L zoom lenses not made for crop cameras?

I've been contemplating a new camera, between the 6D and 70D, and think that I'd go with the 70D. I want a nice zoom lens too. I'm no pro, but like quality stuff, and would love an L lens. The 24-70 seems to be regarded as one of the best. I also think the 24-105 is a very nice range.

Talking to almost anyone though, they say these are better on full frame and recommend the 17-55. I have the 18-55 kit lens and never use it. I don't find that range all that useful personally. So I guess I know the responses will be, "then buy the 24-105 if you think it's a useful range."

I just thought I'd ask, with the exception of the 17-55, are the L zooms generally not made for crop cameras? That doesn't mean you can't use them, but do people find them just as useful on a crop?

you are correct. It has more to do with "EF" lenses. Those are specifically made for full frame, while EF-s are specifically made for crop cameras.

I have the 24-105 on my 7D, and thoroughly enjoy it. Like you, I didn't much like the 17/18-55 range. My first replacement for the 18-55 kit lens was a Tamron 28-75, which I owned and loved for several years. Eventually I wanted something with faster focusing, and now have the 24-105. The range is very useful and the image quality is excellent. In addition, it's weather-proofed, and I've been able to use it in rainy conditions without worrying about it. I would not go back to the 17-55 range. It doesn't suit the type of photography I most enjoy.

L lenses were not designed with APS-c cameras in mind, BUT you get a very nice bonus in that the best portion of the image falls on the sensor since it is smaller. Minimal edge fall off on sharpness, less vignetting and CA.

timrocks311 wrote in post #16621005
I've been contemplating a new camera, between the 6D and 70D, and think that I'd go with the 70D. I want a nice zoom lens too. I'm no pro, but like quality stuff, and would love an L lens. The 24-70 seems to be regarded as one of the best. I also think the 24-105 is a very nice range.

Talking to almost anyone though, they say these are better on full frame and recommend the 17-55. I have the 18-55 kit lens and never use it. I don't find that range all that useful personally. So I guess I know the responses will be, "then buy the 24-105 if you think it's a useful range."

I just thought I'd ask, with the exception of the 17-55, are the L zooms generally not made for crop cameras? That doesn't mean you can't use them, but do people find them just as useful on a crop?

They work fine on crop cameras. My 24-105L performs equally well on my crop and FF bodies.

When people say the 17-55 etc., are "better" on a crop, what they mean is they find it a more useful range for what they want to shoot. If you don't feel that you will miss the extra wide angle below 24mm, then the 24-105L is good for you. People tend to recommend what suits them, that may be different to what suits you.

Charlie wrote in post #16621013
you are correct. It has more to do with "EF" lenses. Those are specifically made for full frame, while EF-s are specifically made for crop cameras.

You are correct that EF-S lenses are specifically made for crop cameras, but EF lenses are not specifically made for full frame, they are made for all EOS cameras (plus anything else with EF / EF-S mount).

timrocks311 wrote in post #16621005
..are the L zooms generally not made for crop cameras?

This is a profoundly incorrect premise.

"L" lenses work just fine on any EF mount camera. As always, the only limitation comes from the photographer.

The only significant difference between a so-called "crop camera" and a so called "full frame" camera is the area of the imaging surface. The units called "crop" cameras came about when the expense of manufacturing an imaging chip mimicking the size of a frame of 35mm film was prohibitively expensive.

"Full frame" cameras do not make photographers instant artists.

sandpiper wrote in post #16621042
When people say the 17-55 etc., are "better" on a crop, what they mean is they find it a more useful range for what they want to shoot. If you don't feel that you will miss the extra wide angle below 24mm, then the 24-105L is good for you. People tend to recommend what suits them, that may be different to what suits you.

^ absolutely.

I am finding more and more use for my 24-105 on my crop XSi. The combination of f/4 and the XSi max ISO of 1600 limits indoor/low light work, but outside in the sun it is a nice general purpose lens. So much so, that I would consider something like a 40-150 for my FF 6D.


edit: my 70-200 2.8L IS is great on my XSi, but it seems you are more interested in "standard" zooms vs. telephoto zooms.

2n10 wrote in post #16621036
L lenses were not designed with APS-c cameras in mind, BUT you get a very nice bonus in that the best portion of the image falls on the sensor since it is smaller. Minimal edge fall off on sharpness, less vignetting and CA.

+1

My 70-200 f/4L IS and 100 f/2.8L Macro are wonderful attached to my 40D (also on my 5DIII, but that's not really the point here )

I believe most people are incorrectly interpreting the OP and he doesn't mean that L lens don't work on crop camera and instead means, "where are the EF-S, L or L quality lens?"

The short answer is they don't really exist from canon. I do agree there should be a EF-S 50-135 f/2.8 that costs ~1K, but canon doesn't make it. Sigma makes a 50-150 f/2.8 but it hasn't been met with much fanfare.

Canon does make the EF 70-200 f/2.8 which despite being heavier and more expensive than an EF-S version, is quite a lens and might be what you'd deem "interesting" if you hate the 18-55 focal lengths.

vengence wrote in post #16621106
I believe most people are incorrectly interpreting the OP and he doesn't mean that L lens don't work on crop camera and instead means, "where are the EF-S, L or L quality lens?"

I dunno. I think this is the crux of his post:

timrocks311 wrote in post #16621005
but do people find them just as useful on a crop?

And the answer would be, "yes."

LV Moose wrote in post #16621170
I dunno. I think this is the crux of his post:

And the answer would be, "yes."

I'm rereading what is written and I take back what I said.

ceegee wrote in post #16621020
I have the 24-105 on my 7D, and thoroughly enjoy it. Like you, I didn't much like the 17/18-55 range. My first replacement for the 18-55 kit lens was a Tamron 28-75, which I owned and loved for several years. Eventually I wanted something with faster focusing, and now have the 24-105. The range is very useful and the image quality is excellent. In addition, it's weather-proofed, and I've been able to use it in rainy conditions without worrying about it. I would not go back to the 17-55 range. It doesn't suit the type of photography I most enjoy.

This sums it up for me, too, minus the stint with the 28-75.

timrocks311 wrote in post #16621005
I just thought I'd ask, with the exception of the 17-55, are the L zooms generally not made for crop cameras? That doesn't mean you can't use them, but do people find them just as useful on a crop?

The L lenses are absolutely excellent on crop bodies.

For my photographic purposes, the L lenses are usually more useful on crop bodies than they are on full frame. The zoom range of the 24-105, for example, is a range that I find extremely useful on my 50D 1.6 crop body, often useful on my 1D Mk4 (1.3 crop), and seldom useful on my 5D full frame body. The same goes for my L series 400 f2.8 - it frames the shots I want best when I use the 1.6 crop, and usually does not give me the framing I want when I use it in the full frame 5D.

Here's a link to a set of photos I have taken with the 24-105. Most of these were taken using my 1.6 crop 50D:
http://www.flickr.com …39565564/with/8​386251299/

Additionally, all of the photos on my website were taken with L lenses, and the vast majority of them were taken with a 1.6 crop body. I used the 1.6 body for these images because in those situations it did a better job than the full frame would have done. I had the full frame right there in the bag, I chose not to use it because it wouldn't have given me as good of a picture as the crop body did, when combined with the L lenses I was using.

Excellent pics with that lens!! Never would have thought of it as a wildlife lens.

timrocks311 wrote in post #16621005
I have the 18-55 kit lens and never use it. I don't find that range all that useful personally. So I guess I know the responses will be, "then buy the 24-105 if you think it's a useful range."

I just thought I'd ask, with the exception of the 17-55, are the L zooms generally not made for crop cameras? That doesn't mean you can't use them, but do people find them just as useful on a crop?

If you don't find the 18-55 range useful then the 17-55 wound be aby more useful.

EF lenses, while not technically designed for APS-C cameras, can still be very good on them. EF lenes are designed to cover a "full frame" sensor while EF-S lenses are designed to only cover a "crop sensor". So EF lenses can still be very useful on a crop camera. Where they are not useful is when you want a FF field of view of say a 24-70 on a crop. Then you'd need something like a 17-55.

vengence wrote in post #16621106
Sigma makes a 50-150 f/2.8 but it hasn't been met with much fanfare.

Kind of. It's a lens that has reviewed very well and those of us who do use it LOVE it. But it's as big and nearly as expensive as some 70-200 f2.8 lenses so most people write it off because of that. If you want close to a "70-200 field of view" on a crop then this lens is pretty much it......and did I mention its an amazing lens?