Is L glass compatible to 50D camera?

[DRs]

hey guys,

im planning to buy L lens for my 50D body...but i read some reviews regarding L lenses are only good for FF cameras. is this true?

if not any recommendations which L lens to buy? budget about $1500. i love portraits and landscape style of photography. your expertise is much appreciated.

regards.

newbie to photography world. cheers!

[inkista]

Never had a problem with my L lenses on my lowly XT (350D). They seem to work just fine. The thing, however, is that all L lenses are EF and were designed for full frame, so their performance on a crop body may be a little different, but generally speaking with a crop body you don't have to worry about corner performance.

For landscape/walkaround, maybe the 17-40 f/4L, unless you need to go wider, in which case, the 16-35 f/2.8L or 14 f/2.8L might be what you want to look at. For portraiture, any of the L primes will kill, but I'm particularly fond of my 135 f/2L USM. For both in one lens, you may have to compromise on wide angle and look at the 24-70 f/2.8L.

Honestly, though? I think the best fit for you, might not be an L at all. The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM is probably the lens you want. It's an L in all but name. Sadly, that all includes the sticker price.

[RustySterling]

I have 4 L lenses that I use with my 40D. No problem whatsoever. The short answer would be "Yes."

If you are not going to upgrade down the road to full-frame (i.e., 5D, etc.) than inkista's recommendation is spot on.

If you eventually are going to get a full-frame body then L class lenses would be the way to go even now. If your budget is real then pony up a bit more and get a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. If you don't need IS, get the non-IS version and you'll be well within your budget. If you want something shorter get the 24-70mm f/2.8L and you'll again be well within your budget.

If you are interested in prime lenses then try the 135mm f/2L, which is one of the sharpest lenses that Canon makes. Again, you'll be well within your budget. (This is going to be my next prime.)

Good luck.

[LoveDSLR]

A popular review found Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS is better on FF while Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR is better on DX (cropped). That's why many Nikonians are waiting for Nikon to update its 70-200 f/2.8 VR.

The same may apply to some, if any Canon L lenses as well. However, what else is better than L lenses if you want to stay with Canon lenses?

[inkista]

Originally Posted by LoveDSLR

... However, what else is better than L lenses if you want to stay with Canon lenses?

.. but why would you want to stay with Canon lenses if you want something better than Ls? And if you want to see folks perpetually on the quest for something better than an L, I'd recommend the Fred Miranda alt gear forum. Those guys are fun. Completely nuts, but fun.

Myself, I'm yearning to play with a Zeiss Planar 100 f/2. The pebbleplace guy says he thinks it outperforms the 85L and 135L. Luckily, they don't make it in ZE mount. Yet.

[LoveDSLR]

Originally Posted by inkista

.. but why would you want to stay with Canon lenses if you want something better than Ls? And if you want to see folks perpetually on the quest for something better than an L, I'd recommend the Fred Miranda alt gear forum. Those guys are fun. Completely nuts, but fun.

Myself, I'm yearning to play with a Zeiss Planar 100 f/2. The pebbleplace guy says he thinks it outperforms the 85L and 135L. Luckily, they don't make it in ZE mount. Yet.

I don't, but there are people only buy Canon or Nikon. Usually I buy the body as well if I like the lenses and that's why I shoot with both Nikon and Canon.

Zeiss lenses aren't big deal to me anymore since I had my turn with a film Hasselblad system. If only I can afford a Leica FF M9 + 50 f/.95.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by LoveDSLR

If only I can afford a Leica FF M9 + 50 f/.95.

Hey, if you're gonna dream, dream big. I'm afraid I think small and cheap, though, so i'm gonna dream for a while about an E-P2 and a Voigtländer Nokton 50 f/1.1.

[DRs]

Originally Posted by inkista

Never had a problem with my L lenses on my lowly XT (350D). They seem to work just fine. The thing, however, is that all L lenses are EF and were designed for full frame, so their performance on a crop body may be a little different, but generally speaking with a crop body you don't have to worry about corner performance.

For landscape/walkaround, maybe the 17-40 f/4L, unless you need to go wider, in which case, the 16-35 f/2.8L or 14 f/2.8L might be what you want to look at. For portraiture, any of the L primes will kill, but I'm particularly fond of my 135 f/2L USM. For both in one lens, you may have to compromise on wide angle and look at the 24-70 f/2.8L.

Honestly, though? I think the best fit for you, might not be an L at all. The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM is probably the lens you want. It's an L in all but name. Sadly, that all includes the sticker price.

thanks inkista for the tip...one of my lists is the 17-40mm f/4L.can i use it also for portraits? i know its a wide lens and most probably much better in landscapes.

[DRs]

Originally Posted by RustySterling

I have 4 L lenses that I use with my 40D. No problem whatsoever. The short answer would be "Yes."

If you are not going to upgrade down the road to full-frame (i.e., 5D, etc.) than inkista's recommendation is spot on.

If you eventually are going to get a full-frame body then L class lenses would be the way to go even now. If your budget is real then pony up a bit more and get a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. If you don't need IS, get the non-IS version and you'll be well within your budget. If you want something shorter get the 24-70mm f/2.8L and you'll again be well within your budget.

If you are interested in prime lenses then try the 135mm f/2L, which is one of the sharpest lenses that Canon makes. Again, you'll be well within your budget. (This is going to be my next prime.)

Good luck.

hey restysterling, thanks for the advice there. i thought having a crop body and using L lenses would be a disaster. thats too much to discribe it.

I can see your collection of L glasses, that is cool. so i probably go for the L lenses then, eventually upgrade my body to FF camera somewhat a little later when i get to know more about digital photography.

[RustySterling]

Originally Posted by DRs

hey restysterling, thanks for the advice there. i thought having a crop body and using L lenses would be a disaster. thats too much to discribe it.

I can see your collection of L glasses, that is cool. so i probably go for the L lenses then, eventually upgrade my body to FF camera somewhat a little later when i get to know more about digital photography.

I'm glad to hear my post helped. But like inkista said, the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM is a great lens that is highly thought of by people who use it. But if you are going to upgrade to a full-frame body in the future you would not be able to use it on the FF camera. It's also as pricey as some L glass.

I love my L glass -- especially my 200mm f/2.8L, which is sharp as a tack. At parties/weddings I find myself using my 17-40mm f/4L quite a bit for close-up shots, particularly for table shots of groups. My 24-105mm f/4L also serves me very well in these situations. And the 70-200mm f/2.8L is just a great all around lens but in party/wedding situations I use it a lot for candids and portraits.

I'm very happy with my lens selection -- but I may eventually sell the 24-105 to get a 24-70mm f/2.8L for more speed. However, the 24-105 has IS which can make up for the lack of speed.