10/14   Does it make sense to buy nice lenses (2.8L) to be used on your
        non-full-frame DSLR?
        \_ Why not?  A nice lens is a nice lens.  Also, 2.8L doesn't say much.
           I mean, 135mm f/2.0L is a nice lens, regardless of if the body it's
           attached to has a crop sensor or a full-frame sensor.  There's no
           other way to get f/2.0 at that focal length, so there's nothing
           more to think about.
           \_ For starter, it's like putting a Z rated 180MPH tire on
              a Toyota Prius. It may work, but... WHY???
              \_ No, that would decrease the Prius' gas mileage.
        \_ LOL, I got it.  ok, here is the thing.  "L" doesn't necessary mean
           "good" lenses.  There are plenty of lenses that is not "L" in the
           canon lines that has equivalent optical quality.   Secondly, nobody
           describe lens in your way.  You don't say "2.8L" as it is some sort
           of engine displacement.  you can say f/2.8 or f2.8
           Thirdly, optical quality of a lens has NOTHING TO DO with the
           maximum aperature.  There are plenty of good lenses that is actually
           very slow.  I've seen good lens that has aperature of f/4, f/5.6
           even f/8.
           My advices to you are: always go for best optical quality
           lens you can afford.  If it means sacrafice in features (AF/MF
           clutch, Image stablization), zoom range (smaller zoom range or even
           fixed-focal length), slower AF, or simply getting an used one
           instead a new one, do it.  2nd.  Always go for the lens that is
           full-frame compatible.   Camera is moving towards full-frames, and
           \_ uh, no. Nikon is embracing DX, just look at their extensive
              DX lens lines (much more than Canon). Nikon is aiming for the
              consumer end DSLR market. They even made it possible to
              mount DX lenses on FX bodies, whereas it's not possible on
              Canon. Nikon is really losing grounds on the professional end
              DSLR niche. Canon is not really embracing the consumer end DSLR
              and instead is re-focusing on professional full-frame
              cameras. There are signs that they're cooling off on the
              1.6X EF-S end that the Nikon is dominating right now.
              \_ the reason why I said full-frame eventually going to
                 prevail is simple.  While non-full-frame's image sensor
                 is a lot cheaper than full-frame today, the ultra-wide
                 angle kit-lens is a lot more to make than the wide angle
                 kit-lens.  While cost of manufacturing image sensor is
                 coming down at a rapid (eventhough not rapid enough even
                 for me) rate, cost of making lenses doesn't go down that
                 quickly.  Eventually, it is going to be a lot cheaper to
                 make a full-frame body and attach with a cheap zoom, than
                 making a smaller sensor and attach with a more expensive
                 ultra-wide angle zoom.         kngharv
                 \- i agree with your mkt read over holobs, but i think you
                    need to provide more guidance than "buy the best optical
                    quality lenses you can afford". ideally, you would have
                    some sense of what you budget is a couple of years out
                    and what kind fo photography is the most meaningful to
                    you, but usually this is a case of "decision making under
                    uncertainty" and it's the uncertainty you need to guide
                    somebody through ... as opposed to picking between Canon Y
                    and Nikon X or Lens A+B or Lens C. i think some people
                    would prefer to say able able to shoot 6/10 landscape and
                    6/10 portraits and 6/10 telephoto and others might prefer
                    to shoot 8/10 landscape, 8/10 portraits, and 2/10 t'photo.
                    and again, i think if you are shooting in "difficult
                    situation" [hiking/climbing or other wise on-the-go,
                    unsafe [theft or damage] etc] weight and cost really,
                    really matter. a 3lbs +$1k high quality lens which you
                    hardly ever use because it is an asspain to haul around
                    may not serve you as well as a >$500 zoom. if you are just
                    getting into photography and choosing betwee a $500 lens
                    and a higher quality $1500 lens, spend the $1000 on a
                    ticket to somewhere photogenic ... like Nepal or HKG.
                    \_ except that's like bringing a lot of condoms to
                       Amsterdam only to find that you don't have enough
                       money to blow on um... local attractions.
                       \- the ambiguously asexual psb does not get humor.
           your lens is going to last a lot longer *AND* retain a lot more
           resell value than your camera body.           kngharv
           \_ I've been waiting for a full-frame body for less than 1.5K
              since 2002. I'm tired of waiting. Advice?
              \_ Buy a non-full-frame body?
                 \_ I have a D80, should I skip the D90 upgrade path?
                 \_ Seconded. -tom
                 \_ Third EXCEPT for the D40 since it can't use regular
                    AF for auto-focus. Many signs point that AF will be
                    around for only 5-10 years since new lenses today
                    like the brand new AF-S 50mm f/1.4 that just announced
                    will replace the AF 50mm lines, for about $100 more.
                    \_ yup, that is why I own a D50 and go out of my way
                        to look for a refurbished D50 for my friends who
                        want go into photography and want to stick with Nikon.
                        \_ Why not own both Canon + Nikon? It doesn't cost
                           that much more considering the TOTAL system you'll
                           spend anyways on a variety of good prime lenses.
                           PS I hate zoom lenses. Convenient, shitty pics.
                           \- your brain -> ISO 32 [and i mean "slow" not
                              "sharp"]
                           \_ Well sometimes convenience is required to be able
                              to get the shot at all. You can't always lug
                              around a bunch of camera crap, and fiddling with
                              lenses/settings takes time.
                    \_ also EXCEPT for the D40x and D60.