Can a Canon lense fit a Nikon body ?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by dmedhora, Mar 28, 2006.

  1. dmedhora

    dmedhora Guest

    Hi

    I Have an old canon EOS 3000 film SLR with a 35-80 zoom lense.

    If I buy a Nikon D50 body only, can I attach the above lense to it?

    If "no" then is there any adapter or thing I can do to make it fit ?

    - D
     
    dmedhora, Mar 28, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. dmedhora

    george Guest

    The problem with any adapter (should one exist) is that the Canon line of
    cameras has a shorter distance from lens mount to image sensor/film plane
    than do Nikons. What that means is that if you can adapt a Canon lens to a
    Nikon it won't focus to infinity...you could use it for close-ups but I
    doubt that would be your intention with a general purpose zoom lens. Going
    the other way (Nikon lens to Canon body) works fine.
     
    george, Mar 28, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. dmedhora

    dmedhora Guest

    Thanks George!

    Yes I need to focus to infinity often, so then I take it that since I
    cannot use a Nikon with my old EOS lenses, then

    1) My old canon EOS 3000 film SLR 35-80 lens **would** fit on a new
    Canon EOS 350D, and
    2) The zoom would be the same i.e 35-80

    Right?

    Also, What about the Pentax ist DS body then ? Would the Canon lens fit
    on that too ?

    Thanks again
     
    dmedhora, Mar 28, 2006
    #3
  4. dmedhora

    Ian Riches Guest

    Yes and no. The focal length of the lens remains at 35-80mm. Those
    values are physical properties of the lens, and remain the same whether
    it is fitted to an EOS 3000, EOS 350D or sellotaped to a cereal packet.

    The sensor in a 350D, however, is smaller than 35mm film. This gives
    rise to the so-called "crop-factor". Effectively, you are only using
    the middle section of the image that the lens projects, so its field of
    view is narrower on the 350D than a 3000.

    For a Canon EOS 350D, the crop factor is 1.6. This means that the 35-
    80mm lens has a field of view equivalent to a 56-128mm lens on your film
    camera.
    No. But to be honest with you, that lens is hardly the finest ever made
    by Canon. The sell on e-bay for a few tens of bucks. There are plenty
    of good reasons for choosing a 350D. Compatibility with that particular
    lens is not top of the list ;-)

    Ian
     
    Ian Riches, Mar 28, 2006
    #4
  5. Yes, but by repute IIRC it's not a brilliant lens - that's hearsay as I
    never used one.
    Well, right in that it will still be a 35-80mm zoom. Wrong in the sense
    that the field of view (FoV) will be narrower.

    The 350D has a smaller sensor than the area of a 35mm film frame - by a
    factor of 1.6. This means that lenses on the 350D will give you a slice
    cut out of the middle of a 35mm picture, which will have the same FoV as
    a lens of 1.6 the same focal length will on 35mm. Your lens will "look"
    (in terms of FoV) like a 56-128mm zoom.

    You may think the answer is picky - but it's important from some
    purposes to understand that it doesn't "make" your 35-80 into an actual
    56-128mm lens, lots of formulae for depth of field and other purposes
    need the true figure.

    You can get an impression of what this will look like if you mask down a
    picture from your EOS 3000 with some cardboard so that they are 1/1.6
    (62.5% or 5/8) of their original length in both dimensions.

    Given (a) the loss of any wide-angle view with this combination, (b) the
    reputed low quality of the 35-80. (c) the relatively low price of
    wide-mid zooms sold as kit lenses, you may wish to consider getting the
    kit lens. Others who have used these may care to comment.
    IIRC, the EOS specification has the lowest lens flange to sensor
    distance of all mass-market SLR systems, so it should be possible to get
    an adapter. There are web sites with details, which have been posted
    here recently. However, I have to ask: why would anyone bother paying
    money for an adapter to put a mediocre lens on the "wrong" system, with
    all the inconvenience of loss of metering etc. that this involves, when
    the "right" lens would not cost much more.

    David
     
    David Littlewood, Mar 28, 2006
    #5
  6. Can I understand your desire to maximise the usability of your existing
    kit, but I think it is time to draw the line.

    It can be done, but think about the cost, the risk if bodges are
    needed, and whether you'd actually want to use such a hodgepodge system
    where probably none of the automatic stuff (focus, aperture, zoom) will
    work nor the lens markings mean anything consistent.

    This is just like computer hardware freaks using AMD CPU fans on their
    Intel CPUs, or drivers wanting to use a mishmash of parts to upgrade /
    pimp up their cars.

    Take it easy,
    Tim.
     
    timothy.j.green, Mar 28, 2006
    #6
  7. dmedhora

    dmedhora Guest

    Hello All,

    Thanks for replying, I appreciate it.

    I'm in fact trying to be as cost-effective as I can afford. To be
    honest IMHO the prices of D-SLRs are slightly on the
    un-affordable side for amateurs ( especially for guys like me who live
    in the UK ) where things are that way anyways.

    I never knew until now that the lens I currently have (The film SLR's
    EOS 3000 ) is a low quality lense.
    I certainly didn't feel it was that way - which by itself is
    interesting. In that, it brings me to the question of "What am i really
    looking for:)?"

    I started about a month ago to find a good digital. I already am good
    with my film SLR but its too damned expensive to develop prints.

    So I looked all around the internet and got quite turned on by the
    SLR-LIKE cameras namely the Fujifilm S9000 and the Panasonic FZ30

    But to my dismay I read bad reviews about them - specifically that they
    are not as good as DSLRs ! Which I now tend to believe as well.
    I also think that the lack of image stabilization can be made up for by
    using a higher shutter speed and a slightly higher ISO, on the DSLR.
    So even if the DSLRS don't have IS ( apart from the maxxums ) , they
    are still better than the P&S SLR-LIKE cameras. Thats what I think.

    But because of the price tags the DSLRS have on them currently I
    thought I'd just get a digital body and fit on
    my old lenses :) - Problem solved? ( Apparently not!)

    Thanks again,

    So now what do I do?
     
    dmedhora, Mar 28, 2006
    #7
  8. True. Focal length is a basic physical property of a lens system.

    However, the sensor on the 350D is smaller than a frame of 35mm film.
    The images you took would be sections cropped from the center of the
    lens image. (The viewfinder on the 350D shows you what will actually
    be captured).
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 28, 2006
    #8
  9. dmedhora

    george Guest

    Isn't this
    http://www.overstock.com/cgi-bin/d2.cgi?PAGE=PROFRAME&PROD_ID=1879162 like
    about £275? And surely you can pick up an inexpensive zoom on eBay???
    (You'll still have to factor in the cost of a memory card but those prices
    are falling fast.)
     
    george, Mar 28, 2006
    #9
  10. dmedhora

    BJ in Texas Guest

    wrote:
    || Hi
    ||
    || I Have an old canon EOS 3000 film SLR with a 35-80 zoom
    lense.
    ||
    || If I buy a Nikon D50 body only, can I attach the above lense
    || to it?
    ||
    || If "no" then is there any adapter or thing I can do to make
    || it fit ?
    ||
    || - D

    Try Duct Tape... :)

    --
     
    BJ in Texas, Mar 28, 2006
    #10
  11. dmedhora

    C J Southern Guest

    Plan B - why not just buy a Canon body?

    I'm sure the differences between them will be a lot less than the hassels
    you'll get trying to get one brand to communicate with another.
     
    C J Southern, Mar 28, 2006
    #11
  12. dmedhora

    Skip M Guest

    Actually, there are lenses available from both Nikon and Canon that have
    image stabilization built in, VR in Nikonspeak, IS in Canonese...any of them
    are probably better quality than the 35-80 you have now, but they cost more.
    (IIRC, the 35-80 was a "kit" lens with the 3000.)
     
    Skip M, Mar 29, 2006
    #12
  13. dmedhora

    Tony Polson Guest


    It was a 'kit' lens made by Tamron for several camera manufacturers
    including Canon and Nikon. It was a poor performer.
     
    Tony Polson, Mar 29, 2006
    #13
  14. dmedhora

    Jon B Guest

    The S9000/FZ30 aren't as good as a DSLR but depending on what you are
    wanting to do they could be good enough, if you've only ever used the
    kit lens on a EOS3000 I'm almost tempted to say it would probably be
    absolutely fine. Yes a DSLR will always be better, but how good do you
    actually need. Remember as well a crap lens on the front of your DSLR
    will actually make it worse than the slr-like cameras, I'll come back to
    this in a minute.

    How do you get round it cheaply?? eBay. Every year Canon/Nikon etc bring
    out a new and slightly improved model, some people jump early and pay
    the price, sell on the quite nice and slightly used kit to fund the
    jump.

    Personally I picked up a Canon D30, 3mp, good build, and a lens to get
    me going, £260 [1]. The D60 which replaced it with 6mp can be had for
    not much more, or the 10D (6mp again), which until 18month ago was the
    daddy prosumer Canon body can be had for about £350-450, instead of the
    £1200 it was new. (Course the Canon lens you have would fit the Canon
    body...., there are still some nice bargains going on Nikon stuff on
    eBay I just don't follow that market so don't know it)

    When I say I've picked up one though, actually, I've ended up picking up
    two, as when I've seen my dad he's been pinching the D30 and doing a lot
    of contemplating, and to be honest I tried steering him towards the
    FZ30. But ultimately we got him a D30 with a Sigma 28-300 hyperzoom lens
    on (to get him going), which I warned him would be soft. He was happy
    enough with the results, until we compared it with the results from my
    Canon G2 compact which were sharper (across the bit of the range the
    Canon covers), he's now after some sharper glass. The results from the
    28-300 aren't chuck in the bin crap, just the camera can do much better
    with better lenses on the front.

    But eBay is great, have a look at 'fstopcameras' whos a good seller and
    'phonebusta' who gets through a lot of DSLR kit. I've bought the D30
    with a 28-105 for £250, a Tokina 19-35 for £70, a Sigma 28-70 f2.8 for
    £60 (fstopcameras), a Sunpak flash for £35, and a Tamron 70-300 new from
    AjPurdy for £100. Chuck in a 2gb card and an extra battery and I've
    spent a smidgen under £600, I wouldn't swap for the slr-like ;) All that
    kit should be sharper than the slr-like cameras, and of course once the
    budget has recovered a bit I hope to improve some of the lenses with
    some even sharper kit, Tamrons one for starters (bit soft 200-300), but
    be warned this can get addictive, I only got the camera a few weeks
    before christmas and built up the rest since.

    [1] If you are v v v patient some people put them up buy it nows for
    less than £200, bargain and a half, I've missed all those though.
     
    Jon B, Mar 29, 2006
    #14
  15. Dmed-

    I'm sure that lens was fine for your needs when you bought it. You could
    have spent much more money for finer lenses, but you might not notice the
    improvement if you had your photos printed postcard size.

    Yes, you can use that lens with a Canon digital body. If you still print
    postcard-size photos, it may still be satisfactory. But it may not.

    Since the digital sensor of most digital cameras is smaller than a 35mm
    film frame, a greater amount of enlargement is required to get to the same
    size print. If there are any shortcomings in the lens, they will be
    amplified by the same factor. In fact, you will likely enlarge your
    digital photos much more since it is easy to do in your computer.

    Your least expensive path would appear to be to purchase a Canon 350 and
    use your old lens. For just a little more, you might get one that has the
    "kit" lens. This would allow a more normal zoom range. Your old 35-80
    zoom lens is equivalent to 52.5-120 mm because of the small digital
    sensor's "crop factor". And, by choosing Canon you would be able to use
    most other Canon-system equipment you may have.

    If you decide not to use the old lens, and don't have an investment in
    other Canon equipment, then all bets are off. Canon is just one of the
    good DSLRs on the market. Most here will likely recommend Canon. Many
    others are die-hard Nikon fans. Others have found that Konica/Minolta and
    Pentax digital cameras are quite good.

    Fred
     
    Fred McKenzie, Mar 29, 2006
    #15
  16. dmedhora

    Skip M Guest

    As I remembered...
     
    Skip M, Mar 30, 2006
    #16
  17. Kennedy McEwen, Mar 30, 2006
    #17
  18. dmedhora

    JPS Guest

    In message <1hcym9n.1djcg9p16liuqaN%>,
    I'm not saying that the 28-300 zooms are great lenses, but the
    comparison is unfair, as the smaller compact cameras sharpen their
    images more in-camera. In-cameras sharpening causes problems for future
    post-processing, and sharpening is usually best done with the final
    result; not early in the processing.
    --
     
    JPS, Mar 30, 2006
    #18
  19. dmedhora

    Jon B Guest

    Yeah I see where you coming from, its just the G2 just wasn't better,
    it's the sort of better I'd hope to see comparing a £2000 L lens to my
    £100 Tamron (70-300) better. We weren't talking magnifying glass
    differences, but jumping out and biting you differences, so in this case
    at least I think the glass on the G2 made a difference. This is why I've
    hung on to my G2, it is at the end of the day a bloody good camera, what
    it lacked was response, range, and easier manual control, and I'd still
    rather take the G2 to certain locations than the DSLR.

    Comparing the D30 with that 28-300 to the Nikon 995 (compact) in the
    same focal lenths, the 28-300 was better (than the Nikon), but not
    hugely better.
     
    Jon B, Mar 30, 2006
    #19
  20. dmedhora

    Jon B Guest

    Yep, indeed follow the international checkout and they'll tell you that
    will be 390 UKP inc shipping and handling customs etc (Vat???)

    As AJ Purdy will sell you a brand new boxed one, not refurbished for
    £350 I'd say that was a fairly lousy price, and you would have it
    tomorow not next month.
     
    Jon B, Mar 30, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.