Using full frame lens on crop body cameras ?

[striperone]

From the video I've posted below, it looks as though it's a (big) waste of money to purchase high rent full frame glass for a crop body including the all new 7D mark II.
I'm disappointed with this as it "was" my intention.
So, I hope someone will clarify this for me but it seems that with the new 7D mark II will actually produce better results/sharper images with a cheaper lens that is made for a crop body? To my knowledge, Canon doesn't produce any high quality glass for their crop sensor cameras?

I wanted the 7D mark II with a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens. If what I'm seeing in the video below is correct and I sure would assume so, that this combination is a total waste of money.

Perhaps I should wait to see if Canon is soon to release a new version of the 5D mark III?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDbUIfB5YUc&list=PLBE338967F8DB7F2A

 

[wickidwombat]

hahaha

as soon as i clicked the link and saw who it was i closed it

without even watching the video i can say its not worth the time wasted
the guy is an unmitigated ass clown

basically using full frame lenses on crop bodies work just fine

essentially you are "wasting" the outer part of the image circle which usually is not as sharp as the center
if you look at any lens mtf chart you will see the line drops off towards the right edge of the chart
basically with these charts the higher and flatter the line the better the optics and for crop vs full frame you truncate the graph at the line that represents crop instead of reading it all the way to the right

then there is the AF performance of f2.8 and faster lenses with canons high end af systems like the 5d3 1dx and 7d2 which perform better than slower lenses

so in summary a great lens like the 70-200 f2.8 is still a fantastic lens on crop (i regularly use my 135 f2L on my eos M and its AF is great even on that camera)

be cautious about listening too much to these youtube vlog clowns that really struggle in the Intellect department.

 

[striperone]

I hear ya' wickidwombat and can appreciate your thoughts on the utubes, and surely your rite in that you can't believe everything that everyone says. I also appreciate your reply.
I know you don't care for the guy in the video but take another minute and watch it starting at "2:40" this is where he talks about it with numbers. After you see that, tell me what you think. I have been told by others to dismiss it as well. Just looking for reassurance by people that are far more knowledgeable then I, cause I can't afford to pull the trigger on the purchase only to wish I had bought something else.

I want the best possible images I can get shooting motorsports mainly panning. My budget would allow the new 7D mark II or I can push it to the 5D mark III with the cannon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens. It's a hard decision because it can only be one of the camera bodies.

I currently have a T3i with a canon 75-300 zoom. Anything at this point will be an improvement.

 

[lintoni]

+1 to wickidwombat's comments.

Search "Tony Northrup" on this site and you'll find a few thmreads of people laughing at his pronouncements.

Lens - have you considered the new 100-400, or do you find you're using your 75-300 most often at 200 and below?

 

[neuroanatomist]

hahaha

as soon as i clicked the link and saw who it was i closed it

...

be cautious about listening too much to these youtube vlog clowns that really struggle in the Intellect department.

I didn't click the link, but judging by your comments I'm going to hazard a guess...Tony Northrup? He's the guy that's smart enough to have said that the D810 is the best camera, but the 5DIII is probably ok if your not a pro and you just post your pics to Facebook. So if that makes sense to someone, they should by all means take his words as Truth with a capital 'T'.

:

 

[striperone]

lintoni, I rarely push that lens out beyond say 150. Only to catch some action/accident etc. Anything beyond that and the image is quite shabby, even after extensive editing. I did see where they had released the lens your referring to and could use it now and then, but the 75-200 would probably be the 'go to' lens more often then not.
I also did a quick search on tony northrup and now see what you guys mean...

 

[dcm]

It's no waste, particularly if you might get a FF body down the road. Glass lasts a long time, bodies change faster. I never used the kit lens on my T2i or purchased any EF-S lenses for it. I purchased L glass to go with it and and kept adding to the collection. The 24-105L was my first L and it got a lot of use. Three years later I purchased a 6D. Some lenses that are soft around the edge might even benefit from a crop sensor ;-)

I later decided to go the M route for my crop sensor and added some EF-M lenses for it. I occasionally mount some L glass on it.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I know you don't care for the guy in the video but take another minute and watch it starting at "2:40" this is where he talks about it with numbers. After you see that, tell me what you think.

Well, I swore his D810 infomercial would be the first, last, and only Northrup video I watched. But, in general the higher-end EF-S lenses are often optically better than EF and/or L lenses on the same crop body. The 17-55/2.8 is better than the 24-105L, the 10-22mm is better than the 17-40L, to give a couple of examples. The 70-200/2.8L IS II is one of the best zooms available, but in fact the EF-S 55-250 STM comes close when stopped down to f/8. A lot of what you're paying for with the expensive L lenses is the (usually) fast and constant aperture and a lens that's nearly as sharp wide open as stopped down to f/8.

So, a 7DII with a 55-250 STM comes pretty close to a 7DII with a 70-200/2.8L IS II. But...put that 70-200 II on a 5DIII and the IQ will soundly trump the same lens on the 7DII.

I want the best possible images I can get shooting motorsports mainly panning. My budget would allow the new 7D mark II or I can push it to the 5D mark III with the cannon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens. It's a hard decision because it can only be one of the camera bodies.

If 200mm on FF (same as 125mm on your T3i is long enough, the 5DIII + 70-200 II will deliver much better image quality. If you need more focal length, the 70-300/4-5.6L or new 100-400 II on the 5DIII would still surpass the 70-200 II on the 7DII.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I think that you generally are paying more than needed when buying a FF lens for a crop. However, for long telephoto lenses, 300mm or over, that's not the case. If you don't intend to go to FF, and a good crop lens exists, then there is no need to pay extra for a FF lens that is little if any better.

I'd certainly take a 17-55mm IS over the 17-40L for use on a crop. My 24-105mmL was great on my 40D and then 7D, but it did not go wide enough for many photos. My 70-200mm f/4 IS was surpurb on my 7D as well.

I'd also be inclined to go for the 16-35mm f/4 on a crop, but my 15-85mm EF-s was a very good walk around lens. I finally sold it, several months after selling my last crop body and buying a 2nd FF body.

 

[timmy_650]

awhile ago I rented 70-200 2.8ii for my t2i and the pictures were amazing. I wouldnt call it a waste of money. I thought about getting that lens but I decide to use my money on a 6D and got a 70-200 f4 which fit my needs better. On the other hand I had got Tamron 17-35 2.8 lens when I still had my t2i which was kinda a "waste" of money I could of got something better for me money but I knew I wanted to go full frame, so it was nice to have when i got the 6D. So it also matter where you want to end up with your camera gear.

 

[wickidwombat]

So, a 7DII with a 55-250 STM comes pretty close to a 7DII with a 70-200/2.8L IS II. But...put that 70-200 II on a 5DIII and the IQ will soundly trump the same lens on the 7DII.

and thats not even accounting for the massive AF performance differential between the 2 lenses and the 2 extra stops of light, panning mode IS on the 70-200 f2.8 ....

 

[wickidwombat]

if I was looking at getting a new 7D II and didnt have many lenses

I would get the following lenses
new 10-18mm IS canon STM
sigma 18-35 f1.8
sigma 50mm art
canon 70-200 f2.8 IS mkII

as it is i have the eos-M and 11-22 IS which i use ALOT because the package is so small (really hope the next M gets the 7D2 sensor)

i use the 50 art mostly on my 5Dmk3 and usually carry around the 135f2L if i like something longer
I use the 70-200 alot less since getting the 135 however there are many situations the flexability of the zoom trumps the speed and sweetness of the 135 f2L

I also bet the 135 f2L would be a stunningly good lens on the 7Dmk2 although i've never tried it YET!

 

[FTb-n]

The video is nuts!

By Northrup's logic, my EF-S 18-135 should be sharper than my EF 70-200 f2.8L II within the same focal range. But, it just isn't so. By his math, the same 70-200 on a 7D should be sharper than on a 5D3 after cropping the image in post. But, this isn't so. I've done my own real world tests. Those 8 full frame megapixels can produce sharper images than those 18-20 crop body megapixels. (The 7D2 only has 20 MP, not 24.) Northrup fails consider the fact that larger full frame and smaller crop sensor pixels are different.

As for your dilemma, unless you shoot fast action in plenty of light, I can highly recommend the 5D3 with the 70-200 f2.8L II. The full frame body will give you greater control of DOF (because f2.8 yields a smaller DOF), better performance in low light, and more color depth. I also think that the focal range is more useful on full frame for events and indoor sports.

However, this lens is a great lens on crop. It was my most used lens by far with my 7D -- far sharper than my non-L tele-zooms. Based on reviews, the 7D2 would also be a fine choice.

There is one area in which I do agree with Northrup. The 24-70 2.8 II may not be the best choice for crop, only because the 17-55 f2.8 is such an exceptional lens. It likely offers a more useful focal range, plus it has IS. However, while I haven't done head-to-head tests, I would expect the 24-70 2.8 II to be sharper than the 17-55. When I use my 7D and need a short zoom, I still grab the 17-55 and would recommend it for the IS and wider focal length. As long as you understand the limitations of each lens and they won't hinder your need, then either lens will be just fine on crop.

For what it's worth, before going full frame, my goto kit was a 60D/17-25 f2.8 and 7D/70-200 f2.8L II.

 

[sunnyVan]

From the video I've posted below, it looks as though it's a (big) waste of money to purchase high rent full frame glass for a crop body including the all new 7D mark II.
I'm disappointed with this as it "was" my intention.
So, I hope someone will clarify this for me but it seems that with the new 7D mark II will actually produce better results/sharper images with a cheaper lens that is made for a crop body? To my knowledge, Canon doesn't produce any high quality glass for their crop sensor cameras?

I wanted the 7D mark II with a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens. If what I'm seeing in the video below is correct and I sure would assume so, that this combination is a total waste of money.

Perhaps I should wait to see if Canon is soon to release a new version of the 5D mark III?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDbUIfB5YUc&list=PLBE338967F8DB7F2A

I didnt watch the video. I'm no expert but I will share my unbiased view. Full frame lenses are very difficult to design and expensive to produce. It's difficult because full frame area is so large and it's hard to make the corners as sharp as the central area. With a cropped sensor and a full frame lens, only the area towards the center is being used (maybe 80%?), so the corners are not being used, in a way wasted. However, there are not that many high quality efs lenses ( although the ones coming out seem pretty good). They cost less to produce and are cheaper for us consumers. Some people (most of us on this forum) get picky over time and move on to full frame bodies. It's wise to have full frame lenses to begin with because they should serve you well for many many years. Even though you don't use the corners now, down the road when you upgrade you will need ff lenses. They are better constructed and generally hold value well. But it all depends on your needs. I know I need full frame because I need high iso performance for indoor use. You may have different needs and may be happy with a cropped sensor. 7D mk2 is a great camera but it's not suitable for everyone. I don't your needs. You have to figure it out. Using full frame lenses on cropped body is not necessarily a waste of money. It depends. Just remember that ef lenses can fit all canon cameras and efs is dedicated to cropped body. Once I realized that fact I stopped investing in efs. On the other hand, efs lenses are typically cheaper and lighter. Again, for uncompromising image quality you will need full frame sensor and lenses eventually.

 

[timmy_650]

It isn't all about the sharpness and that whole part about 7mp ect. Some of my wife's favorite pictures came from my 1D which has 4 mp, so in the dxo mark numbers it is crap. But they are still hanging on my wall in 8x10 and look great.

 

[TeT]

just regarding image quality: (there are other things that make an L lens an L lens)

studying comparison image quality charts just using the center & middle areas.. many of the EF S lenses compare nicely to the highest quality L lenses. 55 250 v 70 200 II (especially in optical light conditions) performs a lot closer than you would probably guess.

many non EF S lenses improve with use on a crop sensor just by benefit of losing their worst attribute, corners. You dont have to avoid the edges for important image components wide open when used on a crop body.

 

[9VIII]

If you're going for sports or even medium paced action I wouldn't hesitate to get the 70-200ISII and 7DII, even if sharpness isn't optimal you aren't going to get blazing fast AF on an EF-S lens.
So that's a resounding NO as far as whether or not crop specific lenses are better than full frame lenses in that application.

If you're more into landscapes and slower paced shots I would put the money into a full frame body rather than a nice lens, a used 5D2 and the Pancake is an amazing combo (actually with prices on the 6D lately that's probably your best bet).
The 7D2 is going to be a favourite in many applications for a long time to come though, it can't hurt to have a machine gun even if you only need a pistol.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

From the video I've posted below, it looks as though it's a (big) waste of money to purchase high rent full frame glass for a crop body including the all new 7D mark II.
I'm disappointed with this as it "was" my intention.
So, I hope someone will clarify this for me but it seems that with the new 7D mark II will actually produce better results/sharper images with a cheaper lens that is made for a crop body? To my knowledge, Canon doesn't produce any high quality glass for their crop sensor cameras?

I wanted the 7D mark II with a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens. If what I'm seeing in the video below is correct and I sure would assume so, that this combination is a total waste of money.

Perhaps I should wait to see if Canon is soon to release a new version of the 5D mark III?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDbUIfB5YUc&list=PLBE338967F8DB7F2A

DxO produce very detailed scores for various FF lenses mounted on APS-C Cameras and they do NOT consider a waste of money. One example is the 7D2+400mm/5.6L combo which is one of the best for birding.

 

[Don Haines]

A better quality lens is a better quality lens. Period.

If you use it on FF or if you use it on a crop body, it will produce higher image quality than an inferior lens. Period.

A 200F2.8 lens designed for a FF camera will have the same size big element as a 200F2.8 lens designed for a crop camera. The only differences would be that the internal elements would be slightly smaller.... but not very much so. The optical design for the two cameras would be VERY close... if not identical.....

To design an EFS lens to be smaller than it's FF counterpart, you have to change the optical design so that the last element group bends the light more sharply than the FF counterpart. Sharper bends are bad! They are much harder to do well and all things being equal, you get an inferior lens. Plus, the light hitting your sensor is at a greater angle than with FF lenses... this can mean photons not hitting the active part of the sensor and that means less light.

A FF lens should outperform a crop lens when used on a crop camera.

 

[Don Haines]

Take a 200mm lens with a 72mm large element. The F value is 200/72, or F2.8.

Take that lens and move it to a crop body.... it is still a 200mm lens with a 72mm large element.... it is still a F2.8 lens. There is no Harry Potter magic going on here... the length of the lens and the size of the elements do not magically change.... it is a 200F2.8 lens period!

None of the optical properties of the lens are going to change. PERIOD!!!!!!!

Imagine two cameras built with the same level of technology.
Camera 1 is a 20Mpixel crop camera. Camera 2 is a 50Mpixel FF camera. The pixels on the sensor are the exact same size.... they are identical. Take a picture with the two cameras and the central part of the FF image will be indistinguishable from the crop image. They will have the same brightness.... they will have the same depth of field.... they will have the same sharpness.