Canon EOS 400D & Nikon D40x : EOS EF lenses

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by M, Jun 24, 2007.

  1. M

    M Guest

    Its time to trade in my film EOS500 35mm SLR. Im looking at the
    EOS400D and the D40x. From what I've read, I suspect the D40x just has
    the edge.

    I'm wondering whether I could usefully re-use my EOS lenses (EF
    35-80mm & EF 80-200mm) with the EOS 400D and save money by just buying
    the digital body?

    Alternatively, can I re-use these lenses with the Nikon D40x - is
    there a converter?

    Thanks
     
    M, Jun 24, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. M

    Prometheus Guest

    You could use your EF lenses on the 400D, but you will find that the
    semi-wide 35mm gives the effect of a slightly long normal lens (~56mm).
    As to converters, I have not looked, the answer is 'probably', but you
    will probably loos all the automation and probably aperture control as
    well.
     
    Prometheus, Jun 24, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. M

    Paul Furman Guest


    And you'd lose infinity focus so only good for closeups :)
     
    Paul Furman, Jun 24, 2007
    #3
  4. M

    Matt Clara Guest

    When Canon updated their lens mount oh these many long years ago, they went
    with a really wide diameter (EOS) mount. This allows just about any lens to
    be mounted to the Canon with an adapter, but it unfortunately precludes
    mounting a Canon EOS lens onto just about any other camera.
     
    Matt Clara, Jun 24, 2007
    #4
  5. M

    Frank Arthur Guest

    The newer, much faster autofocus, close focusing ability and high
    quality Nikkor ED lenses are more suitable in focal length if you
    choose the Nikon 40x or other Nikon Digital. Also the prices of the
    new Nikor ED lenses are relatively cheap.
    Like your old LP records- give up the film camera and the earlier
    Canon lenses too.
     
    Frank Arthur, Jun 24, 2007
    #5
  6. M

    babaloo Guest

    You have two perfectly good autofocus Canon lenses and you are wondering
    whether to buy into Nikon?
    Unless you have a very large budget I can't see how that is even a
    consideration.
    The D40x is small but you will have to buy all new lenses and they will need
    to have in-lens motors. That eliminates many lenses from non-Nikon
    manufacturers that represent better price/performance.
    Unless the size of the D40 is what you want a D80 is a better choice.
    Get a Canon dSLR (I am a Nikon user).
    Get the Canon 18-50. When you become sophisticated enough to be bothered by
    what the deficiencies of that lens are hopefully you will know how to
    correct most of those problems in an imaging program.
     
    babaloo, Jun 24, 2007
    #6
  7. Do look at the D80, it might be a much better choice.
    The 35-80mm won't be wide enough, so you'll need to buy at least
    one new lense regardless. I'm not familiar with the EF
    80-200mm, but assuming it is older and slower, you probably
    should replace it with a lense that has faster AF and a wider
    aperture. Many people get a lot of use from a zoom in that
    range, and if you use it a lot it's well worth it to get a high
    performance lense. From Nikon that would be either an 80-200mm
    f/2.8 or the newer 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lense.

    The 70-200mm with VR is expensive, and will probably run $1500
    new. A used 80-200mm f/2.8 (just be sure to get the two ring
    version, not the older push-pull) can be found for less than
    half that price.

    It might take your breath away to talk about that kind of money
    for a lense, but the first time you shoot wide open at f/2.8 and
    get great results that lense suddenly becomes a genuine
    treasure!

    For the short focal length end of the range with Nikon, the far
    and away best lense is the 18-70mm G lense. It isn't in the
    same class as the two longer zooms, but it is a great lense, and
    beats the pants off all competitors for price/performance.

    A Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 fixed focal length lense is also a good
    idea, and they are not expensive.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jun 24, 2007
    #7

  8. Not everyone likes to shoot wide, so the "need" is an assumption. The
    kit lens from Canon is a good starter, and is "wide-ish", 18-55 and is
    good except wide open. In other words, stick with Canon, unless
    somethings about the feel, look, or anything(s) about the Nikon is/are
    quite compelling for you personally.

    The singular of lenses is lens, as you've been told over and over, Floyd.
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 24, 2007
    #8
  9. Why would you want to mount an EOS lens to any other brand body even if you
    could? Canon was extremely smart by going to the larger EOS mount that
    allows one to use such great glass as the 17-35/2.8 Nikkor and 58/1.2 Noct
    Nikkor via an adapter. This smart move is what drove the 5D sales through
    the roof! Almost all dedicated Nikon shooters use the 5D and 17-35/2.8
    Nikkor.






    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Jun 24, 2007
    #9
  10. The "need" is a *fact*: he uses a 35-80mm lense on a 35mm camera.

    To fill the exact same need with a smaller digital sensor the OP
    will require another lense, at roughly 20mm.
    In other words, it isn't much of a lense, and avoiding it might
    be the best decision.

    Compared to the Nikon 18-70mm AF-S DX f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED lense,
    that particular Canon kit lens loses hands down going away...
    That is true, but include the lenses in what is considered
    compelling. Try different cameras; handle a few lenses; chose
    based on *your* needs rather than those of us who post on
    Usenet.
    The *fact* that you are wrong is also on the record, over and
    over.

    From WordNet (r) 2.0[wn]:

    lense
    n : a transparent optical device used to converge
    or diverge transmitted light and to form images
    [syn: lens, lens system]

    Learn English before you pontificate on rules you don't
    understand.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jun 25, 2007
    #10
  11. Not a far out guess, but you assume facts not in evidence, i.e. the OP
    hasn't stated he needs 35mm equivalence.
    Then again, it mightn't.
    Badly mixed metaphors.
    Especially those who insist on eccentricity. viz.: "lense". Hah.
    Get real. Using an archaic term persistently in the face of almost
    unanimous disagreement here says a good deal about you, and nothing
    about my abilities in any area of the English language.
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 25, 2007
    #11
  12. M

    Prometheus Guest

    From the Oxford English dictionary for "lense"

    <http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freesearch=lense&branch=1384
    2570&textsearchtype=exact>

    "Sorry, there were no results for your search."

    And from
    <http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/lense.html>

    "Although the variant spelling “lense†is listed in some
    dictionaries, the standard spelling for those little disks that focus
    light is “lens.â€"
     
    Prometheus, Jun 25, 2007
    #12
  13. WordNet is /not/ a dictionary. It is a tool/database to provide
    definitions that can be used for automatic text analysis, and to
    create semantic networks and ontologies (in an AI sense). If a
    misspelling in frequent enough to appear in actual texts, WordNet
    will include it in its database.
    The Merriam-Webster dictionary do not know the form "lense",
    http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/lense . Nor do any other real
    English dictionary in my possesion.
     
    Gisle Hannemyr, Jun 25, 2007
    #13
  14. Almost isn't unanimous, and disagreement here is meaningless.
    Don't bet on it.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jun 25, 2007
    #14
  15. Is that supposed to have some definitive meaning? Clearly it
    says that "lense" is accepted as a valid variation.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jun 25, 2007
    #15
  16. An odd definition of dictionary you have there!

    From WordNet (r) 2.0[wn]:

    dictionary
    n : a reference book containing an alphabetical
    list of words with information about them
    [syn: lexicon]

    wordnet
    n 1: any of the machine-readable lexical databases
    modeled after the Princeton WordNet
    2: a machine-readable lexical database organized by
    meanings; developed at Princeton University
    [syn: Princeton WordNet]

    lexical database
    n : a database of information about words

    lexicon
    n 1: a language user's knowledge of words
    [syn: vocabulary, mental lexicon]
    2: a reference book containing an alphabetical list
    of words with information about them
    [syn: dictionary]

    Now stop being silly.
    That is exactly how dictionaries work. They show what is in
    use, they are *not* the definition of correct for the future,
    but rather a history of what has been correct in the past.
    Heh heh, get a better dictionary! :)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jun 25, 2007
    #16
  17. You seem to be incapable of grasping the difference between a
    authoritative /reference/ book that standardizes the spelling of
    British (or American) English, and an arbitrary word-database
    on the world wide web.

    As long as somebody has created some shiznit on tha web claim'n ta be
    a "lexical database", whizzay ever way ta spiznell they prefa is fizzy
    wit you?
     
    Gisle Hannemyr, Jun 25, 2007
    #17
  18. M

    ASAAR Guest

    Ah, that must be the method to your madness. You ascribe 'lense'
    to Nikon and 'lens' to Canon. Both companies, however, only use the
    singular 'lens' and whenever they use 'lense', the usage is plural,
    with an 's' appended to it. You really don't need to parade your
    silly 'lense' affectation, as you already stand out in many other
    ways, such as your near pathological penchant for arguing and going
    to extreme lengths to avoid admitting any error.

    Over and over you go, round and around, but in this circle game
    there's only one circle jerk, and guess who that would be? :)
     
    ASAAR, Jun 25, 2007
    #18
  19. You don't seem to understand what a dictionary is. Or, rather,
    what it is not.

    I clipped the definitions for brevity, but please to read them
    again.
    Ahhh, even more silliness...
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jun 25, 2007
    #19
  20. Only if you want to appear like someone who can't spell properly.
    I have never seen Lens spelt Lense except here, by you and when it is
    a genuine spelling error.

    Doc
     
    Dr Hfuhruhurr, Jun 25, 2007
    #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.