If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Canon EF & EF-S lenses
Slack wrote:
If a smaller mirror is needed, why not just use non-reflective tape instead of dremelling the thing? Thanks for making me laugh. A lot. ;-) |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Canon EF & EF-S lenses
John A. Stovall wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 13:37:47 -0800, Slack wrote: If a smaller mirror is needed, why not just use non-reflective tape instead of dremelling the thing? You have to physically reduce the size of the mirror to clear the back of the lens. blushed face Ohhhh, well in case, I guess my tape trick wouldn't work :-P _____ Slack |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Canon EF & EF-S lenses
Tony Polson wrote:
Slack wrote: If a smaller mirror is needed, why not just use non-reflective tape instead of dremelling the thing? Thanks for making me laugh. A lot. ;-) Glad to be of assistance :-) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Canon EF & EF-S lenses
"Skip M" wrote in message news:gkNdf.51$K26.12@fed1read02... wrote in message ... In message , John A. Stovall wrote: Simple solution don't buy EF-S lenses and plan to go to a 5D on 1D body. But what do you substitute the 10-22 EF-S or 17-85 IS EF-S with? The 10-22 with a 1.6x crop is better in the corners than the 16-35L on a FF. The 28-135 IS not a stellar lens; it's only quality is its IS. -- The 17-85 and 28-135 are roughly on the same level, optically, from all reports. And the 16-35 stopped down to the f3.5 that the 10-22 starts at starts to look a little better in the corners. And the 10-22 really sucks at f2.8... ;-) Yeah, it is pretty unusable at f/2.8. Greg |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Canon EF & EF-S lenses
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Canon EF & EF-S lenses
"John A. Stovall" wrote: On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 17:35:06 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans wrote: wrote: What are canon EF-S lenses? What is the difference between EF-S & EF lenses? Are EF-S optimized for digital cameras, to take into account the 1.6x conversion factor on small-framed sensors? Yes. EF-S lenses are optimized for digital cameras. They are mechanically set up so that they are difficult or impossible to mount on full-frame cameras. You seem to forget there are Full Frame Digital cameras. The reason they are made not to mount on FF Canon bodies is they are a compromise for small sensors. Not exactly. They are designed for the APS-C sensor. There is no compromise involved. Colin D. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Canon EF & EF-S lenses
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 16:02:57 GMT, John A. Stovall
wrote: On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 15:32:15 GMT, wrote: But what do you substitute the 10-22 EF-S or 17-85 IS EF-S with? I don't substitute as I don't see much need for 16mm with a 1.6 crop. Some of us however do, which is why the 10-22mm presumably exists. Well why buy a 10-22 when in reality it is only a 16-35 on the 1.6 sensor and won't work on FF? Because FF compatibility isn't required but the FOV of a 16-35mm on the 1.6 sensor is? I find my 17-40L and 24-80L do fine for that range and will also work as designed with my 5D. I can appreciate that, but if (a) an effective 28mm isn't wide enough and (b) a FF camera doesn't enter the equation then the 10-22mm makes sense. Al -- [This space left intentionally blank] |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Canon EF & EF-S lenses
John A. Stovall wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 17:35:06 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans wrote: wrote: What are canon EF-S lenses? What is the difference between EF-S & EF lenses? Are EF-S optimized for digital cameras, to take into account the 1.6x conversion factor on small-framed sensors? Yes. EF-S lenses are optimized for digital cameras. They are mechanically set up so that they are difficult or impossible to mount on full-frame cameras. You seem to forget there are Full Frame Digital cameras. The reason they are made not to mount on FF Canon bodies is they are a compromise for small sensors. Sorry. Badly written. See my last sentence above. ---- Paul J. Gans |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Canon EF & EF-S lenses
John A. Stovall wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:41:37 +1300, Colin D wrote: "John A. Stovall" wrote: On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 17:35:06 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans wrote: wrote: What are canon EF-S lenses? What is the difference between EF-S & EF lenses? Are EF-S optimized for digital cameras, to take into account the 1.6x conversion factor on small-framed sensors? Yes. EF-S lenses are optimized for digital cameras. They are mechanically set up so that they are difficult or impossible to mount on full-frame cameras. You seem to forget there are Full Frame Digital cameras. The reason they are made not to mount on FF Canon bodies is they are a compromise for small sensors. Not exactly. They are designed for the APS-C sensor. There is no compromise involved. An APS-C sensor by its existence is a compromise. AHA! Religious war in the offing! Anything under 8x10 is a compromise. We need an 8x10 sensor. Nothing else will do. ---- Paul J. Gans |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Canon EF & EF-S lenses
"John A. Stovall" wrote: On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:41:37 +1300, Colin D wrote: "John A. Stovall" wrote: On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 17:35:06 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans wrote: wrote: What are canon EF-S lenses? What is the difference between EF-S & EF lenses? Are EF-S optimized for digital cameras, to take into account the 1.6x conversion factor on small-framed sensors? Yes. EF-S lenses are optimized for digital cameras. They are mechanically set up so that they are difficult or impossible to mount on full-frame cameras. You seem to forget there are Full Frame Digital cameras. The reason they are made not to mount on FF Canon bodies is they are a compromise for small sensors. Not exactly. They are designed for the APS-C sensor. There is no compromise involved. An APS-C sensor by its existence is a compromise. There speaks a true 35mm Luddite. You realize there was a time when the 35mm negative size was looked down on as a compromise, as was in turn anything smaller than about 10x8 - and probably still is by some. You are in peril of ignoring modern advances in image capture, and of the uses for which APS_C sensors are designed. Everyone seems to want to stack up an APS sensor against films like Velvia. Not too many want to contest the point with 800 or 1600 ISO films though - why is that, do you think? Because a sensor of that size, Canon, Nikon, Minolta, whatever, will lick the living daylights out of any color film above about 400 ISO, and give 200 and even 100 ISO films a bad fright. Compromise is in your mind. Colin D. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter | Bill Hilton | Digital Photography | 7 | October 24th 05 11:27 PM |
Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter | Bill Hilton | 35mm Photo Equipment | 7 | October 24th 05 11:27 PM |
Considering the Canon 5D, but new to Canon lenses...(long) | Martin Francis | Digital SLR Cameras | 3 | September 2nd 05 10:00 PM |
FS: Canon L Lenses - 200 f/2.8 and 20-35 f/2.8 | Folkie | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 1 | February 23rd 05 02:48 AM |
FA Canon EOS bodies, "L" Lenses, access... | J&C | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | December 20th 03 03:28 AM |