August 23, 2014, 11:27:03 AM

Author Topic: Using EF-S lens on FF body???  (Read 17186 times)

Edwin Herdman

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 542
    • View Profile
Re: Using EF-S lens on FF body???
« Reply #30 on: July 27, 2011, 11:56:00 AM »
The one definite APS-C advantage, albeit a theoretical and contrived one, that I can think of is in wildlife or similar photography where you want the most "pixels on target."  For the same focal length, the APS-C camera is not necessarily putting more pixels on target - assuming the same pixel pitch as the full frame camera, of course (full frame often would seem to give you a slightly chunkier picture due to lower pixel pitch) - your frame has less extraneous data off-target, which means that you should in theory have a better ratio of used to unused data in each camera file.

In practice, of course, APS-C sensors have been higher density than full frame sensors (probably something to do with reject rates - bad small pixels on a FF sensor would mean an appreciably more expensive chip to throw away, so they probably use older production processes) so, assuming the lens is up to the task, you can pick out more details as well - generally good for wildlife once again.

Mt Spokane Photography

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 8419
    • View Profile
Re: Using EF-S lens on FF body???
« Reply #31 on: July 27, 2011, 01:29:22 PM »
In practice, of course, APS-C sensors have been higher density than full frame sensors (probably something to do with reject rates - bad small pixels on a FF sensor would mean an appreciably more expensive chip to throw away, so they probably use older production processes) so, assuming the lens is up to the task, you can pick out more details as well - generally good for wildlife once again.

Its more difficult to make FF sensors:  From Canon White Paper

"the circuit pattern of a fullframe
sensor is too large to be projected on the silicon wafer all at once; it requires
three separate exposures (See page 53). This means that the number of masks and
exposure processes is tripled. For now, appreciate that a full-frame sensor costs not
three or four times, but ten, twenty or more times as much as an APS-C sensor"

Aligning those masks is very difficult, and as photosite size decreases, it must be even more critical.

I wonder if  thats why Nikon has kept with 12MP on their own FF sensors.  Sony and Canon had the technique to do a finer alignment for a reasonable cost?

APS-C and APS-H do not require the triple masking and alignment process, so they are much easier to make.

iaind

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
    • View Profile
Re: Using EF-S lens on FF body???
« Reply #32 on: August 15, 2011, 04:08:56 PM »
Possible with 25mm ext tube

When I went FF I got a s/h 17-35 2.8L  10-22 now gathers dust.
5DIII + BGE11 / 5DII + BGE6 / 40D + BGE2N /8-15 4L / 17-35 2.8L / 24 3.5L TS-E /24-70 2.8II L / 24-105 4L IS /Zuiko 50 1.4/ 100 2.8L Macro IS / 70-200 2.8L / 300 4L / 100-400L

Bruce Photography

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 197
  • Landscapes, 5DX,7D,60D,EOSM,D800/E,D810,D7100
    • View Profile
Re: Using EF-S lens on FF body???
« Reply #33 on: August 16, 2011, 03:56:33 AM »
Remember that Nikon does have the D3X which is full frame and 25MP.  Also Nikon has to buy their sensors from Sony because they don't make their own FF sensor.  Every Nikon FF machine has to include in its' price the profit for Sony to take home from their sale of the FF sensor to Nikon.  Canon has quite an advantage in being first to CMOS production in house which keeps that profit also in-house.  In addition, Canon can engineer the chips to their complete specfication.  I'm sure that Nikon has a great amount of sway in the sensors that Sony delivers, but they seem to be the same as what is in a Sony camera (the sensor itself and not the support chips).

rossbeckernz

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Using EF-S lens on FF body???
« Reply #34 on: September 04, 2011, 03:32:23 AM »
I use an EF-S 10-22mm on my 1D4.  But this is only possible when you have removed the plastic base insert and replaced it with an appropriate EF base.  This is because the EF-S lens protrudes a lot further into the camera body than an EF lens.  In fact the construction of the FF & 1.3 crop bodies ensures that the EF-S lenses will not normally mount. With my 1.3 crop bodies I have limited the zoom to 12-22 as wider than that two things happen.
1  the mirror hits the rear lens.
2  the image circle gets too small & you get cutoff at the corners.

You can see how I did it here.  There is also a gallery of photos taken with the modified lens on my 1D3.
http://bitly.com/cxTMuw

Cheers
Ross Becker
New Zealand

ontarian

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
    • View Profile
Re: Using EF-S lens on FF body???
« Reply #35 on: September 04, 2011, 11:59:04 AM »
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ontarian/4561467724/
Here is how I did the 10-22 on my 1D3 a few years back.  Great mod and I kept the mirror from hitting by putting a foam sticker inside the uv filter to stop the movement below 12mm, worked like a charm.  -Ed Mika

ecka

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 610
  • Size matters ;)
    • View Profile
    • flickr
Re: Using EF-S lens on FF body???
« Reply #36 on: September 04, 2011, 12:09:18 PM »
EF-S on FF sounds cheap and not very smart  :o APS-H is a better reason for such discussion.
IMHO, Canon should have made 1D bodies compatible with EF-S lenses, because now they are selling a pro body that can't shoot UWA with OEM lenses. 14mm x1.3 ~ 18mm, 16mm x1.3 ~ 21mm.
Big mistake, Canon.
FF + primes !

ontarian

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
    • View Profile
Re: Using EF-S lens on FF body???
« Reply #37 on: September 04, 2011, 12:23:15 PM »
EF-S on FF sounds cheap and not very smart  :o APS-H is a better reason for such discussion.
IMHO, Canon should have made 1D bodies compatible with EF-S lenses, because now they are selling a pro body that can't shoot UWA with OEM lenses. 14mm x1.3 ~ 18mm, 16mm x1.3 ~ 21mm.
Big mistake, Canon.

Problem is 1D bodies have full frame mirrors so even if the EF-S image circle is ok enough for 1.3 crop, the -S(short throw back distance) causes mirror interference.

DJL329

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 468
    • View Profile
Re: Using EF-S lens on FF body???
« Reply #38 on: September 04, 2011, 12:39:42 PM »
EF-S on FF sounds cheap and not very smart  :o APS-H is a better reason for such discussion.
IMHO, Canon should have made 1D bodies compatible with EF-S lenses, because now they are selling a pro body that can't shoot UWA with OEM lenses. 14mm x1.3 ~ 18mm, 16mm x1.3 ~ 21mm.
Big mistake, Canon.

The 1D bodies weren't made for shooting UWA; they're for shooting action/wildlife at tele and super-telephoto focal lengths, hence the 1.3x crop and higher frame rates.  A pro or serious amateur who needs to shoot UWA, is going to use one of the full frame (1Ds or 5D) bodies.
Canon EOS 5D Mark III | EF 14mm f/2.8L | EF 28mm f/1.8 | EF 50mm f/1.4 | EF 85mm f/1.8 | EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro | EF 300mm f/4L IS

ontarian

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
    • View Profile
Re: Using EF-S lens on FF body???
« Reply #39 on: September 04, 2011, 01:52:34 PM »
EF-S on FF sounds cheap and not very smart  :o APS-H is a better reason for such discussion.
IMHO, Canon should have made 1D bodies compatible with EF-S lenses, because now they are selling a pro body that can't shoot UWA with OEM lenses. 14mm x1.3 ~ 18mm, 16mm x1.3 ~ 21mm.
Big mistake, Canon.

The 1D bodies weren't made for shooting UWA; they're for shooting action/wildlife at tele and super-telephoto focal lengths, hence the 1.3x crop and higher frame rates.  A pro or serious amateur who needs to shoot UWA, is going to use one of the full frame (1Ds or 5D) bodies.

That may be true from Canons perspective but after getting addicted to the 1D interface I don't want to go back to a small body and can't afford/justify a 1DS so we run a pair of 1D4s.  I'm an (arguably) serious amateur and sometimes I like to shoot wide and theres the rub.

DJL329

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 468
    • View Profile
Re: Using EF-S lens on FF body???
« Reply #40 on: September 04, 2011, 02:54:37 PM »
EF-S on FF sounds cheap and not very smart  :o APS-H is a better reason for such discussion.
IMHO, Canon should have made 1D bodies compatible with EF-S lenses, because now they are selling a pro body that can't shoot UWA with OEM lenses. 14mm x1.3 ~ 18mm, 16mm x1.3 ~ 21mm.
Big mistake, Canon.

The 1D bodies weren't made for shooting UWA; they're for shooting action/wildlife at tele and super-telephoto focal lengths, hence the 1.3x crop and higher frame rates.  A pro or serious amateur who needs to shoot UWA, is going to use one of the full frame (1Ds or 5D) bodies.

That may be true from Canons perspective but after getting addicted to the 1D interface I don't want to go back to a small body and can't afford/justify a 1DS so we run a pair of 1D4s.  I'm an (arguably) serious amateur and sometimes I like to shoot wide and theres the rub.

Well, life is about making compromises.  :)  If you really want to shoot landscapes, then you can't go wrong with the 5D (either version).  A used 5D classic will run you about a grand.  Personally, I love the "Custom" modes on the 5D Mark II:  configure all the settings any way you want and save it.  Then, just turn the dial to that setting and you're ready to shoot!

Another option is the new EF 8-15mm f/4.0L fisheye.  You'd have to use software to "de-fish" it and you'd lose a bit of the frame in the process, but it would still be wider than any other EF lens.

Finally, you could use the original EF 15mm f/2.8 fisheye and not "de-fish" it.  Here's a link to a guy I found on fredmiranda.com who uses fisheyes on all 3 formats:  full frame, 1.3x and 1.6x.  On the crop bodies, the 15mm isn't too "fishy" looking, so it might be a usable compromise.

http://www.pbase.com/dbehrens/15fe
« Last Edit: September 04, 2011, 03:32:10 PM by DJL329 »
Canon EOS 5D Mark III | EF 14mm f/2.8L | EF 28mm f/1.8 | EF 50mm f/1.4 | EF 85mm f/1.8 | EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro | EF 300mm f/4L IS

ontarian

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
    • View Profile
Re: Using EF-S lens on FF body???
« Reply #41 on: September 04, 2011, 05:38:02 PM »
The EF 14mm 2.8 II we traded our 7D and 2x ii extender for a few weeks ago is doing the trick for us.  I'm currently trying the 8-15 fisheye for a few weeks to see how I like it but I have a feeling that my 300 dollar Optex 6.5 fisheye will be hard to justify upgrading from.

ecka

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 610
  • Size matters ;)
    • View Profile
    • flickr
Re: Using EF-S lens on FF body???
« Reply #42 on: September 05, 2011, 03:47:35 AM »
EF-S on FF sounds cheap and not very smart  :o APS-H is a better reason for such discussion.
IMHO, Canon should have made 1D bodies compatible with EF-S lenses, because now they are selling a pro body that can't shoot UWA with OEM lenses. 14mm x1.3 ~ 18mm, 16mm x1.3 ~ 21mm.
Big mistake, Canon.

The 1D bodies weren't made for shooting UWA; they're for shooting action/wildlife at tele and super-telephoto focal lengths, hence the 1.3x crop and higher frame rates.  A pro or serious amateur who needs to shoot UWA, is going to use one of the full frame (1Ds or 5D) bodies.
I know what 1D is made for, but if you are a professional and you want the best from both UWA and telephoto then you need both 1D and 1Ds. If you are a serious pro photographer then you must have a backup camera for each of those. Even if your backup is 7D and 5D2 you will end up spending a lot more than, let say, if you were a Nikon shooter (D3s is FF, high fps and does UWA). Not every pro can make such investment. If 1D was EF-S compatible then it would be much easier choice. Something like 1D + 7D as a backup camera could do the trick. Both can use the same UWA lenses, both good for telephoto, both got high fps. The only compromise is that none of them is FF.
FF + primes !