I heard the fullframe cameras needs L calibure lenses

[scott_wlter]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I am thinking of taking the plunge into the realm of full frame. I have heard others say the fullframe cameras are demanding on the lens (whatever that means) and they really need L quality lenses. I have the following lenses will I be ok or disappointed with the quality of my lenses with a full frame camera such as the 5d or 5d Mark II:<br>

EF 50mm f/1.8 II<br>

EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM<br>

EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM<br>

Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro<br>

Sigma 10-20mm f4/-5.6</p>

<p>Thanks in advance, Scott.</p>

[fotograf]

<p>I've never heard full frame cameras are "demanding" on lenses. They use any Canon EF lens-period. Although L lenses are incredibly good- there is absolutely nothing wrong with using a non L lens. The question of whether or not you will be disappointed with the quality of your current lenses is purely a personal decision. However, I would say, your second lens(EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro)will be the best overall in terms of sharpness and color.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>There's much written on this subject. Do a search for "L lenses," and I think you'll find more than you want to read.</p>

<p>When people comment that full frame cameras (in particular high resolution ones) are demanding on lenses, what they mean is that a lens' flaws are more likely to show up. Lenses are softest and show the most chromatic aberration in their margins, and full frame gives you more margin than a crop body. Many people assume the "hard on lenses" rhetoric means that the lenses somehow get worn out. This is a misinterpretation.</p>

<p>Both of your sigmas are "DC" lenses and do not have full frame image circles. They might even damage a full frame camera if you try to mount/operate them (but I don't know for sure). Your Canon lenses are all full-frame. The 50/1.8 has a very cheap build but is much respected for its image quality. It should work very well on a full frame. The 28-135 isn't as well respected, but I think it's quite good. The chief weakness is chromatic aberration, which really isn't as bad as I see on many lenses. Sharpnes and contrast are quite respectable. I don't have the 100/2.8, but I know it's well respected too. Any of these lenses should be just fine on a full frame camera.</p>

<p>An alternative to the 10-20 on a crop frame camera would be Canon's 17-40 f/4L (on full frame). It's a superb lens and isn't all that expensive for what you get. The 28-135 on the full frame will be about as wide as your sigma 18- on your crop, but it will give you more on the tele end. An upgrade from that would be the 24-105 f/4L, which is expensive, but which is also an awsome lens. (Opinions vary, though.) If you're on a budget, stick with the 28-135, which is one of Canon's better full-frame consumer zooms.</p>

<p>In the end, I think you'll be thrilled with what full-frame photography does for your image quality. This, too, is a controversial subject, but such has been my experience. The most common experience seems to be that a decent full frame lens (like the ones that you have) will really shine on a full frame body and that the larger format will open up a wealth of detail you hadn't seen before. I've not heard many people comment, "Gee, now my lenses look lousy!"</p>

[stillbound]

<p>that last two won't mount at all...<br>

the others will be Ok with the 100 macro being the best...<br>

NEED is a strong word - the real issue is that the mark II especially will showcase any deficiencies in your non L glass (and again I'd say that 100 macro is near L quality)</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>The first two of your listed lenses will work great with FF bodies. I'm not familiar with the other three.<br>

You do not necessarily "need" L lenses for full frame cameras. This is especially true when it comes to primes - some very, very fine prime lenses are not L.<br>

In general - but there are exceptions even here - with <em>zoom lenses</em> it can be a good idea to steer yourself toward the L lenses if possible.<br>

Regarding the "demands" of different formats on lenses, in fact the smaller cropped sensor bodies demand more of a lens in almost every way. I'll spare you the details of why unless you want a lengthier explanation.<br>

The corner performance supposed issue is more theoretical than real. Because the full frame system must use portions of the image that are further from the center people assume that corner quality will suffer in comparison to cameras with smaller sensors. But there are several real world factors that counter that assumption, and in actual use corner performance can be less of an issue in some cases on FF.<br>

Dan</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>I would just consider each potential lens on it's merit. Canon's L designation does not elevate lens quality by a quantum leap. The 50mm f1.4 and 35mm f2.0 are a couple of non-L primes I like to use on my 5D.</p>

<p>Just go back a few years, before the advent of dslr's. Everybody was using "full frame" in the film days.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>There is, in addition to the points Sarah has already made, some issue of whether the sensor at some point begins to exceed the resolution of the lens itself. Of course, this does not mean that the lens is any less capable than it ever was on any previous sensor or film, it just means that the lens would no longer be fully exploiting the capability of the camera. Much the same could have been said in the old days shooting with slower Kodachrome films that potentially could record more "information" (as we put it now) than a particular lens could provide.</p>

<p>Again, the older full-frame lenses will work, you just might not be getting the full value from the expensive 24x36mm sensor you have just bought. It's very unlikely that this would be troublesome in any kind of reasonable print size, but if you are planning to do full, building-size murals it might be helpful to have higher resolution lenses. And, by the way, not <em><strong>all</strong> </em> 'L' lenses are necessarily high resolution. Some are designed with different purposes in mind than pure high resolution. The smaller (15x22mm) sensor cameras often use the "sweet" part of full-frame lenses because the edges with more CA, vignetting, and lower res are cropped out.</p>

<p>As the sensor resolution goes up, there is some point at which the lens quality becomes the limiting factor rather than how many pixels the sensor has. At some point, perhaps, traditional glass lenses will have to give way to other means of recording the image onto the sensor.</p>

[derrickdehaan]

<p>I believe the pixel density of the 50D is more demanding than anything a 5D mark 2 may care about a lens. If you are happy with those lenses you have that are "EF", then you will still be happy.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>"There is, in addition to the points Sarah has already made, some issue of whether the sensor at some point begins to exceed the resolution of the lens itself. Of course, this does not mean that the lens is any less capable than it ever was on any previous sensor or film, it just means that the lens would no longer be fully exploiting the capability of the camera. Much the same could have been said in the old days shooting with slower Kodachrome films that potentially could record more "information" (as we put it now) than a particular lens could provide."</p>

<p>However... this is more of a problem with cropped sensor camera than with full frame cameras, for several reason. First, no current full frame DSLR has photosite density as high as that found in, for example, the 15 MP cropped sensor camera currently on the market. For a FF sensor to have equivalent photosite density you would be using a FF sensor of nearly 40 MP.</p>

<p>Because the photosite density of, for example, a 21MP 5D2 is lower than that of a 15MP 50D, the former is going to have less of an issue when it comes to matching lens resolution to sensor resolution.</p>

<p>In addition, if you make prints of a given size from the two formats, the image from the smaller format original and all of its "imperfections" (diffraction blur, blur at the margins of the DOF, etc.) will be more visible. Of course, this only matters if you make quite large prints from photographs captured with excellent and careful technique.</p>

<p>Finally, regarding the "sensor resolution will exceed the lens resolution" issue, a few more thoughts. There are only three possible relationships: a) lens resolution will exceed sensor resolution, b) lens and sensor resolution will be equal, or c) sensor resolution will exceed lens resolution.</p>

<p>a) is almost a meaningless thing since each lens has different resolution, and the resolution is not consistent across the field of the lens - so if you go with this approach you would want the sensor to at least resolve the very highest resolution of the best portion of the image from the very best lens you will use. What a mess! :-)</p>

<p>b) is impossible, for reasons described under a)</p>

<p>c) is the best place to be, especially since at some point it will be relatively inexpensive to create sensors that do not limit the ability of your best lenses to resolve images. (There is also some thought that really high photosite density sensors could conceivably lead to a situation in which the AA filter would no longer be needed.)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>(who understand that for much photography - e.g. posting jpgs here - this stuff is more theoretical than real.)</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>I would sell the two Sigma (Won't give you full pictures on a 5D) and replace it with a Sigma 24-70/2.8. Sell the EF50/1.8 and replace it with a EF35/2. When there are spare cash, replace the 28-135 with a 70-200/2.8 "L" :-)</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>I have three L lenses, and three non L lenses. For most use it is hard to tell the difference on either my 5D or XTi. Why would you sell the 50 1.8? On a 5D it approximates the field of human vision. I go along with Sarah's recommendation of the 17-40 f4L for full frame. The one thing not mentioned is the viewfinder on the the 5D. It really help my old eyes. I photograph a lot of swimming and am cataloguing the past years work. The 70-200 2.8L works well on both cameras and you really have to peep pixels to see the difference in web and small prints. I have had the 70-200 for over twelve years and it has been like my right arm. It is my all time favorite lens for sports and many other uses. Being practical I think you can get a lot of good pictures on the 5D or 5DII by being just a little bit selective in choosing lenses. The 50 1.8 does quite well, and like the proverbial brother, it ain't heavy.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>You need to tailor your lenses to your photographic requirements. If you shoot wide angle landcsapes then go for the best wide angle lens. If you take photos of wildlife then a top class telephoto or two are needed. My line up with 5D consists of :<br>

17-40L<br>

28-70L<br>

50 1.8 II<br>

70-300 4-5.6 IS<br>

100 2.8 macr<br>

This works for me but if I became more interested in wildlife photography I would upgrade the tele. But for the present these lenses all give me the results I want on the 5D.<br>

Here is a thread about which canon lenses give good image quality regardless of other factors :<br>

<a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00S0Dl">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00S0Dl</a><br>

From your selection I would keep the 50/1.8 and the 100 2.8 macro. The Sigmas won;t work as they are boh the DC type for the smaller sensor cameras such as the 450D etc. The canon 17-40L as already suggested is fine here. The 28-135 is a fairly mediochre lens n my view and you might want to upgrade that to perhaps the 24-105 f4 L. For longer shots either the 70-300 4=5.6 IS or if you want top quality the 70-200 L series either f4 or f 2.8.</p>

[scott_wlter]

<p>Thanks everyone for such great advice! I really appreciate it!</p>

[dogbert]

<p>"that last two won't mount at all..."<br>

The is wrong. The Sigma's are EF mounts (not EF-S) and will mount on a FF canon. However, they are designed for 1.6 crop cameras and so you can expect significant vignetting - a black circle around your picture.</p>