The easy answer is: YES.
After reading the thread, I feel the need to elaborate. What follows is my experience, and will not necessarily be yours. I started shooting Canon/digital in 2009 with a Rebel and EF-s glass. Coming from film/manual, I found AF to be quite amazing. After a few weeks/months, I found AF to be quite amazingly slow. The 18-55 II and 55-250 II are not built for shooting action. I bought a 15-85. Quite nice. That lead to wanting a faster aperture lens, and the 35 IS. One thing lead to another, and I found myself wanting more DOF control. Enter the 5Dc. That was a real AHA! moment. I have more control over the results with full frame (much like my film days) than with apsc. Over the course of a year or so, I sold off my ef-s glass, replacing it with EF. Most of it was consumer primes like the 28 1.8. Some was what I consider high-end glass like the 135L and 70-200 f/4L IS. The quality of available EF glass exceeds that of ef-s glass, in most cases. The kicker for me was that I could use EF glass on apsc bodies, but not the other way around. No more ef-s glass.
Some comparisons, if you please. I used a 60D/10-22 combination and was super happy with it. When selling off the apsc/efs stuff, I replaced the 60D with a 6D, and the 10-22 with a 17-40. That was my first foray into the world of 'the general opinions of Canon users just make no sense'. The 10-22 is widely lauded as an excellent lens. It is. The 17-40 is widely panned as mediocre. In my experience, the 6D/17-40 combo is way better than the 60D/10-22. Go figure.
One more. The 18-135 is widely regarded as above average. The 28-135 is widely regarded as crap. The 60D/18-135 setup is pushed to the curb by the 6D/28-135 setup. And yes, the 28-135 is crap. The 24-105L is better, my 24-105 STM is even better.
Glass like the 135L and 70-200 f/4L IS are in a completely different league than any efs glass available. Even lowly consumer primes like the 85 1.8 have no efs equivalent. If you are going to the expense (I did) of buying top quality EF lenses, why mount them on an apsc camera that gives you higher pixel density, higher noise levels, and less control over DOF? After spending about $10,000 on better lenses, it would make no sense at all to NOT upgrade my $800 60D to a $1400 6D. Spending $600 to upgrade my camera seems almost insignificant after spending large on glass.
That said, my 6D is seriously inadequate for sports/action shooting. I tried doing that with 70D, and was not happy with the results. Enter in quick succession (a few months) a 1D, 1D2, 1D3, and now 1D4. I am happy with both the 6D and 1D4. I just wish I could do it all with 1 camera, or at least two with similar controls. Currently pondering a used 1DX. Maybe next year.