# Canon "L" lens only good on Full Frame Sensors?



## UdubBadger (Feb 22, 2009)

So I am pretty close to buying a 40d right now and wanted to get the 24-70mm 2.8 L lens to go with it (and hopefully a few other "L's" to come along a little later) until someone on a different forum suggested it wouldn't match up well since its not a full frame sensor on the 40d. Is that true? They suggested I look at a 17-55mm f2.8 EF-S instead.

Obviously I would rather have a 5d or even a Mark II but I'm getting a really good price on the 40d which is helping me to afford the 24-70. Is it worth me spending over $1000 on a used 5d just to be able to get the 24-70? I'm confused as hell right now.


Help!


----------



## Big Mike (Feb 22, 2009)

L lenses are just fine on crop cameras.  You might even say that L lenses and as well as all other 'full frame' lenses are better on crop bodies because the camera doesn't use the outer edges, which are typically the areas with the lowest image quality.

I think what this person was referring to was the focal length.  24-70mm is a 'standard zoom range' on a film or full frame body...but because of the crop factor, 24mm just isn't very wide on a crop body.  Something in the 17-50mm range is more 'standard' on a crop body...but that is purely personal taste.  If you like 24-70mm better than 17-55mm....then get the one you like best.

One issue is future compatibility.  If you one day plan to 'upgrade' to a full frame camera, you may want to avoid EF-S lenses because they don't work on full frame bodies.


----------



## UdubBadger (Feb 22, 2009)

Big Mike said:


> L lenses are just fine on crop cameras.  You might even say that L lenses and as well as all other 'full frame' lenses are better on crop bodies because the camera doesn't use the outer edges, which are typically the areas with the lowest image quality.
> 
> I think what this person was referring to was the focal length.  24-70mm is a 'standard zoom range' on a film or full frame body...but because of the crop factor, 24mm just isn't very wide on a crop body.  Something in the 17-50mm range is more 'standard' on a crop body...but that is purely personal taste.  If you like 24-70mm better than 17-55mm....then get the one you like best.
> 
> One issue is future compatibility.  If you one day plan to 'upgrade' to a full frame camera, you may want to avoid EF-S lenses because they don't work on full frame bodies.



See thats what I thought too... this guy just scared the crap outta me cuz I thought there was some other issue than the outer edge crop. If I do get the 40d instead of the 5d then I would like to start collecting only "L" lenses so when its time to snag a 5d Mk II I'm all set on glass.

Thanks for the help Mike :thumbup:


----------



## table1349 (Feb 23, 2009)

UdubBadger said:


> So I am pretty close to buying a 40d right now and wanted to get the 24-70mm 2.8 L lens to go with it (and hopefully a few other "L's" to come along a little later) until someone on a different forum suggested it wouldn't match up well since its not a full frame sensor on the 40d. Is that true? They suggested I look at a 17-55mm f2.8 EF-S instead.
> 
> Obviously I would rather have a 5d or even a Mark II but I'm getting a really good price on the 40d which is helping me to afford the 24-70. Is it worth me spending over $1000 on a used 5d just to be able to get the 24-70? I'm confused as hell right now.
> 
> ...



Not to discourage you from the 24-70 ( I own it an love it on both FF and crop sensors) but it is a bit of an odd focal length on a crop body to some people.  If so, you might want to take a serious look at the 16-35 f2.8L as well, or depending on what you want to shoot instead of the 24-70.   Check out my gear and you will see I have a small number of zooms that cover a very large range with little overlap and all but one of the Canon zooms is an L.


----------



## UdubBadger (Feb 23, 2009)

If I could afford even a used 16-35mm I'd snag it cuz I'd love to have the 2.8 however that probably isn't going to happen just yet (still in school). I was considering the 17-40 f/4 L though and then a 70-200mm L to accompany. I'd be able to get the 16-35mm L if I only get 1 lens but then my focal length ends with my 28-135mm IS. If I didn't love shooting sports then that might be fine but I go to a lot of baseball games over the summer and sometimes shoot for HS sports in the fall.


----------



## weddingguy (Feb 24, 2009)

My only problem with the F/4 is that in subdued light the camera struggles to focus. Even if you don't shoot at F/2.8, it allows the camera to "see" better to focus. I shoot only weddings now, so do a lot in dark chrches and reception halls. Just a thought to consider. You definitely cannot go wrong sticking to L glass only!
Just my 2 cents . .


----------



## UdubBadger (Feb 24, 2009)

weddingguy said:


> My only problem with the F/4 is that in subdued light the camera struggles to focus. Even if you don't shoot at F/2.8, it allows the camera to "see" better to focus. I shoot only weddings now, so do a lot in dark chrches and reception halls. Just a thought to consider. You definitely cannot go wrong sticking to L glass only!
> Just my 2 cents . .



Yeah I see what you mean about them seeing better which would help a lot seeing as I do some consistent work shooting live bands in dark venues. I guess my options are to get the 16-35 2.8L and just pony up the cash for it or do the less expensive f/4L and maybe a 20mm or 24mm 2.8 prime lens which might still be a little cheaper that the 2.8L. I'll have to see if I can get a good deal on cuz I also really wanted that 70-200 2.8 L.

Thanks guys


----------



## weddingguy (Feb 24, 2009)

You might want to wait until you absolutely need a particular lens and save up in the meantime. Buying glass that you might want to upgrade later is a very expensive situation. Cheaper in the long run to wait and get what you really want. Also everything seems to be getting cheaper by the month as the economy keeps going downwards.


----------



## UdubBadger (Feb 24, 2009)

weddingguy said:


> You might want to wait until you absolutely need a particular lens and save up in the meantime. Buying glass that you might want to upgrade later is a very expensive situation. Cheaper in the long run to wait and get what you really want. Also everything seems to be getting cheaper by the month as the economy keeps going downwards.



very true... well I know I need something fast and something closer to a wide angle to use for shooting concerts as I'm usually in smaller to medium sized venues and up close... plus I can use my 50mm f/1.8 if I am a little further away.
So thats why I'm kinda flip flopping between the 16-35 f/2.8, 17-40 f/4 and the 24-70 f/2.8

I guess I also want a nice telephoto or zoom telephoto lens for shooting sports. I'd love to get a fast 300mm but I think for the money the 70-200mm 2.8 is probably the smartest decision but I'm gonna wait on this one till summer most likely.


----------



## robbie_vlad (Mar 1, 2009)

I have the XTi (crop-sensor) and I already plan on getting:

16-35mm f/2.8L
24-70mm f/2.8L
70-200mm f/2.8L

Just to build up my glass collection. After I have those 3 (and probably a 50mm f/1.8 also) I should have the glass for any situation, then thats when I start saving up for a new body. IMO, the L series (I've been doing alot of reading on them) is going to be the best you can get no matter what camera body you have.


----------



## Garbz (Mar 1, 2009)

That will transfer well onto a full frame camera, but I must just say having a 24mm anything is a pain in the ass for cropped bodies. 24mm isn't wide enough, 36mm isn't long enough.

I also own lenses with approximately those ranges and more often then not they stay in my camera bag over my 18-70 unless I am specifically shooting portraits or something where I know I won't need the wide angles, or shooting landscapes where I know I won't need a normal field of view.

Can't wait for a D700


----------



## kundalini (Mar 1, 2009)

Garbz said:


> That will transfer well onto a full frame camera, but I must just say having a 24mm anything is a pain in the ass for cropped bodies. 24mm isn't wide enough, 36mm isn't long enough.


I think that's a matter of personal preference.  I found the 24-70mm quite useful on my D300 (cropped) and slapped it on often as a walk around lens.



Garbz said:


> Can't wait for a D700


 In just the last couple of days, I have found the 24-70mm much more useful on my D700 though.  

However to the OP, have you considered a couple of primes?  I'm finding that I prefer them to the pro zooms because of weight, sharpness, contrast and max aperture for low light.  They're much less obtrusive, don't raise as many eyebrows (think safety while walking about in dodgy areas) and they are usually cheaper.

Just my 2¢.


----------



## TheOtherBob (Mar 1, 2009)

I use the 24-70 on a 20D, and have never minded the focal range.  The plan was to supplement it with a 10-22mm, and just switch between them as needed.  But I find that I only pull out the 10-22mm when I really want ultra-wide angle shots (i.e. at 10mm) -- for just about everything else the 24-70 stays on the camera.  

And the pictures the lens can put out are, in my opinion, simply gorgeous.  I hear the 17-55mm is pretty good image-wise as well -- but I've never used it so I can't compare.


----------

