L lenses are wasted on a crop body...

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

No, the first post was Phil playing troublemaker, quoting a post out of some other thread somewhere out there, making ridiculous statements.

alpha_1976 wrote in post #13813266
I just commented based on what you have on your flickr which has none.

Yeah I haven't uploaded anything to Flickr in a while. Those were all taken last year with a T1i and 200mm f/2.8... Had to sell all my gear a little less than a year ago due to medical bills, and now I'm in the process of rebuilding.

Got some sports/wildlife on my computer though!

Tom Reichner wrote in post #13812717
Great point! This is what I have found to be true.

People who argue that Ls are wasted on crops should realize that not everybody likes shallow DOF. For the stuff I shoot, I don't want shallow DOF. I want the opposite - a large DOF. But I do want razor sharp detail, and fast shutter speeds. This is best accomplished with an L quality lens on a crop sensor.

RESOLVING POWER is what matters most to some of us, and pixel density is what produces outstanding resolving power. To make full use of the resolving power on a 50D, 560D, or 7D, one does best if using an L lens.

Someone could make the following argument:
Crop sensor cameras are wasted if they're used with non non-L lenses

I already did, way back on page 1 or 2. And, yes, it's a valid point for all the reasons that you cited above.

Although, not related to your post, I've also read a ton in this thread about how a 24-105 or 24-70 is not a good focal length for a crop. I couldn't disagree more. How many of you have actually combed through your files and analyzed what focal lengths you use on what bodies? I have. As I already mentioned, prior to purchasing my 24-105 my primary "walk around" lens on my 7D was the kit 18-135 (which is a great lens BTW, I got some really good pictures with it). When my wife, err, borrowed/stole/inherit​ed my 18-135 I was left looking for a new "walk around" lens. In the end it came down to a second 18-135, a 17-85, a 24-70 or a 24-105. Knowing full well that a FF was in my future, I really leaned heavily towards the 24-70 or 24-105. Before purchasing though, I went through my last 5 years of pictures (all of them, stupid simple with Aperture) and thoroughly researched how well my past pictures fit into the various focal lengths. I found that only about 1% of all my images taken between 17 and 140 fit in the 17-23 range. The VAST majority of pictures taken with a crop sensor were taken at 24 or greater. When I narrowed that search to my 18-135, I found that most of these pictures were in the 30-100 range which made the 24-105 a GREAT option. Thus far I've been very happy with my 24-105 and find that I don't reach for my 10-22 all that often. Quite honestly, I really don't miss the 18-23 range at all.

Don't worry about what range is supposed to work. Worry about the actual range that you use and purchase lenses based on that analysis. If you have a 24-105 and find that you're taking a ton of images at 24 and wish that they were wider, get something else. Apply that logic (and real analysis) when making a lens purchase and, regardless of sensor size, you're much more likely to be happy with your choice in the end.

As for what lens you use on your FF or crop, I really don't care. Use what works best for the type of shooting that you do and I'll continue to be impressed with the end result, that's all that you should really care about anyway.

wuzzittoya wrote in post #13812677
After reading this and doing some googling on the advice that if I read stuff by experts I would find that EF-S lenses are superior to L lenses on crop bodies because of design I have to admit I'm a bit blown away.

If this is TRUE, then then the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS should trump the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II at the same aperture settings, should it not? i.e., if you take the EF-S 55-250mm and set it at comparable lengths and then match various aperture settings, the 55-250mm lens should have superior sharpness, contrast and color every time compared to the 70-200mm f/2.8 at the same settings when used on any crop body.

If you don't have them, maybe I should set up my tripod and do the experiment for you, then post my images unedited, only converted to JPG and we can find out if that's true...

the 55-250mm
and the 18-55mm
plus the king of high image quality >> the 50mm 1.8
all of them light and plastic

but we can get from them what we need
even the 18-55mm + 25 canon extention tube
this small plasticy zoom will become like a macro lens

i hope that canon make for us another plasticy zoom from 150-500mm and make it from plastic too

rebby wrote in post #13813372
I already did, way back on page 1 or 2. And, yes, it's a valid point for all the reasons that you cited above.

Although, not related to your post, I've also read a ton in this thread about how a 24-105 or 24-70 is not a good focal length for a crop. I couldn't disagree more. How many of you have actually combed through your files and analyzed what focal lengths you use on what bodies? I have. As I already mentioned, prior to purchasing my 24-105 my primary "walk around" lens on my 7D was the kit 18-135 (which is a great lens BTW, I got some really good pictures with it).

I found that only about 1% of all my images taken between 17 and 140 fit in the 17-23 range. The VAST majority of pictures taken with a crop sensor were taken at 24 or greater. When I narrowed that search to my 18-135, I found that most of these pictures were in the 30-100 range which made the 24-105 a GREAT option. Thus far I've been very happy with my 24-105 and find that I don't reach for my 10-22 all that often. Quite honestly, I really don't miss the 18-23 range at all.

Don't worry about what range is supposed to work. Worry about the actual range that you use and purchase lenses based on that analysis. If you have a 24-105 and find that you're taking a ton of images at 24 and wish that they were wider, get something else. Apply that logic (and real analysis) when making a lens purchase and, regardless of sensor size, you're much more likely to be happy with your choice in the end.

As for what lens you use on your FF or crop, I really don't care. Use what works best for the type of shooting that you do and I'll continue to be impressed with the end result, that's all that you should really care about anyway.

I agree, though mine was kind of accidental. I already knew that I didn't do a whole lot "wide." Most of my stuff is at a typical two-eye field of view and farther, and reach is usually my big complaint. Anyhow - someone suggested I look at the 24-105 vs. the 24-70, which I had settled on. When I saw the 24-105 had IS, I decided that it was probably worth switching and took the money saved and put it into a 430 EX II.

Have absolutely LOVED that lens on my 7D. It's there 80% of the time or more. It's a great range for getting the majority of my shots, especially walking around in town, etc.. I still use my 70-200 when I'm doing wildlife photography, etc., but if I'm just grabbing the camera and going, the 24-105 is there. Absolutely love this lens and its range my camera.

JHaegs wrote in post #13813259
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

Yeah, I forgot. It's not, so thats the end. (and I don't like crop bodies.)

mcluckie wrote in post #13813592
Yeah, I forgot. It's not, so thats the end. (and I don't like crop bodies.)

me too
i dont like crop bodies
and soon i will return to the FF again

shoenberg3 wrote in post #13811368
You have one of the most puzzling gear lists ever.
Clearly, you could have afforded a FF cam long time ago, but somehow decided to add on expensive zooms and primes.

I really have to say that you dont have your priorities straight.

Of course, if you are just a gear-head and couldn't care less about what is ideal and price-effective, that's also your choice. It is a free country.

Whoa.. who are you to judge? Not everyone does the same type of photography as everyone else and your perfect gear lineup wouldn't do much for someone else who doesn't do what you do. This nonsense is precisely why I no longe have a gear list for public viewing.

smorter wrote in post #13811820
JHaegs, I don't think your argument is valid

You talk about how photographers can't afford to get a FF camera and L glass, so have to settle for one or the other. Well, maybe if they didn't waste their money on a crop camera and a L lens clearly designed for FF, then they'd have more money to spend.

How many photographers have we seen get a crop camera and a 17-40L as a walkabout lens for that "L quality"

???

I don't mean that all L lenses are wasted on crop cameras, but many, many, many are, e.g.:
17-40L
16-35L
24-70L
24-105L
14L
24L
35L
These types of lenses...

The 24-70, 24-105, and 14L don't make a lot of sense on crop bodies but the others certainly do and I use them frequently on the 7D, I would like someone to explain to me why the 24L and 35L in particular are a 'waste' on 1.6x crops and what the alternatives are supposed to be.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #13812125
Aspect ratio? That refers to the 3:2 dimensional proportions of the sensor. It is the same whether on a FF or a crop.
As far as I know, all DSLRs have the same aspect ratio. To get a different aspect ratio, you'd have to switch to a point and shoot (typically 4:3) or a medium format camera.

Olympus SLRs are 4:3. That's how you can easily pick out photos shot with Olympus bodies on my Flickr. ')

K6AZ wrote in post #13814711
The 24-70, 24-105, and 14L don't make a lot of sense on crop bodies but the others certainly do and I use them frequently on the 7D, I would like someone to explain to me why the 24L and 35L in particular are a 'waste' on 1.6x crops and what the alternatives are supposed to be.

Honestly what is wrong with a 14mm (22m on fullframe equivalent angle of view) on a crop sensor? Same for those 24 base zooms.

Again its just trying to copy on fullframe what is possible on crop sensor - and again its really only pointless info for those that are shooting crop and not shooting fullframe. Heck even if they shoot full frame its only worthy info if they want that same angle of view.


About the only time that I can see sanity in this topic is with reference to indoor portrait work; when using wide angle lenses on crop sensor to get the same angle of view as a longer lens on full frame results in distortion due to the wide angle lens (ie close parts of the scene being more enlarged).
Eg using a 35mm instead of a 50mm.
Then there is some sanity to this - otherwise it just seems to be rather random "this lens is better on ff by a few hairs of a cats whisker when comparing sharpness or bokeh".

Asides which anyone that critical about their photography shouldn't be shooing 35mm anyway - they should be shooting med format.

Overread wrote in post #13814761
Honestly what is wrong with a 14mm (22m on fullframe equivalent angle of view) on a crop sensor? Same for those 24 base zooms.

Again its just trying to copy on fullframe what is possible on crop sensor - and again its really only pointless info for those that are shooting crop and not shooting fullframe. Heck even if they shoot full frame its only worthy info if they want that same angle of view.


About the only time that I can see sanity in this topic is with reference to indoor portrait work; when using wide angle lenses on crop sensor to get the same angle of view as a longer lens on full frame results in distortion due to the wide angle lens (ie close parts of the scene being more enlarged).
Eg using a 35mm instead of a 50mm.
Then there is some sanity to this - otherwise it just seems to be rather random "this lens is better on ff by a few hairs of a cats whisker when comparing sharpness or bokeh".

Asides which anyone that critical about their photography shouldn't be shooing 35mm anyway - they should be shooting med format.

Again it comes down to what and how you shoot. For me, I don't use the 14L on the 7D because I have the very sharp Tokina 12-24mm II. As to the 24-70 and 24-105 I don't use those on the 7D because 24mm just isn't wide enough for me when it comes to a zoom but I have been known to walk around with the 17-40 on the 7D. I no longer do that since picking up the 17-55 for a walkaround on the 7D.

Aye - so there ain't nawt wrong with the lenses on crop sensor - they just don't fit in with your style
That said I've my eye on the 24-105mm - mostly cause they don't make a nice sharp 15-105mm L and cause I've a shiny 8-16mm for the wide stuff

K6AZ wrote in post #13814711
I would like someone to explain to me why the 24L and 35L in particular are a 'waste' on 1.6x crops and what the alternatives are supposed to be.

Here's my attempt - we all know how expensive the 24L is. One pays big money for a reasonably wide fast prime on ff and ends up being a ~40mm FoV? Thing is people that buys the 24L are the ones who like the slightly distorted feel, and that distinctive feel is what captures the buyers of this lens. Not so apparent on crop.

Now if one wants a normal lens on crop, sigma 30 is a much cheaper choice that is surprisingly comparable to 35L. Also personally I'd take 5D2 + Canon 50 1.4 combo than crop + 35L in the long run anyday. Of course those who bought the 35L on crop who is planning to upgrade to ff soon is another story...

I don't even want to get into sharpness and performance with these 2 lenses between crop vs ff.

I ain't saying they are bad on crop, but just not used like they are meant to be.

kin2son wrote in post #13814843
Here's my attempt - we all know how expensive the 24L is. One pays big money for a reasonably wide fast prime on ff and ends up being a ~40mm FoV? Thing is people that buys the 24L are the ones who like the slightly distorted feel, and that's the distinctive feel that captures the buyers of this lens. Not so apparent on crop.

Now if one wants a normal lens on crop, sigma 30 is a much cheaper choice that is surprisingly comparable to 35L. Also personally I'd take 5D2 + Canon 50 1.4 combo than crop + 35L in the long run anyday.

I don't even want to get into sharpness and performance with these 2 lenses between crop vs ff.

I ain't saying they are badon crop, but just not used like they are meant to be.

This is true. But even more than this, if you can afford 24L or a 35L, you can clearly afford an FF body (5D goes for no more than 800 used nowadays) and get more out of your EF lenses. That is where my puzzlement comes from for many of these people.

(with exception, of course, of wildlife and sports shooter)