Always get lens for Full Frame, even if you have a cropped body?

So... which side of the fence are you on?

Some people think, that if you think at some point you'll get a Full Frame camera to always buy full frame lenses even if your current cam is not full frame.. whereas others think that you should always get the best lens for your camera at the time, and simply sell any lenses you no longer need when/if you upgrade.

What do you think?

Full Frame for me.

Personally I am of the old school of getting the best glass that I can afford. I therefore buy my lens as an item to last me a long time. I must stress that I am not a wealthy man, far, far from it, but I will save for a long time to get the best lens I can. I would love to have a bagful of f2.8 lens in my bag but just can't afford the premium so most of my lens are f4 "L" lens. Like the second tier of in the lens hierarchy.

Camera bodies are only boxes with a hole in it, the lens is what makes or breaks the image. Not quite so true in the digital field because the sensor has a lot of influence on the end product but the best sensor in the world will not produce good images with inferior lens on the front of the camera.

Another thing to think of is the fact that generally, the edges of the image thrown by a lens are the least good and the nearer the centre of the image you get the better the image quality.

Therefore, if a lens designed for full frame is used on a smaller sensor only the more central part of the image thrown is used and the outer part of the image is discarded. Your only using the best part of the image produced by the lens.

I also think eventually full frame sensors will become the norm which would make the non full frame lenses obsolete.

Also, as an owner of a 5D (full frame), 40D & a 20D (smaller sensors) I would have to have duplicate sets of lens for my cameras and that I just cannot justify.

Steve

To me this is a fairly straight forward argument.

Most people will buy what their budget allows at that time. When I bought my first DSLR (300D) it was £850, a fairly hefty price considering the entry level camera now is £350. This didn't leave me a lot of cash, and as this was a 'new' hobby I didn't even know how long I would be interested in it.

This is true for a lot of people, they might buy a camera and lens because it gives them more control than a P&S, and the option for another lens later on if they choose.

So, if you are only going to be an occasional snapper, or are on a limited budget, then you are only going to buy what you can.

The only EF-S lens I have ever bought was the EF-S 18-55 kit lens. Everything else has been EF. When the 300D and 10D came out, there were only a couple of EF-S lenses available anyway.

As I started to purchase EF lenses, I could see that I would perhaps want to go FF at some point, all be it a long way down the road, so I avoided any EF-S lenses. I did however (regrettably) buy some cheaper EF lenses (70-300, 35-105) which were quite poor.

However, having now purchased EF-L series lenses over the last couple of years, I am ready for whatever new FF body comes along.

I would always advise against buying EF-S lenses, especially when they are comparable in price to the EF-L lenses.

But, if you are on a budget, and all your budget will stretch too is an EF-S lens, then you don't really have a choice.

Resale value of the EF-S lenses at the moment is not bad, eBay buyers seem to pay top dollar for everything at the moment. It's only if Canon announced the end of the EF-S mount (due to FF on all bodies) that the price would drops.

Can't see FF on entry level bodies for quite some time though, but I have no doubt that at some time, it will be the case, I'm sure only having to make one size of sensor appeals to all the manufacturers.

Alan.

Some good points there guys.

I'm not sure what the deal is with Canon, but with Nikon, getting the best glass you can afford doesn't necessarily mean full frame. They do some absolutely awesome DX lens, such as the 17-55 f2.8 which costs around £800! It's pro glass but just for DX cameras (can use it on full frame too, but I think only from 24 or so up)... and as these were designed for DX cameras they're actually really really good on them (such as on the D300). Some of the best D300 pictures I have seen have been taken with the 17-55.

So that throws a bit of a spanner in the works

Add to that the lens generally don't lose too much in value - you can always sell your lens at a later date should you wish to.

So personally I am a bit undecided although as I think I will be into photography for a long time >>> meaning I may well get Full Frame, I am leaning towards FF. But I am sooo tempted by the 17-55!

Steve,

You make some good points, I also like to buy the best I can afford at the time - however refering to EF-S lenses as 'inferior' isn't actually correct. Some EF-S lenses produce as good a quality photo as some of the cheaper L lenses.

To me these two points completely contradict each other. First you say that the EF-S lenses are comparable in price to entry level L lenses (which they are) but then you go on to talk about people on a budget who can only stretch to EF-S lenses If they can stretch to some EF-S lenses then they can certainly buy the L lens that is comparable in price, however that might not be what they are after.

Some EF-S lenses are comparable in photo quality to entry level L lenses (I have tested them myself on my own body with my own settings so know how they compare). So to say (or imply) that EF-S lenses are cheap and inferior is completely misleading - the quality is not in question most of the time, it is merely the fact they will not fit on a FF camera.

I personally would much prefer to buy a good EF-S lens than a poor quality EF lens any day.

A year ago I was adament that I would never buy an EF-S lens, I thought they were rather pointless - then one particular lens changed my mind Would I buy another EF-S lens, probably not - it would have to be something rather special in order for me to buy it. However, never say never

The argument about going full frame and the lenses becoming redundant is a feasible one, however a lot of people keep their old body as a back-up and thus the lens still remains perfectly usable (thinking of Mel here who went FF and still uses her EF-S 60mm Macro lens) or as Azz has mentioned, these lenses rarely lose much value so you could certainly sell them on.

So all in all I think it is a personal decision but don't be put off buying an EF-S lens if it ticks all your boxes. There are some very good EF-S lenses around

I think my reply is a bit biased because I do have both small sensor and FF cameras so it would not make a lot of sense for me to buy EF-s which I could not use on the 5D, UNLESS it was such a terrific lens that I could not resist.

In my reply I did not mean to imply that EF-s lens were inferior, I was trying to say that any camera is only as good as the lens on the front of it.

Steve

Because most of my lens were bought to accompany a 35mm camera I assume they must be FF, something that had never crossed my mind till now. Have one bought recently that is a lens for digital so I don't know it that would operate on a FF or not. If I try and get the corners missing I suppose it is fair to say it will not do FF, not that I have FF anyway.

Teach you to go all tech on me, now you have to explain

Oh no I agree, for people who already own a FF camera buying EF-S lenses is not a terribly wise idea. However for people who do not have a FF camera (including those who 'might' go FF at some point, because invariably that doesn't happen for a while if it happens at all) then there is no reason not to consider an EF-S lens.

I only have 1 EF-S lens - the one that I chose with my 40D

EF-S 17-85mm USM IS

It's about £350 to buy now on it's own and is a good everyday lens.

Any other Canon lenses I have are EF (left over from my Canon SLR) and anything I buy from now on will be EF

These points do not contradict each other, when read in the context of the original post, which you omitted.

Point 1: I would always advise against buying EF-S lenses, especially when they are comparable in price to the EF-L lenses.

L Series lenses are optically superior to non L lenses (even though some EF-S perform very well) and have better build quality and weather sealing. So buying a non L for the price of an L is does not seem to make sense.

Point 2: But, if you are on a budget, and all your budget will stretch too is an EF-S lens, then you don't really have a choice.

What can I say, if you can only affored a cheaper EF-S or EF lens, then thats it.

However, the main point of the whole post, was that if you are going to upgrade to a FF sensor, then buying EF-S lenses may cost you more in the long run, because you have to sell them, lose money, and buy lenses that will fit on a FF body.

That was my point. I am afraid you quoted me out of context.

If you don't intend going full frame, or don't mind buying new lenses when you do, then yeah, buy EF-S lenses now.

Alan.