is current lens for dSLR compatible with future full frame body?

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by A W, Mar 14, 2005.

  1. A W

    A W Guest

    Say if I want to buy "CANON EF-S 17-85MM4.0-5.6 IS USM" for XT. I am
    wondering after few years whether this lens is still compatible with
    future full frame body? Afterall, many prosumer will spend lot of
    money for this. It's hard to predict the future, but is it
    mechanically possible?

    If these kind of lens are designed for crop ratio 1.6, why don't they
    just say "CANON EF-S 27.2 - 136 ...".

    Thank you,
    A W, Mar 14, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. I don't think that EF-S lenses will be compatible with full time
    bodies. Mirror will be in the way ... But EF ones should.
    What if they increase the sensor size and therefore reduce the crop factor
    to, say, 1.25? Would you retract all lenses from the market to re-label
    them? What if you own both cameras, one with 1.6 crop ratio, one with 1.25?

    It would be too confusing.

    Bye, Dragan

    Dragan Cvetkovic,

    To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer

    !!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!
    Dragan Cvetkovic, Mar 14, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. I don't think so. The imaging circle that it projects is too small.
    For the same reason that a normal lens for an 8x10 camera isn't
    sold as a "50". APS-C is as real a format as anything else, we
    don't need to discuss everything in terms of 35mm.

    This is to a large extent a matter of taste. My taste is for things
    that are what they say they are. The lens in question offers focal
    lengths from 17 to 85 mm, and I prefer that it be labeled as such.
    I have not used 35mm extensively, and I have no trouble remembering
    that a 30mm lens is "normal". Your mileage may vary.

    Ben Rosengart, Mar 14, 2005
  4. A W

    Darrell Guest

    You don't have to worry, Canon has no intention of making a consumer level
    24x36mm sensor dSLR. Witness the increased number of EF-S lenses being
    released. Full frame 35mm sized sensors won't be affordable, besides the
    "L-Series" glass isn't all that affordable any ways...
    Darrell, Mar 15, 2005
  5. That's an odd statement as there are L lenses which when combined with
    the 20D body have it come in with a few bucks of the it with EF-S
    17-85 kit lenses. The body with a 17-40 F4.0L comes in at 2049 or
    with the 70-200 F4.0L at 1949.

    Both these lenses are far better than any of the EF-S lenses.


    "A nice man is a man of nasty ideas."

    _Introductions to History of the Reformation_
    Jonathan Swift
    John A. Stovall, Mar 15, 2005
  6. A W

    Darrell Guest

    True, but I have sold very few to people with a Digital Rebel. I do sell
    them to people with the 10D or 20D more often. But as we now have a EF-S
    60mm macro, when the previous EF versions gave more macro 1:1 on film is
    like 1.6:1 on digital, so Canon now cuts that back to a 1:1 on digital only.
    The future looks clear for APS-C sensors. There is no reason for Canon to
    re-tool lenses if they intended to drop APS-C in a few years.
    Darrell, Mar 15, 2005
  7. I wouldn't expect a Rebel buyer to see the advantage of the "L"
    No, but I plan to move to a full frame sensor in a few years. So, I
    see no use for an EF-S now unless it would be the 10-20.

    "Hey, kemosabe! Long time no see.
    Hey sport. You connect the dots.
    You pick up the pieces."

    "Sharkey's Night"
    Laurie Anderson
    _Home of the Brave_
    John A. Stovall, Mar 15, 2005
  8. A W

    Steve Wolfe Guest

    Say if I want to buy "CANON EF-S 17-85MM4.0-5.6 IS USM" for XT. I am
    I'll throw in one more consideration: Edge quality. Now all of this may
    be wrong, I'm open to being corrected!

    Some of the aberrations that occur with lenses (as part of the inherant
    nature of lens design, trade-offs HAVE to be made) get worse near the edge
    of the image - vignetting, distortion, softness, etc.. With either the EF
    or EF-S lenses, they're designed to try and keep those aberrtions within at
    least acceptable ranges near the edges of the projected image. When you
    talk about getting a lens where these aberrations are less apparent near the
    edges, you start talking a LOT of money.

    So... with an EF lens projecting a larger image, the design criteria call
    for keeping those aberrations below some level over a larger area, and when
    you use it on a smaller APS-C sensor, the sensor is only seeing the best
    part of the image - the part in the middle, the worst part (the edges)
    aren't captured. I don't know if the EF-S lenses are designed to perform
    equally well over the entire APS-C area as the EF lenses do - but if I had
    to pick which would do the best, the EF would seem a safer bet than the
    EF-S. Plus, as other point out, the EF lenses can be used on a film body (a
    cheap film body might be something you'll want) or, if the price ever comes
    down, on full-frame digitals.

    Of course, as always, I could be entirely wrong, and if so, I'd love an
    explanation of where I went wrong!

    Steve Wolfe, Mar 15, 2005
  9. A W

    Tumbleweed Guest

    Because it isn't.

    The focal length is exactly what it says it is.
    Lenses have always been available that will fit a number of different
    I used "35mm" camera lenses on my 16mm cine cameras. The field of view was
    significantly different, giving me good long telephotos - but no wideangles
    at all.
    On my 6x7 Mamiya RB the "standard" lens is around 90 - 127mm. 50mm is a
    decent wide-angle.
    Half-frame cameras were around long before APS. Same effect when using "35mm
    film" lenses..
    Just accept that you have bought an APS equivalent and not a 35mm camers.
    Why would you want the lens manufacturer to lie about the focal length when
    in reality the photographer ought to know what format film he is using? As
    tecnology advances and standards change it's up to us to understand and
    appreciate the differences.
    Tumbleweed, Mar 15, 2005
    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.