Is Canon EF 17-35mm f/2.8 L good on a crop sensor camera?
Oct 17, 2018 02:45:41 #
One review of the Canon EF 17-35mm f/2.8 L says it is a full frame lens, and on the 60D 1.6x crop sensor "it will see angles-of-view similar to what a 27~56mm lens would see on a 35mm camera. Clearly this is a silly choice for anything other than a full-frame or 35mm camera." I think I may be enamored by the L, and/or by the red ring.
I am considering one offered at what looks like a good price. I originally bought a Tamron 17-270 zoom, and I recently acquired a Canon 50mm f1.4 prime.
If the price is below $300 would you recommend I buy it? I don't want to make a "silly choice".
I am considering one offered at what looks like a good price. I originally bought a Tamron 17-270 zoom, and I recently acquired a Canon 50mm f1.4 prime.
If the price is below $300 would you recommend I buy it? I don't want to make a "silly choice".
Oct 17, 2018 03:02:06 #
You don't say what type of photography you are interested in, so it's hard to say if this is the right lens for you.
However, you did say "this is a silly choice for anything other than a full-frame or 35mm camera." Why do you think this is the case?
.
However, you did say "this is a silly choice for anything other than a full-frame or 35mm camera." Why do you think this is the case?
.
Oct 17, 2018 03:13:03 #
The "silly choice" comment was part of a quote copied and pasted from an on-line review. I think it is self explanatory, but I don't claim to fully understand it.
At this point the type of photography I want to do is pretty eclectic. I like macro, graphics, flowers, landscape, and anything that says to me "shoot me". I walk around a lot.
At this point the type of photography I want to do is pretty eclectic. I like macro, graphics, flowers, landscape, and anything that says to me "shoot me". I walk around a lot.
Oct 17, 2018 03:48:54 #
dborengasser wrote:
The "silly choice" comment was part of a quote copied and pasted from an on-line review. I think it is self explanatory, but I don't claim to fully understand it.
At this point the type of photography I want to do is pretty eclectic. I like macro, graphics, flowers, landscape, and anything that says to me "shoot me". I walk around a lot.
At this point the type of photography I want to do is pretty eclectic. I like macro, graphics, flowers, landscape, and anything that says to me "shoot me". I walk around a lot.
I don't see why this would not be a good lens for a crop sensor camera. However, in my opinion you would be better off with a macro lens based on the type of photography you are interested in. Given your budget, that, plus the 50mm you currently own should cover your most of your needs.
PS: If you are offered this for $300, chances are this is an older version of this lens, not the USM version.
Oct 17, 2018 05:03:42 #
zug55
Loc: Naivasha, Kenya, and Austin, Texas
dborengasser wrote:
One review of the Canon EF 17-35mm f/2.8 L says it is a full frame lens, and on the 60D 1.6x crop sensor "it will see angles-of-view similar to what a 27~56mm lens would see on a 35mm camera.
I think that this sums it up. I am sure that this lens works well on a crop-sensor camera, but you are losing the ultra-wide angle. In that sense, you are not using the lens for what it was designed. If you are looking for an ultra-wide lens for your crop-sensor camera this is not the lens. If you are looking for an ultra-wide lens you will have to get one that was built for a crop-sensor camera--10 or 12mm at its widest. In the telephoto range, the crop factor works in your favor, but in the ultra-wide range it works against you.
Oct 17, 2018 06:11:32 #
Oct 17, 2018 06:34:33 #
I am a Canon shooter. I both crop and FF cameras. I have L lenses that I use on 6D and I have used them on my 60D. You say under 300 so that would be 299. Uses you find a Unicorn you would be looking at a v1 in most likely 8.5 condition. For me a "best," choice has been the fabled EFs 15-85. I purchased this some years ago when I was only shooting APS-C sensor cameras. It's heavy, sharp and fun to shoot. The L's are rather like a racing stripe on a car showy.
Any lens purchased at the right price can be remarketed is not liked.
God shooting, J. R.
Any lens purchased at the right price can be remarketed is not liked.
God shooting, J. R.
Oct 17, 2018 07:35:56 #
I tried the 17-35 f/2.8L for a week and returned it. It wasn't sharp enough vs modern lenses. Assuming the candidate lens is in perfect working and cosmetic condition, you can see that relative weakness reflected in a surprising low price for a f/2.8 L-series lens. You have many better choices in terms of image quality and 'real' wide angles on a cropped-sensor. The EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM is a much better choice, and brand new is listed this morning at less than $300. If looking for a more rugged build in the same price range, the EF-S 10-22 runs about $300 used as does the EF 17-40, although this full-frame lenses loses the wide-angle aspect that was the ding from the review against the 17-35.
Oct 17, 2018 07:44:20 #
The 16-35 on my crop camera gives me the same results as the 24-70 on my full frame camera. On my full frame camera I absolutely love the 16-35.
Oct 17, 2018 08:53:27 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
dborengasser wrote:
One review of the Canon EF 17-35mm f/2.8 L says it... (show quote)
Why would it be silly for use on a crop camera? I don't have that lens, but I do have a Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens that I use often on my Canon 7D Mark II. It comes down to the focus range that meets your requirements. The Tamron 18-270 is a decent enough super zoom but far from a great lens. The EF 17-35 f/2.8 is a very old design and perhaps not the best choice for optical reasons, but still seems to be a decent enough lens. On your camera it will probably about at sharp as the Tamron 18-270, but that's not particularly sharp. If the copy for under $300 is in excellent condition it might be worth it if you can take advantage of that limited focal range. But...I would not buy it unless I could return it if unsatisfied.
Oct 17, 2018 08:58:03 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
Vietnam Vet wrote:
The 16-35 on my crop camera gives me the same results as the 24-70 on my full frame camera. On my full frame camera I absolutely love the 16-35.
That's not quite accurate. Assuming a Canon crop factor of 1.6 the 35mm equivalent angle of view would be approx. 26-56mm
Oct 17, 2018 11:31:53 #
zug55 wrote:
I think that this sums it up. I am sure that this ... (show quote)
Why would the OP need an ultra wide angle lens for macro, graphics, flowers, landscape, and walk-abouts?
.
Oct 17, 2018 13:29:24 #
zug55
Loc: Naivasha, Kenya, and Austin, Texas
Cheese wrote:
Why would the OP need an ultra wide angle lens for macro, graphics, flowers, landscape, and walk-abouts?
Actually OP did not specify what s/he wants to use the lens for. I am not sure where we disagree. In fact that was my point--there isn't a good reason to do so.
Oct 17, 2018 14:30:55 #
zug55 wrote:
Actually OP did not specify what s/he wants to use the lens for. I am not sure where we disagree. In fact that was my point--there isn't a good reason to do so.
On the contrary, OP said: "At this point the type of photography I want to do is pretty eclectic. I like macro, graphics, flowers, landscape, and anything that says to me "shoot me". I walk around a lot." None of these uses call for extra wide angle capabilities.
.
Oct 17, 2018 15:06:57 #
Thanks everyone. Good comments/advice. I appreciate your sharing. FYI. I'm not pursuing this lens, and have passed on info to another UHH er.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.