Does anybody worry? APS-C Lens Investments

[KAT4DISNEY]

Keep in mind, when talking about the functionality of "crop lenses" as opposed to other lenses... some of them will not physically mount on full frame cameras. It's a concern that's more fundamental than functionality. And the whole enlargement/magnification debate is irrelevant if the lens won't mount.

I'm curious. Which manufacturer has this in current lenses? I had not heard of it.

 

[photo_chick]

I'm curious. Which manufacturer has this in current lenses? I had not heard of it.

Canon EF-S lenses will not mount on the 10D, 5D, 1D or 35mm EOS bodies. Not sure on the other manufacturers.

 

[Mosca]

Just as important as the field of view calculation is the depth of field calculation; the "crop factor" applies to that as well. f/2.8 on an APS-C is the same as f/4.5 on an APS. Not in terms of exposure calculation, but in terms of what is in focus and what is not.

I agree with Mark on this. I do not see APS-C going away anytime soon. I really doubt it will ever go away. You have to consider that the majority of buyers are not like us. They just go in the store and buy a camera that catches their eye. They do not have a clue what FF is. With the advancements in APS-C, there could even end up being less demand for FF in the future.

I dunno, ukcatfan. I think everyone I know who has decided to drop the serious bux on a DSLR has thought it out pretty seriously. I'd say the majority of buyers are exactly like us. I don't have any stats, of course, but there is a pretty considerable commitment to 1) wanting better photographs than could be had from the p&s, 2) spending at least a couple thousand when all said and done, and 3) carrying around a big camera, along with accessories. I'd say most XSi owners (and almost all XXD owners) know their cameras have a 1.6 conversion factor. (Not all, of course). It's one of the first things you learn when you figure out that "10x zoom" doesn't really have any practical meaning any more.

 

[Groucho]

Canon EF-S lenses will not mount on the 10D, 5D, 1D or 35mm EOS bodies. Not sure on the other manufacturers.

I think that's Canon only. Nikon FF DSLRs can use the crop lenses and even automatically crop the resulting picture (you get a lower resolution file, of course), the Pentax crop lenses all mount on their film cameras just fine (but you lose aperture control obviously since there's no ring), and I'm pretty sure that the FF Sony DSLRs have no problem with crop-sensor lenses. Worst case with these, you will get some vignetting.

Just as important as the field of view calculation is the depth of field calculation; the "crop factor" applies to that as well. f/2.8 on an APS-C is the same as f/4.5 on an APS. Not in terms of exposure calculation, but in terms of what is in focus and what is not.

I assume you mean F4.5 on a FF, not APS.

I dunno, ukcatfan. I think everyone I know who has decided to drop the serious bux on a DSLR has thought it out pretty seriously. I'd say the majority of buyers are exactly like us. I don't have any stats, of course, but there is a pretty considerable commitment to 1) wanting better photographs than could be had from the p&s, 2) spending at least a couple thousand when all said and done, and 3) carrying around a big camera, along with accessories. I'd say most XSi owners (and almost all XXD owners) know their cameras have a 1.6 conversion factor. (Not all, of course). It's one of the first things you learn when you figure out that "10x zoom" doesn't really have any practical meaning any more.

DSLRs can be had for cheaper than some PnS cameras nowadays, especially second-hand ones... I dunno, I have to agree with ukcatfan on this one. I believe that the mass market has no idea about sensor size or exactly why DSLRs get better pictures. Heck, most DSLRs will just ever use the single kit lens, or maybe that much a cheap telephoto zoom. Even beyond that, I've seen people with battery-gripped DSLRs (which you would think would indicate a level of knowledge) who still shoot on "Auto" and have their pop-up flash coming up and firing all the time, and we've all seen the folks at Disney with medium to high-end DSLRs doing the same thing.

Note - I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this; you don't have to be a photo tech nut in order to enjoy a DSLR. But I don't think that DSLR automatically means an understanding of the technology - more likely, it means a good salesperson at Best Buy.

 

[Master Mason]

Canon EF-S lenses will not mount on the 10D, 5D, 1D or 35mm EOS bodies. Not sure on the other manufacturers.

The mount is exactly the same, so yes you can mount it, the problem is you can't expose the entire sensor through the lens.

 

[photo_chick]

The mount is exactly the same, so yes you can mount it, the problem is you can't expose the entire sensor through the lens.

No. You cannot physically mount an EF-S lens on an EF only camera. The mirror gets in the way. Canon has designed the mount to make sure that EF-S lenses will not mount of EF only cameras to protect both the camera and the lens. EF and EF-S are NOT identical mounts. That is why EF-S lenses use the white dot that lines up differently than the traditional red dot that EF lenses use.

You will notice there are also no EF-S L series lenses. This is why. They won't mount on the flagship camera.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Canon EF-S lenses will not mount on the 10D, 5D, 1D or 35mm EOS bodies. Not sure on the other manufacturers.

Interesting. I wonder why the Canon's are that way - ie, what about the design makes that not possible. Sony DT (aps-c) lenses will mount on the FF's. They also will crop automatically and reduce resolution if you use a DT lens but they can be used.

 

[Master Mason]

No. You cannot physically mount an EF-S lens on an EF only camera. The mirror gets in the way. Canon has designed the mount to make sure that EF-S lenses will not mount of EF only cameras to protect both the camera and the lens. EF and EF-S are NOT identical mounts. That is why EF-S lenses use the white dot that lines up differently than the traditional red dot that EF lenses use.

You will notice there are also no EF-S L series lenses. This is why. They won't mount on the flagship camera.

Ok, I'll have to take a look, I don't have any EF-S lenses so I'll have to check it out next time I'm in a store. The mount it's self meaning the metal plate section is the same, it has to be to fit on the cameras, if one of them has an extention or something beyond the plate I didn't realize that.

 

[boBQuincy]

EF-S lenses have a sort of hard rubber ring that prevents the lens from mounting on cameras that are not designed for EF-S. Some of the lenses have protruding rear elements that could hit the mirror on FF and other dSLRs under some conditions.

There are instructions on the web for removing the rubber ring, allowing EF-S lenses to be mounted on cameras that are not designed for them, but it is quite a risk.

I carry a Xsi and know all about crop sensors but I cheerfully ignore it! When I need a wide lens I go for the 10-22 and never even think that it has the angle of view of a 16. It doesn't matter.

 

[Corey10112]

I carry a Xsi and know all about crop sensors but I cheerfully ignore it! When I need a wide lens I go for the 10-22 and never even think that it has the angle of view of a 16. It doesn't matter.

I'm with boBQuincy on this one. I don't do the math, I grab the lense that I know is in the range I'm looking for.

If it's farther away and I need a lot of zoom I'll grab a lense that I know gives me the most reach. On the opposite end if I'm close and want as much as possible in the frame I'll pick up my widest lense.

If they're not giving me what I want I'll have to use my feet to frame the picture the way I want it.

The more comfortable you are with the lenses you use the more you'll know what you can and can't do with each and you probably won't even think about the math.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

Actually not really

In the picture above shows what you get with a specific lens.

The yellow is what part of the total is captured by a full frame, the pink the part that is captured by a crop. The magnification is exactly the same, one is simply, cropped.

Photo above complements of Obilo

It seems that you're trying to make a point to dispute me but I can't help but seeing that we are saying exactly the same thing. Please tell me where I said anything about magnification.

 

[Master Mason]

Just wait until everything actually goes full frame and they suddenly realize that what they thought was a 30mm shot all this time was actually about a 48-49mm shot. Imagine the panic and confusion! LMAO

I'm serious. I'd bet there are thousands of DSLR owners that don't even realize there's a computation involved and that an 18mm lens doesn't fcn as an 18mm lens on their camera at all. Sad, actually.

It seems that you're trying to make a point to dispute me but I can't help but seeing that we are saying exactly the same thing. Please tell me where I said anything about magnification.

From your original Quote. You said that a 30mm shot is actually a 48-49 shot. Which would be a magnification change, it's not, its a crop of the same magnification.

You say it's sad the people don't realize they need to do a computation to find out how their lens would have reacted on a 35mm film camera. But it's not sad, as long as they know what a 30mm lens will do on their camera what does it matter what it would have done on a film camera?

And yes, I know what it was like shoting on film my first camera was my dad's 1958 practika and I had a dozen others after that.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

Because you choose to read it that way. Whatever. I refuse to engage you further.

I know what I'm talking about and I understand fully. I ask that you please don't twist my post(s) in the future in an effort to engage some point you want to make.

 

[pjacobi]

Please note that there is nothing magical about the 36mmx24mm format. It was purely an accident that this format became popular.

The motion picture industry orginally developed the 35mm film format. If a scene was 10 minutes and there was only 2 minute of 35mm film in the canister, it could not be used to shoot the scene.

What could be done with left over unused film scapes?

Invent a still camera to use cheep film scraps from the motion picture industry! That's how the film format was born.

In today's world, the sensor size is determined by what is most economical for the CMOS fabrication industry to produce, which just happens to be APS-C.

No format is perfect. Just get the best image from whatever format that you choose.


-Paul

 

[Master Mason]

Because you choose to read it that way. Whatever. I refuse to engage you further.

I know what I'm talking about and I understand fully. I ask that you please don't twist my post(s) in the future in an effort to engage some point you want to make.

The point you were trying to make was incorrect. And I clearly showed you why it was incorrect. I even gave you a graphical represesentation of why it was incorrect. I wasn't twisting anything, I was responding to exactly what you wrote.

35mm is not some sort of gold standard against which all other things should be gauged.

But if you don't wish to discuss it any further, then that's ok too.

 

[Groucho]

No. You cannot physically mount an EF-S lens on an EF only camera. The mirror gets in the way. Canon has designed the mount to make sure that EF-S lenses will not mount of EF only cameras to protect both the camera and the lens. EF and EF-S are NOT identical mounts. That is why EF-S lenses use the white dot that lines up differently than the traditional red dot that EF lenses use.

You will notice there are also no EF-S L series lenses. This is why. They won't mount on the flagship camera.

I'm with you up until the "protect both the camera and the lens" - I think what they're doing is protecting their own bottom line, rather than the camera - Nikon, Sony/Minolta, and Pentax have all shown that there's no reason why you can't mount crop-sensor lenses on FF bodies. Canon had to design things to specifically make them not work.

As for flagship camera - this has always been my biggest beef with Canon; they try very hard to create a chasm between the "cheap stuff" and the "good stuff" - the 7D proves that they can make an APS camera that is functionally very comparable to their FF cameras, but they still won't fully support it, lens-wise. (The example that springs to mind - still no APS fisheye from Canon!)

 

[photo_chick]

I'm with you up until the "protect both the camera and the lens" - I think what they're doing is protecting their own bottom line, rather than the camera - Nikon, Sony/Minolta, and Pentax have all shown that there's no reason why you can't mount crop-sensor lenses on FF bodies. Canon had to design things to specifically make them not work.

As for flagship camera - this has always been my biggest beef with Canon; they try very hard to create a chasm between the "cheap stuff" and the "good stuff" - the 7D proves that they can make an APS camera that is functionally very comparable to their FF cameras, but they still won't fully support it, lens-wise. (The example that springs to mind - still no APS fisheye from Canon!)

I do agree that Canon could have designed the EF-S lenses so that they would work with all EOS mounts. They have proven it with lenses like the 16-35 L. For whatever reason, someone thoguht it would be better to make a lower end lens class and not worry about the design of the lens obstructing the mirror. Who knows what they're thinking when they do these things.

 

[Mosca]

I do agree that Canon could have designed the EF-S lenses so that they would work with all EOS mounts. They have proven it with lenses like the 16-35 L. For whatever reason, someone thoguht it would be better to make a lower end lens class and not worry about the design of the lens obstructing the mirror. Who knows what they're thinking when they do these things.

From Wiki, which appears to be quoting another source I couldn't track, (edit: the source is the Canon Camera Museum)

"The proximity of the rear element to the image sensor greatly enhances the possibilities for wide angle and very wide angle lenses, enabling them to be made smaller, lighter (containing less glass), faster (larger aperture) and less expensive. Most current Canon EF-S lenses are wide angle. Lenses designed specifically for APS-C sized sensors are often optically designed to provide a narrower light cone to match the sensor."



Just as there are disadvantages, there are a lot of advantages to the EF-S format. It is simply a different set of compromises. They will not fit everyone, but neither will the compromises of the full 35mm format, either, nor the P&S, nor the micro 4/3, nor the medium- and large- formats, nor film rangefinders and SLRs, nor disposables. It might be more instructive to see it as simply another choice, and one that will be around for a while.

I would love to have a 5D-2, but every time I use that 8fps on the 7D I know I made the right choice. FOR ME.

 

[Groucho]

That sounds all fine and good - but I still don't buy it. They've got no more in the wide-angle department than anyone else and still no EF-S fisheye. Their 10-22mm is no faster than Sigma's 10-20mm or Nikon's 10-24mm and not as wide as Tamron's 8-16mm. As far as I can tell, it's all negatives with no positives... especially if you want to "move up" to FF at some point; if you have a decent collection of EF-S lenses, you won't have much of an incentive to stick with Canon.

 

[GrillMouster]

The vast majority of DSLR bodies out there are not full frame, so I wouldn't worry about those lenses. The crop sensor system allows smaller and lighter lenses, and there will always be people who prefer the smaller form factor. This group is not limited to amateurs and enthusiasts. Travel photographers typically like to keep things light. Sports and wildlife photographers often appreciate the extra reach that they get with crop bodies & lenses.