500D/550D with L - lens
- Thread starter ZW1983
- Start date
My friend (who is smaller sized than me) finds it tough to balance a 24-105 on his 550D but personally I find it ok. If you can work your way around the weight issue, then I don't think there is any real restrictions/cons since I feel that different combinations fit the needs of different people. To each his own.
tried my friend's 350D w/ grip + 24-105 today...not bad. quite alright with me. gotta balance the camera with the left hand lor. the lens is definitely heavier than the body. the grip does help a lot.
engrmariano
Senior Member
yeah, we were all "once a noob" and thats a fact...:thumbsup:
but being a noob doesnt mean that you are restricted to do a research on your own.:nono:
this "FF lenses on cropped bodies" have been discussed to death since D30(or what ever cropped bodies came 1st) era...
but being a noob doesnt mean that you are restricted to do a research on your own.:nono:
this "FF lenses on cropped bodies" have been discussed to death since D30(or what ever cropped bodies came 1st) era...
liauwsiauwlong
New Member
lioneldude
Senior Member
Just that you would have to consider the price tag of an L lens and using only the middle portion of the lens on a 1.6x body. Are you fully ultilising the effective lens area? Will you upgrade to full frame?
mimik07
Senior Member
?? :dunno:
rocketfuel168
New Member
Hi,
I am using a 70-200mm F2,8L on my 450D and it work fine. Just need to get used to the weight.
As for the 'L' series lens, yes, they do cost a bit more, but it is a good investment if you are serious into photograhy. The 'L' will fit both 1.6 crop and Full Frame Body.
Buy only what you need for the type of pictures you are into.
Just my two humble cents
cheers
I am using a 70-200mm F2,8L on my 450D and it work fine. Just need to get used to the weight.
As for the 'L' series lens, yes, they do cost a bit more, but it is a good investment if you are serious into photograhy. The 'L' will fit both 1.6 crop and Full Frame Body.
Buy only what you need for the type of pictures you are into.
Just my two humble cents
cheers
sci80899
Senior Member
How is fully using the lens area equivalent to better images?? I've only heard of ppl fully using the effective resolution of their sensor, never the lens.
Furthermore, there are L lens (eg 70-200 F2.8 Mk I) which are said to have corner softness mounted on a FF.
Anyway to TS: using a L lens on a cropped body is no way 'under-utilizing' the lens. I just don't see how it can be.
sci80899
Senior Member
I don't think it's necessarily better too, it just depends on what the photographer needs and how he uses his gear (Example for wide angles, there are no L lens which offers anything 24mm or less on a cropped body, but for a FF user, he has choices like 16-35L, 24-70L, etc...).
lioneldude
Senior Member
What I meant is that by paying so much for a L lens but you only ultilise the middle of it. Are you able to fully ultilise paying 3k for a 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM mark I only to use it on a 500/550D? How about paying 2.4k for a 16-35 f/2.8L USM mark II just to use it on a crop body sensor? It's abit waste when you could find cheaper alternatives right?
I did use that lens on my old 450D but since then i've upgraded to a 5D2 and found a much better way to ultilise the L lens. I have got much better sharpness, image quality, etc. The color etc was so much better on the 5D2. Of course I haven't compared it to a 550D but that's for the TS to try out.
lioneldude
Senior Member
Just to illustrate simply, on a 550D:
70-200 lenses worth it - you get a 112-320mm equivalent focal length with constant aperture, much better IQ than the 70-300 and 75-300.
16-35 not worth - there are better alternatives for UWA on crop bodies.
17-40 - since this is abt $1.2k, it is relatively cheap but the IQ isn't as good as the EF-S 17-55.
70-200 lenses worth it - you get a 112-320mm equivalent focal length with constant aperture, much better IQ than the 70-300 and 75-300.
16-35 not worth - there are better alternatives for UWA on crop bodies.
17-40 - since this is abt $1.2k, it is relatively cheap but the IQ isn't as good as the EF-S 17-55.
sci80899
Senior Member
First you said L lens on a cropped body would be 'under utilized', now you're saying 70-200 is fine.
Based on your statement above, are you saying the 17-40 has less IQ than the 17-55 on a cropped body because it doesn't use the corner of the lens for imaging? In fact, it's often easier for lens makers to achieve centre sharpness than corner sharpness.
Just one example. Consider the 1D Mk IV. It has a sensor with crop factor of 1.3. So based on your statement, if I were to mount a 24-70L onto a 1D Mk IV, I would be "under utilizing" the lens less than if it was on a 5D Mk 2, because it's not FF and doesn't use the outer area (corner) of the glass??
So according to your statement all the 7D and 1D Mk IV users should never buy any L lens if they have no intention of going FF?
lioneldude
Senior Member
No. You may buy.
but you would like to pair your 1D mark IV with a 5D mark II if you wish. Buy as much as you can. If you can't just take installments.
but you would like to pair your 1D mark IV with a 5D mark II if you wish. Buy as much as you can. If you can't just take installments.
YuccaTheFlower
New Member
You would find that most L lenses are much sharper than used on full frame bodies. Cause the little softening at the corners have been cropped away. So overall you get extremely sharp pictures. But keep in mind, L lenses are mostly sharp throughout the whole picture. So effectively, its like buying an expensive sports car, but you cant go above the speed limit of 90km/h.
Hmm, hope this analogy helps
Hmm, hope this analogy helps
