BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Don't fib to me. Eddie said it, and if Eddie said it, it's got to be true.

sct198 Loc: West of Nathrop, Co

Hey Tom, while everyone is arguing over proper grammar, here is the answer to your question. You will be just fine. Your 70-200L is a great lens, just remember that the crop factor also pertains to the F-stop. Full frame 70-200 F4 is equal to 112-320 F6.4 APS-C. Just don't use EF-S lens on full frame camera, have fun shooing.

DavidPhares Loc: Chandler, Arizona

Give it up, you two! This thread is not about you, but rather the original question. You are both tiresome!

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

We're not arguing over grammar, we were correcting errors of fact, Quite different.

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

To whom the <expletive> are you addressing that comment?

Get with the program, of course the 'L' lens is superior regardless of sensor size in this focal range.

Please learn to use <quote reply> when you respond. It isn't that difficult a concept to comprehend.

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

How dollars are invested in the long term may be more important than anything else.

Right now full-frame image sensors are extremely expensive to make, which is why nearly all digital SLRs out there have image sensors smaller than that of a frame of 35mm film. But in the future it’s likely that prices on such sensors will drop, at which time full-frame digital SLRs will become more affordable and thus EF-S lenses will no longer be of use except on pre-existing cameras. The two questions are - how long will this take and will you be able to get good use of your investment in EF-S lenses before this occurs? The first nobody knows the answer to, and the second can only be answered by you. For the time being it seems likely that it’ll be some years before affordable full-frame sensors are ubiquitous, so "L" lenses aren’t necessarily a bad idea, assuming you are planning on upgrading to full-frame.

...even with arguments weighing on the merit of image quality.

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

A reasonable position, but sensor technology price will drop slowly, I think you know that, so along with the move to M4/3 I doubt that full frame will ever take over. The cost and the weight of the lenses will be a dominant factor. This is a system level problem, not a sensor level or electronics fabrication problem.

'L' lenses make perfect sense for some, but there is no reason why EF-S or other APS-C or smaller form factor lenses cannot be built to the same optical or robustness standards.

For myself, I don't need the 'L' quality physical engineering, but do want the optical quality. For Wide lenses I'm quite happy with good EF-S lenses, such as the EF-S 10-22mm zoom. Above around 50mm and up I would always aim for an 'L' if it was within my budget, but if not there are plenty of good EF lenses that have close to equivalent optics without the physical robustness.

Horses for courses, as they say.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

EVERY sensor is FULL FRAME. Show me one sensor from any camera that is not used to its fullest.

Now say 'larger' sensor and I will not make a 'pip'.

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

True ...more of a reference. 4x8 is or even larger if you back to film for comparisons.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

FWIW, 35mm used to be referred to as miniature format.

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

<quote reply> It isn't that hard, or are you "Totally Texas!"

blackest Loc: Ireland

While I don't disagree with the same optical standards, is that good enough at APS-C sizes?

If you want to get the same angle of view and depth of field on an APS-C Camera as it's full frame counterpart you need to go a stop faster.

So replacing an f2.8 full frame then you want a f2.0 APS-C lens. Your also enlarging more for a given photo, the greater the enlargement the more visible defects in the lens become.

Consider why were there these huge film camera's made? If you look at film, the bigger the negative the higher the IQ

We were sailing southward along the highway not far from Espanola when I glanced to the left and saw an extraordinary situation—an inevitable photograph! I almost ditched the car and rushed to set up my 8×10 camera. I was yelling to my companions to bring me things from the car as I struggled to change components on my Cooke Triple-Convertible lens. I had a clear visualization of the image I wanted, but when the Wratten No. 15 (G) filter and the film holder were in place, I could not find my Weston exposure meter! The situation was desperate: the low sun was trailing the edge of the clouds in the west, and shadow would soon dim the white crosses.

An extract from Ansell Adams account of the making of Moonrise, Hernandez. That 8 by 10 isn't cm it's Inches

It is probably fair to say that the smaller the negative the lower the IQ.

The lens he was using, here's a modern version of it.
http://www.cookeoptics.com/l/xva.html

It doesn't seem much of a leap to figure that large sensors / negatives give better quality than small ones.

Lenses seem to be slower too.

Is it true that the larger the sensor the less demanding it is of its lenses?

Could it be that the quality of image you get with L glass is not just down to the lens but the size of the recorded image?

If it wasn't for the cost would we choose to shoot medium format?

Anyway I think it is a fair bet L lenses are about the best Canon can make and if they made them in an APS-C size that optically they would be no better. The physics of the smaller sensor seems to ask more from a given lens.

What do you think?

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

I agree completely, but I think that it is a camera issue, not a lens issue. I want the best quality lenses that I can afford, but at this point I'm in the APS-C camp for budget reasons. On the lens front, anything over 50mm or so I go with full frame, and in the Canon line 'L' if I can get there. As you know, I like manual focus lenses, and am adding to the menagerie. That's why I reference the EF-S 10-22mm zoom. It is widely regarded to be 'L' quality optically, and although of good build quality, is not labeled or regarded as an 'L' lens. If I had the funds I would move to 'full-frame' in a heartbeat, but I don't, so I work with APS-C bodies and the best lenses I can afford.

My lens wish list only includes 'L' lenses.

blackest Loc: Ireland

Me too....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-frame_digital_SLR#DSLRs these are what are out there now.

The Canon 5D Mk 1 (12.8Mpix) can be found on ebay from around £315 for a body charger and 2 batteries from the UK thats a buy it now price which would put your L glass on to a full frame body.

For me the only FF would be a Pentax K1 £1673 used :( i need to wait a while longer.

Basil Loc: New Mexico

He's full of beans.