Using EF-S lens on FF body???

[macgregor mathers]

What's the attraction of using EF-S lenses on FF bodies ?

There is no focal length gain, e.g. an EF-S 10-22mm would not cover an FF sensor at 10mm, and buying expensive lenses for a cheap body is smarter than the other way around. If the mirror is locked up, as Nikon does to support DX lenses on FX bodies, the autofocus mechanism would be disabled, forcing either manual focus or contrast based focus, neither being a big attraction.

 

[Loswr]

What's the attraction of using EF-S lenses on FF bodies ?

There is no focal length gain, e.g. an EF-S 10-22mm would not cover an FF sensor at 10mm, and buying expensive lenses for a cheap body is smarter than the other way around. If the mirror is locked up, as Nikon does to support DX lenses on FX bodies, the autofocus mechanism would be disabled, forcing either manual focus or contrast based focus, neither being a big attraction.

Well, not sure about FF, but if you look at the Flickr discussion linked earlier, you'll see that the 10-22mm is useable from ~12mm onward on an APS-H. The only other way to get that wide is the Sigma 12-24mm, which is reportedly pretty soft (whereas the EF-S 10-22mm is relatively sharp), and comes with the notorious Sigma QC.

 

[AJ]

What's the attraction of using EF-S lenses on FF bodies ?

There is no focal length gain

I think the point is being able to shoot short focal lengths, dual use of gear for those who have both FX and DX gear, and also just messing around for fun.

I've mounted my Tokina 10-17 fisheye on my A2E body and looked through the viewfinder. If I zoom just right I can get 180 deg diagonal coverage, i.e. no real need for me to buy a FF fisheye. Now, my A2E doesn't have 100% viewfinder coverage so I will need to extrapolate a bit to get the exact corner-to-corner coverage. At 10 mm I can get close to circular fisheye coverage (top and bottom are cropped a little).

I should divulge that I haven't run any film through my camera with this lens mounted.

 

[puqq]

What's the attraction of using EF-S lenses on FF bodies ?

There is no focal length gain, e.g. an EF-S 10-22mm would not cover an FF sensor at 10mm, and buying expensive lenses for a cheap body is smarter than the other way around. If the mirror is locked up, as Nikon does to support DX lenses on FX bodies, the autofocus mechanism would be disabled, forcing either manual focus or contrast based focus, neither being a big attraction.

It does make sense in several scenarios, for example, if you already have EF-S lens and just bought a FF body, or if you have a FF body in addition to APS body and want to play with an ultra-wide (there is not really much <16mm on offer for <£400 to cover FF, trust me).

Though, I would probably get some sort of old manual focus ultra wide. ATM I am using Zuiko 24mm 2.8 on 5d- and it's quite amazing

 

[J. McCabe]

What's the attraction of using EF-S lenses on FF bodies ?

There is no focal length gain, e.g. an EF-S 10-22mm would not cover an FF sensor at 10mm, and buying expensive lenses for a cheap body is smarter than the other way around. If the mirror is locked up, as Nikon does to support DX lenses on FX bodies, the autofocus mechanism would be disabled, forcing either manual focus or contrast based focus, neither being a big attraction.

It does make sense in several scenarios, for example, if you already have EF-S lens and just bought a FF body, or if you have a FF body in addition to APS body and want to play with an ultra-wide (there is not really much <16mm on offer for <£400 to cover FF, trust me).

And which <16mm EF-S lenses do NOT vignette on FF ?

 

[puqq]

And which <16mm EF-S lenses do NOT vignette on FF ?

All of them. That is, the only one Mostly people start noticing vignetting around 14mm @ FF

 

[macgregor mathers]

And which <16mm EF-S lenses do NOT vignette on FF ?

All of them. That is, the only one Mostly people start noticing vignetting around 14mm @ FF

There's at least one other - the EF-S 15-85mm.

 

[-zero-]

And which <16mm EF-S lenses do NOT vignette on FF ?

All of them. That is, the only one Mostly people start noticing vignetting around 14mm @ FF

There's at least one other - the EF-S 15-85mm.

the 15-85 vignette on an aps-c I can't imagin what it would look like on FF

using an ef-s on a FF you would still need to crop your pictures to a certain degree (you may not be forced to crop to an aps-c size but at least very close to it)

you are basically losing 90% of the advatages a FF sensor has over apsc (no crop factor, thinner DOF, resolution) the only advantage might be the improved iso performance

 

[Loswr]

you are basically losing 90% of the advatages a FF sensor has over apsc (no crop factor, thinner DOF, resolution) the only advantage might be the improved iso performance

Cropping exaggerates the noise in an image, so you're losing that advantage as well.

 

[-zero-]

you are basically losing 90% of the advatages a FF sensor has over apsc (no crop factor, thinner DOF, resolution)


Cropping exaggerates the noise in an image, so you're losing that advantage as well.

I thought that might be the case but wasn't sure

the only advantage might be the improved iso performance

 

[Edwin Herdman]

The one definite APS-C advantage, albeit a theoretical and contrived one, that I can think of is in wildlife or similar photography where you want the most "pixels on target." For the same focal length, the APS-C camera is not necessarily putting more pixels on target - assuming the same pixel pitch as the full frame camera, of course (full frame often would seem to give you a slightly chunkier picture due to lower pixel pitch) - your frame has less extraneous data off-target, which means that you should in theory have a better ratio of used to unused data in each camera file.

In practice, of course, APS-C sensors have been higher density than full frame sensors (probably something to do with reject rates - bad small pixels on a FF sensor would mean an appreciably more expensive chip to throw away, so they probably use older production processes) so, assuming the lens is up to the task, you can pick out more details as well - generally good for wildlife once again.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

In practice, of course, APS-C sensors have been higher density than full frame sensors (probably something to do with reject rates - bad small pixels on a FF sensor would mean an appreciably more expensive chip to throw away, so they probably use older production processes) so, assuming the lens is up to the task, you can pick out more details as well - generally good for wildlife once again.

Its more difficult to make FF sensors: From Canon White Paper

"the circuit pattern of a fullframe
sensor is too large to be projected on the silicon wafer all at once; it requires
three separate exposures (See page 53). This means that the number of masks and
exposure processes is tripled. For now, appreciate that a full-frame sensor costs not
three or four times, but ten, twenty or more times as much as an APS-C sensor"

Aligning those masks is very difficult, and as photosite size decreases, it must be even more critical.

I wonder if thats why Nikon has kept with 12MP on their own FF sensors. Sony and Canon had the technique to do a finer alignment for a reasonable cost?

APS-C and APS-H do not require the triple masking and alignment process, so they are much easier to make.

 

[iaind]

Possible with 25mm ext tube

When I went FF I got a s/h 17-35 2.8L 10-22 now gathers dust.

 

[Bruce Photography]

Remember that Nikon does have the D3X which is full frame and 25MP. Also Nikon has to buy their sensors from Sony because they don't make their own FF sensor. Every Nikon FF machine has to include in its' price the profit for Sony to take home from their sale of the FF sensor to Nikon. Canon has quite an advantage in being first to CMOS production in house which keeps that profit also in-house. In addition, Canon can engineer the chips to their complete specfication. I'm sure that Nikon has a great amount of sway in the sensors that Sony delivers, but they seem to be the same as what is in a Sony camera (the sensor itself and not the support chips).

 

[rossbeckernz]

I use an EF-S 10-22mm on my 1D4. But this is only possible when you have removed the plastic base insert and replaced it with an appropriate EF base. This is because the EF-S lens protrudes a lot further into the camera body than an EF lens. In fact the construction of the FF & 1.3 crop bodies ensures that the EF-S lenses will not normally mount. With my 1.3 crop bodies I have limited the zoom to 12-22 as wider than that two things happen.
1 the mirror hits the rear lens.
2 the image circle gets too small & you get cutoff at the corners.

You can see how I did it here. There is also a gallery of photos taken with the modified lens on my 1D3.
http://bitly.com/cxTMuw

Cheers
Ross Becker
New Zealand

 

[ontarian]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ontarian/4561467724/
Here is how I did the 10-22 on my 1D3 a few years back. Great mod and I kept the mirror from hitting by putting a foam sticker inside the uv filter to stop the movement below 12mm, worked like a charm. -Ed Mika

 

[ecka]

EF-S on FF sounds cheap and not very smart APS-H is a better reason for such discussion.
IMHO, Canon should have made 1D bodies compatible with EF-S lenses, because now they are selling a pro body that can't shoot UWA with OEM lenses. 14mm x1.3 ~ 18mm, 16mm x1.3 ~ 21mm.
Big mistake, Canon.

 

[ontarian]

EF-S on FF sounds cheap and not very smart APS-H is a better reason for such discussion.
IMHO, Canon should have made 1D bodies compatible with EF-S lenses, because now they are selling a pro body that can't shoot UWA with OEM lenses. 14mm x1.3 ~ 18mm, 16mm x1.3 ~ 21mm.
Big mistake, Canon.

Problem is 1D bodies have full frame mirrors so even if the EF-S image circle is ok enough for 1.3 crop, the -S(short throw back distance) causes mirror interference.

 

[DJL329]

EF-S on FF sounds cheap and not very smart APS-H is a better reason for such discussion.
IMHO, Canon should have made 1D bodies compatible with EF-S lenses, because now they are selling a pro body that can't shoot UWA with OEM lenses. 14mm x1.3 ~ 18mm, 16mm x1.3 ~ 21mm.
Big mistake, Canon.

The 1D bodies weren't made for shooting UWA; they're for shooting action/wildlife at tele and super-telephoto focal lengths, hence the 1.3x crop and higher frame rates. A pro or serious amateur who needs to shoot UWA, is going to use one of the full frame (1Ds or 5D) bodies.

 

[ontarian]

EF-S on FF sounds cheap and not very smart APS-H is a better reason for such discussion.
IMHO, Canon should have made 1D bodies compatible with EF-S lenses, because now they are selling a pro body that can't shoot UWA with OEM lenses. 14mm x1.3 ~ 18mm, 16mm x1.3 ~ 21mm.
Big mistake, Canon.

The 1D bodies weren't made for shooting UWA; they're for shooting action/wildlife at tele and super-telephoto focal lengths, hence the 1.3x crop and higher frame rates. A pro or serious amateur who needs to shoot UWA, is going to use one of the full frame (1Ds or 5D) bodies.

That may be true from Canons perspective but after getting addicted to the 1D interface I don't want to go back to a small body and can't afford/justify a 1DS so we run a pair of 1D4s. I'm an (arguably) serious amateur and sometimes I like to shoot wide and theres the rub.