# L Lenses for crop bodies



## koolman (Nov 19, 2013)

As the lines between FF and crop continue to blur - and we are seeing very high performance crop bodies - I am hoping canon will invest in high quality lenses for crop bodies. Why not L lenses for crops ? There is no good wide angle prime lens options for crop (outside third party lenses) this is a pity.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 19, 2013)

The lines are blurring because FF is drifting down into APS-C territory, not because APS-C is being elevated. I think that's partly why we're seeing more new EF non-L primes, and for that and other reasons, we won't see EF-S L lenses.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 19, 2013)

You could always use an L-series lens on a crop body. The only gap is on the ultra-wide angle end of the focal range, so I don't see it being a huge issue. 

There also aren't that many crop-factor bodies for pro/semi-pro in the lineup. L-lenses are more expensive and so would more likely be for pro/semi-pro photographers. Would you rather buy an EF-mount lens that you could use on all your cameras or an EF-S mount that you can only use on crop-bodies?

Also when you put an EF lens on a crop body you eliminate the corners which are generally the worst performing (optically) so while you lose angle-of-view you have generally better optical quality corner-to-corner.

These are just my thoughts, feel free to disagree.


----------



## dufflover (Nov 19, 2013)

There are high quality lenses for crop. I know they might [not] have various weather sealing doodads but they still hold up pretty solidly; seriously just don't kick it around and it usually isn't a problem.
In the end, you should always take a lens on it's individual merits. A lot of the recent EF-S lenses like 15-85, 18-135 and new 55-250 are quite respectable for the price. At any higher price you start getting to a lot of asking from buyers like with the 17-55 vs. an EF/L lens for not much more, so I kind of see why there isn't much point in them pursuing high cost EF-S lenses.


_Edit: always forget the word "not" lol_


----------



## unfocused (Nov 19, 2013)

Agree with Dufflover's points and adding these:

Canon only makes three prime wide "L" lenses anyway and none are what I would consider affordable. (14mm at about $2,300; 24mm at $1,700 and 35mm at $1,300). So it's not like they are giving full frame users a huge variety of wide L lenses.

Those lenses sell either to professionals with very specific needs or enthusiasts with lots of disposable income (probably more to the second category).

The universe of 7D users (doubt if any Rebel or 70D users would be investing in wide primes) interested in such lenses would likely be very small. 

As others have pointed out, if you are talking about wide zooms, Canon already makes three that rival "L" lenses in optical quality: the ultrawide 10-22mm, the 15-85 and the 17-55. Alternatively, both Tokina and Sigma make excellent ultra-wide zooms for crop cameras. I'm partial to the Tokina 11-16 f2.8, which I own.

I would rather Canon make a 15mm prime (2.8, 3.5 or 4) in a consumer grade model, similar to their new 24mm 2.8 IS, but given that Canon recently had to cut the price of that lens, it may be that there just isn't a large market for wide primes in any format.


----------



## Ruined (Nov 20, 2013)

koolman said:


> As the lines between FF and crop continue to blur - and we are seeing very high performance crop bodies - I am hoping canon will invest in high quality lenses for crop bodies. Why not L lenses for crops ? There is no good wide angle prime lens options for crop (outside third party lenses) this is a pity.



You can pretty much consider the new 24mm and 35mm IS USM models "L" lenses in an optical sense.

No, they don't have the L weathersealing, nor are they built to withstand being run over by a truck, nor do they have the fastest of fast apertures... But does your application REALLY need all of that? Are you going to leave your camera out in the rain uncovered? Are you going to drop your lenses on the floor every day? Do you need an aperture so fast that often only the center of the frame is sharp and the depth of field is so small you can't keep two eyes in focus?

The new IS non-L primes are built about the same toughness as the 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM, and they have optical performance that matches the L lenses at the same aperture (check out DXOMARK for sharpness etc tests - who actually states they exceed the L lenses at same aperture in some cases). I fully expect a rollout next year of 50mm IS USM, 85mm IS USM, maybe even 100 or 135.

I don't see the advantage of creating an EF-S prime. Reason being, EF primes are compatible with EF-S, so just buy an EF prime at the focal length you want. EF primes are more compatible so a better deal.

Where EF-S needs the most help is in the zoom lenses because the typical ranges for EF lenses might not be as useful crop lenses - example, EF-S equivalents of the 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200.

For 16-35 range, EF-S has a very well built 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 which is similar in field of view. But, with the recent super deep price cuts, I would wager we will see a replacement next year when the 7D2 is released. Although the original 10-22 was great, a replacement could improve in terms of aperture (f/2.8 would be nice instead of the variable f/3.5-4.5) and sharpness. There is a slim chance they could add L branding to it.

For 24-70 range, EF-S has the 17-55 IS f/2.8 which has a very solid track record. Again, this lens has seen deep price cuts lately, indicating a new version will likely arrive with the 7D2. Improvements could include increased sharpness and contrast and updated IS. There is also a slim chance they could add L branding to this replacement as well.

For 70-200 range, EF-S has the 55-250 f/4-5.6 STM that was just released this year. This lens is a fantastic optical performer virtually on par with the 70-300L that costs 4x as much. But, it does have a plastic mount that is disappointing... Also, it is no match for the 70-200L f/2.8, but that lens appears to be one Canon will reserve as an expensive carrot to dangle for people to upgrade to full frame; also, it may simply be too large and heavy for Canon to consider an EF-S release for - but there is a slim chance they could launch one w/ the 7D2.

So, overall EF-S has actually got it pretty good. EF-S can use all of the excellent non-L and L primes. EF-S has all the major zoom ranges covered, one of which got an update this year and the other two will likely be updated next year. Not much really to complain about I would say, the "L" designation is simply a marketing tool, not a real specification. Thus, even though lenses like the 24 IS, 35 IS, 10-22, 17-55, and 55-250 STM don't have the L designation, doesn't mean they don't perform like an L optically. But if you really want that designation on all your lenses for the look of it, I would advise to upgrade to full frame.


----------



## sandymandy (Nov 20, 2013)

its just much easier to sell L lenses to FF body owners. if they can afford a FF body its almost 100% they will also afford an L lense one day. i also wish there were awesome wide angles for aps-c but i think producing a 15mm 1.4 lens (to get 24mm 1.4 "FF" effect) or equal is just extremly pricy. Also it would be really big and heavy.

most (most!) people use aps-c cuz they cant afford a FF body. 

another reason i think is that there are tons of people who still run around with 18-55mm kit lens and are happy with it for instagram and what else. aaaand underage ppl probably wont have 1000$ to spend on an L lens opposite to the cheaper ef-s lenses which can be declared as bday gifts for example.

guess most sold lenses for aps-c are : 18-55mm kit, 55-250mm and 50mm 1.8 II


----------



## Cory (Nov 20, 2013)

The Sigma 17-50 is an "L" lens for crop. The Canon 17-55 isn't.
:-* ;D 8)


----------



## Zv (Nov 20, 2013)

Cory said:


> The Sigma 17-50 is an "L" lens for crop. The Canon 17-55 isn't.
> :-* ;D 8)



Ummm .... What??? ???


----------



## Zv (Nov 20, 2013)

koolman said:


> As the lines between FF and crop continue to blur - and we are seeing very high performance crop bodies - I am hoping canon will invest in high quality lenses for crop bodies. Why not L lenses for crops ? There is no good wide angle prime lens options for crop (outside third party lenses) this is a pity.



L lenses for crop? What are you on about? 

All L lenses can already be used with crop sensor bodies so what is the problem? Do you mean EF-S? 

A wide angle for crop? EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

Standard zoom? EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM or 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

The new EF-S 55-250 STM covers the telephoto range.

What's lacking? 

Why would Canon make an L lens (something that represents the top of the line) that only work with something of the lower end of the product line? That don't make no sense!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2013)

Cory said:


> The Sigma 17-50 is an "L" lens for crop. The Canon 17-55 isn't.



Sure it is...but in this case, "L" stands for Low corner sharpness. :


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 20, 2013)

Cory said:


> The Sigma 17-50 is an "L" lens for crop. The Canon 17-55 isn't.
> :-* ;D 8)


I have owned Sigma 17-50, Tamron 17-50 and Canon 17-55 ... both the Sigma and Tamron do NOT even come close to optical performance, accurate AF speed or the build quality of Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS ... but if I too was smoking some exotic stuff, I'd say I agree with you.


----------



## Pi (Nov 20, 2013)

The lines are blurring more on the crop side, and this has very little to do with sensor technology. What on crop can mach f/1.2 on FF? What on crop can match, in terms of IQ, 135/2 on FF? Do you think that a zillion mp crop sensor can make the 85/1.2 wide open on crop as good as the 135/2 on FF? Or the 50L on crop as good as the 85L at f/2 on FF?

About the lenses - it is a marketing thing. Canon wants you to buy an FF body and does not want to create an extensive line of EF-S primes. And they are right. The 17-55 has L glass inside but not the L built. The EF-S 60 has exceptional sharpness. But the latter cannot compare to the 100 macro on FF, L or not, both in speed and IQ. The Tamron 60/2 compares in speed but not in IQ. If you are demanding, you will be limited by the crop format. Just go FF, and you can even safe money.

BTW, creating quality EF-S lenses does make sense from pure IQ standpoint. High quality EF-S lenses would be better than EF lenses with the same FL and aperture. For example, the m43 system has quality lenses designed for that format, very often getting close to APS-C and FF, unless you want to open the lens more, then physics wins.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 20, 2013)

Pi said:


> The lines are blurring more on the crop side, and this has very little to do with sensor technology. What on crop can mach f/1.2 on FF? What on crop can match, in terms of IQ, 135/2 on FF? Do you think that a zillion mp crop sensor can make the 85/1.2 wide open on crop as good as the 135/2 on FF? Or the 50L on crop as good as the 85L at f/2 on FF?
> 
> About the lenses - it is a marketing thing. Canon wants you to buy an FF body and does not want to create an extensive line of EF-S primes. And they are right. The 17-55 has L glass inside but not the L built. The EF-S 60 has exceptional sharpness. But the latter cannot compare to the 100 macro on FF, L or not, both in speed and IQ. The Tamron 60/2 compares in speed but not in IQ. If you are demanding, you will be limited by the crop format. Just go FF, and you can even safe money.
> 
> BTW, creating quality EF-S lenses does make sense from pure IQ standpoint. High quality EF-S lenses would be better than EF lenses with the same FL and aperture. For example, the m43 system has quality lenses designed for that format, very often getting close to APS-C and FF, unless you want to open the lens more, then physics wins.



+1


----------



## crasher8 (Nov 20, 2013)

The 24/28/35 IS line keeps coming down in price and the optics of those 3 are Luxury quality and better than many L zooms. So from a 38 to a 56 those are some sweet crop primes.


----------



## iron-t (Nov 20, 2013)

I thought of my 17-55mm f/2.8 as an L even though it wasn't branded that way. I actually miss it now that I'm on FF.

I agree with those who noted that we shouldn't get too hung up on branding. Even though I'm willing to spend probably more than I ought to for excellent lens performance, as an amateur people could interpret my red ringed and/or white bodied lens as conspicuous consumption. The same phenomenon results in the common comment when friends and others view my images: "wow, your camera takes great pictures." Yeah, thanks. I just hang it around my neck and it handles the rest.


----------



## Skywise (Nov 20, 2013)

iron-t said:


> I thought of my 17-55mm f/2.8 as an L even though it wasn't branded that way. I actually miss it now that I'm on FF.



I've just moved up to FF as well and looking at getting the 24-70 f2.8 II sometime next year. I know it doesn't have IS but isn't it a decent equivalent to the 17-55?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2013)

Skywise said:


> I've just moved up to FF as well and looking at getting the 24-70 f2.8 II sometime next year. I know it doesn't have IS but isn't it a decent equivalent to the 17-55?



The 24-105/4L IS on FF is a decent equivalent (slightly better, actually) to the 17-55/2.8 IS on APS-C. The 24-70/2.8L II on FF will be substantially better.


----------



## rs (Nov 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Skywise said:
> 
> 
> > I've just moved up to FF as well and looking at getting the 24-70 f2.8 II sometime next year. I know it doesn't have IS but isn't it a decent equivalent to the 17-55?
> ...


+1

There's really no comparing the 17-55 on crop to the 24-70 II on FF.


----------



## Pi (Nov 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 24-105/4L IS on FF is a decent equivalent (slightly better, actually) to the 17-55/2.8 IS on APS-C.



Make that _much better_.

Also Canon's crop cameras have duller colors than their FF ones. The colors I am getting from my 24-105 are much better than form the 17-55 on a crop body. I am not sure if it is the lens or the body, or both, and it does not even matter.


----------



## candc (Nov 21, 2013)

if you are looking for the best available normal zoom for aps-c it would be the sigma 18-35, it doesn't have the range that the 24-70 on ff does but the iq is comparable and the build quality is better.

http://www.slrlounge.com/sigma-18-35mm-f1-8-ex-dc-field-review

as they point out the build quality is more like a zeiss prime than a canon L


----------



## sdsr (Nov 21, 2013)

rs said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Skywise said:
> ...



Right, or even the the 24-105. I made the perhaps unusual move when I switched to Canon of starting with FF and supplementing it later with a crop sensor model. I didn't buy any EF-S lenses for it but after a while rented a 17-55 to see what all the fuss was about. I thought the images it took all looked quite mediocre - not very sharp and frankly rather drab - compared to the images I got from the 24-105 on my FF (a 5DII at the time) or the images I got on the crop body with my EF lenses. Better than the kit lens, perhaps, but not something I would want to pay c. $1000 for.


----------



## sdsr (Nov 21, 2013)

koolman said:


> As the lines between FF and crop continue to blur - and we are seeing very high performance crop bodies ....



Assuming you're referring to Canon crop cameras I think your premise is false - unless by "performance" you're excluding what ultimately counts, image quality. Over the past few generations of Canon crop bodies there has been negligible improvement in sensor performance - the images taken with a 70D don't look much different from images taken with a 7D, 60D, or the last few years' worth of Rebels or EOSM, even if it's now easier to reach that result thanks to better AF etc. The gap in _price_ between crop and FF may be narrowing as the price of the 6D continues to fall, but if anything the gap in image quality between crop and FF has been widening: cf 5DII vs 7D/60D/Rebel and 6D vs 70D/EOSM - the crops have stayed much the same, but the 6D is noticeably better in image quality than the 5DII, which in turn is still considerably better than any of the crops. (And even when/if Canon does start to introduce crop sensors with significantly improved image quality - 7D2? - the various physical traits referred to by the short-hand phrases "crop factor" and "full frame advantage" will remain.)


----------



## Policar (Nov 21, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Cory said:
> 
> 
> > The Sigma 17-50 is an "L" lens for crop. The Canon 17-55 isn't.
> ...



Agreed.

Also, the 10-22mm appears pretty great.

However, the 18-35mm Sigma is pretty nice.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 21, 2013)

Policar said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Cory said:
> ...


The Sigma 18-35 is sharper than the Canon 10-22 at equal focal lengths and apertures ... but its not an UWA. Canon EF-S 10-22 is the sharpest UWA for APS-C, it easily outperforms the UWA lenses (for crop sensor) from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina or Nikon.


----------



## candc (Nov 21, 2013)

the sigma 18-35 is the sharpest zoom ever tested on an aps-c body according to dxo and just about everybody else, its sharper on an a crop body than the 24-70ii.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 21, 2013)

candc said:


> the sigma 18-35 is the sharpest zoom ever tested on an aps-c body according to dxo and just about everybody else,


Yes!


candc said:


> its sharper on an a crop body than the 24-70ii.


No!


----------



## koolman (Nov 21, 2013)

sdsr said:


> koolman said:
> 
> 
> > As the lines between FF and crop continue to blur - and we are seeing very high performance crop bodies ....
> ...



Is this really true that FF IQ is so significantly superior to crop ? I think the market is moving rapidly to smaller bodies and smaller high quality lenses. Sure there are certain aspects of FF especially in the area of DOF that are not achievable with a crop, but ultimately the prosumer like myself, will not justify the cost of FF bodies and lenses. I still think there is a new much bigger prosumer market - that will go for high quality lenses for crops.


----------



## Cory (Nov 21, 2013)

Maybe I should have worded that differently. I just subjectively like the look that the Sigma 17-50 produces more than that from the Canon 17-55. I've had and used both extensively and am looking forward to how the Sigma behaves on the 70D (in the near future).


----------



## Zv (Nov 21, 2013)

koolman said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > koolman said:
> ...



If image quality is a priority for you then yes FF IQ is significantly superior. When I went from 7D to 5D2 it was a very noticeable difference, so much so that I have barely touched my 7D since I bought the 5D2 last year (and I love my 7D). And what the 6D can do at those high ISOs just makes me drool! Almost bought one but decided to wait for the next generation of FF cameras. It's hard to describe but the images on FF have a certain look and feel that I like about them. And in post you can really push the files to the limit with little or no extra noise or degredation. For someone who post processes a lot, yeah significant is too soft a word. Massive difference I would say! 

Consider this - 6D is about $1500 for body and a 70D is $1000 maybe even more. That extra $500 gets you a lot more in terms of IQ. Makes more sense to go for the 6D if you can. Prob last you longer too. I think it's harder to justify crop these days when FF is getting cheaper.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 21, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > its sharper on an a crop body than the 24-70ii.
> ...



Actually, I think it likely is. Note that this is comparing both lenses used on the same APS-C body. The 24-70/2.8 II on FF will blow away te 18-35/1.8 DC on APS-C.


----------



## Pi (Nov 21, 2013)

koolman said:


> Is this really true that FF IQ is so significantly superior to crop ?



Yes. But that depends how picky you are. Most people are completely happy with their phones. 



> I think the market is moving rapidly to smaller bodies and smaller high quality lenses.



And Britney Spears has sold over 100 million albums... one of the best selling artists ever...



> Sure there are certain aspects of FF especially in the area of DOF that are not achievable with a crop, but ultimately the prosumer like myself, will not justify the cost of FF bodies and lenses. I still think there is a new much bigger prosumer market - that will go for high quality lenses for crops.



So you are picky. Then for you will benefit from FF. Quality (and fast) EF-S lenses will cost you, if anyone made them. They are not going to be less expensive than EF lenses. Look what is happening in the m43 land. They pay $2.3 for a lens equivalent to the 24-105, and that $2.3 lens is a monster in terms of weight and size. 
You get better IQ _for less_ with FF, in general. On the other hand, regardless of how much you spend for lenses on crop camera, you are limited by the format. 

On the other hand, if you are happy with slow, small and inexpensive lenses and a smaller format, good. 

It is just physics - for low light capabilities and shallower DOF, you need a large front element (more precisely, an entrance pupil). What sensor stays behind is irrelevant to some degree. You need a large lens no matter what. With smaller sensors, and fast lenses, the design becomes extreme, the lenses get too large, and the performance suffers, and the price goes through the roof. The capabilities of the format are pushed too far. Also, even in good light, FF produces better images. It is like shooting at ISO 40 on crop, with much sharper lenses.


----------



## Suri JV (Nov 21, 2013)

Even for tele lenses, crop tele lenses may have weight advantage. EFS 400 mm f4, for example may be as heavy as the EF 400MM F5.6. It may make sense because with a 7D, I will purchase an EFS tele


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 21, 2013)

Suri JV said:


> Even for tele lenses, crop tele lenses may have weight advantage. EFS 400 mm f4, for example may be as heavy as the EF 400MM F5.6. It may make sense because with a 7D, I will purchase an EFS tele



Sorry, but no. With a telephoto prime lens design, the size of the image circle is not a limiting factor, and a shorter backfocus distance makes no difference in lens length (with the same flange focal distance, which is the case for EF vs EF-S). For tele lenses, the entrance pupil is effectively at or just behind the front element. That means the front element will about the same diameter as that entrance pupil, i.e. FL/f-number. An EF-S 400/4 would need a 100mm front element, and be essentially the same size as an EF 400/4 - big, heavy, and very expensive.


----------



## sdsr (Nov 21, 2013)

koolman said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > koolman said:
> ...



It depends what you mean by "significantly" - the differences vary with what you photograph, and in what sorts of light, and how noticeable those differences are varies with how you view the results (monitor size/quality, print size etc.) - and what's significant to me might be trivial to you, and vice versa. I was responding specifically to your comment that the gap between FF and crop is narrowing. At least until now, with Canon the image quality gap has been widening even though the price gap has been narrowing. If there's a reason for Canon to make new crop-only lenses, it's not because their crop sensors have been improving. (It's true that there have been improvements in the image quality of crop sensors in other companies - esp. from Fuji and in the better Micro 4/3 cameras, the latter also being first rate in other ways - but Canon doesn't seem much interested so far; maybe the 7D2 will change that, but that will not likely be a bargain either way.)

As for the cost of going FF, well yes, it could be exorbitant. But if you don't need the fancy AF of the 5DIII/1Dx, there's the 6D, whose image quality is excellent and whose price, if you catch the right sale, isn't that much higher than a 70D. And FF lenses don't have to be very expensive: if Canon were to issue some crop primes, do you think they would cost less than the 24/28/35 IS series, the 40mm, the 50mm 1.8/1.4, the 85mm 1.8, the 100 f2 or even the 100L or 135L? I doubt it, and while there may be some room for improvement in some of the older primes, they will still provide better images on FF than they do on crop (and if all you've been using on crop are "consumer" zooms, they will provide much better images on crop too). If you want a long zoom, the 70-200 f/4 L IS and 70-300L may be more expensive than comparable length crop zooms, but I doubt "high quality" zooms for crop would cost much less, if at all (check out the prices of the higher end Pentax zooms - not that there are many of them, and not that they're mechanically anywhere near as good as the two Ls I mentioned). 

By the way, is it really clear that "the market" is rapidly moving towards smaller bodies and lenses? Some companies may be hoping that it is, and that supply will create demand, but so far the demand hasn't kept up outside Japan and neighboring countries even if the products "deserve" it. (This is a mere anecdote, but when I'm wandering around with my Olympus OMD, even in locations laden with tourists like Independence Mall in Philadelphia or Central Park/Times Sq in NY I can't help noticing that no-one else seems to have such a thing and am sometimes asked whether I'm using a film camera - people seem to have no idea what M43 is or even that Olympus still exists....) The new Sony FF mirrorless may make a difference, but since they're FF there's a limit to how small the lenses will be (the few they've made for them so far certainly aren't small).


----------



## candc (Nov 21, 2013)

http://www.slrlounge.com/sigma-18-35mm-f1-8-ex-dc-field-review

Take a few minutes and read the review. It addresses all the points being discussed here.


----------



## candc (Nov 22, 2013)

canon does make some good lenses for aps-c but they don't really have a complete system. sigma does you can get 

70d $1200
sigma 8-16 $600
sigma 18-35 $900
sigma 50-150 $1000
sigma 120-300 $3600 its a ff lens but seems better suited as an aps-c wildlife lens to me
thats $7,300 
that will get you a system that performs very well and is comparable to the system below

5diii $3400
16-35 $1700 
24-70ii $2300
70-200ii $2200
200-400 $12000 
that's $21,600

the aps-c system is wider, the ff longer on the tele end. the 200-400 has a built in extender getting you 560 f5.6 the sigma is 300 x 1.6=480 f2.8 and the ff system has better iso performance so the aps-c system uses faster lenses to help compensate for this. 

all and all there are some advantages to the ff system but $14,300 worth? 

dpr says that the raw files from the 70d and 6d are indistinguishable up to about iso 3200, the 70d has a better af system than the 6d so i think you have to use the 5diii as a comparison model for now, the 7dii will probably be more equal


----------



## dufflover (Nov 22, 2013)

That's a pretty silly example, mainly cos you chuck in a super telephoto lens . A more sensible comparison would've been the same Sigma but adding a TC to it. It might be "as equal" with lens specs but it's still a way more realistic comparison.


----------



## Pi (Nov 22, 2013)

candc said:


> the aps-c system is wider, the ff longer on the tele end. the 200-400 has a built in extender getting you 560 f5.6 *the sigma is 300 x 1.6=480 f2.8* and the ff system has better iso performance so the aps-c system uses faster lenses to help compensate for this.



The Sigma is 480/4.5 equivalent and will be so soft on crop at that FL that the 100-400 for a fraction of the cost will be better on FF, even if you apply NR to reduce the 2/3 stop difference. 

See here how the Sigma performs on FF, and imagine how would be on crop:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=803&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1

The other comparisons are not equivalent either.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2013)

candc said:


> ... the 70d has a better af system than the 6d...



In your 'Sigma system' any advantages of the 70D's AF system would be thrown away by the Sigma lenses' worse AF performance. I'd bet most or even all of your 6D + Canon lens combos would beat the 70D + Sigma lens combos for AF speed and accuracy.


----------



## candc (Nov 22, 2013)

Pi said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > the aps-c system is wider, the ff longer on the tele end. the 200-400 has a built in extender getting you 560 f5.6 *the sigma is 300 x 1.6=480 f2.8* and the ff system has better iso performance so the aps-c system uses faster lenses to help compensate for this.
> ...


the lens is a f2.8 regardless of what body its on, it will have a shallower dof on ff but its still 2.8, the ff equivalent to 300mm on aps-c is 480 the bare lens is excellent on apc-c which is the point of comparison. if you still want to use teleconverters as i also do with it then you want to use the canon extenders. i also tried the kenkos and they are very good but the 2x overexposes by one stop?. i don't understand why those samples at tdp look so bad. the old lens sample looked better with the tc's and the new one is sharper so it seems backwards? 

anyway: the shots below are all with the canon 2xiii the squirrel and rusty ball are 600, the cat is 240


----------



## candc (Nov 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > ... the 70d has a better af system than the 6d...
> ...


that is a hard one to judge. the sigmas do have af problems that you need to correct with the dock and thats a big hassle. once you do that they are pretty good. the af speed on the 120-300 is acceptable to me. it has no problems tracking bif ai servo, even with the 2xiii attached, you need to set the lens to speed priority for that though. i would guess the 200-400 has faster af but the sigma is acceptable


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'd bet most or even all of your 6D + Canon lens combos would beat the 70D + Sigma lens combos for AF speed and accuracy.



That might be true for speed, but I'd wager to guess not necessarily for accuracy because ...

1. the 3rd party lack of speed would be to gain an adequate accuracy, and the 6D system (unlike 1dx/5d3) doesn't have seem to have the closed loop system and cannot use the improved accuracy of Canon's latest lenses.

2. the missing x-point @f2.8 of the 6d will loose a lot of accuracy in real world comparisons even with a Canon lens so the 70d+Sigma with a better center point might be more than up on par.

Last not least, the af performance of either system in absolute terms is very good even if there are relative differences, meaning the optical performance matters more for usual print/view sizes and not shooting sports or events.


----------



## rs (Nov 22, 2013)

candc said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...


Yes, the lens is f2.8 regardless of what body it is on - but it is also 300mm regardless of what body it is on. However, if you want to look at it in FF equivalence, then a 300/2.8 lens on 1.6x crop behaves like a 480/4.5 lens. It doesn't stop it from being a 300/2.8. But calling it a 480/2.8 is wrong.

If your argument was true, my iPhone 5 with its 4.1mm f2.4 lens is a 33/2.4 - as a complete system it would be better in low light and able to give a narrower DoF than my 5DII and 24-70 II can at 33mm.


----------



## chauncey (Nov 22, 2013)

Abject futility is defined as...comparing camera/lens quality based on internet images.
To expand a little, assuming normal print size and competent photographer...one cannot discern camera/lens brand from a print.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 22, 2013)

candc said:


> anyway: the shots below are all with the canon 2xiii the squirrel and rusty ball are 600, the cat is 240


Kind sir, are you aware that Squirrels and balls are banned in CR ... it has been confirmed that Squirrels are indecent folk ... we went through several indecent Squirrels, who destroyed our faith in the Squirrel community ... therefore, we find your intentions (for posting photos of Squirrel, ball and what not) most disturbing ;D
For further guidance on the Squirrel folk, please see page 4 and 7 of: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15358.45
;D ;D ;D


----------



## Pi (Nov 22, 2013)

candc said:


> anyway: the shots below are all with the canon 2xiii the squirrel and rusty ball are 600, the cat is 240



You got a good reply above, I just want to comment on the IQ of the images you posted. Even downsized to 2-3mp, they do not pass a pixel-peeper's test. A slightly cropped 200mm image from FF would make your 240mm look like taken with a cell phone; and if I crop a 200mm image from 20mp on FF to get approx. 600mm, I would get a 2.2mp image still sharper than your 600 one. Your images seem to demonstrate that investing in expensive lenses on a crop body is a waste of money.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I'd bet most or even all of your 6D + Canon lens combos would beat the 70D + Sigma lens combos for AF speed and accuracy.
> ...



That sounds like a reasonable theory. But the issues that I've read about with Sigma AF, which I have experienced the handful of times I've tried one of their lenses (either borrowed or in a shop) was that the focus is inconsistent. When it hits, it's as accurate as the Canon lenses. But the frequency of misses is a lot higher, in some cases so high as to make the lenses unusable for my purposes.



rs said:


> Yes, the lens is f2.8 regardless of what body it is on - but it is also 300mm regardless of what body it is on. However, if you want to look at it in FF equivalence, then a 300/2.8 lens on 1.6x crop behaves like a 480/4.5 lens. It doesn't stop it from being a 300/2.8. But calling it a 480/2.8 is wrong.



+1

I'm not sure why some people seem to think the "crop factor" is some magic thing that defies the laws of optical physics. In general, current crop sensors have higher pixel density than current full frame sensors, meaning the crop sensor puts more pixels on your target (but that's not the case for the T3 vs. the D800, for example). That only matters if the resolution of an image cropped from the full frame sensor is insufficient for your output needs, and even 18 MP FF cropped to the APS-C field of view gives sufficient MP for reasonably large prints. 

The only real "crop factor advantage" is that the sensors are cheaper, and thus the cameras they are in are also cheaper.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The only real "crop factor advantage" is that the sensors are cheaper, and thus the cameras they are in are also cheaper.



... and the mirror is smaller, so with the same level of engineering of the 1dx a crop body could get a much higher fps than a ff - at least it's my guess that the mirror size and mass is the limiting factor. Of course this is very unlikely to happen even with the 7d2 since mirrorless gets a much, much higher fps at no cost.

Another "crop factor advantage" that comes to my mind is that you can put it into smaller (and shallower mirrored) bodies, I always found that a crop sensor in a 7d size body looks very strange and lost.

Sony currently is going for latter, here in Germany the environment is plastered with Sony adverts not only telling us they own 50%+ of the sensor market, but showing their new mirrorless aps-c right next to their traditional dlsr line, comparing the size in a way favoring the mirrorless design as it has the same iq in a smaller package.


----------



## Pi (Nov 22, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Another "crop factor advantage" that comes to my mind is that you can put it into smaller (and shallower mirrored) bodies, I always found that a crop sensor in a 7d size body looks very strange and lost.



Not really, because they are designed to take EF lenses as well. The flange distance is the same as with the FF bodies even thought EF-S lenses can protrude closer to the sensor.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 22, 2013)

Pi said:


> Not really, because they are designed to take EF lenses as well. The flange distance is the same as with the FF bodies even thought EF-S lenses can protrude closer to the sensor.



Right, good point, I forgot about this - of course the small Sony mirrorless will take different lenses just like eos-m or need an adapter for the traditional system.


----------



## candc (Nov 22, 2013)

Pi said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > anyway: the shots below are all with the canon 2xiii the squirrel and rusty ball are 600, the cat is 240
> ...


You understand that those are taken with with the 2xiii attached? You don't need to do that to get 240, its a 120-300. You would have to shoot 960 on ff to get the same field of view as 600 on the crop Even if you could crop a 200mm ff image that much and get good results, you can't see what your shooting


----------



## candc (Nov 22, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > anyway: the shots below are all with the canon 2xiii the squirrel and rusty ball are 600, the cat is 240
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2013)

candc said:


> You would have to shoot 960 on ff to get the same field of view as 600 on the crop Even if you could crop a 200mm ff image that much and get good results, you can't see what your shooting



I see you're still thinking the crop factor is some sort of magic. Do keep in mind that it's called a "crop factor" not a "magnification factor." A 600mm lens (native, or 300 mm with a 2x TC) delivers the same magnification at the back of the lens, no matter what camera it is mounted on. 

Perhaps you've read the specification of a good crop camera like the 7D and noticed that the viewfinder magnification is 1.0x, which sounds superior to the viewfinder magnification spec of a camera like the 5DIII, which is 0.71x. However, viewfinder magnification is not comparable across format size. That's because the specification is based on use of a 50mm lens, and that lens will give a different field of view depending on sensor format. Once you compensate for the crop factor by multiplying the VF magnification specification by the inverse of that crop factor, you find that the 7D delivers an equivalent 0.62x magnification.

Okay, having said that, the above applies for taking "the same picture", which is different than the situation you describe where you are using the lens on two different bodies at the same subject distance. In that case, you would compare the raw viewfinder magnification specs. But, the difference between them is not the 1.6x of the crop factor, but rather closer to 1.3 or 1.4x. Empirically, I can assure you I have no difficulty seeing things in the viewfinder of my 1D X with a 600 mm lens, and cropping the image to the APS-C field of view.


----------



## sdsr (Nov 22, 2013)

candc said:


> canon does make some good lenses for aps-c but they don't really have a complete system. sigma does you can get
> 
> 70d $1200
> sigma 8-16 $600
> ...



I think there are a few mistakes in your analysis, even leaving aside problems with inconsistent autofocus. When you say that according to dpr "the raw files from the 70D and 6D are indistinguishable up to about ISO 3200", and assuming they do say such a thing (surely they don't) what exactly were they referring to? Noise? The various other factors we refer to as "image quality"? If so, I don't believe them and have seen nothing in any other review site to suggest that's true; my experience with recent Canon crop bodies and 5DII, 5DIII and 6D doesn't either. Whether the AF system of the 70D is better than that in the 6D rather depends on what you're shooting.

Anyway, one could as easily come up with a FF system that's vastly cheaper than the one you assembled, and I bet the resulting images would nevertheless be better than those created by your crop system (which would still be very good, of course):

6D - $1500-$1900 (depending on sales)
17-40L c. $800 (often much less)
Canon 24-105L c. $800 but even cheaper if bought as the 6D's kit lens
Canon 70-200 f4 IS (c. $1100 on sale) or 70-300L (c. $1300 on sale)
Canon 100-400L c. $1500 but often less on sale

The lenses you list for your FF selection may perform better still, but they're all Canon's most expensive in each category; if you're going to list them for FF, you might as well put them on your crop list too - they work on both, after all. If you insist on f2.8 lenses, feel free to substitute Tamron equivalents for 24-70 and 70-200; but note that, as others have explained, 2.8 on crop doesn't perform the same as 2.8 on FF. And the only reason why your Canon FF system doesn't go as wide as your Canon crop system is that for some reason you stayed with Canon for the FF system; Sigma makes a lens for FF that's exactly the same range as the 8-16....


----------



## Policar (Nov 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...



The Sigma is sharper at f1.8 than the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II is at f2.8, so I'm guessing it's the best zoom on APS-C unless the 24-70mm f2.8 II is dramatically better than the 70-200.

That is, on the rare occasion it takes a photo that's in focus.


----------



## candc (Nov 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > You would have to shoot 960 on ff to get the same field of view as 600 on the crop Even if you could crop a 200mm ff image that much and get good results, you can't see what your shooting
> ...



no what pi said is that you could take a image shot with ff and a 200mm lens and crop it down to the same size as an image taken with a crop camera and a 600mm lens and the ff image would be better just on the merit that it was taken with a ff camera, i don't agree with that

thats almost like saying 100% crops from a ff camera are better than full size ones taken with a crop camera. i know that some here think that way but i don't

what i said is that if you are shooting a 200mm lens on a ff camera and intend to crop to the same size as an image taken with a crop camera and a 600mm lens. thats a big difference and its going to be difficult to see. thats a good reason to use tcs also. even if the iq is the same as cropping at least you can see what you are shooting


----------



## candc (Nov 23, 2013)

well i will start with the first lens in the list the sigma 8-16, its wider than anything except the sigma 12-24 for ff i think and the 8-16 on an aps-c body gives better results sraight up head to head than the 12-24 on a ff so thats one reason to go with a crop


----------



## Pi (Nov 23, 2013)

candc said:


> You understand that those are taken with with the 2xiii attached? You don't need to do that to get 240, its a 120-300. You would have to shoot 960 on ff to get the same field of view as 600 on the crop Even if you could crop a 200mm ff image that much and get good results, you can't see what your shooting



No, I did not. Still, what is the point of using an extender to get such soft images? Just shoot without an extender and crop. 

The 70-300L, or the 70-200+1.4 TX on FF cropped to 2.2 mp (0.33 crop) would look sharper, and will give you 900mm for much less. I can post such a crop downsized to the resolution of what you posted, if you insist - taken at 200mm + 1.4TC.


----------



## candc (Nov 23, 2013)

Pi said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > You understand that those are taken with with the 2xiii attached? You don't need to do that to get 240, its a 120-300. You would have to shoot 960 on ff to get the same field of view as 600 on the crop Even if you could crop a 200mm ff image that much and get good results, you can't see what your shooting
> ...



you think the squirrel shot is soft? it was iso 1600 300mm + 2xii on a crop body from about 50 yards away and its plenty sharp enough to see the individual hairs on the tail.

you think the wide angle shots i just posted are also soft?


----------



## sdsr (Nov 23, 2013)

candc said:


> well i will start with the first lens in the list the sigma 8-16, its wider than anything except the sigma 12-24 for ff i think and the 8-16 on an aps-c body gives better results sraight up head to head than the 12-24 on a ff so thats one reason to go with a crop



I owned the Sigma 8-16 when I owned a Pentax K-5 and it was a good lens (though for reasons that aren't entirely clear, more than a few of the photos I took with it are completely soft on one side), far better than the closest Tamron equivalent. But does it give better results than the 12-24 on FF? This doesn't suggest so:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=710&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=369&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Maybe there are real world comparisons out there which support your conclusion (or vice versa); I don't know. 

But assuming the crop version is better, you could take your approach an end up elsewhere. If the extra couple of mm at the wide end don't matter much, the Nikon 14-whateveritis is better; so that's one reason to go FF Nikon. The 4/3 Olympus 7-14 and M4/3 Panasonic 7-14 perform better than the Sigma too, which is one reason to get the new OMD for the former or a Panasonic M43 for the latter (for some reason the Panasonic has purple flare issues on all Olympus bodies). So if wide angle matters, but 14 will do instead of 12 (in ff terms), one shouldn't bother with Canon at all....


----------



## sdsr (Nov 23, 2013)

candc said:


> you think the squirrel shot is soft? it was iso 1600 300mm + 2xii on a crop body from about 50 yards away and its plenty sharp enough to see the individual hairs on the tail.



If I can barge into your exchange with Pi, I'm afraid I agree with him. The image looks just fine at the small size it appears at in this forum (not surprising), but not the image you provided for download. Yes, you can see some individual hairs on the tail, but the fur on the body looks almost splotchy - whether because of processing or some other reason I can't say, of course, but other things being equal it doesn't look as though the camera does all that well at ISO 1600 (if you think the 6D's RAW files would look the same at ISO 1600...). Maybe the original looks better and something was lost in your downsizing. Otherwise, while I've never used the lens you used for that photo, so I can't say for sure, I would expect that a good copy (there seems to be some variation out there; the good ones are remarkably sharp) of the Panasonic 100-300 at 300 on a recent m4/3 body would do a better job than this particular combination did, and that my Sigma 50-500 on my 5DIII or 6D would do a better job too. (Maybe someone out there has done a suitable comparison that's more useful than my speculation.)


----------



## candc (Nov 23, 2013)

sdsr said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > well i will start with the first lens in the list the sigma 8-16, its wider than anything except the sigma 12-24 for ff i think and the 8-16 on an aps-c body gives better results sraight up head to head than the 12-24 on a ff so thats one reason to go with a crop
> ...



http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=31

thats a comparison article of the 2. at the time i bought the lens the consensus i found from online samples and reviews was that the 8-16 gave better results than the 12-24


----------



## candc (Nov 23, 2013)

sdsr said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > you think the squirrel shot is soft? it was iso 1600 300mm + 2xii on a crop body from about 50 yards away and its plenty sharp enough to see the individual hairs on the tail.
> ...



if you wanted to compare the 120-300 on a crop body to the 50-500 on a ff body then it would be without the 2x converter on the 120-300. i have a sigma 80-400 which i think is as good or better optically than the bigma but the bigma has hsm the 80-400 has a garage door opener for a focus motor. the 120-300 is far better than either from what i have seen. dxo now lists it as the top performing tele zoom on a 5diii body and the bare lens is really good on a crop body too


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 23, 2013)

candc said:


> the 120-300 is far better than either from what i have seen. dxo now lists it as the top performing tele zoom on a 5diii body and the bare lens is really good on a crop body too



You've got those rankings sorted based on DxOMark's Biased Scores (aka BS). Those Scores are based on how a lens performs in lighting found in a dimly lit warehouse (150 lux). Both the Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS and the Canon 70-200/2.8L IS II are f/2.8 lenses, but the Sigma has a higher transmission (T-stop), therefore is gets a higher score despite not being quite as sharp. 

As for the 120-300/2.8 being 'really good on a crop body too', on the 22 MP FF sensor of the 5DIII, it delivers 20 P-Mpix, on the 20 MP sensor of the 6D, it delivers 18 MP. So, you're right that the lens is good, on FF…almost as sharp as the Canon 70-200 II, only costing the system resolution 2 MP, a drop of ~10%. However, on the 18 MP APS-C sensor of the 7D, it delivers only 11 P-Mpix…a drop of nearly 40%, far less sharpness than the same lens on FF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 23, 2013)

candc said:


> you think the squirrel shot is soft? it was iso 1600 300mm + 2xii on a crop body from about 50 yards away and its plenty sharp enough to see the individual hairs on the tail.



I wouldn't call it soft, but a cropped image from a FF camera would be sharper, and have less noise.


----------



## Pi (Nov 23, 2013)

candc said:


> you think the squirrel shot is soft?



It is a 3mp image. If it was downsized from an uncropped image - it has to be really sharp but it is not.


----------



## candc (Nov 23, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > the 120-300 is far better than either from what i have seen. dxo now lists it as the top performing tele zoom on a 5diii body and the bare lens is really good on a crop body too
> ...



an excerpt from the review linked.

Sharpness
The Sigma 120-300mm ƒ/2.8 Sports lens is very good optically, producing very sharp images on both full-frame and sub-frame cameras. The graphs at right show very slightly sharper results on the sub-frame body than the full-frame one, but the amount of difference is less than or equal to 0.2 of our arbitrary blur units, an amount that's well within the error margin of our tests, and a level that's completely indiscernible.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1559/cat/all

they claim its sharper on a crop body? 

i am not sure what to make of all that but what i do know is that the bare lens will give you the best i have seen on a crop body in its range. and i have experimented with different teleconverters and found the canons to work the best. this lens has a reputation for being bad with tc's . on a crop body it gives you pretty good reach without a tc, and its 2.8 which you need on a crop body, that's why i like it. i have gotten better than i expected results with the canon 2xiii, the canon and kenko 1.4x are better i dont seem to use them much.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 23, 2013)

It's my contention that L is just a set of expectations, red paint and marketing. There is no one single consistent feature that defines L.

There are great lenses that don't don't have red rings, and great lenses by third parties.

I wouldn't get too hung up on the marketing, read the reviews, try things out and see what works for you.

I think the Tokina 11-16 is a work of genius. Would canon sell enough to APS-C users to justify R&D etc? Probably not. But Tokina obviously are able to sell enough to Canon, Sony Nikon etc users to justify it.

This is sometimes where the third party guys can come up trumps.

APS-C users are particularly lucky in some regards, they have a massive choice of lenses that often behave better than on FF thanks to the crop.

My Tokina isn't an L? I don't care.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 23, 2013)

candc said:


> an excerpt from the review linked.
> 
> Sharpness
> The Sigma 120-300mm ƒ/2.8 Sports lens is very good optically, producing very sharp images on both full-frame and sub-frame cameras. The graphs at right show very slightly sharper results on the sub-frame body than the full-frame one, but the amount of difference is less than or equal to 0.2 of our arbitrary blur units, an amount that's well within the error margin of our tests, and a level that's completely indiscernible.
> ...



Relative sharpness. What you're seeing is just the 'sweet spot' effect - lenses are sharper in the center, and when a FF lens is used on a crop body, only the central portion of the image circle is used.


----------



## candc (Nov 23, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > an excerpt from the review linked.
> ...



did you read the entire review? they account for that.

true or not that is a benefit of aps-c. you are using the best part of the lens


----------



## Pi (Nov 23, 2013)

candc said:


> they claim its sharper on a crop body?



They use different units for different sensors, like miles for FF and km for crop. They basically say that the use DXO software but they have no idea what it reports, and they rescale it so that the same lens would produce the same blur index in the center at the best aperture regardless of the sensor. 

_Because of the relative nature of the DxO blur measurements, you can't directly equate results obtained on different camera platforms. By careful choice of the camera settings and the assignment of a relative scaling factor, we've brought the blur numbers for the different camera platforms we use into reasonably close agreement. We have no adequate way to precisely calibrate the BxU numbers between platforms though.

We arrived at the multipliers by looking at best-case performance with the same lens on the different camera platforms. The scaling factors were set to make this best-case performance roughly the same between the cameras in question. _

Bottom line- you cannot compare lenses on different sensors with their data. 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=738&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=738&Sample=0&SampleComp=0&CameraComp=736&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 23, 2013)

candc said:


> did you read the entire review? they account for that.
> 
> true or not that is a benefit of aps-c. you are using the best part of the lens



Yes, I read the review…and yes, they mention the slightly softer edges on FF, but no, they don't account for the fact that they are measuring relative sharpness, not absolute sharpness. 

When comparing the same lens on APS-C and FF, the FF result will be sharper. There's not a TDP comparison for the Sigma 120-300, but check out one of the sharpest lenses available, the 300/2.8L IS II, on the 1DsIII (FF) vs. the 60D (APS-C). Comparing lenses that cost 20% of the 300 II (300/4, 400/5.6, 100-400) on FF with the 300 II on APS-C, the sharpness is pretty similar. So you can spend $2000 more on the body or $5500 more on the lens to get to the same place.

The 70D is a good camera, but APS-C just isn't going to deliver the IQ of a FF camera, period. An image from a 200/2.8L II on the 6D, cropped to the FoV of APS-C, would be sharper than the 120-300/2.8 on the 70D. Cheaper, too.

I've been there...I loved my 7D, it delivered sharp images. Then I got a 5DII and compared them - 5DII + 135L ($1K lens) was better than 7D + 85L II ($2K lens). With the same lens, no competition. 1.5 stops more usable ISO on FF. I kept the 7D because the AF and frame rate were better. With the 1D X, the 7D has no advantages, I sold it. Would have done the same with a 5DIII.


----------



## dufflover (Nov 23, 2013)

On a broader note anyone notice how conveniently people switch between a dependence on the lens vs dependence on the body?

If talking about reach, people are gladly happy to say the image projected by the lens remains the same thus it is nothing more than faux reach via an optical crop and there is no real extra reach. True and I agree with that, even though yes reach is about pixel densities rather than optical reach per se.

If talking about sharpness, suddenly it's all on the body; despite the fact it's the same thing where the image projected by the lens has not changed thus absolute sharpness from the image also does not change.

I don't deny in an absolute final image sense the image is better, but the candy being sold is a little disingenuous. Similar to saying FF gives shallower DoF, which is misleading when explaining to newbies because the shallower DoF is from the consequence of changing the composition (FL and/or focus distance).


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 23, 2013)

dufflover said:


> I don't deny in an absolute final image sense the image is better, but the candy being sold is a little disingenuous. Similar to saying FF gives shallower DoF, which is misleading when explaining to newbies because the shallower DoF is from the consequence of changing the composition (FL and/or focus distance).



All very shrewd, your last point, quoted is a belter.

I actually prefer shooting aps-c with fast lenses. Especially for video where I'm focusing manually. In terms of depth of field I think 135 format sensors come into their own in allowing smaller apertures before diffraction becomes intrusive. This also gives you more exposure control, potentially.


----------



## rs (Nov 23, 2013)

dufflover said:


> Similar to saying FF gives shallower DoF, which is misleading when explaining to newbies because the shallower DoF is from the consequence of changing the composition (FL and/or focus distance).


Without changing the elements that make up the scene, composition is purely a combination of camera placement and field of view. To keep the composition the same, those two elements have to stay the same. Which means if you switch sensor size, the focal length _has_ to change accordingly to maintain the composition.


----------



## candc (Nov 23, 2013)

the 2nd lens on the list: sigma 18-35

you can see that the overall scores are pretty close on the 2 combos, the ff combo is sharper but both combos are plenty sharp and will give you good results with similar dof.

the ff combo is $5700 the aps-c combo is $2100


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 23, 2013)

rs said:


> Without changing the elements that make up the scene, composition is purely a combination of camera placement and field of view. To keep the composition the same, those two elements have to stay the same. Which means if you switch sensor size, the focal length _has_ to change accordingly to maintain the composition.



No. When you change ONLY the focal length, only the field of view changes. The perspective is unaltered. Perspective is a spatial relationship between objects and the camera. By changing lenses or body you may change the crop of the scene, but you won't affect composition at all.


----------



## rs (Nov 23, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > Without changing the elements that make up the scene, composition is purely a combination of camera placement and field of view. To keep the composition the same, those two elements have to stay the same. Which means if you switch sensor size, the focal length _has_ to change accordingly to maintain the composition.
> ...


So are you saying these two images have the same composition?












source: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 23, 2013)

Are you saying thats a 1x vs 1.6x crop?

Composition means more than framing.


----------



## rs (Nov 23, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Are you saying thats a 1x vs 1.6x crop?


Not at all; its just to illustrate that different fields of view (whether via a different crop or a different focal length) produce a different composition.


paul13walnut5 said:


> Composition means more than framing.


I fully agree. However, all I'm trying to illustrate is field of view is _one_ of the elements which make up composition.

I'll re-quote myself:


rs said:


> Without changing the elements that make up the scene, composition is purely a combination of camera placement and field of view. To keep the composition the same, those two elements have to stay the same. Which means if you switch sensor size, the focal length _has_ to change accordingly to maintain the composition.


----------



## sdsr (Nov 23, 2013)

candc said:


> the 2nd lens on the list: sigma 18-35
> 
> you can see that the overall scores are pretty close on the 2 combos, the ff combo is sharper but both combos are plenty sharp and will give you good results with similar dof.
> 
> the ff combo is $5700 the aps-c combo is $2100



It would be more useful to see side-by-side photos of actual things; they may (or may not) look much the same, depending on the subject, how the photo is displayed, etc. But see this:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=854&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

And, more interesting perhaps, given your evident determination to find the most expensive FF gear, compare the Sigma with the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=854&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=786&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

or, less expensive still (around the same price as the Sigma 18-35), the Sigma 24-70 2.8

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=854&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=805&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

To the extent that such photos are revealing, the FF all look quite a bit sharper to me.


----------



## sdsr (Nov 23, 2013)

Policar said:


> The Sigma is sharper at f1.8 than the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II is at f2.8, so I'm guessing it's the best zoom on APS-C unless the 24-70mm f2.8 II is dramatically better than the 70-200.



Is it sharper than the 70-200 on crop?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=854&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

And it only seems to be sharper wide open than the 24-70II in the corners at its shortest focal lenght, and advantage that seems to go away as the focal length increases.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=854&Camera=736&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=787&Sample=0&SampleComp=0&CameraComp=736&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

That said, I suspect there's little if any difference in real life (though of course 1.8 is much more useful on a crop body than 2.8 for other reasons). If you switch bodies to FF in those comparisons for the Canon lenses, the result is more than subtly different.


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 23, 2013)

koolman said:


> As the lines between FF and crop continue to blur - and we are seeing very high performance crop bodies - I am hoping canon will invest in high quality lenses for crop bodies. Why not L lenses for crops ? There is no good wide angle prime lens options for crop (outside third party lenses) this is a pity.



I haven't seen these high performance crop bodies of which you speak!


----------



## candc (Nov 23, 2013)

sdsr said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > the 2nd lens on the list: sigma 18-35
> ...



if i was trying to show the most expensive ff gear i would be pointing to the 1dx but i think most would agree that the iq of the 5d3 is as good or better than the 1dx? i know the resolution is better on the 5diii


----------



## Pi (Nov 23, 2013)

candc said:


> the 2nd lens on the list: sigma 18-35
> 
> you can see that the overall scores are pretty close on the 2 combos, the ff combo is sharper but both combos are plenty sharp and will give you good results with similar dof.
> 
> the ff combo is $5700 the aps-c combo is $2100



You are kidding, right - or just trolling? Comparing the 24-70II on FF vs. whatever on crop?


----------



## candc (Nov 23, 2013)

Pi said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > the 2nd lens on the list: sigma 18-35
> ...



i am neither kidding or trolling and yes that is exactly what i am comparing as does this review of the lens

http://www.slrlounge.com/sigma-18-35mm-f1-8-ex-dc-field-review

go ahead and read it if you like but be careful there may some language in the article you don't like.

such as: 

" While certain elitists are quick to dismiss crop-sensor lenses, I’m a lot more open-minded"

and

"However what most “FF fanboys” fail to do is, compare the entire system and overall long-term costs. And that way, any way you slice it, full-frame becomes more expensive than crop-sensors by $1,000-$3,000 or more"


----------



## Pi (Nov 23, 2013)

candc said:


> i am neither kidding or trolling and yes that is exactly what i am comparing as does this review of the lens



OK, so you are trolling.



> http://www.slrlounge.com/sigma-18-35mm-f1-8-ex-dc-field-review
> 
> go ahead and read it if you like but be careful there may some language in the article you don't like.
> 
> ...



BS. The Sigma 24-70 is about the same price as the 18-35, it is wider, it has a longer reach, and makes the images of the 18-35 look like taken with an iphone. 

Speaking about the _entire system_ (this is not a fixed lens camera, right?), the cheapo 50/1.4 on FF makes the 35L on crop look like Coca-Cola glass:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=736&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3


----------



## candc (Nov 23, 2013)

anyway, 

the op was asking about L lenses for crop bodies. i listed what i think is the best zoom lens lineup available for aps-c bodies

if your still here i hope that helps


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 23, 2013)

candc said:


> "However what most “*FF fanboys*” fail to do is,


I've heard of Canon fanboys, Nikon fanboys, iSheep, Shamesung fandroids etc etc, but I was not aware that there are sub-categories within the same fanboy group ;D
I am glad that I escaped this accusation as I have a FF camera and a APS-C camera ;D


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 23, 2013)

@rs misread your previous post, apologies.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 23, 2013)

dufflover said:


> Similar to saying FF gives shallower DoF, which is misleading when explaining to newbies because the shallower DoF is from the consequence of changing the composition (FL and/or focus distance).



It's not misleading, IMO - it's a logical simplification. First, someone should understand the what, then the why. In a dark room, do you launch into an explanation of the principles of electricity, or do you simply show someone how to flip the light switch? 



dufflover said:


> On a broader note anyone notice how conveniently people switch between a dependence on the lens vs dependence on the body?
> 
> If talking about reach, people are gladly happy to say the image projected by the lens remains the same thus it is nothing more than faux reach via an optical crop and there is no real extra reach. True and I agree with that, even though yes reach is about pixel densities rather than optical reach per se.
> 
> ...



The reality is that both body and lens matter, obviously. Which one is more important depends on what is being captured. When talking about reach, the sensor with the higher pixel density will put more pixels on target. That's usually the crop sensor, with current bodies (but the D800 has a higher pixel density than the T3, for example). There's no significant IQ difference between the APS-C image and the FF image cropped to the smaller AoV, at low ISO. At high ISO (above ~800, and a lot of bird/wildlife photography where focal length is limiting requires high ISO), the cropped FF image will deliver better IQ. Current Canon FF sensors cropped to APS-C FoV yield 7-8.6 MP, which is sufficient for at least 16x24" prints. So, unless you're printing larger, the 'reach advantage' of APS-C is an illusion. Even if you're printing larger, a shot at high ISO will likely look better from the FF camera. 

The FF sensor will be much sharper when the same lens is used, sharper if a slightly inferior lens is used, and a not so good lens on FF will still usually equal an excellent lens on APS-C. If you aren't focal length limited, APS-C offers no significant advantage in terms of IQ (unless you think reduced 'cats-eye' bokeh on FF lenses which exhibit it is significant). 

Obviously there's a cost advantage to APS-C bodies and lenses, but anyone who claims an advantage based on the sensor outside of low ISO focal length limited situations (where IQ is similar but APS-C delivers more MP) is confused or incorrect.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 23, 2013)

Can someone exain this puzzle to me. 

As Neuro has stated above, given cropping of two equally dense sensors of different sizes ( FF & APS ) the larger retains it's benefit of better high ISO performance even when cropped to APS. Presumably this is because there was more light originally on the larger sensor. 

When you put say a 135L onto a crop sensor camera, the sensor is only recording about half the area of the image circle from that lens, and so half the light. Due to the difference in circle of confusion that f2 less now produces results in dof terms to (something like) an f3.2 lens. 

So why is it that the exposure for that f2 lens remains the same as on a FF camera when the whole of the image circle is being recorded ( or much of it). And it does, even using a separate light meter f2 on the APS camera gives exactly the same exposure via the histogram as a FF camera. Yet the APS is not recording the same amount of light ! 

How can this be when a FF retains it's high iso performance e en when cropped. ???


----------



## Pi (Nov 23, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> How can this be when a FF retains it's high iso performance e en when cropped. ???



Well, it does not.


----------



## candc (Nov 23, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Can someone exain this puzzle to me.
> 
> As Neuro has stated above, given cropping of two equally dense sensors of different sizes ( FF & APS ) the larger retains it's benefit of better high ISO performance even when cropped to APS. Presumably this is because there was more light originally on the larger sensor.
> 
> ...



The d800 has a DX function which just uses the aps-c portion of the sensor, there is no change in exposure. A shot with the same lens taken in DX mode or one taken in ff mode and later cropped to aps-c size will be the same


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 23, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> When you put say a 135L onto a crop sensor camera, the sensor is only recording about half the area of the image circle from that lens, and so half the light. Due to the difference in circle of confusion that f2 less now produces results in dof terms to (something like) an f3.2 lens.



The deeper DoF on APS-C has nothing to do with CoC. Compared to FF, to get the same framing on APS-C you must use a shorter focal length or move further away. Either will results in deeper DoF. 

If you use the same focal length and distance (and aperture) on both formats, the FoV will be smaller on APS-C, of course, but the DoF will actually be slightly _shallower_ - that's the effect of the difference in CoC. 



Sporgon said:


> So why is it that the exposure for that f2 lens remains the same as on a FF camera when the whole of the image circle is being recorded ( or much of it). And it does, even using a separate light meter f2 on the APS camera gives exactly the same exposure via the histogram as a FF camera. Yet the APS is not recording the same amount of light !
> 
> How can this be when a FF retains it's high iso performance e en when cropped. ???



Total light gathered determines image noise, light per unit area determines exposure. Thus, f/2 on FF and f/2 on a PowerShot S100 at the same ISO will have the same (metered) shutter speed.

The cropped FF image doesn't fully retain its noise advantage - that advantage is 1.3-stops based on the area difference, but in practice it's 1.5-2 stops. At ISO 800 and lower, there's really no difference between APS-C and cropped FF (there's a little less noise in the cropped FF at those low ISOs, but more detail in the APS-C, so NR or sharpening will trade one for the other). As you go to progressively higher ISOs, the cropped FF has a progressive advantage - pretty subtle at ISO 1600, visible at ISO 3200, significant at ISO 12800, etc. Obviously, if you don't have to crop, the full advantage is retained.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 23, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Presumably this is because there was more light originally on the larger sensor.



I think a comparison would only be valid like for like, i.e. the subject light would be the same and the projected image circle would be the same at the focal plane regardless of the sensor area, otherwise a comparison would be meaningless. The larger sensor has larger individual photosites is the key.


----------



## Pi (Nov 23, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> The larger sensor has larger individual photosites is the key.



It is more like a footnote.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 23, 2013)

Do a car analogy. From Hogmany its my new years resolution to only deal in metaphors if they involve cars.
What would a footnote be in a car?


----------



## Pi (Nov 23, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Do a car analogy. From Hogmany its my new years resolution to only deal in metaphors if they involve cars.
> What would a footnote be in a car?



It is like saying that engines with higher volume are more powerful because they have larger cylinders.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 23, 2013)

They have the potential to do a greater amount of work in a set period assuming all other things being equal.

Like it, but not quite getting there, in car metaphor terms. Lets suppose a photosite is a citroen SM, and that light is an autobahn? Does that help?


----------



## Pi (Nov 23, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> They have the potential to do a greater amount of work in a set period assuming all other things being equal.



In my analogy, what is equal is the total volume, which means approximately the same amount ow work.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 23, 2013)

So if a Citroen SM is on the autobahn....


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 24, 2013)

Pi said:


> In my analogy, what is equal is the total volume, which means approximately the same amount ow work.



No. In your analogy the toal volume was not equal. You said:



Pi said:


> It is like saying that engines with higher volume are more powerful because they have larger cylinders.



Higher Volumes. Higher. Greater. More. 

Not equal.


----------



## Pi (Nov 24, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > In my analogy, what is equal is the total volume, which means approximately the same amount ow work.
> ...



My remark was in the context of yours "everything else being equal". 

Engines with larger (total) volume are more powerful because ... they have larger (total) volume. Of course, there are a lot of footnotes here.


----------



## dufflover (Nov 24, 2013)

And you don't think the above posts prove sometimes the simplification is has been over-simplified. IMO any explanation of FF vs Crop without mentioning pixel/photosite size and exposure is a bad one; which many are because they only talk about "1.6x crop factor".

I've seen posts where people think you can shoot at lower ISO in a FF camera because the sensor is larger and collects more light!

I like TDP but never been a fan of his samples shot on crop camera. Always softer than any practical image I've seen. And similar to this whole topic there's this constant debate on whether FF makes things sharper or is simply more lenient to a crap lens; and going off the whole principle of a lens image being constant, logically it's the latter. (at low ISOs obviously)


----------



## Pi (Nov 24, 2013)

dufflover said:


> And you don't think the above posts prove sometimes the simplification is has been over-simplified. IMO any explanation of FF vs Crop without mentioning pixel/photosite size and exposure is a bad one; which many are because they only talk about "1.6x crop factor".



Any explanation which mentions this is a bad one. Pixel size is a secondary factor. You can replace the sensor by a film, or a piece of paper. The noise would still be there. The (dominant) noise is noise of the projected image, not noise created by the sensor. Google "photon noise". Any mentioning of pixels there?



> I've seen posts where people think you can shoot at lower ISO in a FF camera because the sensor is larger and collects more light!



This does not make much sense without knowing the rest but the fact is that when you can shoot at the same ISO, it is like shooting at ISO 40 on crop. 



> I like TDP but never been a fan of his samples shot on crop camera. Always softer than any practical image I've seen. And similar to this whole topic there's this constant debate on whether FF makes things sharper or is simply more lenient to a crap lens; and going off the whole principle of a lens image being constant, logically it's the latter. (at low ISOs obviously)



You are making a fundamental mistake. The image on the sensor might be constant but it must be magnified more with the crop sensor.

I have done a few comparisons, follow the link in my signature. The difference is more than obvious.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 24, 2013)

Pi said:


> You are making a fundamental mistake. The image on the sensor might be constant but it must be magnified more with the crop sensor.
> 
> I have done a few comparisons, follow the link in my signature. The difference is more than obvious.



Magnified? You talk some bollocks mate. An ef lens on an aps-c body throws exactly the same image circle as an ef lens on a 135 format or aps-h sensor.

There is no magnification involved. There is electronic cropping.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 24, 2013)

Pi said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...



All other things being equal. Number of cylinders. Arrangement. Aspiration. 

Whats heavier a tonne a feathers or a tonne of coal?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > You are making a fundamental mistake. The image on the sensor might be constant but it must be magnified more with the crop sensor.
> ...



Sorry, the bollocks here is coming from you. When you look at the TDP ISO 12233 crops on your monitor, are they the teeny tiny size of the camera's sensor? If they're bigger, there is magnification occurring. 

Is a crop sensor smaller than a FF sensor? When you compare the ISO 12233 crops from FF and APS-C with equal MP (example), do the 100% crops appear the same size on your monitor? If the crop sensor is physically smaller, how is it that the 100% crops appear the same size as those from the FF sensor? They're magnified *more*.


----------



## Pi (Nov 24, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Whats heavier a tonne a feathers or a tonne of coal?



A tonne of coal because it has larger particles.


----------



## Pi (Nov 24, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Magnified? You talk some bollocks mate. An ef lens on an aps-c body throws exactly the same image circle as an ef lens on a 135 format or aps-h sensor.
> 
> There is no magnification involved. There is electronic cropping.



A non-enlarged image is a large as this, more or less:


----------



## candc (Nov 24, 2013)

I think we all understand that the slightly cropped image from an aps-c sensor compared to that of a ff one must be magnified slightly more to be viewed at the same size but we are not talking about orders of magnitude here. I think his point that the better iso performance is due to the larger size of the photosites and not the physical size of the sensor is right.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 24, 2013)

Sorry clever Dr. John.

I think you have joined a conversation in the wrong context. 

I'm a nice guy so I'll give you the chance to read back a bit.

You may choose to reword your response once you have the context.

Please think carefully about what magnification actually means. Think about what image circle an EF lens throws. Think a bit about how that circle might stay constant on a focal plane set at a specific flange depth, no matter the body that is (_hint hint clue coming up.._) cropping affects that circle.

Sheeet. I'm teaching my very clever granny to suck eggs here. If you think optical magnification and sensor cropping or display scaling are the same thing then... cripes.

To remind you, the context of my bugbear was



paul13walnut5 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Presumably this is because there was more light originally on the larger sensor.
> ...



Do you agree that the brightness of an image circle projected by a specific ef lens on a surface distance equal to the focal plane would be identical, in lab conditions, regardless of the sensor on the camera?

Have a terrific day.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 24, 2013)

Pi said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > Whats heavier a tonne a feathers or a tonne of coal?
> ...



I didn't ask about mass.


----------



## Pi (Nov 24, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > paul13walnut5 said:
> ...



And I did not say anything about mass. 



candc said:


> I think we all understand that the slightly cropped image from an aps-c sensor compared to that of a ff one must be magnified slightly more to be viewed at the same size but we are not talking about orders of magnitude here.



The linear size is 1.6x larger, the area is 2.56x larger, and log_2 of that is about 1.36 (stops). 



> I think his point that the better iso performance is due to the larger size of the photosites and not the physical size of the sensor is right.



This explains why the D800 has the noise performance of a crop camera and much worse than that of the D600. Wait...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> I think you have joined a conversation in the wrong context.
> 
> ...
> 
> Have a terrific day.



Yeah, my bad. Sorry for putting my oar in. 

Isn't it 3am for you? Get some sleep, man...


----------



## Pi (Nov 24, 2013)

candc said:


> You just proved your own point wrong, if the d800 has the same iso performance of a crop camera then its due to the size of the photosites which are the same size as those of a crop camera



And if it does not, did I prove _you _ wrong?


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 24, 2013)

Pi said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...



Ach, I misread you as being on about particle density. Silly me. But if you are talking about weight, as per the question, then you are wrong.


Can you then answer the conundrum about the projected image circle of any given EF lens being consistent no matter the camera attached to the lens. Will the image circle, regardless of what happens to it in the cameras electronics, setting for setting, be the same? The projected image circle only please. You have until the dartboard revolves....


----------



## candc (Nov 24, 2013)

If an image viewed at 100% and the individual pixels have better iso performance then it is due to their individual size and characteristics not from whichever sensor they were plucked from


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 24, 2013)

Pi said:


> This explains why the D800 has the noise performance of a crop camera and much worse than that of the D600. Wait...



Is the D800 43.5MP? (18MP APS-C scaled up) Is it 54MP? (24MP APS-C ala Nikon D3200 scaled up)

No it is not.


----------



## candc (Nov 24, 2013)

An image shot with the d800 in DX mode will have better iso performance than a canon aps-c camera also. Its due to Nikon doing a better job in that department right now not some phantom photon noise due to the sensor size

Edit: does the d800 have better per pixel iso performance than canon or Nikon aps-c cameras?


----------



## Pi (Nov 24, 2013)

candc said:


> If an image viewed at 100% and the individual pixels have better iso performance then it is due to their individual size and characteristics not from whichever sensor they were plucked from



I do not have a screen large enough to view a landscape at 100%. 

Don't you understand that the so called 100% view represents different magnifications of the same image? What sane people care about is noise at a reference view size. For example, I view my images full screen on whatever computer I am using.



> An image shot with the d800 in DX mode will have better iso performance than a canon aps-c camera also. Its due to Nikon doing a better job in that department right now not some phantom photon noise due to the sensor size



I guess Nikon failed to do such a good job with the D600/D610? Having larger pixels, they should have less noise, right? And how come the D800 has better noise than _Nikon_ crop cameras?

_ Phantom photon noise_? Let me guess, you think that Earth is flat, too?



paul13walnut5 said:


> Can you then answer the conundrum about the projected image circle of any given EF lens being consistent no matter the camera attached to the lens. Will the image circle, regardless of what happens to it in the cameras electronics, setting for setting, be the same? The projected image circle only please. You have until the dartboard revolves....



Yes, under the implicit assumptions, but so what? Google "photon noise", then google the webpage of Emil at U of Chicago. 



paul13walnut5 said:


> Is the D800 43.5MP? (18MP APS-C scaled up) Is it 54MP? (24MP APS-C ala Nikon D3200 scaled up)
> 
> No it is not.



Does the D600 have larger pixels? It does.


----------



## candc (Nov 24, 2013)

Pi said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > If an image viewed at 100% and the individual pixels have better iso performance then it is due to their individual size and characteristics not from whichever sensor they were plucked from
> ...



When you are comparing 100% crops you are comparing them on a per pixel basis


----------



## Pi (Nov 24, 2013)

It has been fun but I am done with this nonsense. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about this:

Effects of sensor size

_ The size of the image sensor, or effective light collection area per pixel sensor, is the largest determinant of signal levels that determine signal-to-noise ratio and hence apparent noise levels, assuming the aperture area is proportional to sensor area, or that the f-number or focal-plane illuminance is held constant. That is, for a constant f-number, the sensitivity of an imager scales roughly with the sensor area, so larger sensors typically create lower noise images than smaller sensors. In the case of images bright enough to be in the shot noise limited regime, when the image is scaled to the same size on screen, or printed at the same size, the pixel count makes little difference to perceptible noise levels – *the noise depends primarily on sensor area, not how this area is divided into pixels.* _

Emil Martinec, U. of Chicago:

_Bottom line: Among the important measures of image quality are signal-to-noise ratio of the capture process, and resolution. It was shown that for fixed sensor format, the light collection efficiency per unit area is *essentially independent of pixel size*, over a huge range of pixel sizes from 2 microns to over 8 microns, and is therefore independent of the number of megapixels. Noise performance per unit area was seen to be only weakly dependent on pixel size._

I should also refer to myself, too,  see my posts above.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 24, 2013)

Pi said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > Can you then answer the conundrum about the projected image circle of any given EF lens being consistent no matter the camera attached to the lens. Will the image circle, regardless of what happens to it in the cameras electronics, setting for setting, be the same? The projected image circle only please. You have until the dartboard revolves....
> ...



That's right about where I came in, fanks.


----------



## candc (Nov 24, 2013)

i went and took a look at dpr on the studio tool and i think the d800, 7100, and the 70d, all look about the same at iso 1600, the 5diii looks the best. the first 3 have about the same photosite size i think?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2013)

candc said:


> When you are comparing 100% crops you are comparing them on a per pixel basis



Ok, let's try that. At the risk of offending the CROSP*, below are a pair of images shown at 100%. One is from an 18 MP APS-C camera at ISO 3200. The other is from an 18 MP FF camera at ISO 6400. I'm having trouble telling which is which, the noise levels are so similar. 

Can anyone help me figure out which is which? : : : : : 


*Canon Rumors Obscene Squirrel Police


----------



## candc (Nov 24, 2013)

looked at another one at iso 6400 and skin tones and same thing i think, the2 nikons and the 70d about the same, 5diii the best


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 24, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > When you are comparing 100% crops you are comparing them on a per pixel basis
> ...





does he look offended?


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 24, 2013)

His ears pricked up earlier when I mentioned bollocks. I swear he was doing a wee swagger.


----------



## candc (Nov 24, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > When you are comparing 100% crops you are comparing them on a per pixel basis
> ...



viewed at 100% means that you are viewing individual pixel on your monitor correct? 1 to 1?


----------



## candc (Nov 24, 2013)

you know looking at those crops it struck me that they all look pretty similar but i think the 2 canons are better? maybe what gets argued here so much is really splitting hairs?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> does he look offended?



Depends…is he an African or European squirrel?


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 24, 2013)

Scottish. You can tell by the red hair. It's all the IrnBru.


----------



## candc (Nov 24, 2013)

i have been told, not so subtly that squirrel photos are banned here


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Scottish. You can tell by the red hair.



I had bright red hair when I was younger, and I'm not Scottish. Or who knows, maybe I am a wee bit - I've heard that all Irishmen are descended from kings thieves and whores.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 24, 2013)

candc said:


> i have been told, not so subtly that squirrel photos are banned here



I might have had something to do with that. Sorry. To you and squirrel lovers everywhere.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2013)

candc said:


> viewed at 100% means that you are viewing individual pixel on your monitor correct? 1 to 1?


"Whack" means different things to different people...but "viewed at 100%" should mean the same thing to everyone discussing digital images: one sensor pixel = one monitor pixel.


----------



## Pi (Nov 24, 2013)

candc said:


> i have been told, not so subtly that squirrel photos are banned here


Nobody can take away our freedom of expression!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 24, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> *Canon Rumors Obscene Squirrel Police


 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 24, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> does he look offended?


I don't know if he is offended or not ... but he seems to be a lot more decent and well mannered than the last guy you inflicted upon us (Rember?: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15358.45) ;D


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 24, 2013)

Aw nawwww! I've made a terrible mistake! Ididn't realise that was his, you know, saddlebags, I thought the little fella was just out for a play on his space hopper.

No wonder folk got ratty!


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 24, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > When you are comparing 100% crops you are comparing them on a per pixel basis
> ...



Is it not possible that we are seeing the difference between three years worth of technology here ?


----------



## Pi (Nov 24, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Is it not possible that we are seeing the difference between three years worth of technology here ?



For the same level of technology and for all major manufacturers (in terms of QE, Canon is just slightly behind unlike DR), shot noise levels are remarkably close for the same format, and the difference between APS-C and FF is too close to the predicted 1.35 stops, to be a pure coincidence. All this regardless of pixel size, believe it or not.


----------



## candc (Nov 24, 2013)

think of it like this:

the image sensor is like the autobahn and the pixels are like vehicles carrying light. a small pixel is like a citroen sm and a large pixel is like a semi tractor trailer

in order to carry the same amount of light it takes a lot more citroens and they get congested and bang into each other causing noise

the semi trailers have a bigger payload and can carry that light much more efficiently without all the congestion


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Is it not possible that we are seeing the difference between three years worth of technology here ?



I previously compared the 7D with the (older) 5DII, and came to the same conclusion. As I said, unless you're shooting at ISO 800 or less *and* need to print larger than 16x24"/A2 size, there's no advantage to an APS-C sensor other than cost (note, that's not to say there's no advantage to an APS-C _body_ - the 7D is better than the 5DII for birds, because the AF and frame rate outweigh the FF sensor advantage; the 5DIII trumps both).


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 24, 2013)

candc said:


> think of it like this:
> 
> the image sensor is like the autobahn and the pixels are like vehicles carrying light. a small pixel is like a citroen sm and a large pixel is like a semi tractor trailer
> 
> ...



The SM has a big boot though. And a maserati engine. And with its hydropneumatic suspension it can be raised and lowered to traverse rougher roads. And it's much nicer looking than a tractor. Maybe an H van is the way forward. What would an H van be in camera terms then?


----------



## candc (Nov 24, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > think of it like this:
> ...



an h van would be like the pixel on an aps-h sensor, sort of in between


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 24, 2013)

candc said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...



Right, yep, like your thinking, so if I threw a piaggio ape into the mix? And it's a cobbled back street in, say, vienna. Is that a bit like a compact camera?


----------



## candc (Nov 24, 2013)

i see your point, we either need small pixels with better technology like the citroen sm or bigger pixels like the tractor trailer


----------



## candc (Nov 24, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > paul13walnut5 said:
> ...



no, a compact camera is like a moped, it's small and noisy without much power, it will get you around but you don't want your friends to see you with it


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 24, 2013)

Ahhh! but the Piaggio is a moped essentially. More like a premium compact perhaps?


----------



## candc (Nov 24, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Ahhh! but the Piaggio is a moped essentially. More like a premium compact perhaps?



you are right, i would not mind my friends seeing me on one of those and it looks like it will give you a smoother ride and better performance than a moped


----------



## candc (Nov 24, 2013)

the important thing for everyone to remember is that its not important how wide the autobon is or the size of the vehicles traveling on it, whats important is that we are dealing with car metaphors and it seems you can solve anything that way.

all the best


----------



## Pi (Nov 24, 2013)

candc said:


> i see your point, we either need small pixels with better technology like the citroen sm or bigger pixels like the tractor trailer



I would think that the Citroen SM would be a pretty big pixel in EU?


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 24, 2013)

It's quite a big pixel anywhere I would imagine. Folk swoon over the DS. The SM is where it was at.


----------



## DJD (Nov 25, 2013)

The following link has been shared before. But as far as I'm concerned, the article is one of the best real world comparisons of a 5DII vs 7D IQ when reach limited. It's worth the read...

http://iwishicouldfly.com/iwishicouldfly/journal/html/020112b.html

Cheers,
DJD


----------



## candc (Nov 25, 2013)

DJD said:


> The following link has been shared before. But as far as I'm concerned, the article is one of the best real world comparisons of a 5DII vs 7D IQ when reach limited. It's worth the read...
> 
> http://iwishicouldfly.com/iwishicouldfly/journal/html/020112b.html
> 
> ...



thanks for posting, i will bookmark and point to it next time i get yelled at for suggesting you can get similar results shooting ff or aps-c


----------



## Pi (Nov 25, 2013)

candc said:


> DJD said:
> 
> 
> > The following link has been shared before. But as far as I'm concerned, the article is one of the best real world comparisons of a 5DII vs 7D IQ when reach limited. It's worth the read...
> ...



LOL! You missed the point of that comparison! 

Bookmark it so that you can look at it next time somebody suggests that crop cameras actually have better reach.


----------



## candc (Nov 25, 2013)

what i said was you can get similar results, i think that article shows exactly that


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2013)

candc said:


> DJD said:
> 
> 
> > The following link has been shared before. But as far as I'm concerned, the article is one of the best real world comparisons of a 5DII vs 7D IQ when reach limited. It's worth the read...
> ...



I've been saying that all along... At low ISO (above 800, although that depends on the cameras being considered), there is NO 'reach advantage' to using APS-C (unless you need to print very large). At higher ISOs, the cropped FF is better. 

Note that the linked page, and my statement above, apply in focal length limited situations. If you suggest that you can get the same results on FF and APS-C if you don't need to crop the FF image, you deserve to be yelled at...


----------



## unfocused (Nov 25, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I've been saying that all along...



So what about all those times you used to say that a 7D was the best tele-extender? Have you revised your opinion on that?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2013)

unfocused said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I've been saying that all along...
> ...



To some extent, yes. But…if you can keep the ISO low on the 7D (i.e., shooting in good light), it does give more MP. While the cropped FF image doesn't give better IQ at those low ISOs, it's not worse, either. However, if you'd be cropping the 7D image, you'll have to crop the FF image even more severely, and at some point you just don't have enough pixels. 

Also, mainly I referred to it as an 'optically perfect teleconverter' and that's still basically correct - you don't get additional distortion or CA when using a crop sensor. If you've got a supertele, the penalties for using a 1.4x TC are small, but on most other lenses (perhaps not the 70-200 II), you take a pretty significant optical hit. Cropping is better than a 1.4x TC on a 100-400L, for example. A teleconverter also slows down AF, too.


----------



## candc (Nov 25, 2013)

okay sounds reasonable. how about if we look at a real world example like the sigma 120-300 but we think its a bit short for a wildlife lens on a ff camera so instead of cropping or using a tc, lets we put it on a crop body instead. how about this also, if an image cropped from a ff body can be similar to one taken with the same lens on a crop body then is it possible that an image taken with a sharper faster but shorter lens on a crop body could be similar to one taken with a longer not quite as sharp or fast lens on a ff body?


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 25, 2013)

candc said:


> it possible that an image taken with a sharper faster but shorter lens on a crop body could be similar to one taken with a longer not quite as sharp of fast lens on a ff body?



Sure it's *possible*, but as you're referring to the real world rather unlikely because you'd have to screw a fast killer prime lens on the crop camera, say a 200L or 135L, and compare it to something crappy like a 70-300 non-L on ff.

But anyone who can afford a ff would use a better lens; the other way around is more likely if you're saving $$$ on the body to put it into a lens or use a crop as a backup camera but you're still paying and carrying glass your crop camera doesn't use.


----------



## rs (Nov 25, 2013)

candc said:


> okay sounds reasonable. how about if we look at a real world example like the sigma 120-300 but we think its a bit short for a wildlife lens on a ff camera so instead of cropping or using a tc, lets we put it on a crop body instead. how about this also, if an image cropped from a ff body can be similar to one taken with the same lens on a crop body then is it possible that an image taken with a sharper faster but shorter lens on a crop body could be similar to one taken with a longer not quite as sharp or fast lens on a ff body?


Like comparing the excellent 135/2 lens on crop (equivalent to a 216/3.2) to the cheaper 200/2.8 on FF?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=245&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

No


----------



## candc (Nov 25, 2013)

how about the sigma 18-35 f/1.8? what do you think that would compare to on ff?


----------



## rs (Nov 25, 2013)

candc said:


> how about the sigma 18-35 f/1.8? what do you think that would compare to on ff?


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=854&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=786&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Even the cheap sub-standard Sigma 24-70 has the 18-35 beaten at some settings. This Tamron adds VC at a similar price, and the Canon is optically even better. All three have a broader zoom range.


----------



## Pi (Nov 25, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Also, mainly I referred to it as an 'optically perfect teleconverter' and that's still basically correct - you don't get additional distortion or CA when using a crop sensor.



Distortion - no, but additional CA - not so sure. TDP shows increased CA with crop bodies with the same lens in some cases, and decrease in other. 

My experience, and TDP, show that teleconverters offer better IQ than cropped sensors in general. This is very much lens (and center-vs.-borders) dependent; and indeed, the 70-200 II is phenomenal in this respect.


----------



## candc (Nov 25, 2013)

i took a look at dxo mark and the sigma 24-70 is pretty good but i would go with the tamron. put it on a 6d and you have a nice combo without breaking the bank. it does have better range than the sigma 18-35 on a crop body but they seem pretty similar otherwise.


----------



## dufflover (Nov 26, 2013)

So the real question is at what point do you print large or screen with enough DPI/PPI to need the extra resolution?
A crude example is I'm sure back in the day of "32kb RAM is enough", many people would have said 480 lines present on a DVD was plenty. Now they just look crap on computer LCD screens lol.


----------



## candc (Nov 26, 2013)

the 6d and the 70d have the same resolution


----------



## Pi (Nov 26, 2013)

dufflover said:


> So the real question is at what point do you print large or screen with enough DPI/PPI to need the extra resolution?



The answer changes quickly. Until recently, most monitors, even the state of the art ones, were 2mp. I work now on 4 to 5mp monitors, and while they are very good, they are not really state of art. I see thing that I have not seen before in my photos, both good and bad (softness, etc.).


----------



## Pi (Nov 26, 2013)

candc said:


> the 6d and the 70d have the same resolution



Unfortunately for you, they need lenses.


----------



## candc (Nov 26, 2013)

well thats what i just pointed to, the 6d tamron 24-70 combo and the 70d sigma 18-35 combo


----------



## Pi (Nov 26, 2013)

candc said:


> well thats what i just pointed to, the 6d tamron 24-70 combo and the 70d sigma 18-35 combo



But then the crop combo becomes soft as a jelly fish. How many times do you need to be reminded of this?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 26, 2013)

candc said:


> well thats what i just pointed to, the 6d tamron 24-70 combo and the 70d sigma 18-35 combo



What if you need 100mm FF-equivalent? What if you need 300mm? What if you want a DoF equivalent to f/1.8 or wider on FF with the framing of 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, etc.? What if you need to shoot at ISO 6400?


----------



## candc (Nov 26, 2013)

if a combo has the same resolution and about the same sharpness then how can you claim one is "soft as jellyfish"?


----------



## candc (Nov 26, 2013)

if you need 100mm equivalent i would go with the ef-s 60 its very good, for a 300mm eq i use the sigma 120-300 zoom, you can't get a 1.8ff equivalent dof on aps-c and iso performance is better on ff so you need to use faster lenses in bad light


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 26, 2013)

candc said:


> if you need 100mm equivalent i would go with the ef-s 60 its very good



But the old 100 non-L macro on FF is better, as is the 100/2.



candc said:


> for a 300mm eq i use the sigma 120-300 zoom



But the old and far cheaper 300mm f/4L IS on FF is better.



candc said:


> you can't get a 1.8ff equivalent dof on aps-c



So, you're SOL.



candc said:


> iso performance is better on ff so you need to use faster lenses in bad light



You can use an f/1.2-1.4 lens on APS-C, and get close to the 1.5-2-stop better ISO performance that you get at f/2.8 on FF - and on FF you'd have the flexibility to use zoom lenses ranging from 16-200mm for Canon, and longer with the Sigma.



You can argue to the cows come home and beyond, ask all the leading questions you want, but the bottom line is that the best you can do on APS-C is to _sometimes_ be as good as FF for IQ, in a _very small_ number of shooting scenarios and/or with a _very limited_ complement of lenses.

The 70D is a good camera. Go take some pictures!


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 26, 2013)

candc said:


> for a 300mm eq i use the sigma 120-300 zoom



You can't, it doesn't reach 300mm  and the missing focal length at the wide end also multiplies with the crop factor.


----------



## candc (Nov 26, 2013)

well now we are getting somewhere. at least we are agreeing that there are some fair comparisons that can be made which is better than blanket statements like "anything shot with a crop body will look like it was taken with a cheap cellphone with a coca-cola bottle for a lens"

i would love to go take some pictures but everything is brown and gray, it's dark when i leave in the morning and dark when i get home. of course its been cloudy all the time too so i can't even try some milky way shots. oh well maybe we will get some snow soon. i like to go for photo walks then

all the best


----------



## candc (Nov 26, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > for a 300mm eq i use the sigma 120-300 zoom
> ...



he was asking about 300mm ff equivalent


----------



## Pi (Nov 26, 2013)

candc said:


> i would love to go take some pictures but everything is brown and gray, it's dark when i leave in the morning and dark when i get home.



That would not be a problem if you owned an FF camera.


----------



## candc (Nov 26, 2013)

Pi said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > i would love to go take some pictures but everything is brown and gray, it's dark when i leave in the morning and dark when i get home.
> ...



And the canon 50 f/1 to go with it, now that's a combo that I would love to have


----------



## unfocused (Nov 26, 2013)

candc said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...



Silly kids. You need a Nikon Df so you can sit around the campfire at night, fiddling with knobs and experiencing pure photography.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 26, 2013)

unfocused said:


> You need a Nikon Df ... and experiencing pure photography.


SACRILEGE 
;D ;D ;D


----------



## vscd (Nov 26, 2013)

This is a pretty long thread.... and it all started with the question:

>Why not L lenses for crops ?

..because, via definition a L-Lense has to be usable on the full frame, while EF-S isn't.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 26, 2013)

vscd said:


> >Why not L lenses for crops ?
> ..because, via definition a L-Lense has to be usable on the full frame, while EF-S isn't.


 ??? which definition?


----------



## vscd (Nov 26, 2013)

Back in the 1990's I read some book from Canon where this sentence was written, they planned not to mix up the line from fullformat with aps-c. They wrote that a lense without the "L"-Designation wasn't a bad lense, *but *IF* you buy a L-lense you can be sure the lense is working without any disability*. If Canon would make L-Lenses for APS-C you have to know which one will work on your Fullframe and which one will fail. I think this is something we all don't want, do we? There is nothing wrong with normal lenses, some APS-C Lenses are in the same optical league like the 17-55 2.8 IS, some (fullframe-)lenses like the 75-300 IS even "invented" the optical stabilisation without beeing designated as "L". 

In this aspect I like the approach from Nikon, where I can use DX Lenses on FX, too. One important factor for the wideangle "L"-Lenses is the ability to be sharp in the fullframe-corners, which APS-C won't use or even care about. 

So the only thing I believe is that someone is missing the red ring on the lense to show that he's the boss...


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 27, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > >Why not L lenses for crops ?
> ...



+1

Define me anything about an L lens other than a red ring.

I know I am flogging a dead horse here, I know I'm being unreasonably pedantic, but as a past owner of some quite different L lenses (24 TS-E f3.5L, 17-40 f4L, 200mm f2.8 & currently, 70-200 f2.8L) I can't pinpoint a single tangible feature or specification that defines L.

I worked in camera retail for a good few years as well, although a few years back now, and I can't recall any universal function, feature or design that constituted L.

If a lens is good, it doesn't need an L. We need more good EF lenses generally, and the great thing is that these will fit any body. We don't particularly need more, more expensive lenses.

The new 55-250 STM Ef-s is reportedly a step up from an already good predecessor, is bang on the money, would folks pay $100 or £50 for a metal mount? $200 more on top of that for an enclosed non extending design?

If folk absolutley need the AF performance, if folk need the durability, if folk need the weather sealing... then they probably aren't shooting on APS-C in any case. And I say that as a 7D owner. 

Ok the 7D and mooted 7D2 are grey areas. What do rebel users and M users want? Expensive heavy top end gear or gear that helps them expand within reasonable parameters for very reasonable costs? At the moment thats a choice they have. I plan to stick with APS-C for the forseeable future and I see absolutely no benefit at all to an EF-s optimised 'L' lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 27, 2013)

[quote author=Canon USA]
Highly regarded among professional photographers, Canon L-series lenses are distinguished by a bold red ring around the outer barrel. What makes them truly distinctive, however, is their remarkable optical performance — the result of sophisticated Canon technologies, such as Ultra-low Dispersion (UD) glass, Fluorite and Aspherical elements, and Super Spectra Multi Coating.[/quote]


----------



## candc (Nov 27, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > vscd said:
> ...



I have read some good things about the new 55-250 and would like to try one out. I recently bought an sl1 18-55stm kit for $538 as a gift for my daughter. I took a few test shots with it before I sent it to her and I have to say I am impressed. The new 55-250 would be a nice companion lens and all for 800 bucks or so.

Anyway: the L moniker is for "luxury" according to canon. So if they don't consider ef-s lenses in that category then it may be good thing for people who are paying for them?


----------



## Pi (Nov 27, 2013)

candc said:


> Anyway: the L moniker is for "luxury" according to canon. So if they don't consider ef-s lenses in that category then it may be good thing for people who are paying for them?



The example with the 17-55 and the 24-105; and the 10-22 and the 17-40 shows that you do not really pay less but you do get less in terms of build quality.


----------



## candc (Nov 27, 2013)

Those are good examples of good quality l lenses at a very reasonable price. The 10-22 I think is better opticly but the 17-40 is defiantly a better build quality. The 24-105 is a bargain any way you look at it.


----------



## vscd (Nov 27, 2013)

> Define me anything about an L lens other than a red ring



Build quality.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 27, 2013)

vscd said:


> > Define me anything about an L lens other than a red ring
> 
> 
> Build quality.



In addition to that, my personal definition would include that L lenses have good iq wide open on ff - maybe not from edge to edge on (ultra) wide angle, but good enough not to worry about stopping down all the time like with budget lenses.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 27, 2013)

vscd said:


> > Define me anything about an L lens other than a red ring
> 
> 
> 
> Build quality.



Plenty of well built cheaper non L lenses. The non L TSE's and MPE are tanks. The USM EF primes are on a par with the likes of the 200mm f2.8 and 135 f2.0.



Marsu42 said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > > Define me anything about an L lens other than a red ring
> ...



Yep, but in a cropped sensor context, we are discussing whether there is a need for EF-s L lenses.

I sold my 17-40 as, optically at least, the 18-55 IS mk1 was quite a bit better than it, on APS-C obviously. I don't know that IQ is strictly speaking always a parameter. I also know of a few cheapies or non-Ls that perform pretty well even wide open.

So thats not unique to L's.



neuroanatomist said:


> [quote author=Canon USA]
> Highly regarded among professional photographers, Canon L-series lenses are distinguished by a bold red ring around the outer barrel. What makes them truly distinctive, however, is their remarkable optical performance — the result of sophisticated Canon technologies, such as Ultra-low Dispersion (UD) glass, Fluorite and Aspherical elements, and Super Spectra Multi Coating.


[/quote]

Yep. I read that marketing schpeil. _'What makes them truly distinctive, however, is their remarkable optical performance'_ yet there are non-L's that out-perform or match equivalent L's. The use of _'such as'_ supports my point.

There are other lenses with UD and Aspherical elements, and not every L uses flourite elements.

I have a set of expectations that go along with spending the extra money on an L lens. And with the exception of the 17-40, my expectations have been met or exceeded. But to me, that is all that L means.

And to go back to the OP's debate, I therfore don't think that there is any need for 'L' ef-s lenses, as L doesn't actually define anything.


----------



## dufflover (Nov 27, 2013)

I'm very happy at how the recent lenses from Canon have performed. I mean with the age of better computing and what not I know "better performance" isn't always because of "better effort" from Canon, but regardless, I was always worried at the back of my mind that eventually Canon would eventually stop trying with lens performance with non-L's because, well, they would probably get away with it looking at the forums. Some posts/threads/forums rave on as if the _only_ sharp decent lenses are L-lenses. Or to flip it around, Canon cheap out and make $#!% non-L lenses, and I bet more people would blame the buyers for not using L's than the company for making such poor value lenses.

But as Duffman said, this is not the case, making the previous paragraph, a complete waste .... "OH YEAH!"


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 27, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > [quote author=Canon USA]
> > Highly regarded among professional photographers, Canon L-series lenses are distinguished by a bold red ring around the outer barrel. What makes them truly distinctive, however, is their remarkable optical performance — the result of sophisticated Canon technologies, such as Ultra-low Dispersion (UD) glass, Fluorite and Aspherical elements, and Super Spectra Multi Coating.



Yep. I read that marketing schpeil. _'What makes them truly distinctive, however, is their remarkable optical performance'_ yet there are non-L's that out-perform or match equivalent L's. The use of _'such as'_ supports my point.

There are other lenses with UD and Aspherical elements, and not every L uses flourite elements.

I have a set of expectations that go along with spending the extra money on an L lens. And with the exception of the 17-40, my expectations have been met or exceeded. But to me, that is all that L means.

And to go back to the OP's debate, I therfore don't think that there is any need for 'L' ef-s lenses, as L doesn't actually define anything. 
[/quote]

I agree that there's not a firm 'definition' of what comprises an L-series feature set, there are a few points worth making. First is time - lens designs span many years. You mention the 135L - that lens was released in 1996 and is still 'current'. If I may be permitted a car analogy, for the base model Honda Civic in 1996, air conditioning was optional and power windows/locks were not available; on the 2013 base model Civic, those features are standard. 

Second, there are differences beyond just the top line specs. For example, you mentioned aspherical lenses – there are actually four different types of aspherical elements that Canon uses. In decending order of quality (and cost), they are:

1. ground and polished glass aspherical lens element.
2. molded glass aspherical lens element.
3. molded plastic aspherical lens element produced by a high-precision molding technology.
4. replica aspherical lens element, ultraviolet-light-hardening resin layer on a spherical glass lens element.

L-series Lenses tend to use the first two types, where as non-L lenses tend to use aspherical elements from further down the list, but again there are no strict rules.

So, overall I guess I'd say that "what makes an L lens" is a gestalt sort of thing.


----------



## Pi (Nov 27, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> I sold my 17-40 as, optically at least, the 18-55 IS mk1 was quite a bit better than it, on APS-C obviously. I don't know that IQ is strictly speaking always a parameter.



It is but on the format it was designed for.


----------



## vscd (Nov 27, 2013)

I would go further...

...when a L-Lense is released, there is no better Lense from Canon available in the same focalrange. This doesn't mean that a new EF-Lense isn't capable to beat an older L-Lense-Design.

For example a good comparision is the 100mm 2.8 and the 100mm 2.8 L IS. On the optical formular, both are nearly identical and there is no need to upgrade to the "L"-Lense if you just need a Macro. The difference between both are features like a 9 Blade Aperture, Image Stabilization, weathersealing, LensHood or even a leatherbag. You don't need those features to get a picture but you will appreciate them if you use the lense more regularly. This is called "luxury" in some terms. So, the meaning of "L" is to extend the normal lense to something more "professionall" or to get around the budgetplanning and lowcost-hunters. 

If you buy a Carl Zeiss Lense, you always get an "L" Lense price and quality, but you won't get something in normal price-ranges. Canon gives you the choice... budget or as it was meant to be.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 28, 2013)

vscd said:


> For example a good comparision is the 100mm 2.8 and the 100mm 2.8 L IS. On the optical formular, both are nearly identical and there is no need to upgrade to the "L"-Lense if you just need a Macro.



The non-L has more CA wide open and the L is a tad sharper - but as you pointed out nothing to write home about and it's rather unlikely to get this with macro, it's matters more for dual use which is also the reason the L has the focus limiter switch.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=107&Camera=736&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=674&Sample=0&CameraComp=736&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 28, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Yep, but in a cropped sensor context, we are discussing whether there is a need for EF-s L lenses.



I think there's a need for EF-S prime lenses, if only because they would be significantly lighter than their EF counterparts. There's also a need for weather-sealed EF-S lenses. Whether you want to then call them "L" lenses or not is a purely marketing decision.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Nov 28, 2013)

Wading in....

There are very few, if any, lenses that can fully resolve corner to corner the precision of the current batch of sensors. Even the $4000 zeiss is does not fully resolve a 1dx sensor - don't even think about the d800

With the pixel size of the APC sensor, (heaven forbid the 12 mp micro sensors on phones & P&S or if Canon just went FF w/ the 70d sensor) all the glass has to get better to meet the capabilities of the current fleet of sensors. One need only compare the fuzziness of ISO images on TDP between a FF and APC sensor - pixel size does matter for the same framing/effective focal length. (composition is different between APC & FF equivalents and Brian at TDP has a great comparison in one of his reviews relative to background vs foreground - just wish I could remember which one. oooof I am getting old)

So back to the subject at hand. L glass for the APC sensor size. Sigma 18-35, canon (perhaps now sigma) 24-105, canon 55-250, represents a lot of image quality, overlap so you aren't changing out a lens every 30 seconds, and not a whole lot of money.


----------



## vscd (Nov 28, 2013)

Fast primes for APS-C? ...for example the new Canon 24mm or 28mm IS is some kind of "L" Lenses for APS-C in my opinion. It has fantastic optics, stands for standard focal range on APS-C (Equiv 38.4/44.8), has IS and is listed for a higher price actually. It has no "L" designation, but I think this is aimed to the APS-C users


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 28, 2013)

vscd said:


> Fast primes for APS-C? ...for example the new Canon 24mm or 28mm IS is some kind of "L" Lenses for APS-C in my opinion. It has fantastic optics, stands for standard focal range on APS-C (Equiv 38.4/44.8), has IS and is listed for a higher price actually. It has no "L" designation, but I think this is aimed to the APS-C users



Sure, you can use EF lenses on an APS-C camera. That still misses the point, which is that an EF-S prime would be about two-thirds the size of an EF prime at the same focal length. Folks who shoot solely with crop bodies are carrying around a lot of extra weight and bulk if they carry EF primes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> Sure, you can use EF lenses on an APS-C camera. That still misses the point, which is that an EF-S prime would be *about two-thirds the size* of an EF prime at the same focal length. Folks who shoot solely with crop bodies are carrying around a lot of extra weight and bulk if they carry EF primes.



What's the basis for that? The only current EF-S prime is the 60/2.8 macro, and it's bigger and heavier than the 50/1.4 and 50/2.5 macro, and the 85/1.8 is similar in size and 25% heavier. Or maybe you're comparing the Sigma 30/1.4 DC to the Canon 35/1.4L, not really a fair comparison, IMO.


----------



## Zv (Nov 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, you can use EF lenses on an APS-C camera. That still misses the point, which is that an EF-S prime would be *about two-thirds the size* of an EF prime at the same focal length. Folks who shoot solely with crop bodies are carrying around a lot of extra weight and bulk if they carry EF primes.
> ...



There are plenty of "light" EF lenses - let me see now, there's the 40mm f/2.8 pancake (don't get much lighter than that), the 35mm f/2 and newer IS version, the 28mm 1.8, the plastic (not so) fantastic 50mm f/1.8II, the 50mm f/1.4 isn't that heavy either and then there's the 24&28 f/2.8IS are quite small and compact too. The 85mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2 are relatively light too. 

I really don't see why we need more lighter EF-S lenses when there already are a bunch of very good EF lenses that cover a wide range of focal lengths and work on all cameras. 

To me light = will break easily, like the 50mm f/1.8II. I don't want that. I'd rather have something with some weight for counterbalance and sturdiness. 

And really, are the crop body users carrying a lot of unnecessary weight?? I don't think a couple of extra grams is going to make any significant difference. If they are that feeble maybe they ought to leave the DSLRs to the big adults and just use their little toy lego camera instead.


----------



## vscd (Nov 29, 2013)

> I really don't see why we need more lighter EF-S lenses when there already are a bunch of very good EF lenses that cover a wide range of focal lengths and work on all cameras.



I second that. There are already some (really!) fantastic EF_Primes out there like the 40mm 2.8. You can't make it much smaller even if you want to.

The thought of making "smaller" Lenses for APS-C only (on Canonbodies) is a wrong one, because the Bayonett (and so the diameter) plus the Flange focal distance are the same. If you design a new Camera with a smaller bayonett like an EOS-M you could get advantages in size, but as the EF-S is just a trimmed EF-mount... you get all the downsides but no real gain. 

The only chance is to get shorter lenses if they reach into the mirrorbox.


----------



## dufflover (Nov 29, 2013)

I don't think you can really count the Canon pancake lenses as being an example given their respective FLs (40mm on mirrored bodies, 22mm on mirrorless) allow it for those systems.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 29, 2013)

vscd said:


> The only chance is to get shorter lenses if they reach into the mirrorbox.



The EF-S 10-22mm does just that.


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > The only chance is to get shorter lenses if they reach into the mirrorbox.
> ...



And it's not just about length. Output pupil diameter at a given focal length is proportional to the lens diameter. An EF-S lens can get away with a smaller exit pupil (smaller sensor to cover), so you can make the lens diameter smaller and use less glass for each element, which translates to a much lighter lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 29, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> And it's not just about length. Output pupil diameter at a given focal length is proportional to the lens diameter. An EF-S lens can get away with a smaller exit pupil (smaller sensor to cover), so you can make the lens diameter smaller and use less glass for each element, which translates to a much lighter lens.



That's a nice theory (although it doesn't apply to all lens design types), but does it work that way in practice? Do you have any evidence to support your earlier statement:



neuroanatomist said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, you can use EF lenses on an APS-C camera. That still misses the point, which is that an EF-S prime would be *about two-thirds the size* of an EF prime at the same focal length. Folks who shoot solely with crop bodies are carrying around a lot of extra weight and bulk if they carry EF primes.
> ...



Another example: the Nikon 35/1.8 DX is the same weight, is longer and has a larger diameter than the 35/2 FX lens. 

I think the bottom line is that other design considerations (more elements for better optical correction, glass vs. plastic elements, etc.) will mostly trump the theoretical size/weight advantages of the smaller image circle.


----------



## candc (Nov 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > And it's not just about length. Output pupil diameter at a given focal length is proportional to the lens diameter. An EF-S lens can get away with a smaller exit pupil (smaller sensor to cover), so you can make the lens diameter smaller and use less glass for each element, which translates to a much lighter lens.
> ...



another good example is the sigma 50-150 dc lens which is supposed to be equivalent to the 70-200 ff version. they are the same size and weight, in fact i think they use the same barrel and most other parts.


----------



## WPJ (Nov 29, 2013)

Any L lens will perform just as good is not better on a crop as you won't get as much of the soft corners people always complain about.

it all comes down to put it on your body, if you like the field of view it offers shoot. If not change glass and try again, L or non L


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> What's the basis for that? The only current EF-S prime is the 60/2.8 macro, and it's bigger and heavier than the 50/1.4 and 50/2.5 macro, and the 85/1.8 is similar in size and 25% heavier. Or maybe you're comparing the Sigma 30/1.4 DC to the Canon 35/1.4L, not really a fair comparison, IMO.



You'll notice I said "for a given focal length". To be completely precise, I should have said, "for a given focal length, maximum aperture, and minimum focusing distance". You can't really compare apples to oranges.

That said, making the lens smaller and lighter is just one possible option, obtained by using a similar number of elements and a similar design. Alternatively, instead of making the lens smaller and lighter, you could instead choose to provide a larger maximum aperture, add macro capabilities, or correct for CA and other artifacts more completely (which is arguably more critical when you're dealing with the higher pixel density on crop bodies). Either way, there's still a benefit over the full-frame glass.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 29, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> You'll notice I said "for a given focal length". To be completely precise, I should have said, "for a given focal length, maximum aperture, and minimum focusing distance". You can't really compare apples to oranges.
> 
> That said, making the lens smaller and lighter is just one possible option, obtained by using a similar number of elements and a similar design. Alternatively, instead of making the lens smaller and lighter, you could instead choose to provide a larger maximum aperture, add macro capabilities, or correct for CA and other artifacts more completely (which is arguably more critical when you're dealing with the higher pixel density on crop bodies). Either way, there's still a benefit over the full-frame glass.



Perhaps...but the point seems rather moot for the original discussion concerning EF-S primes, since there's only one. Also, I wasn't questioning that an EF-S lens could be smaller and lighter than the same focal length/aperture in an EF lens, but rather your figure of 'two-thirds' the size. 



WPJ said:


> Any L lens will perform just as good is not better on a crop as you won't get as much of the soft corners people always complain about.



I disagree. First, you have to take the sensor into account - you'll get better IQ out of the combination of L-lens and FF sensor than that lens on APS-C, even considering the soft corners of an UWA zoom. Second, an L-lens on crop won't necessarily outperform an EF-S lens - for example, the EF-S 17-55mm is better than both the 17-40L and 24-105L on the same crop body.


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 29, 2013)

vscd said:


> I second that. There are already some (really!) fantastic EF_Primes out there like the 40mm 2.8. You can't make it much smaller even if you want to.



Well, you probably could, but then you would have to choose between being able to manually focus the lens and being able to grip it to attach it and remove it. 

But seriously, yeah, that's one nice piece of engineering, IMO. Making medium to wide lenses smaller than that almost certainly isn't very useful. Making long lenses smaller, however, is useful if you can pull it off without losing too much image quality.




WPJ said:


> Any L lens will perform just as good is not better on a crop as you won't get as much of the soft corners people always complain about.



That is true only if the crop body's resolution is areally proportionate to that of the full-frame sensor—that is, if the crop body is the equivalent of cropping a full-frame shot down to APS-C size. In practice, however, that's almost never the case, because nobody wants to buy an 8MP crop body these days.

A given lens can only resolve features up to its angular (spatial) resolution. So suppose you have a lens whose resolution is barely good enough for a full-frame sensor. Assuming that the crop sensor has the same number of pixels as the full-frame sensor, the pixels are smaller which means that the circle of confusion covers more pixels on the crop sensor. As a result, if you use foot zooming to get an identical shot on a crop body and a full-frame body (ignoring parallax differences for the moment), the full-frame shot would be, on the whole, sharper than the same shot taken on the crop body.

The fact that you're using the sharper, center part of the lens mitigates that difference somewhat, of course. The result, as I understand it, is that the corners tend to be sharper, but the center is much less sharp. Of course, if the center of the lens is way sharper than it needs to be for a full-frame body, then you'll get a sharper image overall. In practice, this is usually not the case, however, because when you design a lens, you can only get more sharpness by giving up something else (e.g. by making the objective lens bigger and bulkier, which also makes the lens and filters more expensive).




neuroanatomist said:


> Perhaps...but the point seems rather moot for the original discussion concerning EF-S primes, since there's only one. Also, I wasn't questioning that an EF-S lens could be smaller and lighter than the same focal length/aperture in an EF lens, but rather your figure of 'two-thirds' the size.



My point was that you *could* make them that much smaller, not that any manufacturer necessarily would.  It's probably better to compromise between making them smaller and increasing the resolution.


----------



## RichM (Nov 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I disagree. First, you have to take the sensor into account - you'll get better IQ out of the combination of L-lens and FF sensor than that lens on APS-C, even considering the soft corners of an UWA zoom. Second, an L-lens on crop won't necessarily outperform an EF-S lens - for example, the EF-S 17-55mm is better than both the 17-40L and 24-105L on the same crop body.



Since I don't have the EF-S 17-55, I can't comment on that lens. I have read that it is quite impressive, and some argue that it should be the EF-S 17-55*L* . However I am pleased with both the 17-40L and the 24-105L on my 7d, and enjoy the added bonus that I can use either on my 5d3 as well.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 29, 2013)

Surely there are plenty of L lenses for crop bodies. Just snap one on and start shooting.


----------



## WPJ (Nov 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > You'll notice I said "for a given focal length". To be completely precise, I should have said, "for a given focal length, maximum aperture, and minimum focusing distance". You can't really compare apples to oranges.
> ...


----------

