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

[wickidwombat]

Time to chime in on this one. I am a 7D user here just to get that out of the way...
http://chuckalaimo.com/

LOL i had to laugh it made me think of AA... "Hi my name is.... and I'm a 7D user"

But I think you are right if you have a good WA like the 10-20 or the tokina then the 24-70 is better on a crop than on FF especially if you are shooting people with it effectively 38mm to 112mm, wide enough for group shots, long enough for tight portraits head shots and some candids.
Although if the new 24-70 is as sharp as it promises i'll have to seriously consider it
but i'm trying very hard to resist buying the 24 f1.4L II at the moment

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Time to chime in on this one. I am a 7D user here just to get that out of the way...
http://chuckalaimo.com/

LOL i had to laugh it made me think of AA... "Hi my name is.... and I'm a 7D user"

But I think you are right if you have a good WA like the 10-20 or the tokina then the 24-70 is better on a crop than on FF especially if you are shooting people with it effectively 38mm to 112mm, wide enough for group shots, long enough for tight portraits head shots and some candids.
Although if the new 24-70 is as sharp as it promises i'll have to seriously consider it
but i'm trying very hard to resist buying the 24 f1.4L II at the moment

I've been seriously eyeing the 50mm 1.4... I think I want to wait to pull the trigger on that one until I go FF though. On a crop its effectively 80mm, and I really doubt I'll be shooting in large enough spaces between now and then to make it an effective purchase. But then again, that also depends on when they both announce the 5d mkiii and make it actually available - and, whether I can hold on to what I'm saving long enough! lol, if a good condition used 5dmkii comes along for $1700 it may be hard to resist!!!!

That's lots of if's though, and slightly off topic - other than it demonstrates how to strategically plan purchases! Plan for the future - don't invest a ton in glass without a plan!

http://chuckalaimo.com/

 

[wickidwombat]

i love my 50 f1.4 I think i got a good copy, some people are not happy with theirs so i guess before paying for it test it out

 

[decltype]

There's little to no practical reason to use an EF-S lens with a full frame body. Comprable full frame lenses will always get better resolution. In fact I made a list a while ago of every EF-S lens and the coresponding full frame lens at that price range and in every case the full frame lens was sharper than the EF-S lens in LPPM. Meaning using EF-S lenses would always be more expensive and result in lower quality. There would be some rare situations where it would be a good idea to be cross compatible though I'm sure though.

Did you perform the sharpness tests yourself, or did you use third-party data? Reading various internet reviews, I have yet to see a full-frame zoom that outresolves the 17-55 IS within the APS-C imaging circle. Of course, that is likely to change very soon


From personal experience, my 17-55 was visibly sharper than 24-105, 17-40 and 24-70 at all tested focal lengths.

 

[D.Sim]

I could be wrong but I thought that only Nikon could do it because they hold the patent for it. So for sure Canon can technologically do it, but if it anything remotely close to the way Nikon does it, they wont be able to because of Nikon's patent. That was my understanding...maybe soomeone can confirm...

Jacques

Canon DSLRs already have mirror lockup. Canon pocket cameras can autofocus using contrast detection. The rest is technicalities, specifically -

1. A way to turn the camera off with the mirror locked up.

2. Check if an EF-S lens is connected to the camera, and if so -
2.1. If mirror is down, keep it down, display a message on the back screen, and under no condition move it up.
2.2. If mirror is up, keep it locked up, and use contrast detection to autofocus.

2.1 -> You need to move it up to take a picture, all you'd have then is a telescope - if you have the 55-250 or maybe the 18-200 on.

2.2 -> You'd then have a glorified and overpriced point and shoot - you can't use your viewfinder, and you're stuck using liveview/slow contrast detection...


As its been said, the EF-S design is significantly different from a Nikon DX vs FX lens. The S stands for short back focus - means its closer to the sensor, which allows the smaller circle for the smaller camera, and also lower pricing. It keeps costs down, so thats brilliant.


That all said and done: if you can afford full frame, you can afford L glass. just saying. Why you'd want to go full frame them have it crop in-camera with a relatively inferior piece of glass is beyond me....

 

[AvTvM]

As its been said, the EF-S design is significantly different from a Nikon DX vs FX lens. The S stands for short back focus - means its closer to the sensor, which allows the smaller circle for the smaller camera, and also lower pricing. It keeps costs down, so thats brilliant.

Looking at my EF-S lenses I notice, that while of them have the "EF-S protrusion" [ca. 4mm] at the mount that sticks into the mirror box. But I can only see that extra space really being used up by the rear element in the EF-S 10-22. On all my other EF-S lenses the space offered within the protrusion at the back is never actually used by the rear glass element. As far as I can see, all of these other EF-S lenses could easily fit in a lens with an EF-mount without any changes in the optical formula/layout of lens elements.

So in essence, Canon is not actually using the "short back focus" in almost all of the current EF-S lenses. They might as well have done them in a regular EF-mount. Of course, the image circle would still be APS-C and not larger. But it would have allowed for the same "in-body crop concept" Nikon is using. Yes, that is also only a "workaround" but I find it way better to have DX lenses that are - within their limitations (small image circle) - perfectly usable also on FX camera bodies rather than being stuck with Canon EF-S lenses that are totally useless on Canon FF bodies ...

That all said and done: if you can afford full frame, you can afford L glass. just saying. Why you'd want to go full frame them have it crop in-camera with a relatively inferior piece of glass is beyond me....

exactly my opinion!

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.

 

[D.Sim]

Most people looking to make the step up would be seriously upgrading lenses, before the body though. So it'll be more of a gradual thing, rather than spur of the moment, and wont be as big a step up as people initially think.

Especially for those who have always been planning for the upgrade from the start, and have been investing in good glass. Part of the reason I went for the 17-40 myself was because I intend to step up to a full frame, and the 17-55 would then pretty much become a paperweight. i *could* sell, true, but I'm a pack rat, and hate to part with anything of my own...

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

I could be wrong but I thought that only Nikon could do it because they hold the patent for it. So for sure Canon can technologically do it, but if it anything remotely close to the way Nikon does it, they wont be able to because of Nikon's patent. That was my understanding...maybe soomeone can confirm...

Jacques

Canon DSLRs already have mirror lockup. Canon pocket cameras can autofocus using contrast detection. The rest is technicalities, specifically -

1. A way to turn the camera off with the mirror locked up.

2. Check if an EF-S lens is connected to the camera, and if so -
2.1. If mirror is down, keep it down, display a message on the back screen, and under no condition move it up.
2.2. If mirror is up, keep it locked up, and use contrast detection to autofocus.

2.1 -> You need to move it up to take a picture, all you'd have then is a telescope - if you have the 55-250 or maybe the 18-200 on.

This is a security measure against the case in which the photographer does not lock the mirror up before mounting the EF-S lens.

2.2 -> You'd then have a glorified and overpriced point and shoot - you can't use your viewfinder, and you're stuck using liveview/slow contrast detection...

Yes, that's the best that can be done in this situation.

That all said and done: if you can afford full frame, you can afford L glass. just saying. Why you'd want to go full frame them have it crop in-camera with a relatively inferior piece of glass is beyond me....

I bought a 5Dmk2, and only the zoom lenses I bought are L. The primes I bought (50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 15mm f/2.8) are not L, but more than satisfactory to me.

 

[smirkypants]

I've read just about one too many 5D vs 7D, crop vs. FF threads. They aren't mutually exclusive. You don't have to be in one camp or another. Get both if you can. Liberate yourself from this Us vs. Them mentality.

Let's leave aside the predictable and stale arguments. The pro-FF crowd usually ticks off the same list of benefits and the pro-crop crowd enumerates theirs. Guess what, they are both right.

There is something great about owning both: each lens becomes two lenses. Since they use the same battery and can share most of the same lenses, it's a cost effective way to double your lens collection because you have two focal lengths, assuming you avoid ef-s lenses.

Your 50/1.4 can act as a full body shot lens on your 5D and a head/shoulder lens on your 7D.
Your 24/1.4 is a good wide angle on your 5D but more of a normal lens on your 7D.
Your 70-200 is a nice portrait/event camera on the 5D but is vaguely equivalent to the 70-300 on a 7D.

And an extra body in your camera bag really doesn't take up that much weight and space. It's about the same as a normal zoom lens with the added benefit of in a pinch having a backup camera.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

There's little to no practical reason to use an EF-S lens with a full frame body. Comprable full frame lenses will always get better resolution. In fact I made a list a while ago of every EF-S lens and the coresponding full frame lens at that price range and in every case the full frame lens was sharper than the EF-S lens in LPPM. Meaning using EF-S lenses would always be more expensive and result in lower quality. There would be some rare situations where it would be a good idea to be cross compatible though I'm sure though.

Did you perform the sharpness tests yourself, or did you use third-party data? Reading various internet reviews, I have yet to see a full-frame zoom that outresolves the 17-55 IS within the APS-C imaging circle. Of course, that is likely to change very soon


From personal experience, my 17-55 was visibly sharper than 24-105, 17-40 and 24-70 at all tested focal lengths.

Sounds to me like you have 2 options - keep your 17-55, keep your crop sensor camera, and upgrade when the time comes to a better crop sensor camera. It sounds like you know what your doing, IE: buying lenses that only work on a 1.6 crop with the knowledge that they only work on a 1.6 crop body as opposes to buying EF mount lenses that can work on either a crop body or an FF body.

Your second option is to move nikon, so then you can invest in whatever glass you want and not worry.

I for one do not feel limited my EF glass, theres plenty to choose from. It's all about picking a path and planning your upgrades man. If your dead set on EF-S glass, then use it, except it's limitations, find your niche with it, and run with it.

Just out of curiosity - how did you test the 17-55, 24-105, 17-40 and 24-70? Did you rent all of them? Did you rent a FF camera too to see what the EF lenses could do on a FF body?

 

[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 1.8) 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 1.8) 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. 2.8) 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.

 

[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.