Owners of FF and crop bodies

Which one takes better pictures?





OK, this isn't one of those threads. The question is, do you have nice efs glass for your crop bodies or try to make the whole kit interchangeable?

I just bought a 60d a few minutes ago. My plan is to likely go 6d (pending real world issues) after the price takes a hit from the initial opening. I am finally moving on from my xsi(loved it), and my new gameplan is to have the 60d for kids sports, surf pics etc. and the 6d for work shots(interiors) portraiture, low light, and everything ff is awesome at.

So far the plan sounds good. I currently own a 17-50 sigma and a 10-20 sigma as well as the 100-300 f4 sigma (great copies of ALL and I am a huge sigma fan as a result) and then some crappier lenses I will sell off or give to wife with xsi. I will probably get the 17-40 (for work) for the 6d when i get it and then add primes as I can afford to. The 100-300 is a full frame lens, but the wigma and the 17-50 obviously are not. Should I keep them for use on the 60d, or sell them ($750 realistically) and just add a few hundred for good ef glass.

I feel I am currently inclined to save them, and make the 60d the camera that I leave in my truck for the you never know stuff and have it all covered. I am thinking that is probably worth more to me than the $800 towards a prime and a slow 17-40 on a crop when I am used to an awesome 17-50 2.8 that is probably a much better lens on a crop.

What do you guys do?

In the mean time I plan on enjoying my lenses and new body so no rush I guess to come to any conclusion.

I'm mainly keeping my crop body for telephoto, and the full frame (5Dc) for most everything else.

I will buy EF lenses and use them interchangably.

ickmcdon wrote in post #15072331
I'm mainly keeping my crop body for telephoto, and the full frame (5Dc) for most everything else.

What he said

Ditto. Full frame lenses here. 5d and 40d

Kinda what I was thinking in my argument against keeping a the wider efs.....really, the main reasons I want a crop are all north of 100mm unless I just don't want to beat up a new body for daily photos.


I should add I take pics for clients a lot at work, not like formal photos, but photos that need to be clean with proper wb etc. These are all at wider range, so if i do have my camera in my truck everyday for that. I was thinking that keeping said glass means the 60d is that camera and not a ff sitting in the heat and going through mundane shutter actuations etc.

Same here, the 5D2 for everything except telephoto and when I do a wedding, then I use both (40D). I have changed all my lenses to EF so they can be used on both bodies. It is handy having both crop and FF I reckon.

Apart from my kit lens on both my 60D and original Rebel, all my other lenses are EF. Why - I don't know. I honestly don't think I will ever buy an FF camera unless prices get down under $1500.

The only thing I think of is since the EF lenses are designed for a FF image, I will not see any softness in the edges as it will be outside the EF-S sensor.

I never bought any EF-S lenses beyond the initial kit lenses. Those were sold pretty quickly and I started to go through many many others. I always bought lenses that would go with a FF body for when I went that route. I think I will prob. pick up a 7D early next summer for the extra reach. Should be cheap as heck by then!

I have both formats, and I have gone with all EF lenses now. I like having a solid kit, without duplicating the equipment based on body type. And, my bag is a bit lighter now! I went from a 10-22 ona 40D to a 17-40 for my 5DII, and I like the results more now. Partly due to practice ( ) and partly I think it is a better option. I also tend to use my 7D for telephoto work, and sports. The EF glass on a APS-C sensor does work well - you use the best part of the glass.

Nick3434 wrote in post #15072204
Which one takes better pictures?





OK, this isn't one of those threads. The question is, do you have nice efs glass for your crop bodies or try to make the whole kit interchangeable?

I just bought a 60d a few minutes ago. My plan is to likely go 6d (pending real world issues) after the price takes a hit from the initial opening. I am finally moving on from my xsi(loved it), and my new gameplan is to have the 60d for kids sports, surf pics etc. and the 6d for work shots(interiors) portraiture, low light, and everything ff is awesome at.

So far the plan sounds good. I currently own a 17-50 sigma and a 10-20 sigma as well as the 100-300 f4 sigma (great copies of ALL and I am a huge sigma fan as a result) and then some crappier lenses I will sell off or give to wife with xsi. I will probably get the 17-40 (for work) for the 6d when i get it and then add primes as I can afford to. The 100-300 is a full frame lens, but the wigma and the 17-50 obviously are not. Should I keep them for use on the 60d, or sell them ($750 realistically) and just add a few hundred for good ef glass.

I feel I am currently inclined to save them, and make the 60d the camera that I leave in my truck for the you never know stuff and have it all covered. I am thinking that is probably worth more to me than the $800 towards a prime and a slow 17-40 on a crop when I am used to an awesome 17-50 2.8 that is probably a much better lens on a crop.

What do you guys do?

In the mean time I plan on enjoying my lenses and new body so no rush I guess to come to any conclusion.

I don't own full frame except for a film camera, but until relatively recently I'd been harboring the idea of going full frame at some point. I've since ditched the idea because I can't see getting so much more out of full frame than I get out of my 7D that it would be worth the expense of owning two formats.

In any case, what this means is that I have a few full frame lenses, e.g. the 24-105L and the 70-300, so I do have some choice as to what lenses to use with my 7D.

If I had both formats, I'd still keep the crop-specific lenses because it's really the lens that makes the biggest difference in terms of the quality of the image you get and the suitability of the camera for the task at hand. I'd much rather have a little more invested in lenses so as to ensure that I've got the right one for the job than to compromise on what is, for photography gear, the most important piece of the package.

But that doesn't mean you should keep all your crop-only lenses. Instead, you should keep the ones that are of greatest use to you. If you use your full frame camera for wide angle shots (where, frankly, it excels, especially if you need subject isolation at the same time), then the only reason to retain wide angle capability with your crop camera is if you intend to use it as a backup. Otherwise, you may as well sell your 10-20. The 17-50, on the other hand, is so useful and versatile that I'd be inclined to keep it because it means that your crop camera will be able to act as a backup camera for most situations.

I would get the full frame camera first and see how you wind up using it versus your 60D. That experience will tell you what crop-only lenses to sell.

All my lenses are interchangeable except the 17-55, which is too good to let go of.

Thanks guys!

I think KC and Ian summed up my initial feelings, and really I am fortunate to not "need" the money so I think I will likely get the ff and see when that time comes. Well, i "need" the money to keep under the wife radar. I think the 17-50 makes the crop camera, not the body itself and for me it wouldn't be a backup as much as a "beat up" camera. I can see selling the 10-20, I was just looking at sale prices and wondered if it was worth more to me than $350. Then again it is a favorite lens because I haven't used a 17-40 on ff yet so getting ff then selling off makes the most logical sense.

i never understood why people keep two bodies if they aren't pro and dont need a backup. the cameras are highly durable, use them.

mike_311 wrote in post #15073596
i never understood why people keep two bodies if they aren't pro and dont need a backup. the cameras are highly durable, use them.

Because we can! I would like to own a series of different bodies and glass, being PRO or not doesn't seem relevant. I shoot a lot and use both My 5Dii and 40D regularly, for me photography is about enjoyment, fun and the satisfaction of pleasing family and friends with a great shot (not as often as I would like to admit . I still use my 17-50 Sigma on my 40D and love it. When out shooting, I will have the crop with the 17-50 at the ready while shooting with the 5Dii and 70 - 200. IMHO, it's all about what gives you your fix. I would definitely keep the 17-50.