best L series lens for crop body

I searched this topic and didn't find anything (maybe that search was to specific). i am looking to pick up a 60d in the near future and at some point after that will be looking to add some quality glass to the line up.

Maybe you guys can offer what are some good L series lenses for a crop body (good walk around, portrait and macro) and maybe offer some info on lenses that aren't good on a crop body and why?

thanks for any help

-snafu!

fixed as not to be so specific.

basically 17-40 is a full frame ultra wide that many use on crop if they either intend to move to full frame or have both formats.

Very similar thread

https://photography-on-the.net …ight=17-40+on+crop+why%3F

If you couldn't find any previous threads about this subject then SNAFU is a good description of your search. Instead, try looking for topics about "EF-S 17-55 vs 24-70L vs 24-105L". Some variation of that thread comes up about once a month.

Tommydigi wrote in post #12863332
basically 17-40 is a full frame ultra wide that many use on crop if they either intend to move to full frame or have both formats.

I was going to list the reasons people normally use to avoid the 17-40 on a crop. They are:

- The 18-55IS kit lens offer much of the same image quality at a lower price.
- With crop sensors you have a selection of 17-50 and 17-55 lenses with f/2.8 apertures.
- Some misguided BS that revolves around it being a wide angle on full frame but not a wide angle on crop.

If 17-40 f/4 is a range that will work for you then it is a very nice lens.

krb wrote in post #12863354
If you couldn't find any previous threads about this subject then SNAFU is a good description of your search. Instead, try looking for topics about "EF-S 17-55 vs 24-70L vs 24-105L". Some variation of that thread comes up about once a month.

it wasn't strictly about this lens but more about the l series lenses that concern the topic! i didn't search just the 17-40 i did a search on the title of this thread and didn't see anything come up!

it seems that some l series lenses are good on crop body and others aren't and i just don't want to search every single l lens and thought maybe one thread would be a good place to compile the info.

it really depends on what you shoot, but after moving to FF, i find that L lenses aren't really made for crops (at least the focal length). i'm using a 17-40 that i bought as a UWA on my 40d right now and i understand why people don't recommend it on a crop. it's such a bland lens; not wide enough, not long enough, and not fast enough.

i do like the 70-200 f4 IS on my 40d though for a different purpose than on my 5d2. it's great if you're looking for a telephoto, but it's not as versatile as on the 5d2. the 24-70 is also a good lens if you don't need to shoot wide. and any of the super teles are good too if you're going birding or shooting wildlife. there's really not much selection for a wide angle on a crop though, so that's where it sucks.

Its not a question of good its a question of useful. You can get digital lenses that are designed for APS-C that are probably more ideal as far as focal range and price goes. However, the L's will always have better build and the probably retain more value.

Restricting yourself to L lenses is severely limiting your choices and eliminating some very good lenses. Do you want a prime or a zoom? For walkabout use most people seem to prefer a zoom for the convenience. There are 4 L's that could be considered as walkabout candidates. The 16-35, 17-40, 24-70, and 24-105. The first two generally get discounted on a crop body because their range is kind of limiting. The 24-70 and 24-105 are nice lenses, and are used as walkabouts on crop bodies, but you'll get mixed opinions on whether or not they are wide enough. Personally I want something that goes wider for walkabout use (as do many other members). The most recommended lens for this purpose seems to be one of the 17-50/55 flavors of f2.8 zooms. None of them L's, some of them not from Canon.

S.n.a.f.u. wrote in post #12863383
it seems that some l series lenses are good on crop body and others aren't...

If a lens is good then it will still be good regardless of what size sensor you put behind it. There are a lot of people who find that a lens does not offer the range of focal lengths they like to use and then they go around telling everybody that the lens is "bad" or "awkward" on a crop camera. That is true for them but it may or not be that way for you. You should select lenses based on whether they offer the range of focal lengths that you need for the way that you shoot. Some people tend to use wider focal lengths. Some people tend to use longer focal lengths. If you're like me and prefer longer focal lengths then something like a 17-40 or 17-55 would be far too limiting. But if you tend to shoot at wider angles then something like a 24-105 would not be a good choice for you while a 17-40 or 17-55 might be perfect.

And don't be like other people who get all hung up about whether or not the lens has an L in the designation. Decide what features you require and select a lens that meets those requirements.

I didn't say to search every single lens, I said to search for comparisons of those 3. Or just search for the phrase "walkaround lens" Like I said, this has been beaten into the ground repeatedly over the years. The info has been compiled into one thread over and over again. To be honest, what I typed above and what other people in this thread are telling is the important content of all those other threads, distilled into a pure form.

nikesupremedunk wrote in post #12863482
i'm using a 17-40 that i bought as a UWA on my 40d right now and i understand why people don't recommend it on a crop. it's such a bland lens; not wide enough, not long enough, and not fast enough.

This is the exact reason I sold mine. I used the money I got from it to fund the purchase of a 17-55 and couldnt be any happier.

Honestly, there isn't one in the standard zoom range.

I'm on a crop, and I either want the 24-105 USM IS or the 24-70.

My dream would be 5DII, 24-105 and 100-400. But that's $5k.

I think what folks are telling you here is forget about whether a lens is an L-series or not, at least for the time being... the red stripe alone won't necessarily make a lens "better" or not, for real world use.

First, consider what an L-series is... Canon defines it as: 1. a lens offering superior image quality and construction, 2. a lens that uses exotic glass, and 3. a lens that's fully compatible with all EOS cameras.

Not all lenses need exotic glass to do their job very well and some non-L are very well made... Example, the 100mm USM Macro, both in build an image quality that are quality "L-like", but doesn't happen to need any exotic glass so gets a gold stripe instead of a red one. Some other examples.... Look at the four Tilt-Shift lenses... They are all practically identical build, yet two are L-series and two aren't. Why? Well only the two L's need to use exotic glass. The others don't, so miss out on having the L being stamped onto them. (Granted, the two newest ones with the red stripes do have dual rotating axes, while the older non-L have only one. But that's just because the latter two haven't been updated yet. If and when they are, they may or may not become "Ls", depending mostly upon whether they get an optical make-over and need fluorite, ED, UD, or aspherical elements.)

Also, under Canon's definition, any EF-S lens that's made to fit and work on only on a crop sensor Canon can never be labelled an L, no matter how good it is. Example, the 17-55/2.8 IS, has a top image quality and even exotic glass and IS, though probably a wee bit less than L-like build and durability... Another example: the 10-22 is amazing controlling flare, best of any UWA I've seen in fact, and it uses exotic glass for top image quality. But these are both EF-S lenses so can't be fitted to full frame, 1.3X or film EOS. And thus they will never be L's.

The other big variable here is what, exactly, constitutes "best" or "better"? We all define that differently, because all of our needs and the systems we build to meet them are different.

For example, lots of folks like that 17-55/2.8 IS as a walk-around, "standard" zoom. Me, I prefer and use a longer 28-135 or 24-70. Those lenses fits into my particular system better, but doesn't necessarily make either of those a "better" lens for someone else.

Take the 24-105L as another example... In this case I'd be more likely to use one on a crop camera than on full frame... The reason is that it tends to vignette pretty heavily at the 24mm end of the zoom range. You'll see it on a full frame camera, but not so much on a cropper. On the other hand, I figure why pay 4X as much for a 24-105 than I did for a pretty much unused 28-135, that doesn't have the vignetting and otherwise pretty much matches the the L's image quality throughout the range, just is a stop slower at 135mm, uses an earlier version of I.S. and isn't quite as well built or sealed, so likely will be a little less durable.

If looking for a wide lens, no L really does the job well on crop cameras (in my humble opinion). 17-40 is the most affordable, but not particularly wide. 16-35/2.8 is a lot more expensive, and still not all that wide, though it's brighter. 14/2.8 II is very pricey, but still only gets to "pretty wide" on a cropper. Canon 10-22, Tokina 11-16 or 12-24, Sigma 8-16 or 10-20, Tamron 10-24 will all be "better" for most people looking for something wide on their crop cameras... and at whole lot lower cost!

On the other hand, it's really hard to beat the Canon 70-200mm L-series zooms. All four are excellent. Just pick the price and size you want to deal with. The f2.8 are bigger and heavier than the f4 variants. The I.S. versions offer a handy, additional feature. Of course, they vary in price and options (i.e., with the f4 lenses a tripod mount is an optional accessory... one is included with the f2.8 lenses) All of them will have a nice, red stripe on them.

It's not always a Canon lens that's the answer, either. If I were looking for something in the 100-400mm range, I'd have to seriously consider the Sigma 120-400 instead... It's optically about equal, has better stabilization, similar build and AF performance, is a dual ring type zoom (which I personally prefer) rather than push/pull, and is a whole heck of a lot cheaper. Or I'll just save up my pennies for the EF 200-400 Extender, when it comes available. Of course, I'm going to need a very, very big pile of pennies to buy the new lens!

krb wrote in post #12863381
- The 18-55IS kit lens offer much of the same image quality at a lower price.

You must've had a pretty crappy version of the 17-40 because I at one time or another had both lenses and can guarantee that the image quality was far superior to that of the kit lens. As sharp as the 24-70 or the 70-200 it is not, but comparing it to the kit lens is rubbish...

Have you shot with one?

For my crop body, I use my 24-70. I don't care for wide angle much so that isn't a problem for me at all.