center portion of the image.

I think that is exactly what the OP meant.

davidedric wrote in post #16458524
My question is simply “Is there a market for top quality Canon lenses designed for crop cameras?”

If you want "reach", which you obviously will if you're shooting wildlife, any of the Canon EF L series lenses will do the job. For walkaround, and wide to ultrawide angle lenses stick with the EF-S lenses such as those mentioned above, the 10-22, 17-55, or if you're willing to have a variable aperture lens, the 15-85. In my opinion the focal lengths of L series walkaround and wide angles don't really match the needs of APS-C bodies.

I don't think there is a market for an "L" crop series. Really, the high quality crop lenses are mostly wide angel to normal. If you have the 10-22 for wide angle shots (a good lens) then there isn't any reason you can't use a full frame lens for all of your other shots, unless you want a very specific range of coverage (such as a 24-70 or 70-200 equivalent). There isn't really anything magical about these ranges, so getting focal length equivalent crop versions for each range isn't really necessary.