PatM wrote:
...I have discovered the quality of the efs lenses I do have is far above the best photos I have ever before created.....
There are several Canon EF-S lenses that rival the image quality of any L-Series or "Art" or "Sport" lens.
For example....
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM is one of the best ultrawides made by anyone. It's very well corrected, sharp from corner to corner and edge to edge, and highly flare resistant. Further, it uses one Ultra Low Dispersion element and three aspherical.... exotic elements such as you might find in advance Canon L-series wide angle lenses. For the money (under $300), the more plasticky EF-S 10-18mm IS STM is a bargain, too. Also capable of high image quality, it's one of the smallest, lightest and most affordable of the ultrawides... and it was the first and is still one of the few UWA zooms with stabilization (Nikon has since introduced one with VR and Tamron just recently updated their 12-24mm with VC, among other things).
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is another high performance "crop only" lens that rivals and beats some L-series. For example, I'm always a fit sad to see folks buying an EF 17-40mm f/4L USM for use on their APS-C Canon.... That L not only doesn't have as good image quality as the EF-S 17-55mm, it also lacks IS, doesn't have as wide a range of focal lengths, and it's a stop slower! It strikes me as an opportunity missed, buying a 17-40L instead of an EF-S 17-55mm to use on any of the Canon APS-C models. In fact, with two aspherical and two UD elements the EF-S 17-55mm even out-performs all but the latest version of EF 16-35mm f/2.8L's. The full frame L-series have less corner and edge sharpness, as well as more vignetting. The EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III finally is comparable in image quality... but is considerably bigger and heavier, as well as a whole lot more expensive... and it doesn't have IS.
Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is yet another excellent crop-only lens. It's image quality is very high, especially considering the range of focal lengths it covers while still managing to be reasonably compact. On an APS-C camera is gives roughly equivalent to 24mm to 135mm on full frame (which doesn't exist.... the closest are EF 24-105mm, EF 28-135mm, and much larger EF 28-200mm and EF 28-300mm lenses).
Finally, the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens has image quality equal to all other Canon EF macro lenses, as well as macro lenses made by anyone else. Yes, a shorter focal length such as this puts you very close to a subject at full 1:1 magnification. But that's the case regardless of sensor format and may be a reasonable trade-off in order to have a lightweight macro lens compact enough to slip in a pocket or tuck into the corner of a camera bag.
FYI: Even if they rival or better the performance and image quality of L-series.... there will never be an EF-S L-series lens. Canon requires all L-series meet three criteria: To get a rest stripe painted on it a lens must 1. Be "built to the highest standards using advanced, cutting edge design and materials" (which is a bit subjective), 2. Must utilize "exotic" glass in it's optical formula and 3. Be fully compatible with all EOS cameras past, present and future. While some EF-S lenses meet the first and second criteria very well, none of them meet the third because they're limited to only fit and work on APS-C EOS cameras (beginning w/Digital Rebel/300D in 2003).
The great thing about an APS-C camera such as your 80D is that you can use both EF-S and EF lenses on it. You can literally select from any of the 125 million + lenses Canon has made the last 30 years and they will work fine on your camera. It's not the same with the so-called "full frame" models... those are limited to using only the EF lenses. Canon has a very good selection of those... around 65 models, in fact. But there are around 25 EF-S lenses that a full frame camera user can't take advantage of.... lenses that are often smaller, lighter
and less expensive than the full-frame capable lenses they need to buy for their cameras.
Most people don't really need full frame cameras, anyway. They just think they do because they tend to judge their images at ridiculously high magnifications on their computer monitors. Displaying an image from a 24MP "at 100%" is like making a 40 inch by 60 inch print and then viewing it from 18 or 20" away, giving the image far closer scrutiny than they or anyone else is likely to ever do with a finished print, let alone online uses. Computer monitors often aren't that sharp and don't display the full dynamic range of images.... quality prints done on smooth, matte paper are always much sharper and show more detail both in shadows and in highlights. Not to mention, few people print as large as 16x24, let alone five feet wide... the way they're viewing the image on their computer screen! At more reasonable magnifications, close to how the image will actually be used, image made with the last few generations of crop sensor cameras are hard to distinguish from those out of full frame. So, IMO, a lot of FF users are just wasting their money, carrying around bigger/heavier gear that doesn't actually benefit them in any way, and have unnecessarily limited their lens choices and, in some cases, camera performance capabilities.
Where it probably makes the most sense to "step up" to L-series on an APS-C camera is with telephotos. The four EF 70-200mm L-series, 300mm f/4L, 100-400mm L II, 400mm f/5.6L and other telephoto Ls all have very, very good to excellent image quality, as well as high performance autofocus and, in most cases, helpful image stabilization. They also often have extra sealing for dust/weather resistance and durable builds for long, useful life even with hard use. These are a big step up from EF-S 55-250mm IS STM, although for what it costs that EF-S lens is actually quite good. (The EF
75-300mm III, non-IS, non-USM that's often bundled in kits by bargain retailers IS NOT very good... It's Canon's cheapest and worst telephoto zoom, with marginal image quality, slow/noisy AF and lacks image stabilization. The EF-S 55-250mm IS STM costs a little more but is well worth it. Or, any of the EF 70-300mm models can be better choices.)
So, have fun with your camera! You've made a good choice that should serve you well for some time to come.
P.S. I've sold 16x20" prints made from images taken with 8MP APS-C cameras (in some cases made with L-series lenses... but in other cases not). They're framed and hanging on customers' walls. The images out of my 20MP 7D Mark II APS-C cameras EASILY rival the quality of those out of my older 21MP 5D Mark II full frame camera.... unless you enlarge to insanely ridiculous sizes.