EF Lenses on Crop Bodies

ChuckingFluff wrote in post #11957108
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.

ShotByTom wrote in post #11957610
Is this a joke or are you being serious? Hopefully joking..

Canon makes a 17-55 2.8 that does not fit on 1D or 5D cameras. It is a MUCH better lens for 1.6X crops. I loved it.

I dont MIND having a 1D 1.3X sensor but for what I need to shoot its all canon makes.
Canon does not make a better 'general purpose lens' for 1D/5D cameras.

I never mount my 24-70 on the 20D i own or the 40D I used to own.

I am quite unsure why you all think a 24-70mm good option for a 1.6 crop.

Staszek wrote in post #11956908
Last time I checked it was just as big and heavy on full frame or 1.3x.

Your right and if they made a 20-60mm L 2.8 I would buy it.

*I have no clue what that bolded statement even means.

mikeassk wrote in post #11957875
I am quite unsure why you all think a 24-70mm good option for a 1.6 crop.

Even though my 20D doesn't "crop" anything, my 24-70 is connected to it far more than my 16-35 or my 70-200. The 24-70 simply gives me the range that I use most.

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

You can say that for 99% of threads on the internet.

SkipD wrote in post #11957895
Even though my 20D doesn't "crop" anything, my 24-70 is connected to it far more than my 16-35 or my 70-200. The 24-70 simply gives me the range that I use most.

38-112mmish field of view when comparing to a 36X24mm imaging plane.

They dont quite make that lens for full frame so you have found the right combo.

DanielFotografie wrote in post #11956661
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.

Is there a "law" that a lens must provide a "proper wide angle" ?

I pair my 24-70L with a Sigma 10-20mm. Perhaps 10mm is more "proper" than 17/18mm?

DanielFotografie wrote in post #11956812
I find it hard to be on location somewhere with a lens that has too much reach.
My 70-200 is perfect for most of my shoots, IMO.

On a crop body, I'd have to stand kilometres away before I could capture the whole body of my model.

Then you were using the wrong lens on your crop body.

I use the 70-200mm f/4 IS, 24-70L, and 85mm f/1.8 on my 40D and Xsi. I also have the Sigma 10-20 and 30/1.4. I used to own the 100-400L as well.

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.

Then call me silly

I actually prefer the 24-70 range (compared to 17-55) for shooting people. Different strokes and all that...

scorpio_e wrote in post #11957544
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.

I LOVE my Xsi with my Sigma 30mm f/1.4. Much lighter than my 40D+24-70L, PLUS the image quality is quite a bit better (although the L zoom is more versatile for events and stuff)

mikeassk wrote in post #11957875
I am quite unsure why you all think a 24-70mm good option for a 1.6 crop.

Because having one lens that covers the focal lengths of 24mm to 70mm at a maximum aperture of f/2.8 is quite handy for shooting people/portraits/etc..​.

24mm is wide enough for most of my shooting, and I can always use my Sigma 10-20 if I need wider.

DanielFotografie wrote in post #11956661
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 fail to see the logic in this statement

succesful troll is succesful

I have a 1.2 85mm mark 2 on a 7D LOL
Hopefully tomorrow the 7D is sold so i can get another 5dm2

mikeassk wrote in post #11957875
Canon makes a 17-55 2.8 that does not fit on 1D or 5D cameras. It is a MUCH better lens for 1.6X crops. I loved it.

Uh huh. And everybody in the world has no choice but to shoot the exact same subjects that you do, in the exact same style and using the exact same equipment, right? Maybe if you'd try to be a little less self-centered for a moment you'd realize that different people have different requirements and therefore will choose different equipment.

I don't, because I find 70mm too short. 24-105 works well, though I wish it had a wider aperture. I'd really love something like a 28-90 or 35-135.

I do use my 24-70L on 500D before I bought 5D II, I am pleased with the image quality it produce and the corner sharpness is better than using FF body because APSC body only take the sweet spot of a lens. And at that time I don't really know how wide is wide, so 24 at APSC is wide enough for me that time.

mikeassk wrote in post #11957875
Canon makes a 17-55 2.8 that does not fit on 1D or 5D cameras. It is a MUCH better lens for 1.6X crops. I loved it.

I dont MIND having a 1D 1.3X sensor but for what I need to shoot its all canon makes.
Canon does not make a better 'general purpose lens' for 1D/5D cameras.

I never mount my 24-70 on the 20D i own or the 40D I used to own.

I am quite unsure why you all think a 24-70mm good option for a 1.6 crop.

Your right and if they made a 20-60mm L 2.8 I would buy it.

*I have no clue what that bolded statement even means.

sooo...you were serious.....are you the same person that said a proper wedding photographer wouldn't shoot with a 7D..?

17-55 is too short for portraits..that's why I use the 24-70, as do millions of other photographers..