Tamron says they are ready for Canon and Nikon mirrorless

[bwud]

Even on your photo one can see that glass element is recessed a fair bit.

It’s recessed from the protective ring, but it looks to protrude slightly from the flange (it’s inconclusive, but I would take the manufacturer’s word for it over your memory, particularly in the face of multiple reports of how simple it is to remove that ring versus your assertion a grinder is necessary, eg https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/31892929, and note that post is followed up with: “If you try to use the lens at 10mm the mirror will hit. Normally that does not cause damage. But you loose [sic] the image you wanted to take and get an error message instead. On a full frame camera you would never use 10mm anyway due to heavy vignetting. With a 1.3 crop sensor you have to be more carefull [sic].”)

 

[AvTvM]

Maybe the EF-S 17-55 can be converted without hacking, sawing and grinding. Don't know.

But for EF-S 10-22 and EF-S 10-18 there are many posts and videos all over the net showing sawing, hacking, grinding away plastic parts around the rear lens element / mount area. Never tried it, so don't know if it is necessary or not.

 

[fussy III]

Maybe the EF-S 17-55 can be converted without hacking, sawing and grinding. Don't know.

But for EF-S 10-22 and EF-S 10-18 there are many posts and videos all over the net showing sawing, hacking, grinding away plastic parts around the rear lens element / mount area. Never tried it, so don't know if it is necessary or not.

Probably not. Turns out all this discussion was gratuitous. EF-S lenses have always worked perfectly on full-frame.

But seriously: While some in this forum may still be hoping for you to commence desaster, I will suggest that you are referring to manipulations that aim at adapting these EF-S lenses to the front mounts of either the metabones speedboosters or the Sigma MC-11 adapter. None of these adapters have a rear-mount for EF but are intended for adapting EF-lenses to mirrorless. No mirrorbox = no mirror-damage.

 

[fussy III]

Apparently a simple, "I was wrong," is beyond you. Pathetic.

Maybe wrong, but only by the fraction of a few millimeters. And if wrong at all, it was the memory that was wrong, not the person. Why should one not demonstrate a wish strong not to fail which equals that of others to prevail? As Sir Alec Guinness said (retranslated into english), "Bad arguments are best refuted when they are presented undisturbed."

 

[neuroanatomist]

Don't know...don't know

Yet you were so insistent that you did… To paraphrase, better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to put fingers to keyboard and remove all doubt. (Not that there is any doubt whatsoever.)

 

[3kramd5]

Maybe the EF-S 17-55 can be converted without hacking, sawing and grinding. Don't know.

But for EF-S 10-22 and EF-S 10-18 there are many posts and videos all over the net showing sawing, hacking, grinding away plastic parts around the rear lens element / mount area. Never tried it, so don't know if it is necessary or not.

Neither did the people making those videos know...

 

[AvTvM]

Don't know...don't know

Yet you were so insistent that you did… To paraphrase, better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to put fingers to keyboard and remove all doubt. (Not that there is any doubt whatsoever.)

typical Neuro ... ongoing, incessant ad-hominem attacks on me and any other forum members not suckling up to him.

And no, I am still not convinced, that the rear glass element does protrude behind FFD on some EF-S lenses. Have not seen a conclusive image yet.

For EF-S 18-55 (first version?) Canon graphics look like this ...

Because of the short back focus, the rear of the EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM intrudes into the camera body. The EOS Kiss Digital solves this problem by recessing the inner ring of body mount (see Fig. 7) by 3 mm and adopting a compact main reflex mirror that has a rear swing-up mechanism.

The EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM cannot be physically attached to EOS SLR cameras other than the EOS Kiss Digital since the rear end sticks out further than other EF lenses.

More information on the EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM will be provided in the next issue.
* An "S" in the name of the EF-S lens comes from the first initial of the "short back focus."

Fig. 7 Body Mount Structure for EF-S lens (Right: Partial Cross-Section)

https://web.archive.org/web/20130605165138/http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/200309/200309.html

 

[neuroanatomist]

"protruding into camera" is NOT going to happen at Canon. It did not even happen with EF-S glass - where mount was officially designed to allow for exactly this

And no, I am still not convinced, that the rear glass element does protrude behind FFD on some EF-S lenses. Have not seen a conclusive image yet.

For EF-S 18-55 (first version?) Canon graphics look like this ...

Typical AvTvM ... living in his own private delusion of denial even while facts from the real world are manifestly evident.

 

[AvTvM]

ah yes. now it's clear to me as well. I stand corrected.


"Neuro communication mode" still inacceptable though.

 

[fussy III]

typical Neuro ... ongoing, incessant ad-hominem attacks on me and any other forum members not suckling up to him.

And no, I am still not convinced, that the rear glass element does protrude behind FFD on some EF-S lenses. Have not seen a conclusive image yet.

While it is true that Neuro is a bit aggressive at times, I do understand that a fact oriented person dislikes the way that you were arguing. You may not know it but effectively you were teasing him.
And personally I too consider it a bit phony (or comical at least) when someone initiates a discussion with strong but false assertions to then back up as reluctantly as an elephant and reverse the burden of proof along the way. Its like an immature elephant pushing with his arse instead of seeking a proper head to head confrontation. You knew it all along, didn't you?

And talking about babies: I am not suckling up to anyone!

 

[fussy III]

"stand corrected"

These words seem disproportionate when considering the relevance of your argument I have to say.

To make the real conflict more obvious: