L lenses are wasted on a crop body...

mcluckie wrote in post #13812621
What? According to Canon, L stands for luxury. It ought to stand for something about superb optics, weather sealing and build. If luxury is a better lens, so be it. EF-S makes sense — as in EF but smaller.

Without question, lenses that are designed to have superior corner qualities are water on a sensor that doesn't see it. The middle of the lens, where most are very good anyway, is maybe better on an L, but that doesn't mean a crop sensor wouldn't use the improvement over a non-L lens. What that improvement is, or the sensors ability to resolve differences in lenses, is a matter for engineers, not photographers. Canon has to keep lenses as good as sensors, not the other way around.

IQ is generally better on FF than crop. No, IQ is not subjective and everything isn't in the eye of the beholder. Some things are just better. You may not have a need for, or even be equipped with the sensibilities to see it. Many can't see the difference between lenses and thats OK.

image quality

Definition: Assessment or subjective measure of how accurately or fully an image of a subject represents that subject. * For a critical observer, it is based on e.g. the brightness and evenness of illumination, contrast, resolution, geometry, colour fidelity and colour discrimination of an observed image. * It can be affected by e.g. lens aberrations, diffraction and reflection effects, pollutants such as dust and scratches on the lens and in the atmosphere, effects of heat on detectors, motion of subject or optical system.
Crucially inexact
For such a vital subject as image quality, it is curious there is no universally applicable precise way of measuring it. But there can be none: quality is just too slippery. The most objective measure is MTF which gives a good measure of the sharpness (contrast related to resolution) of an image but ignores geometry of the image, cannot fully account for many other factors -- and tests only in white light.


BTW the L explanation was obviously a joke referring to the earlier conversation...

I never questioned the quality of L lenses- I've owned a few and plan on getting them again soon.

Just out of interest = now that we know L lenses are for FF cameras only since they give the best image quality there - I need to know -- where are MPE lenses supposed to be used? FF or crop sensor?

JHaegs wrote in post #13812731
image quality

Definition: Assessment or subjective measure of how accurately or fully an image of a subject represents that subject. * For a critical observer, it is based on e.g. the brightness and evenness of illumination, contrast, resolution, geometry, colour fidelity and colour discrimination of an observed image. * It can be affected by e.g. lens aberrations, diffraction and reflection effects, pollutants such as dust and scratches on the lens and in the atmosphere, effects of heat on detectors, motion of subject or optical system.
Crucially inexact
For such a vital subject as image quality, it is curious there is no universally applicable precise way of measuring it. But there can be none: quality is just too slippery. The most objective measure is MTF which gives a good measure of the sharpness (contrast related to resolution) of an image but ignores geometry of the image, cannot fully account for many other factors -- and tests only in white light.


BTW the L explanation was obviously a joke referring to the earlier conversation...

I never questioned the quality of L lenses- I've owned a few and plan on getting them again soon.

Those qualities of IQ (brightness and evenness of illumination, contrast, resolution, geometry, color...) sure seem measurable, or at least relatable to another sample.

There are objective qualities of IQ, but IQ as a whole is subjective...

Canon 60d +70-200L f2.8 IS MII has done perfectly for outdoor sports, 1d can prob do better but my shots are already sharp enough for me.

JHaegs wrote in post #13812731
BTW the L explanation was obviously a joke referring to the earlier conversation...

I never questioned the quality of L lenses- I've owned a few and plan on getting them again soon.

Try a full frame camera or 1D series as well.

JHaegs wrote in post #13812994
There are objective qualities of IQ, but IQ as a whole is subjective...

If the parts are measurable, why wouldn't the whole be a sum of the parts?

Seems odd to place that much gold in an L designation that people are "going to get one" — makes which one and why seem secondary.

alpha_1976 wrote in post #13813017
Try a full frame camera or 1D series as well.

I personally don't have a need/want to. The the biggest advantage I see is more width and narrower DOF if you want to go there. I'm not a pro, nor do I pretend to be- my shooting is completely recreational, and I find enough joy in the pics I get with a 40D. Most of the time I shoot wildlife or sports, so why would I give up the reach I get with a crop? If the crop factor affected the aperature in reguards to exposure, then a FF would definitely be on my mind.

If I have money to spend one of these days, I'll get a camera with better high ISO performance, micro-adjustment, better focusing, and all of the other qualities that I think are important.

I'm not knocking FF bodies, or the people that use them. I just don't have a need for it.

mcluckie wrote in post #13813045
If the parts are measurable, why wouldn't the whole be a sum of the parts?

Seems odd to place that much gold in an L designation that people are "going to get one" — makes which one and why seem secondary.

Because ALL the parts aren't measurable. You act like I wrote that definition...

Find me a non-L 200mm f/2.8 Canon lens and I'm all over it. I have my reasons, none of which are "just because it's an L".

Seems that the measure of a photographer being the images he produces, not the means, has gotten totally lost and forgotten.

JHaegs wrote in post #13813093
Because ALL the parts aren't measurable. You act like I wrote that definition...

Find me a non-L 200mm f/2.8 Canon lens and I'm all over it. I have my reasons, none of which are "just because it's an L".

I agree with everything you wrote.

2) I've also been looking for a superior 180-200 lens. Already had a 200 L II and have a 70-200 II, and I want something else. I don't care about whatever L gives me if its not what I am looking for. (btw, it might be a contax 180 2.8, or i really don't want this length...)

1) Yeah, who cares, maybe all the parts are measurable, but your point is (and I agree) that the sum [of IQ data] has some visual harmonic that stimulates a part in our brains that gives us joy.
(I saw someone give himself a "book worthy" so here

John_T wrote in post #13813178
Seems that the measure of a photographer being the images he produces, not the means, has gotten totally lost and forgotten.

We know; this is just a different discussion. that's the subjective part haha

wait, the original post was something about L lenses and crop sensors.

mcluckie wrote in post #13813218
...wait, the original post was something about L lenses and crop sensors.

The OP was bait. It worked.

mcluckie wrote in post #13813218
We know; this is just a different discussion. that's the subjective part haha

wait, the original post was something about L lenses and crop sensors.

Yup, in case anyone forgot, this thread was created because kin2son said a 135L is WASTED on a a 50D- or any crop body for that matter. He actually said that in an entirely different thread though... Hahaha

JHaegs wrote in post #13813064
Most of the time I shoot wildlife or sports, so why would I give up the reach I get with a crop?

I just commented based on what you have on your flickr which has none.