Hi Rocky
only half answers my question though... I think it might have been better if there was no ef-s mount at all, that canon should have went down the route taken by Nikon, in that canon retained their main mount the EF.
I get the safety implications that a short back focus lens could collide with the mirror, but sigma tamron tokina samyang all seem able to make lenses that use the ef mount, concentrate the image circle over an aps-c inager and don't break 135 format dslr mirrors...
Anyway, like I said, old debate... rekindled I suppose by the ef-m, but thats a different kettle of fish anyway, one where I think the adaptability to ef is key, rather than native ef... i.e there should be a range of tiny ef-m lenses that cater to the strengths of the system.. not the same old plasticky, slow aperture zooms, just slightly smaller. Fast ef-m prine pancakes all the way...!
only half answers my question though... I think it might have been better if there was no ef-s mount at all, that canon should have went down the route taken by Nikon, in that canon retained their main mount the EF.
I get the safety implications that a short back focus lens could collide with the mirror, but sigma tamron tokina samyang all seem able to make lenses that use the ef mount, concentrate the image circle over an aps-c inager and don't break 135 format dslr mirrors...
Anyway, like I said, old debate... rekindled I suppose by the ef-m, but thats a different kettle of fish anyway, one where I think the adaptability to ef is key, rather than native ef... i.e there should be a range of tiny ef-m lenses that cater to the strengths of the system.. not the same old plasticky, slow aperture zooms, just slightly smaller. Fast ef-m prine pancakes all the way...!
Upvote
0