One for tomorrow Richard....it's French bedtime here now.
I'll make a 72mm cling film filter with concentric circles of different colours (felt pens) and then shoot a white wall with the 50L on my 30D and then the 85L on a 1Ds3 and you reckon I'll see identical patterns.
Bob
PS....I'll get Mrs CB to make a conical hat with a "D" emblazoned on it just in case
Hold on with the hat Bob! Maybe Mrs CB could make me a humble pie instead...

Or a small one perhaps. I'm not quite sure what it is you're driving at here, but for my part it's not quite so clear-cut as I suggested earlier.
Sorry, this is getting technical. It may not be
quite as straightfoward as simple field of view. I've just done my own test mentioned above, with blobs of felt tip on the cling film and filter, and popped it on my 24-105L - which I've not done previously, only on the 17-40L which is what I always use for grads.
To my astonishment, when you zoom the lens, the blobs don't move. They quickly get more and more out of focus as focal length increases, which amounts to much the same thing in practice so this is somewhat moot, but they hardly move at all.
Somewhat puzzled, I put the filter/blobs on the 17-40L - and normal service was resumed. Zoom the lens, and the number of blobs visible reduces with focal length increasing.
For comparison, with the 24-105L I can see about five blobs across the frame and that remains constant as you zoom. With the 17-40L, I can see six at 17mm, reducing to three at 40mm.
It then occured to me that if I set the 24-105L at 40mm, I should get a darker grad effect than with the 17-40L at 40mm (everything else the same) and that's exactly what I got. Nothing dramatic, but certainly there.
I'm concluding therefore that the area of the filter seen by the lens, and therefore the extent of the grad effect, is not strictly determined by focal length and field of view in the scene alone - though they appear to be the dominant factors. It also depends on the distance the filter is from the entrance pupil which is a known moveable feast on many zooms.
I've noticed this before with these two lenses, when fiddling about with a nodal rail for stitched panoramas. To get things to line up exactly with close range objects, the lens must pivot around the extrance pupil and I noticed that with the 24-105L it didn't change much as you zoom, whereas with the 17-40L it did (slightly).
So, taking all this on board, it's quite possible to get slightly different grad results with lenses of the same focal length and field of view on the same camera (as I've proved) and that when focal lengths are equalised in terms of field of view with differerent formats, the results could change again, according to individual lens design. I would also expect there to be far less variables of this nature with primes than zooms.
Phew! Apologies for the long post, and for the confusion earlier. With creme anglaise please Bob
