Moving from Canon 40D to Full Frame. Lens questions?

[pulseimages]

I currently have a Canon 40D and I'm looking at getting a 6D. I was wondering if some of the L lenses I have will work well on the 6D?

I'm concerned about my Canon 28-80 2.8-4 L and 17-40 L lenses. I've heard the full frame cameras are very demanding in terms of glass and showing flaws. The 28-80 L was introduced in 1989 and I've read reviews that state the 17-40 looks like crap on a 5D Mark II as far as vignetting.

I don't want to have to buy new L lenses because my older L lenses aren't up to par.

Thanks!

 

[myone]

I moved from 40D to 5D3, and I find myself use the 17-40L less and less. 17-40 is good on APS-C sensor because the smaller sensor hides the outer frames. With full frame, you will notice pictures are not sharp on edges. It can be a fun lens to use if you don't care much about sharpness when shooting below f/8-f/11.

Full frame demands high quality lenses. New lenses like 24-70 II and 70-200 II will give you best results. I still use 35/1.4, 24-70/2.8 I and 24-105 on my 5D3 and still happy with the results.

 

[AmbientLight]

The 17-40mm zoom may not be the very best of wide angle choices, but it isn't so bad either. I primarily shoot wide angle primes (14mm L, 17mm TS-E and 24mm L), but sometimes the need for versatility makes me pick up my 17-40mm zoom and no it doesn't kill me to use it, not on a 1D-X nor on a 5D Mark III. I previously used the 17-40mm zoom on 40D, 50D and 7D, but I haven't put the lens on a crop body since I upgraded to full-frame.

Actually the 17-40mm zoom provides a much nicer zoom range on full frame than it does on crop, so yes, this lens will come into its own on a full frame body. It has not been designed for crop cameras. I expect you will be happy with it despite its flaws. In case you are desperate for better optical quality, you can still follow my route and collect wide angle primes .

In my opinion you can happily upgrade to a 6D and then your next priority should be getting that fabulous new 24-70mm Mark II to replace your ancient 28-80mm lens. Perhaps after that upgrade Canon will have something new in its lineup, because replacing your 17-40mm zoom with the 16-35mm zoom has limited benefits (see the review and many ongoing discussions on this forum regarding the 16-35mm lens).

 

[Hannes]

Why not get the 6D with the 24-105 kit? If you decide you like the 28-80 better then just sell the 24-105 at minimal loss if any, I've even heard of a fair we people who've made money on it. The 24-105 works well on a 40D if you need more reach and with the crop the two focal lengths have very minimal overlap if you use both at the same time.

 

[pulseimages]

All valid points. But I REALLY don't have the budget to get a new camera body + new L lenses. I met with a gallery owner who said his clients want 20x30" prints and up. My 40D will do 12x18" before the quality degrades.

Could I just buy a newer Canon crop sensor camera, keep my ancient L lenses and get great quality 20x30" prints out of it?

 

[Drizzt321]

You could, pretty much any modern APS-C Canon will be an improvement over what you have. However, going FF is fantastic. Not sure how the 28-80 would hold up (the 24-105 as a 'kit' lens is actually pretty darn good, if you can afford the kit over body only), but as AmbientLight said, the 17-40 being 'bad' on FF is overblown. Yes, it has it's weaknesses, particularly in the corners at wide apertures, but it's a pretty capable lens. I've got one I use on my 5d3 and it's pretty nice. If anything, you'll be able to get bigger prints out of your current lenses, or same prints at a bit better quality.

Alternatively, you can always get some of the good non-L lenses such as the 40 f/2.8, 85 f/1.8, Sigma 35 f/1.4. Admittedly the Sigma 35mm might still be a bit out of what you can afford if you can't get the 6D + 24-105 kit, but the 40 f/2.8 is quite sharp and nice, the 85 f/1.8 is a quite good performer at that focal length. Or maybe you could look around for a 24-70 f/4 IS kit. It's a fairly good lens for what it is, although people really wanted it to be a f/2.8 or an updated 24-105, and so were a bit disappointed.

 

[bholliman]

All valid points. But I REALLY don't have the budget to get a new camera body + new L lenses. I met with a gallery owner who said his clients want 20x30" prints and up. My 40D will do 12x18" before the quality degrades.
Could I just buy a newer Canon crop sensor camera, keep my ancient L lenses and get great quality 20x30" prints out of it?

Unfortunately, you won't see much of an IQ improvement upgrading to another crop body camera. I think a 6D is your best option for optimal image quality.

I agree with Hannes in suggesting a 6D with a 24-105L lens. Your 17-40 4.0 will be fine on a full frame camera as long as you stop it down. I have borrowed a friends 17-40 for use on my 6D a few weeks ago and was generally pleased with the image quality. I used it 98% of the time for landscapes at f/8 to f/13 which is where this lens is sharpest. I would not recommend it at f/5.6 or wider.

 

[Harry Muff]

Bad news: A camera is only as good as the glass you stick on the front of it.


Good news: My 18 year old 28-70 2.8L works a treat on my 5D2 and 5D3. Ultra-sharp.




You might find that you get MORE out of your L lenses with a full frame.

 

[Don Haines]

Bad news: A camera is only as good as the glass you stick on the front of it.

Good news: My 18 year old 28-70 2.8L works a treat on my 5D2 and 5D3. Ultra-sharp.

You might find that you get MORE out of your L lenses with a full frame.

I agree with Harry. An APS-C camera, with it's greater pixel density, needs better quality lenses to get equivalent sharpness to FF. Going to a FF body should increase the sharpness of your lenses.... at the expense of reach.

 

[brad goda]

just crop all your images back 1.6X...

 

[rs]

If a lens is fairly consistent across the frame, it will produce better results on FF due to the lower pixel density:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=824&Sample=0&CameraComp=736&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

However, if a FF lens is soft at the edges, a crop camera is likely to give better corners:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=122&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=122&Sample=0&CameraComp=736&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

This isn't the entire picture though as FF in those comparisons is wider, has a lower S/N ratio and (should it be framed to match) has a narrower DoF. Some changes need to be made to compare them like for like.

FF allows you to shoot one and a third stops higher ISO with the same S/N ratio, and you should stop the lens down one and a third stops to get back the same DoF and overall exposure. Plus of course zoom in a bit too.

In other words, with your 17-40 at 17mm f4 on crop, the direct equivalent on FF is 27.2mm f6.4. On the-digital-picture, there's a close fit: Crop at 17mm f4, FF at 28mm f5.6:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=100&Sample=0&CameraComp=736&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

To my eyes, FF looks quite an upgrade with that lens of yours.

 

[Haydn1971]

Bad news: A camera is only as good as the glass you stick on the front of it.

Good news: My 18 year old 28-70 2.8L works a treat on my 5D2 and 5D3. Ultra-sharp.

You might find that you get MORE out of your L lenses with a full frame.

+1 the best statement I've read on here for ages

It's easy to get drawn into the new gear bug, your photography will change by moving to a 5D3, it won't get worse though. The 28-80mm 2.8-4 will remain a fantastic lens, you may find that you don't need anything more.

If you want to cut your costs, look at just a 6D body, the images it creates are top line, the 28-80 will work a treat on it, otherwise, buy either kit, try the 24-105 and if you like the 24-105 better, sell the 28-80 and vise versa

 

[dickgrafixstop]

All valid points. But I REALLY don't have the budget to get a new camera body + new L lenses. I met with a gallery owner who said his clients want 20x30" prints and up. My 40D will do 12x18" before the quality degrades.
Could I just buy a newer Canon crop sensor camera, keep my ancient L lenses and get great quality 20x30" prints out of it?

Your "problem" isn't with the camera, it's with the printer. I routinely print 60X100 prints from 12mp files - but only
after "fixing" them with photoshop/genuine fractals and then using an Onyx rip. I'd investigate this solution
before plopping down money for a camera body that won't solve your problem. The differences in your 10mp file
from the 40D and the 24mp file from the full frame aren't really significant when you're dealing with 600-900 megabyte amplified print files. (by the way - a 20X30" print will usually only be less than 30 megabyte file)

 

[EOBeav]

My take on the 17-40: It's a great landscape lens, and the vignetting is easily dealt with in LR. I know a some pros who rely on it. At wider apertures, though, the corners/edges become fairly soft, so you may want to keep that in mind when making your decision. If you're shooting landscapes at f/11, though, it's not a problem.

 

[pulseimages]

Your "problem" isn't with the camera, it's with the printer. I routinely print 60X100 prints from 12mp files - but only after "fixing" them with photoshop/genuine fractals and then using an Onyx rip. I'd investigate this solution
before plopping down money for a camera body that won't solve your problem. The differences in your 10mp file
from the 40D and the 24mp file from the full frame aren't really significant when you're dealing with 600-900 megabyte amplified print files. (by the way - a 20X30" print will usually only be less than 30 megabyte file)

I guess I should I pointed out before that I don't print my own images. I send them to White House Custom Color and they print everything at 300 dpi. Will I ever print my own images again? Sure, someday when I have the space for the 44" Epson I want.

 

[pulseimages]

Bad news: A camera is only as good as the glass you stick on the front of it.


Good news: My 18 year old 28-70 2.8L works a treat on my 5D2 and 5D3. Ultra-sharp.




You might find that you get MORE out of your L lenses with a full frame.

I was talking to a pro friend of mine about if I will need to get a newer 28-70 L lens when I make the jump to the full frame sensor and he agreed with you that the older L lens will actually be better than the newer.

 

[sandymandy]

Probably cuz they were made of real glass not some crystal kind isnt it?

 

[bholliman]

Bad news: A camera is only as good as the glass you stick on the front of it.

Good news: My 18 year old 28-70 2.8L works a treat on my 5D2 and 5D3. Ultra-sharp.

You might find that you get MORE out of your L lenses with a full frame.

I was talking to a pro friend of mine about if I will need to get a newer 28-70 L lens when I make the jump to the full frame sensor and he agreed with you that the older L lens will actually be better than the newer.

I'm not familiar with the 28-70 2.8 L, so I looked up the reviews and comparisons on The Digital Picture. From the sample pictures, its almost as sharp as the current flagship 24-70 2.8 II at 28mm and 35mm, but the 28-70 looks extremely soft at 50mm and 70mm.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=102&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

 

[pulseimages]

Well I decided to rent the Canon 6D and shot with it at a car show today using my old 28-80 L lenses. Wow, did the pictures stink! Vignetting on almost all the pictures and none of the images were really "sharp". I have the camera until Monday and will continue to test it with my other lenses on Sunday.

I was really hoping I wouldn't have to replace my 28-80 L with a newer L lens. It's great on a APS-C body but is horrible on a FF camera.

 

[JohanCruyff]

The 17-40mm zoom may not be the very best of wide angle choices, but it isn't so bad either. I primarily shoot wide angle primes (14mm L, 17mm TS-E and 24mm L), but sometimes the need for versatility makes me pick up my 17-40mm zoom and no it doesn't kill me to use it, not on a 1D-X nor on a 5D Mark III.

Actually the 17-40mm zoom provides a much nicer zoom range on full frame than it does on crop, so yes, this lens will come into its own on a full frame body. It has not been designed for crop cameras. I expect you will be happy with it despite its flaws. In case you are desperate for better optical quality, you can still follow my route and collect wide angle primes .

When I use my "17-40mm F/4" on my 5Dc as if it was a "20-40mm F/8", most of the concerns about sharpness (and distortion) disappear .

BTW, F/8 is not a weird aperture for a mostly-landscape-oriented lens.