EF Lenses on Crop Bodies

A friend stated it the best way so I'm not gonna take the credit for it. But the way he said it made sense.

A 1.6 crop body doesn't have "extra reach". It's like making a box with ur forefinger and thumb. Hold that "frame about 10 inches in front of u, and thats what the "full frame bodies" capture, now stretch out ur arm to it's full extent, and what u see in that "frame" is what u get from crop bodies. It's the same reach, just different field of view.

Now, someone said using an EF lens on a crop body is silly, my question is why? Why is it silly? EF lenses is not specifically made for full frames, coz u gotta remember, 1D is a 1.3 crop body (aps-h) excluding the designated "s" class 1D bodies (1DsX). So, does the comment "using EF lenses on crop bodies r silly" still stand?

I have a 7D and I have EF lenses, does that mean I'm silly for doing so? No, coz I use what I need to take my shot. Should I have bought the 17-55 2.8 (EF-s) instead of the 24-70? I could, but I like the longer end of the EF lens. I am losing the wide end of the spectrum with that choice, but how hard is it to make a few steps backward to create the shot, not hard at all. No space to step back? I can always make a composite by taking 5 shots (or 9) and merge them together. That way, I'm gonna get a wider field of view than the 17mm.

Everyone has their own uses, combos and opinions. Stating ur opinion is fine, that's freedom of speech. But by saying it's silly to use an EF lens on a crop body is a more of an attack to crop body users using EF lenses than just an opinion.

Just like a member here posted, u should've just leave it that u rather use EF-s lenses on ur crop body and just leave it at that.

Oh, and sorry for the contractions on my post, im using mobile so it's on auto-correct to what words I use the most on it.

Quite a few of my lenses are EF for my 7D and did my first studio shoot yesterday with a 25-105 F/4 L and am very happy with the results. The edges are definitely sharper than the EF-S lens I used the last time (although a lot of that is probably down to the better quality of the L lens ).

SkipD wrote in post #11960505
... while a 17 mm lens on a 50D provides a wider field of view than a 24 mm lens on a 5D.

No, a 17mm lens on 1.6x crop provides a 27mm FF equivalent.

This entire discussion is retarded. There are a hundred reasons someone could pick one lens and one body/format in combination. While wide angle can be stunning, it doesn't mean everyone wants the widest possible FL at that end of their zoom range. It all depends on your style and what you're shooting and from where you're shooting it (which means infinite possibilities).

That having been said, the 24-70 is indeed a heavy lens. There's a reason they call it "the brick". Of course there's no problem with that if you're willing to carry it. Me? I prefer primes

schmalpal wrote in post #11966857
No, a 17mm lens on 1.6x crop provides a 27mm FF equivalent.

I fixed the post that was in error. Thanks.