Q: Why would anyone bother using an EF 16-35mm f/4L IS on APS-C?

hotdog321 wrote:

Actually makes good sense if someone has a FF camera or is planing on going FF in the future.

I don't quite get this reasoning. I tried my 16-35mm f/4 lens on my crop camera and found no real advantage to the 18-55 STM kit lens, which I bought earlier last year. The kit lens on the other hand is lighter and has a more versatile zoom range, esp. towards the tele end. The L lens on the crop camera is simply bulky and heavy.

I understand the point that this means: two EOS cameras with different sensor size - two lenses (instead of one), but it's simply just like two different worlds, where the possibility of using the heavier lens on the crop camera is just a bad compromise, at least in my opinion.

Have I missed anything?

Question; so how do you think the images would compare between the kit lens and the 16-35 on a 6D? I currently am shooting with a crop sensor but will be moving to FF. When that time comes, the money that I would get for selling my current camera isn't enough to justify selling it. I will keep it an use it along with my new FF camera. So with that in mind, the difference between the kit lens and the 16-35 in your opinion is negligible on a crop. How do you think they would compare on a FF sensor?? For those of us that are planning on moving (soon) to FF, I think it does make sense to look at the FF lenses over the APS-C lenses for the sole reason of flexibility. Sure, the 16-35L is a bit more money than the kit, but you're getting two lenses. On a crop it's a 'normal zoom' being approximately 25-56 and on a FF it's a UW zoom, being 16-35. I just don't see the advantage of the mighty kit lens here though. Sure, it covers most of the zoom range of the L (16-18) is actually a big difference at the wide end. But it just won't give me anything on those days that I want to shoot with my FF camera.