Tamron says they are ready for Canon and Nikon mirrorless

[Talys]

only the protective rubber (or plastic) ring sticks a bit into the mirror box. The rear lens element itself will never go behind FFD.


same is true for all other Canon EF-S lenses ... eg. 10-22 ... i had them all myself.

I no longer have the EFS17-55, but I owned it for a very long time. The first glass element sits behind where the metal ring of the mount starts (remember, the center of it goes further back than edge, too), further back than any EF mount lens. There is a metal lip where the contact is, and the rubber protector is so that you don't damage the glass element, since it comes out so far.

But I guess I just don't understand your point. If you look inside an EF mount full frame camera, look at the sensor size. Now take out the mirror box. It looks like there is enough space for an extension to insert into the lens that would support an optical element plus casing. It's only a few millimeters off from being able to fit a whole E mount lens into it.

 

[AvTvM]

my entire point in this regard is: Canon *SAID* EF-S lenses [the "S" standing for "Short flangeback"!) would utilize lens designs where rear element protrudes into mirrorbox ... but in practice they never *really* utilized it.

All EF-S lenses optical formula so far might as well have appeared in standard EF mount ... for a few it might have meant less of the protective plastic guard ring around rear lens element ... and of course those crop lenses would never have covered the entire FF circle, and would still have needed some "for crop camera use only" label. Same as Nikon DX lenses vs. FX ... Canon could as well have gone the same route Nikon chose ... and allow crop lenses to mount on FF cameras ... in an auto-select crop mode.

[personally I don't mind the Canon decision since i never ever would want to mount crop lenses on FF cameras ... so just saying ... ]

 

[Rocky]

Did I ever mention size, or kit lens? NO. All I said is to get the most out of the new system. So all you argument you have is arguing with your self.

If not size, why would you want to abandon native EF compatibility, for the 130 million lenses out there?

+1

You shorten the flange distance because you can make a smaller overall photgraphic apparatus. That dwarfs any other motivation or consideration. If somehow IQ could dramatically improve from a shorter flange distance, we'd have left EF long ago or Sony would have demonstrated it by now. Neither have happened.

Canon cannot abandon the EF because their DSLR and SLR need the 44mm flange for the mirror movement. Anybody with the knowledge of lens design knows that 44mm flange makes the design of short focal length tough. FYI Canon started its business by doing 27.9mm flange length lenses until they start getting into DSLR business. Then, Canon runs two parallel lens line for short flange and long flange for a few years.

 

[criscokkat]

Did I ever mention size, or kit lens? NO. All I said is to get the most out of the new system. So all you argument you have is arguing with your self.

If not size, why would you want to abandon native EF compatibility, for the 130 million lenses out there?

+1

You shorten the flange distance because you can make a smaller overall photgraphic apparatus. That dwarfs any other motivation or consideration. If somehow IQ could dramatically improve from a shorter flange distance, we'd have left EF long ago or Sony would have demonstrated it by now. Neither have happened.

Canon cannot abandon the EF because their DSLR and SLR need the 44mm flange for the mirror movement. Anybody with the knowledge of lens design knows that 44mm flange makes the design of short focal length tough. FYI Canon started its business by doing 27.9mm flange length lenses until they start getting into DSLR business. Then, Canon runs two parallel lens line for short flange and long flange for a few years.

They don't need to make a new mount. They can protrude into the body.

Sony didn't do this because their old mount had a 49mm throat, which they shrunk to 46.1 MM. That 2.9 mm is not a large enough volume of room to keep that mount and have room to protrude into the body.

Canon on the other hand has a 54mm throat, and protruding into the body gives them at least 7.9 mm for structure and mechanisms to fit, which is certainly doable. I wouldn't be surprised if they could put an EF-M mount at the end of the protrusion, thereby having two mounts on one lens if they so chose. There's a lot of room there.

 

[Talys]

Canon on the other hand has a 54mm throat, and protruding into the body gives them at least 7.9 mm for structure and mechanisms to fit, which is certainly doable. I wouldn't be surprised if they could put an EF-M mount at the end of the protrusion, thereby having two mounts on one lens if they so chose. There's a lot of room there.

I totally agree with the first part of what you're saying, but the second part wouldn't work. You can't fit an EF-M inside an EF, which is what you'd have to do to make it work (since the lens has to be closer to the body than EF).

 

[criscokkat]

Canon on the other hand has a 54mm throat, and protruding into the body gives them at least 7.9 mm for structure and mechanisms to fit, which is certainly doable. I wouldn't be surprised if they could put an EF-M mount at the end of the protrusion, thereby having two mounts on one lens if they so chose. There's a lot of room there.

I totally agree with the first part of what you're saying, but the second part wouldn't work. You can't fit an EF-M inside an EF, which is what you'd have to do to make it work (since the lens has to be closer to the body than EF).

I'm not sure if the strength of the body of the lens is strong enough, but with a 54 mm ef throat insides the threads you could have a cylindrical body of the lens that protrudes another 26 mm *into* the body, that would be at most 52 mm wide. At the end of this protrusion, you have the 46mm EF-M mount. If you mounted it on an EF-M body, it would look a little strange as it would be very narrow for 26 mm, then flare out to EF size and have an extra mount, then flare out again for whatever end of the glass elements.

With EF and EF-S mounts, it just matters that the lens is designed to project on a sensor 44 mm behind *the EF flange*. For EF-M it matters that the that this spot is 18mm behind the EF-M flange. A bit of clever engineering might make both of these available on one lens. For example, the rear-most glass in the lens could be 21 mm from the sensor (typical distance in a EF-M mount). If you used the EF mount to attach it to the new body, that glass would be 23mm *behind* that EF mount. A more likely possibility is one lens being produced with a factory mounted "base" that had the EF-M or EF mount available. You can then let authorized canon service centers remount the base to a new one for a fee.

The biggest concern is educating users to not try to mount it to their mirrored cameras. If produced, I can see lots of repair center activity...

 

[ahsanford]

A more likely possibility is one lens being produced with a factory mounted "base" that had the EF-M or EF mount available. You can then let authorized canon service centers remount the base to a new one for a fee.

If they won't even do this for same-sensor-intended lenses -- i.e. EF-M to EF-S -- there's zero chance they'll offer a mount converstion service from a crop mount to a FF mount.

Consider: they'd rather design/build/stock two pancakes, two standard zooms, two tele zooms, two wide illuminated macros, etc. than just have one and offer mount swap service. They want to sell the same person two different lenses for two different bodies, possibly.

- A

 

[criscokkat]

A more likely possibility is one lens being produced with a factory mounted "base" that had the EF-M or EF mount available. You can then let authorized canon service centers remount the base to a new one for a fee.

If they won't even do this for same-sensor-intended lenses -- i.e. EF-M to EF-S -- there's zero chance they'll offer a mount converstion service from a crop mount to a FF mount.

Consider: they'd rather design/build/stock two pancakes, two standard zooms, two tele zooms, two wide illuminated macros, etc. than just have one and offer mount swap service. They want to sell the same person two different lenses for two different bodies, possibly.

- A

Converting EF-S to EF-M would either involve permanently mounting an adapter or actual changing of the glass position and all mechanics to a smaller body. That's why you can use an adapter on an M series camera to mount the EF-S lens.

However that doesn't mean Canon can't save money designing the glass & mechanical components once, then using that design on two different lens mounts. It would just mean the EF mount version would project into the camera body and the EF-M mount version would not. I could see this being done on the more consumer oriented lenses, if they are the type of lens that benefits from a close distance. It might just mean the insides are the same, the plastic shell on the outside that attaches to the mount would be different. 500k lenses of x type are generally cheaper per unit than 200k of y type + 300k of z type, because they don't have to tool the manufacturing equipment twice, or pay design costs twice. This way 90% of the cost of the lens is the same.

At that point they can either sell it for less, or pocket the money saved. It's Canon, so we can guess what that would be.

 

[AvTvM]

However that doesn't mean Canon can't save money designing the glass & mechanical components once, then using that design on two different lens mounts. It would just mean the EF mount version would project into the camera body and the EF-M mount version would not.

"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 ... much less so on upcoming FF mirrorless system.

"Innovative" Canon might not even be able to design the new rear lens caps that would be necessitated by "dual mount" lenses. ;D

And conservative mirrorslappin' Canon forum denizens would never ever get their minds around lenses with not only a "native" EF mount but a second "mirrorless mount" ... and a new, additional type of cup-deep rear lens caps. ;D


The future of Canon stills imaging gear is plain obvious. Canon will go from 2 mirrorslapper lens mounts ... one for APS_C, one for FF image circle ... to exactly the same set-up for its new mirrorless world. 2 sensor sizes, 2 mounts with optimized parameters for the respective image circle.

1. APS-C: EF-S -> EF-M
2. FF: EF -> "EF-X"


Transition is simple and virtually painless, with full backwards compatibility for all *legacy* EF-S and EF glass via simple air-filled hollow tube adapter. Within the realm of those lenses capabilities and functionality of course.
1. EF/EF-M adapter - available
2. EF/"EF-X" adapter - coming soon

 

[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 ...

I'm sure they didn't do so in your personal alternate reality, but they did just that out here in the real world (where facts exist and most of us live). Not with every EF-S lens, only where the optical design would benefit.

Try this: use your finger to pull out the black 'donut' at the back of the EF-S 10-22mm, then mount it on your 5DIII. With the lens at 10mm, fire off a few shots. If you're right, the worst that will happen is a few images with some noticeable vignetting, and you can just delete those.

 

[fussy III]

Try this: use your finger to pull out the black 'donut' at the back of the EF-S 10-22mm, then mount it on your 5DIII. With the lens at 10mm, fire off a few shots. If you're right, the worst that will happen is a few images with some noticeable vignetting, and you can just delete those.

I'd opt for a 5D instead! And please let us know the results ...

 

[AvTvM]

"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 ...

I'm sure they didn't do so in your personal alternate reality, but they did just that out here in the real world (where facts exist and most of us live). Not with every EF-S lens, only where the optical design would benefit.

Try this: use your finger to pull out the black 'donut' at the back of the EF-S 10-22mm, then mount it on your 5DIII. With the lens at 10mm, fire off a few shots. If you're right, the worst that will happen is a few images with some noticeable vignetting, and you can just delete those.

nope. While the rear lens element (glass) does not protrude behind FFD, the protective plastic ring around it does protrude a few mm behind the mount for EF-S 10-22, EF-S 17-55 and possibly a few other EF-S lenses.

At widest setting an FF DSLR mirror may or rather *will* hit that plastic ring. But it will/would not hit the rear lens element itself.

 

[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 ...

I'm sure they didn't do so in your personal alternate reality, but they did just that out here in the real world (where facts exist and most of us live). Not with every EF-S lens, only where the optical design would benefit.

Try this: use your finger to pull out the black 'donut' at the back of the EF-S 10-22mm, then mount it on your 5DIII. With the lens at 10mm, fire off a few shots. If you're right, the worst that will happen is a few images with some noticeable vignetting, and you can just delete those.

nope. While the rear lens element (glass) does not protrude behind FFD, the protective plastic ring around it does protrude a few mm behind the mount for EF-S 10-22, EF-S 17-55 and possibly a few other EF-S lenses.

At widest setting an FF DSLR mirror may or rather *will* hit that plastic ring. But it will/would not hit the rear lens element itself.

The plastic ring must be removed to mount the EF-S 10-22mm on a FF camera. Once again, your knowledge and experience are lacking. So, prove me wrong – try my suggestion. Canon will probably be able to fix your 5DIII afterwards.

 

[AvTvM]

the plastic ring cannot be fully removed. Most of the hackers just managed to take away a good portion of the protruding plastic, but cannot grind it down all the way to rear lens glass ... for (well-founded) fear of damaging it.
"naked" rear element on those EF-S lenses does not protrude into mirror box. At max it is flush with FFD.

 

[neuroanatomist]

More alternative facts from the AvTvM Universe. :

 

[ahsanford]

At max it is flush with FFD.

So say you.

Pics at 10mm on your 5D3 (and pics of the mirror afterwards) or it didn't happen.

- A

 

[Talys]

Just judge for yourself (17-55):

By the way, AvTvM is definitely wrong about the stopper. I have disassembled my 17-55/2.8 before.

The black piece holding the rubber stopper is held in by four tabs to the lens. The whole thing pops out; you can do it with a pry tool, with no screws involved. It's actually the first step to taking apart a 17-55. There is a metal inner cylinder that holds the first glass element in place.

Once you do that, you can proceed to destroy your 5D3 mirror

 

[ahsanford]

Just judge for yourself (17-55):

Stop bringing data to a belief fight. Silly Talys.

- A

 

[AvTvM]

Cannot check it, sold all my EF-S lenses [except EF-S 60 Macro] long ago. Had both the 10-22 and 17-55. To me their rear glass elements never seemed to stick out. only the outer rings around them. Even on your photo one can see that glass element is recessed a fair bit. BUT ... memory may be off by 1 or even 2 millimetres. So what. My main point was that Canon could as well have designed all ASPC lenses with regular EF mount as well, just like Nikon did [DX/FX].

For my own use i really don't care at all, as I'd never put crop glass in front of an FF sensor ... even when the mirror does not hit rear element. I always found "crop" mode on Nikon FF cameras "rather gimmicky" and not very relevant in real world photography.

 

[neuroanatomist]

My main point was that Canon could as well have designed all ASPC lenses with regular EF mount as well, just like Nikon did [DX/FX].

You're point was that they won't make an inwardly protruding mount now, because they didn't with EF-S. Except, they did. So you're full of crap as usual.

To me ... never seemed ... memory may be off

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