EF-S lens on a 1.3 crop

[RichNY]

Has anyone tried a 10-22 or 17-55 attached with a macro type tube on a 1.3crop camera? I know that it wouldn't fill the sensor on a FF camera but I'm wondering whether either might fill all or the majority on a 1.3x.

[timmciglobal]

Well in theory it would kill about 80% of one no?

But why?

Honestly the corners would be horrific probably and you would have no AF.

17-40L is still a fantastic peice of glass, as is the 24-70L if you want it.

Tim

[EOS Man]

Yes probably, but the widest a 1.3X crop camera can go currently is only 18mm with the EF 14mm f2.8 and that's not cheap either.

[coldrain]

Moral of the story: the 1D Mk III is conceptualized for sports shooters, reporters/photo journalists and CW. They are not interested to go as wide as possible... for that there are other camera options.

[RichNY]

Well in theory it would kill about 80% of one no?

But why?

Honestly the corners would be horrific probably and you would have no AF.

17-40L is still a fantastic peice of glass, as is the 24-70L if you want it.

Tim

Tim- My question was really about the 10-22. I'm realizing that unless I keep the 30D and 10-22 I'd have to give up 4.8mm on the wide end if I only had the MIII and a 16-35 lens.

I really don't like the idea of having keeping $2500 in body and my 2 EF-S lenses in addition to dropping $4k on a MIII which would be a luxury in and of itself. When I look at my 10-22 use 99% of my shots are from those 4.8mm I'd be giving up.

[coldrain]

So, don't get a 1D MK III. Wait till Canon comes with a model that gives you full frame, like a 5D follow-up, or just be happy with your 30D or 30D follow-up.

No sense in switching cameras if the camera is not right for your wishes...

[cdifoto]

Sell your 30D and EF-S to get the Sigma 12-24mm which is compatible with full frame.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=302698&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

[timmciglobal]

You beat me to it CDI :/ was gonna suggest 12>24.

Honestly though, how many times do you need wider then 21 mm or so? That's pretty darn wide. Losing some capability yes but I've seen stuff that wide thats "too wide" often and could of used a slightly longer FL.

Tim

[cdifoto]

I dunno if I'd care so much if I was on a 1.3 or full frame. I was planning on dumping my Tokina and being done with it. Make do with the 24-70 and 70-200 as far as zooms go and keep my prime(s) just for speed. I'm usually fine with the 24-70 and the Tokina covers where I need a wee bid wider...12mm even on a crop is usually too wide for me.

[RichNY]

Honestly though, how many times do you need wider then 21 mm or so? That's pretty darn wide.


The vast majority of my images are wider than 21mm.

I've got some thinking to do to weigh my options. The 1DsIII will be out of the price range so its a choice between/amoung the 5D replacement, the 30D, and the MIII. I don't imagine the 40D giving me anything so special that it would warrant upgrading or adding to my 30D. In the meantime I'm going to be shooting as much as I can.

[cdifoto]

The vast majority of my images are wider than 21mm.

I've got some thinking to do to weigh my options. The 1DsIII will be out of the price range so its a choice between/amoung the 5D replacement, the 30D, and the MIII. I don't imagine the 40D giving me anything so special that it would warrant upgrading or adding to my 30D. In the meantime I'm going to be shooting as much as I can.

I don't intend to go to a 40D either...unless of course I break one of my current bodies and can only spring for the 30D/40D to replace it. I can't see how it would improve things drastically enough. They certainly won't put 1D III focusing in it and that's what I want/need more than anything else.

[timmciglobal]

Well if you shoot that much wide then the mk3 really wouldn't add anything for you I'd think? Don't shoot 10 FPS or 45 AF on super wide stuff right?

Tim

[adam75south]

i just wanna hear those 10fps popping off.

[RichNY]

Well if you shoot that much wide then the mk3 really wouldn't add anything for you I'd think? Don't shoot 10 FPS or 45 AF on super wide stuff right?

Tim

Tim, my desire for the MIII is primarily for the equestrian stuff I'm going to be shooting this spring where the speed of the autofocus and fps will be beneficial.

As for 10FPS on a 45AF super wide- hell yeah. Can you think of a better avalanche setup?

[cdifoto]

Tim, my desire for the MIII is primarily for the equestrian stuff I'm going to be shooting this spring where the speed of the autofocus and fps will be beneficial.

As for 10FPS on a 45AF super wide- hell yeah. Can you think of a better avalanche setup?

I would think the 30D's AF and 5FPS would be sufficient for the occasional equestrian event. If it's frequent then upgrade. If it's not, make do.

[Nickcanada]

The new Mk III sounds like a great concert camera. ISO 6400 ohhhh ahhhhh. I bought my winning loto ticket the other day so when the numbers are announced, I'll pick up a few....

[ReF]

Has anyone tried a 10-22 or 17-55 attached with a macro type tube on a 1.3crop camera? I know that it wouldn't fill the sensor on a FF camera but I'm wondering whether either might fill all or the majority on a 1.3x.

if i recall correctly andy said the max working distance of his 17-55 + 12mm tube was like 1 inch away from the front element at 55mm. i don't think a 10-22 would be usuable at all with a tube.

[achuang]

With the original question: I thought EF-S lenses have a shorter length to the sensor so if you tried to mount an EF-S lens on an EF body then the mirror would hit the back of the lens mount. Part of creating the smaller image circle of the EF-S mount was moving the mount closer to the sensor for a smaller image circle aswell as creating a smaller image circle the same way as all the other APS-C lenses out there. Tell me if I'm wrong, but that's what I remember about EF-S lenses.

[coldrain]

With the original question: I thought EF-S lenses have a shorter length to the sensor so if you tried to mount an EF-S lens on an EF body then the mirror would hit the back of the lens mount. Part of creating the smaller image circle of the EF-S mount was moving the mount closer to the sensor for a smaller image circle aswell as creating a smaller image circle the same way as all the other APS-C lenses out there. Tell me if I'm wrong, but that's what I remember about EF-S lenses.
Well, the only part you have wrong is that moving the back element of EF-S lenses back has to do with the smaller image circle. It has not. The reason for it is that lens design (especially wide angle) is a bit difficult with a mirror box in front of the film/sensor. So Canon just also took advantage of that you can move the back element closer if you have a smaller APS-C mirror box.
This mirror box problem is also one of the reasons why Leica and consorts could make such nice lens designs on range finder cameras... they had freedom in lens design, no mirror box in the way.

[achuang]

Thanks for the correction coldrain, I was just assuming it was to do with the smaller image circle since I was going on the logic of how an extension tube works. But I guess that's not the case. I'm sure someone out there has tried to mount an EF-S lens on a 1.3x crop body. Wonder how bad the mirror was damaged.

[1stopdifference]

I have hit my mirror on my 18-55 KIT conversion a many of times without any damage. The mirror is surrounded with a metal frame.

[DonSchap]

The vast majority of my images are wider than 21mm.

I've got some thinking to do to weigh my options. The 1DsIII will be out of the price range so its a choice between/amoung the 5D replacement, the 30D, and the MIII. I don't imagine the 40D giving me anything so special that it would warrant upgrading or adding to my 30D. In the meantime I'm going to be shooting as much as I can.

I know you are a nut for quality, Rich ... but consider throwing a .45x screw-on Teleconverter on to an EF 28mm f/2.8. You might be surprised what would show up on a 1.3x body.

28mm x .45 x 1.3 = 16.38mm @ f/3.3 ($200)

Wide enough? Even the EF 14mm f/2.8L can't touch that.

14mm x 1.3 = 18.2mm ($1700)

I won't tell, if you won't. :D