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

[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.

 

[D.Sim]

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.

And if Canon made it, it would cost a bomb.

having it closer to the sensor doesn't make it a sharper performer - it makes it easier to design, and cheaper to produce.

 

[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.

And if Canon made it, it would cost a bomb.

having it closer to the sensor doesn't make it a sharper performer - it makes it easier to design, and cheaper to produce.

Based on B&H prices at the moment, the EF-S 10-22mm is $100 more expensive than the Sigma 8-16mm

As for ease of design, that's not something customers care about.

 

[The Bad Duck]

It is the second time Canon does this. The first move was to not make FD-lenses fit their EOS mount. However if I understand it right that move made their EF autofucos better then the competition.

I would REALLY like to be able to use my old FD lenses on my 5D mkII!! I have a nice set of primes and now I am buying them again in EF-mount. Expensive (but now I only lack the 200 /2.8 and then I am complete once again...).

I knew I wanted to go FF from the start but it took me 4 years to get there. So I stayed away from EF-s lenses except from 10-22 (I got that in the UK and sold it back in Sweden when I got my 5DII and lost nothing). It was not hard.

That said, building your system takes some planning. That is the reason we are here, is it not? To get information of what might happen and use that information to plan for future investments?

Nikon and pentax makes it right in a way - you can use all your lenses on all your cameras. But the cheap Nikon bodies have no AF with the cheap lenses (no AF-motor in the body). That is kind of bad - you buy a cheap house and then you must buy an expensive lens instead? How is that user-friendly? And manual focus with an aps-c body is hard/unrelyable. At least the canon lenses that does not work as a beginner would expect on a body does not fit. You always have AF on your AF camera if you mount a fiting canon lens.

Perhaps Canon did not forsee the huge resolutions we currently see in FF cameras when they designed the EF-s mount? I mean, it is first at high MP-counts that you would want to use a EF-s lens on a FF body. Take the 5D with 13 MP, you would not get a very high res shot if you mounted a EF-s lens on that.

In the end what makes the photogear so interesting is the fact that it always boils down to compromise. I love that since that makes it an optimization.

 

[danski0224]

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.

I believe it has been pointed out that none/very few of the EF-S lenses actually make full use of the protrusion and have glass there.

The only APS-C specific lens I own is a Tokina 11-16, and it fits on a 5DII. Nothing sticks out of the back of the lens.

I avoided purchasing any EF-S lenses because of the full frame incompatibility problem (at least with OEM lenses). I returned an EF-S 17-55 for the EF 16-35 II, and I realize that the two lenses are not the same.

And if there really is a difference in focus distance, why/how does an EF lens work on an EF-S lens body?

 

[Meh]

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.

I believe it has been pointed out that none/very few of the EF-S lenses actually make full use of the protrusion and have glass there.

The only APS-C specific lens I own is a Tokina 11-16, and it fits on a 5DII. Nothing sticks out of the back of the lens.

I avoided purchasing any EF-S lenses because of the full frame incompatibility problem (at least with OEM lenses). I returned an EF-S 17-55 for the EF 16-35 II, and I realize that the two lenses are not the same.

And if there really is a difference in focus distance, why/how does an EF lens work on an EF-S lens body?

You have several posts in this thread saying you don't understand and that it makes no sense to you. Allow me to take a shot at explaining some of the technical details.

Not sure what you mean by "focus distance" in this context as that normally refers to the distance the subject is from the camera. The flange focal distance is the same between EF and EF-S mounts (44.0 mm) precisely because EF-S is a derivative of EF mounts... i.e. EF will work on APS-C body so the flange distance must be the same.

A lens can be designed to focus and create a certain image circle at almost any distance between the rear element and the sensor and there are optical advantages and disadvantages to that choice of distance. Now, the flange distance and the rear element distance are not the same thing. The flange distance is simply the distance between the physical mount and the sensor but the rear element does not have to be placed precisely flush with the mount... it can be further or closer.

After digital cameras came about Canon, knowing that the sensor was smaller than FF and thus had a smaller mirror and more clearance, decided to create the EF-S mount to allow designers to make use of the optical advantages of having the rear element closer to the sensor and of having a smaller image circle. The smaller image circle is the main reason why EF-S can be smaller and lighter (and cheaper as well). The ability to be closer to the sensor can contribute to smaller lenses as well but the main benefit of being closer is in wide angle designs.

There is nothing stopping a lens designer from from making an EF-S lens that does not make use of the option to be closer to the sensor but the image circle is still smaller thus it is still an EF-S lens and must conform to the EF-S mount which is different so that an EF-S lens that does have a protruding rear element can not be mistakenly mounted on a FF body and result in a damaged mirror.

 

[danski0224]

Ok, so going on what at least one other poster has stated- there are no actual lens parts sticking out of at least some of the EF-S lenses, then why have the protrusion?

I have read that there is a piece of plastic (or similar) that can be removed from a Canon EF-S lens that will then allow it to be installed on an EF body.

As I am understanding it, the one big thing contributing to the "cost savings" of EF-S lenses is the smaller image circle.

So, if Canon wanted to, they could essentially put an EF mount on the EF-S lenses where mirror interference is not a problem.

I'm probably not the only person that "does not understand" this.

 

[Meh]

So, if Canon wanted to, they could essentially put an EF mount on the EF-S lenses where mirror interference is not a problem.

I'm probably not the only person that "does not understand" this.

Yes, of course, Canon can design any lens they want to. An EF-S lens is an EF-S lens because of the mount which defines the specifications it must conform to including minimum clearance between the rear element and the sensor... if it had an EF mount it would conform to EF mount specifications and therefore it would be an EF lens and they do make those. Lot's of them. Many more than EF-S.

And, if you were sure that a particular EF-S lens did not have a rear element that would interfere with a FF mirror you could physically alter the mount so that it would fit on a FF body. But why would you want to? Just buy EF lenses. If you have crop and FF bodies the only extra lens you need to buy is a 10-22mm to shoot ultra-wide on your crop body if you so desired.

Canon has a mount specification that takes advantages of crop body designs that are incompatible with FF. They don't have to.. they could only market one mount and all lenses would be compatible with all bodies. But they, and customers, would be foregoing the advantages... smaller, lighter, cheaper... that can be achieved for customers who only have a crop body.

Where does this fixation come from with being able to use an EF-S lens on a FF body? Is this just a classic case of people being annoyed with having a restriction imposed on them and are compelled to rebel against it and find ways to circumvent it?

 

[mkln]

it's funny to read a lot of people having an elitist view of L glass and FF bodies.

"if you can afford FF, buy L"
"EF-S is no good for FF"
"no reason to use EF-S on FF"

I actually think it would make perfect sense to "ease" into the transition from APS-C to FF.
Many people might not switch exactly because as someone stated, they are expected to sell all their EF-S lenses.
and by the way, EF-S lenses are still optimal for APS-C:
- wanna use 24-70 or 24-105 ? yeah right, a "normal zoom" starting from 35mm. the 17-55 has IS, 2.8, starts from 17, is great. why not use that?
- how about wide angle? oops, need to buy EF-S or other brand.

so yeah there's plenty of reasons for canon to give some sort of compatibility for FF and EF-S lenses.
and who said we need the mirror to actually move? just force liveview and keep the mirror up until the lens has been taken off. not that hard really.
I believe this would be greatly appreciated by those who shoot video (do they need a mirror?) but also to those who just bought a FF body and are going through the process of buying new gear.

when I switched to FF I had to sell all my APSC stuff just to buy a 5d2, but that doesnt mean that somebody shouldnt be able to use, say, a 10-22 in live view crop mode 8mpix in a 5d2, while saving for a 17-40.

this is just another feature that canon doesn't include and that others (*cough* nikon *cough*) have. and no it's not because it's not possible at all, because it is, even if not perfect.
canon needs to lose this attitude.

 

[mkln]

Where does this fixation come from with being able to use an EF-S lens on a FF body? Is this just a classic case of people being annoyed with having a restriction imposed on them and are compelled to rebel against it and find ways to circumvent it?

hmm in part.. yes! when you consider that
- you need no physical change in cameras
- you only need a firmware update to force live view
- competition offers this feature

so yeah maybe I wouldn't use APSC lenses on my 5d2, but maybe somebody would.
and no it's not the same as with the FD mount.

 

[Meh]

and who said we need the mirror to actually move? just force liveview and keep the mirror up until the lens has been taken off. not that hard really.

Possibly, but then you've just disabled the phase detect AF which is a significant feature of a DSLR.

And, the camera would have to be turned on when attaching and removing the lens for the mirror lockup to be enabled. This is possible of course, but requires the user to remember to keep it on which is not assured and therefore Canon would get a lot of calls from angry customers insisting Canon fix their broken mirror because obviously it's Canon's fault for making it work that way.

 

[danski0224]

Where does this fixation come from with being able to use an EF-S lens on a FF body? Is this just a classic case of people being annoyed with having a restriction imposed on them and are compelled to rebel against it and find ways to circumvent it?

hmm in part.. yes! when you consider that
- you need no physical change in cameras
- you only need a firmware update to force live view
- competition offers this feature

so yeah maybe I wouldn't use APSC lenses on my 5d2, but maybe somebody would.
and no it's not the same as with the FD mount.

This pretty much sums it up for me.

Thanks.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

it's funny to read a lot of people having an elitist view of L glass and FF bodies.

"if you can afford FF, buy L"
"EF-S is no good for FF"
"no reason to use EF-S on FF"

I actually think it would make perfect sense to "ease" into the transition from APS-C to FF.
Many people might not switch exactly because as someone stated, they are expected to sell all their EF-S lenses.
and by the way, EF-S lenses are still optimal for APS-C:
- wanna use 24-70 or 24-105 ? yeah right, a "normal zoom" starting from 35mm. the 17-55 has IS, 2.8, starts from 17, is great. why not use that?
- how about wide angle? oops, need to buy EF-S or other brand.

so yeah there's plenty of reasons for canon to give some sort of compatibility for FF and EF-S lenses.
and who said we need the mirror to actually move? just force liveview and keep the mirror up until the lens has been taken off. not that hard really.
I believe this would be greatly appreciated by those who shoot video (do they need a mirror?) but also to those who just bought a FF body and are going through the process of buying new gear.

when I switched to FF I had to sell all my APSC stuff just to buy a 5d2, but that doesnt mean that somebody shouldnt be able to use, say, a 10-22 in live view crop mode 8mpix in a 5d2, while saving for a 17-40.

this is just another feature that canon doesn't include and that others (*cough* nikon *cough*) have. and no it's not because it's not possible at all, because it is, even if not perfect.
canon needs to lose this attitude.

You know, if the EF-S line was more robust (more lenses in all focal lengths + primes, with UD elements and weather sealing, constant aperture...) I could see your point. But, even at the ultra wide end, all you have specifically for EF-S is the 10-22. I own it, it's a decent lens. If the light is just right, results are very good, comparable to L series lenses (which i own 2 of). But, take it out of that just right light and you see its flaws - 3.5-4.5 means that in low light, your pretty restricted. unless you want a ton of distortion (fully wide at 10mm, your talking higher ISO/slower shutter speeds). To me, its the no brainer super wide for a crop sensor camera, but, if on FF, its not a lens I'd want to use because the flaws would be exaggerated even more. 10-22 on crop is essentially 16-35 FF, the IQ, built quality, and constant aperture in the L series super wide is far superior. That's not elitism, the 16-35 is just a more versatile lens (especially so FF bodies).

Back to the point, do a search on B&H, lenses, you can use the APS-C/FF sensor filter - you see that there are 28 EF-s lenses and 108 EF ones. And if you click on EF-s, you find that with the exception of a few, most are in the $100-400 range, and really geared to rebel users/xxD users. And I can truly see why canon would not want those lenses on pro level bodies ------

why? every shooter is essentially a piece of the canon marketing team. When you shoot, and post the photos, others see the results. IF you were able to mount your $125 EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 on a 5d, the resulting image would give observers no reason to shell out $2+ on a 5d (sensor is only as good as the glass)....

Either way the EF-S filter on B&H isn't even accurate. If you click and scroll down, a few EF lenses are there - 3 in fact, so that brings the total down to 25 available. I would be on board with this idea of cross comparability, if there were 50+ EF-S lenses, but there isn't. I could also see it if there were EF-S lenses that were good enough that FF users WANTED. But as far as i can tell, there aren't many (the only clamor I hear is from APS-C users.)

 

[AvTvM]

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.

Of course it is Canon's fault, that all EF-S lenses are incompatible with all of their FF cameras. Canon decided this and they messed up here. Nikon has done this one - but not everything else! - perfectly right, going with just one lens mount for all of their lenses (except the 1, which is one of their mss-ups) AND implementing additional measures in their FF/FX bodies to make the use of DX lenses on FX bodies as easy as possible for its users: automatic detection and viewfinder masking to the smaller image circle as soon as a DX/crop lens is mounted. This is way better and way more custormer-friendly than Canon's approach. This remains a fact, irrespective of whether you or I are directly affected by that Canon mess-up.

Furthermore, I the claimed theoretical advantages of the EF-S mount do NOT materialize at all in practice: EF-S lenses are not smaller, not lighter, not cheaper, nor optically better "by design" than crop lenses from other manufacturers. In practice, the freaking EF-S protusion is just a nusiance on almost all of the EF-S lenses rather than a superior lens design. And IF EF-S lenses are cheaper to manufacture for Canon, then they certainly do not pass any of these savings along to us by way of lower prices than competing manufacturers.

Anyway, this game will get even more fun very soon, if/when Canon introduces their mirrorless ILC with yet another lens mount ... EF, EF-S, EF-X or whatever it may be called. ;D

 

[Meh]

Where does this fixation come from with being able to use an EF-S lens on a FF body? Is this just a classic case of people being annoyed with having a restriction imposed on them and are compelled to rebel against it and find ways to circumvent it?

hmm in part.. yes! when you consider that
- you need no physical change in cameras
- you only need a firmware update to force live view
- competition offers this feature

so yeah maybe I wouldn't use APSC lenses on my 5d2, but maybe somebody would.
and no it's not the same as with the FD mount.

Nikon offers this because they chose not to make use of the advantages of designing a lens in which the rear element is closer to the sensor. It was a choice. Canon made a different choice. Canon chose to offer customers certain lenses that take advantage of a rear element that is closer to the sensor. In other words, Canon offers customers a choice... you can take advantage of lenses designed only for an APS-C sensor or you can buy EF lenses not all of which are L lenses.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

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.

Of course it is Canon's fault, that all EF-S lenses are incompatible with all of their FF cameras. Canon decided this and they messed up here.

Sorry, I stand by my statement here. EF-S lenses - count em, 25 available. EF, 108. EF has more choices, and, its not like fine print, it's stated pretty openly that EF-S is not compatible with FF. Canon isn't forcing anything on you really. Anything you buy is your choice. It's not like Canon sends a goon to your house and threatens your family if you don't buy EF-S lenses. It was your choice to buy them.

And now it's your choice to either live with your purchasing decisions, make a new plan and sell some lenses to buy EF mount lenses, or, complain endlessly about it here on this forum...

 

[TexPhoto]

The really weird thing is that Sigma's and other 3rd party Lens maker's "crop" lenses work fine on Canon FF.

Now Canon did have the 10-22 way before there were Superwide Nikon's or Sigma or anything equivalent...

Honestly i wonder if way back in the day when crop DSLRs were the 1st and ONLY DSLRs available, did Canon think there were never going to be FF DSLRs?