L lens on a crop sensor: I'm going to purchase an 80D and was considering purchasing a 70-200 2.8 lens, but read that the L lens would not be more effective in producing a better image...

chocofurniture Loc: Chocowinity NC

I'm going to purchase an 80D and was considering purchasing a 70-200 2.8 lens, but read that the L lens would not be more effective in producing a better image than a EF-S lens. Does anyone have any experience with that combination? Thanks

MikeMck Loc: Southern Maryland on the Bay

I have a 24-105 L lens on an 80D and the images are tack sharp. I have also used a 70-200 F4.0L lens on a crop Canon camera and the images are superior to a non-L lens. Good luck

chocofurniture Loc: Chocowinity NC

Thanks for the info.

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

I use the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II on my 7d Mark II with excellent results. Also, if you ever decide to go FF, the 70-200 will be able to go with you.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I would imagine the L would be better.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Canon 100-400 on a crop body - great results
Canon 70-200 F4 L on a crop body - great results.
Canon 135 f2 L on a crop body - great results.

Keep in mind that some EF-S lenses do not focus all that quickly and may not be sharp wide open (this is from personal experience).

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

chocofurniture wrote:

I'm going to purchase an 80D and was considering purchasing a 70-200 2.8 lens, but read that the L lens would not be more effective in producing a better image than a EF-S lens. Does anyone have any experience with that combination? Thanks

The L will be bigger and heavier than the EF-S, but they are Canon's pro line and are sharper/higher IQ and more rugged. The sensor of the 80D will only use the center portion of the image thrown by the lens (sweet spot) and thus be extra sharp out to the corners. I use a 24-105L and 100-400L on my 7DII. That 80D has the new generation of sensor and should be even better.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

I do not have that specific combination, but will offer an opinion. I use an APS-C camera and have adopted the following philosophy, I just need the money to implement it properly. For ultra wide or wide angle lenses I use EF-S lenses, EF-S 10 - 22mm zoom and EF-S 18 - 135 STM. For anything with a longer range I use EF lenses, and my wish list includes the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM and the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM. Currently I have the old EF 70 - 300MM IS USM among other things. L lenses are clearly superior to non L lenses in many ways, and the larger aperture etc. will definitiely be an advantage with a body like the 80D. If I do ever move to full frame I would need to upgrade the wide angle lenses, but at least the rest would work well with either APS-C or FF.

The only negatives I can think of would be cost, bulk and weight for the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM. It is clearly better than an EF-S lens in many ways, so unless those three issues concern you, I would go ahead. Also, you could get an extender and have a very useful longer telephoto.

chocofurniture Loc: Chocowinity NC

Thanks to all. I knew that I could get first hand experience on this site. The article I read was very scientific, and over my head.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

You'll never regret spending the extra $ on the 70-200 f2.8L - a rugged mainstay in most pro's kit and one of the sharpest lens Canon makes.

Gifted One Loc: S. E. Idaho

I have both crop and FF systems. I agree in part with your comment, "but read that the L lens would not be more effective in producing a better image than a EF-S lens." My experience is that many EFs lenses less than 100mm can be as good on crop as L glass. I have 10-22, 15-85 and kit 18-55 that are amazing. I have used them on Rebels and 60D. I also have the FF 6D and 24-105 L that is amazingly sharp. That L glass on the 60D is not better if as good as the 15-85 which is an amazing lens. I look forward to the purchase of the 70-200L and have shot all og the 70-200/300 and owned many. the EFs lens that would fit into that slot is the EFs 55-250 which can be very sharp as my copy but is lacking in build . If you need the speed 2.8 is the only answer but I see many pros with the f/4 as it is lighter and the f/2.8 in trunk.

Good luck.

J. R.

Jim Bob

chocofurniture wrote:

I'm going to purchase an 80D and was considering purchasing a 70-200 2.8 lens, but read that the L lens would not be more effective in producing a better image than a EF-S lens. Does anyone have any experience with that combination? Thanks

L is almost always better.

PaulR01 Loc: West Texas

Gifted One wrote:

I have both crop and FF systems. I agree in part ... (show quote)

Just keep telling yourself that. When you use a 70-200 F 2.8 IS ii on a regular basis and see the light. I hope you reflect back on this post.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

TriX wrote:

You'll never regret spending the extra $ on the 70-200 f2.8L - a rugged mainstay in most pro's kit and one of the sharpest lens Canon makes.

If one doesn't have a need for the 2.8 lens, or very rarely have a need for it, the faster, heavier more expensive 2.8 is literally a waste of money!
Having a 2.8 is VERY sexy, but how many multitudes out there shoot with one and literally don't need that much lens, I bet would be staggering!!!
Just because you justify it and don't regret it, doesn't mean you need it!
SS

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

SharpShooter wrote:

If one doesn't have a need for the 2.8 lens, or very rarely have a need for it, the faster, heavier more expensive 2.8 is literally a waste of money!
Having a 2.8 is VERY sexy, but how many multitudes out there shoot with one and literally don't need that much lens, I bet would be staggering!!!
Just because you justify it and don't regret it, doesn't mean you need it!
SS

Depends on what you're shooting. I bought mine to shoot indoor sports in mediocre light, and the extra stop as opposed to the f4 translates into either a higher shutter speed (which is the difference between a sharp or blurred shot) or a 1 stop lower ISO which means less noise at the higher ISOs, so for me, definitely worth the weight and $. It has nothing to do with being sexy, I'd gladly get rid of the extra pound of weight if I didn't need the performance, and the f4 is a great lens. On a different note, my youngest is getting married next month, and while it's being professionally photographed, I'm certainly taking a camera. I could take my 24-105 f4L, but I'd probably need a flash, and not wanting to interfere with the pro, I'm going to take something fast enough to shoot in available light at relatively high ISO. I haven't decided if the zoom capability is worth the smaller aperature compared to a prime, but at least with the 2.8, I have that choice. That's why I need it and don't regret it (not to mention bokeh when shooting portraits).