Plenty of time, I have seen some photographers tend to use L lenses like 24-70 f2.8, 24-105 f4 and etc on crop sensor bodies.
As far as I'm concerned, L lenses are specially designed for full frame sensor bodies without any crop factor issue. Whereas, the crop sensor bodies, the users tend to lose and gain a few things.

What do they lose?
1. Wide angle- 24-105 for instance is wide angle (Probably not so wide) on full frame sensor bodies. On crop sensor bodies, however, the real wide angle they could get is about 38mm (24x1.6 crop factor). It's narrow to me!
2. L lenses are expensive- Yes, to me, they are very expensive. There are a few USM lenses that are specially designed for APS-C sensor bodies that are pretty good and highly recommended. Why would anyone still go for L lenses? To me, I can only think of one reason, photographers who use crop sensor bodies have intention to go full frame in the future. So, they will not have to sell all the pricey APS-C lenses and start all over again to buy full frame lenses.

What do they gain?
1. Extra focal length- I have read some reviews that some travel or poor photographers who demand for lighter camera bags or weak monetary ability, they have tendency to use APS-C bodies to shoot wild life photograph. With the same type of telescope lens to be used on APS-C and full frame bodies, APS-c bodies allow the photographers to zoom further. For instance, 70-200mm lens, on APS-C bodies, the photographers are allowed to zoom up to 320mm (200mm x1.6).

I have pointed out some reasons on why photographers use L lenses on APS-C bodies, but I find these reasons are not convincing to me. Perhaps, I hope my friends over here can discuss with me on this topic. If I have made a wrong statement up there, do let me know. I love to learn, and we should keep on learning.

Happy photographing!

Too bad lenses aren't the "investment" they once were.

Hi, what else then?

isn't it you still have to take into account the crop factor even you are using EF-S mount that is specifically design for aps-c body? eg: an EF-S 10-22 USM on aps-c = EF 16-35L on full frame body FOV..

the differences i can think is the build quality and type of glass used in L lenses.. and ppl who invest in EF mount lenses probably want to upgrade to full frame in the future.. not necessarily an L lens..

Using 6D now, sometime see the price of crop sensor lens. do make me jealous 11-18mm lens for less than 3k?

Are all photographers crazy and fall for full frame cameras? I think if they can afford, they would go full frame.
What do you think?

With the same skills applied on different bodies, don't you think spending more on full frame give you better outcome?

L lens for the red ring. It shows top of the line lens. Everybody want the best if the wallet allow to do so

L lens for Lansi lens.

Lol.. Jk..

I don't use canon. But yes, my lens collection from APSC times have been full frame lenses right from the beginning, minus 18-70 kitlens and 11-18 UWA.

That's because I already know my direction as far as bodies will go.

Not better outcome in term of skills, but better image quality.
I know its subjective, but using 7D previously i find the picture quality its hardly comparable with 6D or even 5D mkiii
so much noise... even at ISO 800...

I know many people will bash me, but hey. That's my preference.
And many times it not the camera, its the skill of the photographer, managing the lighting and the composition

Diff camera body have different application and its up to the user.. Let say a professional sports photographer, they choose a 7D with an L class telephoto lens, does that make him not afford a full frame body? He/she need a fast lens with a fast body so the combination suits the purpose.. If want a fast body on full frame can always go for 1D X but that add extra weight, but each to their own.. There are hundreds of combinations and preferences.. That is my opinion.. Doesn't mean it has to be right..

Exatcly,

The function of 7D doesnt suits me cause i mostly shoot still photo.
I doesnt need so much AF point, fps

Therefore, knowing what you want to shoot is important.
For instance, it's a tough decision to be made in between 6D and 7D Mk ii, a full frame with lesser AF points against a crop sensor fast shooter with many AF points.

For landscape, nature, and still images, people go for 6D. Whereas, wildlife, people, children and other moving objects, people go for 7D Mk ii.

Am I right?

if choosing 7D mkii or other option in APSC, i rather go for 70D. almost the same sensor, cheaper, just a bit lesser build quality. Also doesnt mean 6D cannot shoot wildlife, can but challenging

just start off with any camera you could afford. like 650D, then once you feel like you need more then upgrade from there.

Its all about skill. not camera. I see many time shooting. equipment play a role of 30% only

I shoot food mostly.
Im still lacking a lot behind compare to others, due to

Lack of probes(decoration)
Food Styling skills
Catching the composition
Framing the entire scence
Colour combination ( eg Red pairs well with Green)
Lighting ( Main and fill light)
Shadow position,
Reflection of the food
Angle, 15,20, 30,60,90

Camera plays a role in making sure the image is sharp, less noise, good dynamic range, colour contrast capture.

Thats why im a bit regret buying 6D, cause there's Sony A7ii which is the same price range.
Where i can carry everywhere to shoot food, and less worry when traveling

Carrying the 6D+ 24-70 F4L breaks my hand and attract a lot of attention


This post has been edited by munak991: Jul 6 2015, 02:27 PM

Don't forget your newly aquired 100mm

I invested the 100mm, cause i shoot the food mostly at 70mm =(
So i keep on thinking, its all about the skill, the skill, not the equipment.

But sometimes, when comes to food. The size of the plate, cut size, and ingredient size....

you need to have a tighter, close shots to get the detail....

Ya, many photographer can say. you can crop it off to make it tighter...

But you lost the image quality...

So ya. thats how i ended up buying the len.

Gonna practice more! and soon can sell my skill

Do you often shoot in RAW?
Do you always edit your photos?

Still shot like food must shoot RAW. you really want to have the flexibility of changing the WB, Highlight, and shadow.
Yes, i edit. Cause some shots on certain lighting and reflection the food colour and saturation tend to become very flat. All of these can be help by reading the HISTOGRAM!

If you want shoot .jpeg make sure you read the historgram. or else you will have a big big headache when you sit down your picture is under expose, or overly expose. Or the highlight burst some detail you really want to see

This is where mirrorless cameras have an advantage over OVF.

Yea realtime Electronic View Finder.
Where your focus point can still zoom in to make sure it is sharp.

But still EVF still has input lag, but the adavantages is much greater than OVF

I don't think food shooters like you would even feel the lag at all.

This post has been edited by lwliam: Jul 6 2015, 03:10 PM

Yea, thats why i said, i a bit regret buy 6D, should have research a bit more and go for A7ii

Nothing.

Just get what you can afford/need and think of it as sunk cost.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/165208804...eatures-default

And everybody running circles around Canon sensors these days with no sign of letting up. The last time Canon was on top of their game was during 550D time.

on bodies like EOS 7D, it's only when paired with L lens (some models) that you get full weather seal.

70-200L lenses are the fastest telephoto zoom with constant aperture that you can get for Canon line-up. You really have no choice, whether APS-C or FF, just that APS-C is less wide and more reach.

That aside, prime lenses - that's entirely up to people but usually those who have L primes would also be on FF body.

not really, 17-40L is a lot cheaper than say EF-S 1755, similarly priced with EF-S 15-85.

Just that 17-40L loses out a lot compared to those 2. 17-55 has f2.8 constant while 15-85 covers more range.



extra focal length if you're looking at telephoto.

they actually lose out focal length when it comes to being wide.

Would it not be considered that since FF lens is built for FF sensor, the lens would need to take into account corner to corner sharpness? If you use FF lens on apsc sensor, since the image is cropped, so too does the edge softness being cropped out resulting in very sharp image at the corner. IMO.

True, but negligible IMO...

One thing to note is that Canon's FF lenses are the EF range.

Those "L" models are just part of the EF lens range.

Seriously, if you are on APSC cropped sensor, just get a good APSC lens.

Like 15-85 USM IS. This is very good lens I brought this lens to europe, one lens do all the work.

only down side is floating aperture, f4.0-f5.6, but very nice lens hehe

I have the Canon 24-105mm f4L and Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 VC. My camera body? Canon 70D. Why did I buy them? Gear Acquisition Syndrome. Yep.

How come 17-40mm f4L sell at die cheap price? 1.7k?! Used

You probably can get it for RM 1.5k even. 17-40 F4L and 70-200 F4L are under RM 2k, comes with lens hood.

Expensive? Think Canon EF-S 15-85 and EF-S 17-55, and even EF-S 10-22. Non L. Non FF lens. RM 2k+++ and still no lens hood, no pouch either.

Still think L lens expensive?

I know that. This is in respond to why some people use ff lens on apsc sensor.

Yea i saw the used section im shocked.

invessted the 100mm hehehe going to have more food picture!

not referring to you la. referring to 1st post.

on most lenses yes, but if you are using lenses like 16-35 f2.8L on a FF wide open the corner performance is pretty much facepalm on apsc it's acceptable though.

canon actually has some of the most value for money FF lenses around, from 17-200mm all in F4 for around rm5-6k, it's unbeatable.

Yup, fastest way to get pro-grade lens is use 17-40 and 70-200 on APS-C body.

Lens total cost if buy used is under RM 4k.