L lenses on cropped bodies

I currently have a 7D and, by luck, was given a 17-40L and 70-200 f4 IS. Might these two lenses be considered "overkill" for a cropped camera and be better utilized on a FF body. I am considering a 5D and was wondering should I purchase a camera for the L lenses or perhaps purchase other lenses for my 7D.

There's no such thing as overkill ... you can use the most expensive lens with the least expensive body.

I've had great success using L lenses on a crop body.

The (generally) smaller pixels on a crop sensor really take advantage of the high quality glass.

Go out and shoot with them. Do they work well for what you're shooting? If yes, they you're good. I've seen $10,000 lens on $500 bodies. The investment in Canon photography is in the lenses, the bodies get upgraded and changed around all the time.

There's no reason you can't use L lenses on a crop body. It's not like a crop body is a disposable camera you buy at the checkout line in the store. It's perfectly capable of rendering what comes through the lens.

I had the 70-200 f/4L IS on my Rebel XS, and the results were still wonderful. As long as you don't feel you need IS on the wider end, the 17-40 will do you well. Congrat's on the windfall!

L lenses perform well on crop cameras. But that said, the 17-40 isnt doesnt show its full potential on a crop body. I have it and used it on my 40D, but it really came alive when I bought the 5D. If you like the crop and intend to stay crop only, consider selling the 17-40 in favor of the 17-55 2.8 IS.

That is lucky to be given those. There is no overkill. You will love them, they will be amazing on your 7d.

Wait, what am I thinking you have a 7d. They were given to you. Yes, it is way overkill. You should give those lenses to me!

Seriously, enjoy your new lenses!

Gonzogolf: I never used the 17-40 - But some here have implied it vignettes on FF at some FL and apertures, and so it might be better for some as a crop lens? Just something for the OP to think about. Still way more than useable on his 7d. Many feel that range does not truly need IS. Plus his lens would still be useable if he did ever go FF, the 17-55 would not go FF.

Sunapollo wrote in post #14501831
There's no such thing as overkill ... you can use the most expensive lens with the least expensive body.

Word.

I assume you're joking--I've been using nearly a dozen various L's on crops and don't have much use for FF's FYI.

jimewall wrote in post #14501935
That is lucky to be given those. There is no overkill. You will love them, they will be amazing on your 7d.

Agreed.

I had a 7D using all "L" lenses except for a EF-S 10-22 because I wanted something wide. Only switched to FF because I wanted more sharpness and I don't shoot sports action anymore. "L's" on a 7D are fantastic. Only recommendation if your thinking about a FF camera is stay away from the EF-S lenses because they can't be used on a FF. You can't go wrong with "L" lenses.

i am using 17-40L for my 7D

dave kadolph wrote in post #14502201
I assume you're joking--I've been using nearly a dozen various L's on crops and don't have much use for FF's FYI.

Absolutely 100% correct...
They are as suitable as any other Canon or third party lens.

If they were not 'overkill' on early FF digital camera bodies, the DCS 520 (made by Kodak for Canon lenses) with only 2Mpixel, back in the early 1990s, then L lenses are hardly 'overkill' when now used on 16Mpixel APS-C bodies.