FF 'L' lens on a crop body

Shoot Em Up

Shoot Em Up

Suspended / Banned
Messages
919
Edit My Images
No
Just wanted to get an idea of number of members here that use an 'L' lens designed for a FF body on a crop? Particularly interested in members with a 16-35mm and 24-105mm. I know the 17-55mm is designed for crop bodies but would like to know if a 16-35mm is usable.
 
All L lenses are perfectly usable on crop, but you should instead ask yourself which lens (es) would provide the required coverage, and how it would fit with your longer term buying strategy. In my view 12-24mm + 24-105mm is a killer f/4 combo on crop.
 
My friend uses a canon 20D, 550D and 60D and both a crop sensor camera and they use the following lens.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Lens

and

Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II USM Lens

No problem what so ever but focal length x 1.6 i think on a canon ......

According to them crop sensor camera can use all L lens but FF sensor camera can only use certain one on canon.

The 17-35 on a crop sensor camera is pointless in a way in term of focal length since everything is times 1.6. unless the image quality is better and you can stop down to 2.8 ......

Above mention about 12-24 and thats a better wide angle for crop sensor.
 
Last edited:
If looking for a zoom in the wide to standard zoom range I believe that the front runners are possibly the Canon 17-55mm f2.8, Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 and although none of those are available with the coveted L badge I personally would buy any one of those for use exclusively on APS-C before I'd even think about a 16-35mm.

24-105mm wouldn't interest me personally. When I bought my first DSLR my first lens started at 28mm and that was too restrictive a starting point for a general purpose zoom for me and although 28mm is longer than 24mm I think that I'd find 24mm too restrictive too.

Personally I loath the idea of buying badges for badge sake and although I would buy an L lens if I thought it was the right choice for me there's always been a preferable option and I don't ache to own an L lens just because it's an L lens.
 
I used a 16-35 mk II on a 50D and was delighted with the results.
 
No problem with the EF fitting of L lenses on a crop body.

I've had 16-35, 17-40 and 24-105 on a 40D but the reason I had them was that my 1D Mark 2 and SLR don't take EF-S lenses.

I guess weather proofing, build quality and residual values aside - the question is whether or not you wish to pay a premium for quality at the edge of the lens that a crop body sensor won't even be 'seeing'.
 
I felt that the colours of the L-lenses were superior to the 17-55 f/2.8 which is oft quoted as the perfect standard lens for a crop.
 
Do you own any EF lenses?
 
With the money involved in buying a 16-35 and 24-105, you might as well buy a full frame body and just stick with the 24-105 as it's wider than the 16 on a crop (16 x 1.6 = 25.6mm effective)? The 16-35 costs about £800 and that'll easily buy a 5D classic on its own, or depending on how much the rest of your kit is worth a second hand 5D MK2 isn't that much more.

EDIT: I realise full frame isn't always better for everyone, sports and wildlife being the obvious examples, but I'm just going off the fact he's asking about 100mm and shorter where full frames tend to give better images.
 
Last edited:
badboy1984 said:
The 17-35 on a crop sensor camera is pointless in a way in term of focal length since everything is times 1.6. unless the image quality is better and you can stop down to 2.8 ......
Click to expand...

I don't see why that lens would be pointless on a crop?

Whether on a crop or not it still offers a focal range which may be of use but on a 1.6 crop the range is effectively 27-56 as opposed to 17-35 on a FF
 
Russ77 said:
I don't see why that lens would be pointless on a crop?

Whether on a crop or not it still offers a focal range which may be of use but on a 1.6 crop the range is effectively 27-56 as opposed to 17-35 on a FF
Click to expand...

You got me wrong, I'm not saying the lens is bad, the lens is fantastic but it would benefit on a FF body better if looking for the exact focal length. This is a wide angle lens and if focal length becomes 27-56 then i personally don't see the whole point of using it unless you after the following reason:

- Better build quality
- Better glass
- Fix aperture of f2.8
- Weather sealing etc
- Have that L on the lens

Otherwise better off with a 12-24 that above mention if he want the image to be wider....... apart from that he still gain the benefit of better glass on the lens and have the ability of fixed 2.8 aperture. Only down side would be the focal length.

You probably think different but thats my personlly opinion and i not going to stop him buying it either. His decision and choice at the end of the day.

Just want to mention to the OP as he may not aware of this when thinking about buying this wide angle lens.
 
Last edited:
I use a 17-40mm L on my 40D - it's my favourite walkabout lens.
 
Ok, some more info on why I asked the question.

Currently I have a 40D and 17-55mm and recently got the upgrade itch. I bought a 5D and a 7D to try out and decide on one to replace the 40D. I'm loving the 5D with the 24-105mm but I can't decide if it's better than the 7D and 17-55mm. I keep going back and forth in deciding what I want to keep. The 24-105mm is the better lens and I can't ignore the additional features on the 7D.

Ideally I'd like a FF with the 7D features but that's a long way off so I'm thinking of using the 7D with the 24-105mm and instead of buying a 10-22mm, invest in 16-35mm that I can use later on. I'd rather invest in a good lens than buy the 5D mk2 now as no doubt the 5D mk2 will drop faster in price than the lens. Also the fact that I've been offered the lens at a good price doesn't help.

So that's my dilemma. :bang:
 
i guess in that case the 16-35mm L is a good choice since you will go to FF either now or in the future.
 
Does anyone have a shot using the 16-35mm on a crop at 16mm? May help swing my decision one way or the other.
 
Shoot Em Up said:
Does anyone have a shot using the 16-35mm on a crop at 16mm? May help swing my decision one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Why would you want the 16-35L on a crop?

The EFS 10-22 is superior optically and is designed for crops (the 16-35 is the equivalent UWA on FF).
 
Islander said:
I use a 17-40mm L on my 40D - it's my favourite walkabout lens.
Click to expand...

Ditto on my 7D. Tried many lenses but for weather sealing (mountain walks) and the fact that every shot seems crisp (even if the photographer is not) it just hits the bell.
 
Shoot Em Up said:
Because I can then also use it on a 5D.
Click to expand...

Oh I thought you were on a crop only?
 
I have a 5D and was thinking about a 7D as well hence the question but I have decided against it and save the extra pennies for a 5D MKII later on.
 
I use a 17-40 F4 L, 24-70 F2.8 L and 70-200 F2.8 L and I use them all on a 7D and hope at a later date to get a 5D or 5D11
 
badboy1984 said:
- Better build quality
- Better glass
- Fix aperture of f2.8
- Weather sealing etc
- Have that L on the lens
Click to expand...

How could you forget about Magnificent Red Ring? LOL

Go for L lenses, it will be always good investment. And they perfectly work on crop.
If you use crop camera you cant have standard zoom by using any of EF zoom lens. Because you end up by bringing 2 lens all the time.
If you buy lot of cheap EF-S, you cant upgrade on 5D later on.
Another day i was looking for 16-35mm for 20d. then sold it got 5D with cheap 28-105 3.5-4.5. almost 24-105 4L without IS, Fast reliable etc.
 
I use all L lenses on my crop camera, that would be the 1D IV which of coures is a 1.3 crop.

Of course on this crop camera I can't use the EF-S 10-22 so the 16-35 would be the widest zoom available from canon.

I could buy a cheaper camera to really get the ultra wide effect, maybe a 5D II :)
 
Last edited:
I had a play with my friends 7D and my 24-70mm and the results were pretty good even by my amateur standards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top