I can think of three obvious ones: IS, better image quality (I guess- I never tested them), and wider angle.
I can think of three obvious ones: IS, better image quality (I guess- I never tested them), and wider angle.
Originally Posted by 2slo
24mm on a crop isn't really wide and 70 isn't really long either, so your lens isn't as versatile as it would be on a fullframe camera. The 55-70mm difference isn't a big factor because when you need the 70mm field of view, often 1 step forward is enough. The 17-24mm difference though is HUGE! [:P]
And yes of course the other reasons mentioned above []
My vote is for the 17-55 on crop and 24-105 on full frame.
Jan
I have that lens, the 180 macro. Awsome lens, worth every penny.
Mick
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Even the vegetarians over there are scary...
Zoom - 70-200 Mk II
Prime - 35L
It would probably be a versatile macro lens. maybe the 100L on a full frame body (as long as we're dreaming about what lens, why not dream about a body too...)
If I could have only one lens, it would be a compact, sharp 10-900mm f/1.4 lens that came with a 4x TC. mwahahahaha
Originally Posted by bburns223
Suppose you had to restrict yourself to existing lenses. Then what?
As I said earlier in this thread, the 800mm f/5.6L. [C]
70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. Looks like a blood ripper!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ben_taylor_au/ www.methodicallymuddled.wordpress.com
Canon 5D Mark III | Canon 5D Mark II | Samyang 14mm f/2.8 | Canon 35mm f/1.4L USM | Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM |Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II |Canon 2 x Teleconverter III | Canon 580 EX II Speedlite | Really Right Stuff TVC 34L | Really Right Stuff BH55 LR | Gorillapod Focus | Really Right Stuff BH 30