L Lenses for crop bodies

[Loswr]

if you need 100mm equivalent i would go with the ef-s 60 its very good

But the old 100 non-L macro on FF is better, as is the 100/2.

for a 300mm eq i use the sigma 120-300 zoom

But the old and far cheaper 300mm f/4L IS on FF is better.

you can't get a 1.8ff equivalent dof on aps-c

So, you're SOL.

iso performance is better on ff so you need to use faster lenses in bad light

You can use an f/1.2-1.4 lens on APS-C, and get close to the 1.5-2-stop better ISO performance that you get at f/2.8 on FF - and on FF you'd have the flexibility to use zoom lenses ranging from 16-200mm for Canon, and longer with the Sigma.



You can argue to the cows come home and beyond, ask all the leading questions you want, but the bottom line is that the best you can do on APS-C is to sometimes be as good as FF for IQ, in a very small number of shooting scenarios and/or with a very limited complement of lenses.

The 70D is a good camera. Go take some pictures!

 

[Marsu42]

for a 300mm eq i use the sigma 120-300 zoom

You can't, it doesn't reach 300mm and the missing focal length at the wide end also multiplies with the crop factor.

 

[candc]

well now we are getting somewhere. at least we are agreeing that there are some fair comparisons that can be made which is better than blanket statements like "anything shot with a crop body will look like it was taken with a cheap cellphone with a coca-cola bottle for a lens"

i would love to go take some pictures but everything is brown and gray, it's dark when i leave in the morning and dark when i get home. of course its been cloudy all the time too so i can't even try some milky way shots. oh well maybe we will get some snow soon. i like to go for photo walks then

all the best

 

[candc]

for a 300mm eq i use the sigma 120-300 zoom

You can't, it doesn't reach 300mm and the missing focal length at the wide end also multiplies with the crop factor.

he was asking about 300mm ff equivalent

 

[Pi]

i would love to go take some pictures but everything is brown and gray, it's dark when i leave in the morning and dark when i get home.

That would not be a problem if you owned an FF camera.

 

[candc]

i would love to go take some pictures but everything is brown and gray, it's dark when i leave in the morning and dark when i get home.

That would not be a problem if you owned an FF camera.

And the canon 50 f/1 to go with it, now that's a combo that I would love to have

 

[unfocused]

i would love to go take some pictures but everything is brown and gray, it's dark when i leave in the morning and dark when i get home.

That would not be a problem if you owned an FF camera.

And the canon 50 f/1 to go with it, now that's a combo that I would love to have

Silly kids. You need a Nikon Df so you can sit around the campfire at night, fiddling with knobs and experiencing pure photography.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

You need a Nikon Df ... and experiencing pure photography.

SACRILEGE
;D ;D ;D

 

[vscd]

This is a pretty long thread.... and it all started with the question:

>Why not L lenses for crops ?

..because, via definition a L-Lense has to be usable on the full frame, while EF-S isn't.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

>Why not L lenses for crops ?
..because, via definition a L-Lense has to be usable on the full frame, while EF-S isn't.

??? which definition?

 

[vscd]

Back in the 1990's I read some book from Canon where this sentence was written, they planned not to mix up the line from fullformat with aps-c. They wrote that a lense without the "L"-Designation wasn't a bad lense, but *IF* you buy a L-lense you can be sure the lense is working without any disability. If Canon would make L-Lenses for APS-C you have to know which one will work on your Fullframe and which one will fail. I think this is something we all don't want, do we? There is nothing wrong with normal lenses, some APS-C Lenses are in the same optical league like the 17-55 2.8 IS, some (fullframe-)lenses like the 75-300 IS even "invented" the optical stabilisation without beeing designated as "L".

In this aspect I like the approach from Nikon, where I can use DX Lenses on FX, too. One important factor for the wideangle "L"-Lenses is the ability to be sharp in the fullframe-corners, which APS-C won't use or even care about.

So the only thing I believe is that someone is missing the red ring on the lense to show that he's the boss...

 

[paul13walnut5]

>Why not L lenses for crops ?
..because, via definition a L-Lense has to be usable on the full frame, while EF-S isn't.

??? which definition?

+1

Define me anything about an L lens other than a red ring.

I know I am flogging a dead horse here, I know I'm being unreasonably pedantic, but as a past owner of some quite different L lenses (24 TS-E f3.5L, 17-40 f4L, 200mm f2.8 & currently, 70-200 f2.8L) I can't pinpoint a single tangible feature or specification that defines L.

I worked in camera retail for a good few years as well, although a few years back now, and I can't recall any universal function, feature or design that constituted L.

If a lens is good, it doesn't need an L. We need more good EF lenses generally, and the great thing is that these will fit any body. We don't particularly need more, more expensive lenses.

The new 55-250 STM Ef-s is reportedly a step up from an already good predecessor, is bang on the money, would folks pay $100 or £50 for a metal mount? $200 more on top of that for an enclosed non extending design?

If folk absolutley need the AF performance, if folk need the durability, if folk need the weather sealing... then they probably aren't shooting on APS-C in any case. And I say that as a 7D owner.

Ok the 7D and mooted 7D2 are grey areas. What do rebel users and M users want? Expensive heavy top end gear or gear that helps them expand within reasonable parameters for very reasonable costs? At the moment thats a choice they have. I plan to stick with APS-C for the forseeable future and I see absolutely no benefit at all to an EF-s optimised 'L' lens.

 

[Loswr]

[quote author=Canon USA]
Highly regarded among professional photographers, Canon L-series lenses are distinguished by a bold red ring around the outer barrel. What makes them truly distinctive, however, is their remarkable optical performance — the result of sophisticated Canon technologies, such as Ultra-low Dispersion (UD) glass, Fluorite and Aspherical elements, and Super Spectra Multi Coating.[/quote]

 

[candc]

>Why not L lenses for crops ?
..because, via definition a L-Lense has to be usable on the full frame, while EF-S isn't.

??? which definition?

+1

Define me anything about an L lens other than a red ring.

I know I am flogging a dead horse here, I know I'm being unreasonably pedantic, but as a past owner of some quite different L lenses (24 TS-E f3.5L, 17-40 f4L, 200mm f2.8 & currently, 70-200 f2.8L) I can't pinpoint a single tangible feature or specification that defines L.

I worked in camera retail for a good few years as well, although a few years back now, and I can't recall any universal function, feature or design that constituted L.

If a lens is good, it doesn't need an L. We need more good EF lenses generally, and the great thing is that these will fit any body. We don't particularly need more, more expensive lenses.

The new 55-250 STM Ef-s is reportedly a step up from an already good predecessor, is bang on the money, would folks pay $100 or £50 for a metal mount? $200 more on top of that for an enclosed non extending design?

If folk absolutley need the AF performance, if folk need the durability, if folk need the weather sealing... then they probably aren't shooting on APS-C in any case. And I say that as a 7D owner.

Ok the 7D and mooted 7D2 are grey areas. What do rebel users and M users want? Expensive heavy top end gear or gear that helps them expand within reasonable parameters for very reasonable costs? At the moment thats a choice they have. I plan to stick with APS-C for the forseeable future and I see absolutely no benefit at all to an EF-s optimised 'L' lens.

I have read some good things about the new 55-250 and would like to try one out. I recently bought an sl1 18-55stm kit for $538 as a gift for my daughter. I took a few test shots with it before I sent it to her and I have to say I am impressed. The new 55-250 would be a nice companion lens and all for 800 bucks or so.

Anyway: the L moniker is for "luxury" according to canon. So if they don't consider ef-s lenses in that category then it may be good thing for people who are paying for them?

 

[Pi]

Anyway: the L moniker is for "luxury" according to canon. So if they don't consider ef-s lenses in that category then it may be good thing for people who are paying for them?

The example with the 17-55 and the 24-105; and the 10-22 and the 17-40 shows that you do not really pay less but you do get less in terms of build quality.

 

[candc]

Those are good examples of good quality l lenses at a very reasonable price. The 10-22 I think is better opticly but the 17-40 is defiantly a better build quality. The 24-105 is a bargain any way you look at it.

 

[vscd]

Define me anything about an L lens other than a red ring

Build quality.

 

[Marsu42]

Define me anything about an L lens other than a red ring

Build quality.

In addition to that, my personal definition would include that L lenses have good iq wide open on ff - maybe not from edge to edge on (ultra) wide angle, but good enough not to worry about stopping down all the time like with budget lenses.

 

[paul13walnut5]

Define me anything about an L lens other than a red ring

Build quality.

Plenty of well built cheaper non L lenses. The non L TSE's and MPE are tanks. The USM EF primes are on a par with the likes of the 200mm f2.8 and 135 f2.0.

Define me anything about an L lens other than a red ring

Build quality.

In addition to that, my personal definition would include that L lenses have good iq wide open on ff - maybe not from edge to edge on (ultra) wide angle, but good enough not to worry about stopping down all the time like with budget lenses.

Yep, but in a cropped sensor context, we are discussing whether there is a need for EF-s L lenses.

I sold my 17-40 as, optically at least, the 18-55 IS mk1 was quite a bit better than it, on APS-C obviously. I don't know that IQ is strictly speaking always a parameter. I also know of a few cheapies or non-Ls that perform pretty well even wide open.

So thats not unique to L's.

[quote author=Canon USA]
Highly regarded among professional photographers, Canon L-series lenses are distinguished by a bold red ring around the outer barrel. What makes them truly distinctive, however, is their remarkable optical performance — the result of sophisticated Canon technologies, such as Ultra-low Dispersion (UD) glass, Fluorite and Aspherical elements, and Super Spectra Multi Coating.

[/quote]

Yep. I read that marketing schpeil. 'What makes them truly distinctive, however, is their remarkable optical performance' yet there are non-L's that out-perform or match equivalent L's. The use of 'such as' supports my point.

There are other lenses with UD and Aspherical elements, and not every L uses flourite elements.

I have a set of expectations that go along with spending the extra money on an L lens. And with the exception of the 17-40, my expectations have been met or exceeded. But to me, that is all that L means.

And to go back to the OP's debate, I therfore don't think that there is any need for 'L' ef-s lenses, as L doesn't actually define anything.

 

[dufflover]

I'm very happy at how the recent lenses from Canon have performed. I mean with the age of better computing and what not I know "better performance" isn't always because of "better effort" from Canon, but regardless, I was always worried at the back of my mind that eventually Canon would eventually stop trying with lens performance with non-L's because, well, they would probably get away with it looking at the forums. Some posts/threads/forums rave on as if the only sharp decent lenses are L-lenses. Or to flip it around, Canon cheap out and make $#!% non-L lenses, and I bet more people would blame the buyers for not using L's than the company for making such poor value lenses.

But as Duffman said, this is not the case, making the previous paragraph, a complete waste .... "OH YEAH!"