EF Lenses on Crop Bodies

I see no reason why 24-70 is silly on a crop.

A) I don't think the Red line looks silly.
B) It is not heavy.
C) The coverage is perfect on a 60D for shooting kids, portraits and models. Also it did pretty good shooting the bridge image below, was plenty wide enough. I did not really miss the 17-50 Sigma that I replaced.

I also use a 135mm F2.0 on my Crop, again, I don't see any problem here with shooting the model below.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

krb wrote in post #11956946
There is a lot of ignorance and fail in this thread.

Ain't that the truth.

My favorite are the complaints about a lens being too heavy. Just cracks me up.

mikeassk wrote in post #11956870
Something like a 24-70 2.8 is silly on a full crop (1.6) because it is real heavy and big when it does not need to be for that little of coverage.

Really? you get less coverage with this lens on your 1.3x crop than on a 1.6x crop. It's simple math your system weighs more and has less coverage, now that's silly. Then again this thread is silly from the beginning.

All of my lenses except my kit 18-55 are EF, although I might buy a UWA which will probably be either a Canon EF-S or a Sigma DC.

Does anyone understand the OP's question?

Here is the op question: "Who uses 'em, and what's your experience like?

In my case, I have a buddy who uses the Canon 24-70 F2.8L on a crop body and it astounds me that people would pay so much for a lens that doesn't even provide a proper wide angle."

I provided my answer with examples above, so yes I understand his question.

stillinamerica wrote in post #11956965
I see no reason why 24-70 is silly on a crop.

A) I don't think the Red line looks silly.
B) It is not heavy.
C) The coverage is perfect on a 60D for shooting kids, portraits and models. Also it did pretty good shooting the bridge image below, was plenty wide enough. I did not really miss the 17-50 Sigma that I replaced.

I also use a 135mm F2.0 on my Crop, again, I don't see any problem here with shooting the model below.

Nice shot with the model. What was your light setup (guessing you used reflectors)?

24 to 70 is a nice range. I love it !!!!

If someone is worried about weight, they can shoot a T2i or Xsi with a efs lens. Thats why there are so many choices.

Cheers Antfire. Actually no reflectors ! ha! Shoot at noon, we were in the shade, under 3 magnolia trees.

I had a 430ex2 above the model firing down, 1/16th power, and another 430 EX2 @ 1/32 power 5ft from the model, waist height shooting up, positioned to her left a little. Does that help?

DanielFotografie wrote in post #11956661
. . . it astounds me that people would pay so much for a lens that doesn't even provide a proper wide angle.

All I use are EF lenses - I wouldn't even consider buying one of those EF-S lenses that I could only use on my 50D.

My thinking is the exact opposite of yours - I can think of no reason to ever have a lens that I can only use on one type of body. I certainly don't want to shoot wider than what my 24-105 gives me. Even that's too wide - it might as well be a 50-105, for I will almost never use the wide part of that range.

hehe, it's antIfire :P. yeah it does. it does a great job separating her from the background. good stuff!

DanielFotografie wrote in post #11956661
In my case, I have a buddy who uses the Canon 24-70 F2.8L on a crop body and it astounds me that people would pay so much for a lens that doesn't even provide a proper wide angle.

In my case, I have a buddy who uses the Canon 100-400L on a crop body and it doesn't surprise me at all that people would pay so much for a lens that provides so much extra effective reach.

mikeassk wrote in post #11956870
Something like a 24-70 2.8 is silly on a full crop (1.6) because it is real heavy and big when it does not need to be for that little of coverage.

Is this a joke or are you being serious? Hopefully joking..

I quickly purchased only EF gear, because that can be used across all bodies, over time.

krb wrote in post #11956946
There is a lot of ignorance and fail in this thread.

I could not agree more.

It makes me wonder if people who make these statements have actually worked with said equipment, or are just readers of other people's comments........