Canon Full Frame body with crop mode ( that can use EF-S lenses)

[Chuck Alaimo]

However, the financial hurdle "to go FF" is aggravated for those "enthusiasts" coming from a Canon AP-S body + a setup of the - very good - EF-S lenses (e.g. 10-22, 17-55, 15-85, 60 Macro) and aspiring to "go FF". They need to either sell their APS-C gear or keep it and spend a significant amount of money for a 5D II or coming 5D III/X  plus good L-wide-angle glass (16-35 II, 24-70 II) in order to really tap intpo the expanded photographic capabilities (shallow DOF, Hi ISO, ...)  and somewhat higher IQ of FF over APS-C. For most non-Pros without income from photography that is quite a big step money-wise.

Ok, to start lets go with prices,

10-22 = $800
17-55 = $1120
15-85 = $760
60 mm macro = $460

That's a lot of money to spend on glass.  I don't know about you guys, but, if i am going to spend over $200 on anything I am going to do my due diligence and research it.  If an enthusiast has that kind of money to throw around and doesn't read the specs enough to realize that these lenses  cannot be used on a FF camera, well then i have zero sympathy - do some research before you shell out lots of money. 

If you bought all these lenses, I have one big big q - why in the world would you buy a 15-85 if you have a 17-55 and a 10-22???   If you needed the range, why not get the 85mm 1.8 for $390?  The 85 is an EF mount, on a crop its effective range is 136mm.  It's much faster than the 15-85mm (3.5-5.6 compared to 1. and its half the cost!

And the macro, for not very much more $$$ ($555) there is a 100mm 2.8 macro that is EF mount, and, there is a 50 mm 2.5 for less $$$ than the 60 mm ($275). 

It didn't take very much research at all to find these options, all of about 5 minutes on the B&H photo site.  Bottom line here is, knowing that the EF-S line is not compatible with FF cameras, why would you buy these lenses if you did in fact want to move to FF?   Don't expect canon to re-engineer their whole system because you either didn't do the research, or, cause you were fine with crop, invested in crop, then one day decided you wanted FF. 

[AvTvM]

... That's a lot of money to spend on glass.  I don't know about you guys, but, if i am going to spend over $200 on anything I am going to do my due diligence and research it.  If an enthusiast has that kind of money to throw around and doesn't read the specs enough to realize that these lenses  cannot be used on a FF camera, well then i have zero sympathy - do some research before you shell out lots of money. 

Don't worry, I have done all the research myself. :-)

I was and am fully aware that EF-S lenses are not FF-capable. All of the EF-S lenses in my current setup  (10-22, 17-55, 60 Macro) offer great IQ with less weight and bulk and typically also significantly less cost than focal-range equivalent EF lenses.

Like gazillions of amateur/enthusiast (=no significant income from photography) Canon users, my current setup of body (7D) and lenses has evolved over time. Starting out with a "lowly" 350D/Rebel XT plus the infamous first generation EF-S 18-55 kit lens through quite a number of purchases and sales, new and used - to where the setup is now (in addition to the EF-S lenses mentioned I currently have the EF 50/1.4, 100/2.0, 70-200/2.8 II). Overall I am quite happy with these lenses, they cover almost all of my shooting interests and situations. :-)

I have no immediate plans to purchase an FF camera body. I just point out, that existing Canon EF-S lens owners face a major financial obstacle if they want to upgrade to a Canon FF body, because Canon decided to bring out APS-C lenses with an incompatible lens mount, wheras Nikon offers a far more sensible solution with their DX-lenses that can be readily used on any of their FF bodies ... of course the limitations of the smaller image circle will fully apply.  So from both the customer and system perspectives Nikons approach is a way better solution than Canon's. In other words: Canon is making it more difficult that Nikon for their APS-C user base to "upgrade" to FF. 

If you bought all these lenses, I have one big big q - why in the world would you buy a 15-85 if you have a 17-55 and a 10-22???   If you needed the range, why not get the 85mm 1.8 for $390?  The 85 is an EF mount, on a crop its effective range is 136mm.  It's much faster than the 15-85mm (3.5-5.6 compared to 1. and its half the cost!

I do not own the 15-85, I just mentioned it as one more example of a very good and highly useful EF-S lens owned by a good number of Canon APS-C users.  And sorry, but an 85/1.8  is in no way or form a possible  substitute for a wide-range universal zoom like the 15-85.

And the macro, for not very much more $$$ ($555) there is a 100mm 2.8 macro that is EF mount, and, there is a 50 mm 2.5 for less $$$ than the 60 mm ($275). 

While it is a quite sharpt and cheap lens, I have no interest whatsoever in the odd-ball "1:2 semi-Macro only" old design EF 50/2.5. The 60 Macro with its great optical performance - great, low CAs - plus fast USM and native 1:1  macro runs circles around that old clunker. I really love the 60 because it is optically great, short, light and compact! It is my favorite "light and sharp fixed focal" general walk-around and outdoor-portrait lenses (despite the 50/1.4) as well as my dedicated "small objects"-lens (no living creatures however), since all my other lenses happen to have very weak magnification ratios. Overall I consider the EF-S 60 a truly outstanding value.  :-)

Nevertheless I may trade in the 60 Macro plus the 100/2.0 against a 100 Macro IS some day. I'm still sitting on the fence over this one - trading in a stop (2.0 vs. 2. on the 100 vs. IS and hopefully less hard to remove ugly   LoCAs on the 100 IS. Unfortunately it is a much bigger lens than the 60.   

Bottom line here is, knowing that the EF-S line is not compatible with FF cameras, why would you buy these lenses if you did in fact want to move to FF?   Don't expect canon to re-engineer their whole system because you either didn't do the research, or, cause you were fine with crop, invested in crop, then one day decided you wanted FF.

Like with almost everybody else, my current lens park has been assembled over  numbr of years (since 2005). I did not want to move to FF. I will not move to FF any time soon.

All I am syaing is: Canon is making it financially rather hard for most of its APS-C user base to "upgrade" to FF. Plus I do not consider the possible small gains in photographic capabilities and IQ significant enough to justify the expense. Neither for myself nor for the vast majority of fellow non-income from photography earners with a good Canon APS-C setup of body and lenses. Unless one has specific photographic interests that bbenefit from FF in a big way. Or if money is little or no object. In that case I would like a 5D III please, and a EF 14L II, a TS-17/4 and an EF 24-70L II to go with it. In additon to my 7D and EF-S lenses, not instead! :-) 

[danski0224]

I also do not understand why Canon decided to make it physically impossible to mount EF-S lenses onto an EF body.

It doesn't "help" the consumer.

It may keep consumers from "moving up" to full frame.

It *does* create more sales, though.

[dilbert]

I also do not understand why Canon decided to make it physically impossible to mount EF-S lenses onto an EF body.

It doesn't "help" the consumer.

It may keep consumers from "moving up" to full frame.

It *does* create more sales, though.

I think that it is actually bad marketting to allow crop lenses to be used on full frame.

Why?

Well, for starters, it means that your X-MP camera is no longer an X-MP camera but a camera with about 1/3 of the number of MP. There's enormous potential for confusion there, both in the shooter and the market of people receiving such images.

[danski0224]

I think that it is actually bad marketting to allow crop lenses to be used on full frame.

Why?

Well, for starters, it means that your X-MP camera is no longer an X-MP camera but a camera with about 1/3 of the number of MP. There's enormous potential for confusion there, both in the shooter and the market of people receiving such images.

I will admit to not knowing the technical end of why or why not, but if all that happens is essentially less than 100% coverage of the FF sensor when using EF-S lenses, what's the big deal?

This could be cropped out later, right?

While it may not be an ideal application, it makes no sense to me why EF-S on EF isn't allowed.

Does the short back focus really save that much money in the lens and camera manufacturing process?

[AvTvM]

Well, for starters, it means that your X-MP camera is no longer an X-MP camera but a camera with about 1/3 of the number of MP. There's enormous potential for confusion there, both in the shooter and the market of people receiving such images.

I do not care about confused know-nothing idiots at all. As a matter of fact, I would happily accept any sort of confusion amongst those, as long as it gives me and all other ***photographers*** who deserve this designation  the possibility to use APS-C lenses also on FF cameras.

It is as simple as this: Nikon is doing it 100% right by giving their customers total freedom to use any DX lens on any FF/FX body. With the D800 and the 36 MP sensor, this has just gotten even more valuable.  I for one would be more than happy to get a 15 MP image from any of my APS-C lenses on any FF sensor ... at roughly the same pixel pitch as a 7D/D7000 - but technically a full generation newer and more advanced.

Canon has taken a wrong, "dead-end" route with the EF_S mount.

This is all the more irksome, because  Canon is not even utilizing the potential advantage of EF-S (rear element closer to sensor) in most of the EF-S lenses: to my knowledge only the rear glass element in the 10-22 uses the extra space provided by the protrusion at the mount end. All other EF-S lenses could have just as well been fitted with an EF mount.

[Chuck Alaimo]

Well, for starters, it means that your X-MP camera is no longer an X-MP camera but a camera with about 1/3 of the number of MP. There's enormous potential for confusion there, both in the shooter and the market of people receiving such images.

I do not care about confused know-nothing idiots at all. As a matter of fact, I would happily accept any sort of confusion amongst those, as long as it gives me and all other ***photographers*** who deserve this designation  the possibility to use APS-C lenses also on FF cameras.

It is as simple as this: Nikon is doing it 100% right by giving their customers total freedom to use any DX lens on any FF/FX body. With the D800 and the 36 MP sensor, this has just gotten even more valuable.  I for one would be more than happy to get a 15 MP image from any of my APS-C lenses on any FF sensor ... at roughly the same pixel pitch as a 7D/D7000 - but technically a full generation newer and more advanced.

Canon has taken a wrong, "dead-end" route with the EF_S mount.

This is all the more irksome, because  Canon is not even utilizing the potential advantage of EF-S (rear element closer to sensor) in most of the EF-S lenses: to my knowledge only the rear glass element in the 10-22 uses the extra space provided by the protrusion at the mount end. All other EF-S lenses could have just as well been fitted with an EF mount.

Honestl, after reading and participating in this thread and another thread which brings up the same thing I think the best answer canon can give right now is to simply phase out the EF-S series!

[danski0224]

This is all the more irksome, because  Canon is not even utilizing the potential advantage of EF-S (rear element closer to sensor) in most of the EF-S lenses: to my knowledge only the rear glass element in the 10-22 uses the extra space provided by the protrusion at the mount end. All other EF-S lenses could have just as well been fitted with an EF mount.

Has anyone chucked an EF-S lens into a lathe and cut off the protrusion?

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Like with almost everybody else, my current lens park has been assembled over  numbr of years (since 2005). I did not want to move to FF. I will not move to FF any time soon.

All I am syaing is: Canon is making it financially rather hard for most of its APS-C user base to "upgrade" to FF. Plus I do not consider the possible small gains in photographic capabilities and IQ significant enough to justify the expense. Neither for myself nor for the vast majority of fellow non-income from photography earners with a good Canon APS-C setup of body and lenses. Unless one has specific photographic interests that bbenefit from FF in a big way. Or if money is little or no object. In that case I would like a 5D III please, and a EF 14L II, a TS-17/4 and an EF 24-70L II to go with it. In additon to my 7D and EF-S lenses, not instead! :-)

LOL!  So let me get this right, you want canon to re-engineer bodies and lenses so that EF-S can be used on FF - but you don't even want to go FF?  Wow, if i were part of canon's research team, you would have just proved why doing such a thing wouldn't be worth it, you want them to do it but you wouldn't buy it if they did!

And to the last paragraph - no one is forcing anyone to buy anything here.  Canon did not write you a letter saying you must buy EF-S lenses.  The EF mount selection is greater than the EF-S selection.  You made the choice to buy EF-S lenses, and you knew what that meant - therefore you can't say Canon made it hard for you to upgrade to FF - you made it more difficult.  the price difference between the 17-55 and the 24-70 is minimal (the mki version).  And most reviews favor the IQ on the 24-70 over the 17-55 (not to mention that the 24-70 has a much more durable build, weather sealing, etc etc).  The only real viable argument for going 17-55 over the 24-70 is if your lacking and need wide angle performance.  i would question adding the word 'need' here, only because pros have needs, while enthusiasts have wants.  That's not meant to bash enthusiasts, that's just being real - not all pros have gob loads of money and do have to carefully plan their purchases so they make sense - IE - buying whats needed to get the job done - pros have wants too!  I want the 8-15mm variable fisheye, and a TS lens.  But, the ROI on buying those just isn't there at the moment.  An enthusiast doesn't have to worry about ROI. 

Either way, back to the point - you made the choice to go EF-S, and you had your reasons for doing so, and you knew the limitation of the lens.  That's not Canon's fault.   

[Ellen Schmidtee]

What percentage of photographers who start with an APS-C camera, uprades to FF, and doesn't keep the APS-C body as backup?

[AdamJ]

Given that EF-S lenses were always designed specifically not to fit FF bodies, this thread is seven years out of date - the same issues were probably debated on forums like this when the original 5D was launched in 2005.

[AvTvM]

Of course I take the liberty to compare what Canon is offering and what competitors are offering. Canon is offering an objectively inferior solution to Nikon as far as usefulness of APS-C lenses is concerned. Nikon is giving its DX-lens customers more versatility for their money than Canon with the EF-S lenses. Thats all I am stating.

And yes, as I was writing all along: I have no immediate need nor desire "to go FF". I am very happy with APS-C. I got great wide-angle lenses and I got great tele lenses with reach I could not get at amateur-reasonable cost with FF. 

And should I ever decide to move to FF,  I can freely consider other brands as well, since staying with my  current supplier (Canon) would not afford major cost benefits, since the EF-S lenses won't be of any use then. Thats the point were Canons profit maximizing EF-S scheme backfires on them. :-)

[D.Sim]

I also do not understand why Canon decided to make it physically impossible to mount EF-S lenses onto an EF body.

It doesn't "help" the consumer.

It may keep consumers from "moving up" to full frame.

It *does* create more sales, though.

Long story short, its impossible because the rear of the lens is closer to the sensor. On an FF body the larger sensor would mean a larger mirror - which would then make contact with the closer lens. A bad thing.

Why is it closer to the sensor? To keep prices down. Long story short - with the back of the lens closer to the sensor, it means that it becomes easier to get wide angle/super wide angle - with less glass, a smaller size, and a larger aperture than otherwise possible.

In other words, it does help the consumer - in fact, it helps the larger consumer group - the APS-C users.

Would it keep them from moving up to FF - if they were planning on moving up in the first place? Nope - EF-S shows its quality most at super wide angles. IE: APS-C users will have one, maybe two at lenses at the most to (really) replace. 10-22/17-55 - two lenses with a big enough market for resale, so not really a problem. Maybe a third, 55-250, if you really think about it, but again, easy resale.

[D_Rochat]

Would it keep them from moving up to FF - if they were planning on moving up in the first place? Nope

I always intended on moving up to FF, so I stayed away from EF-S lenses. That being said, I believe some people go ahead and buy EF-S lenses before understanding that they don't work on FF cameras. I could see how that might frustrate some people and depending on how may EF-S lenses they have, it may persuade them to stay with APS-C rather than move up to FF.

[Ellen Schmidtee]

Why is it closer to the sensor? To keep prices down. Long story short - with the back of the lens closer to the sensor, it means that it becomes easier to get wide angle/super wide angle - with less glass, a smaller size, and a larger aperture than otherwise possible.

In other words, it does help the consumer - in fact, it helps the larger consumer group - the APS-C users.

Would it keep them from moving up to FF - if they were planning on moving up in the first place? Nope - EF-S shows its quality most at super wide angles. IE: APS-C users will have one, maybe two at lenses at the most to (really) replace. 10-22/17-55 - two lenses with a big enough market for resale, so not really a problem. Maybe a third, 55-250, if you really think about it, but again, easy resale.

Based on reviews, it seems the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 is as good as optically the Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, though it's back is not closer to the sensor.