A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Canon EF & EF-S lenses



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 14th 05, 01:42 AM
Tony Polson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Canon EF & EF-S lenses

Slack wrote:

If a smaller mirror is needed, why not just use non-reflective tape
instead of dremelling the thing?



Thanks for making me laugh. A lot.

;-)


  #12  
Old November 14th 05, 03:11 AM
Slack
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Canon EF & EF-S lenses

John A. Stovall wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 13:37:47 -0800, Slack wrote:


If a smaller mirror is needed, why not just use non-reflective tape
instead of dremelling the thing?



You have to physically reduce the size of the mirror to clear the back
of the lens.


blushed face
Ohhhh, well in case, I guess my tape trick wouldn't work :-P
_____
Slack
  #13  
Old November 14th 05, 03:14 AM
Slack
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Canon EF & EF-S lenses

Tony Polson wrote:

Slack wrote:


If a smaller mirror is needed, why not just use non-reflective tape
instead of dremelling the thing?




Thanks for making me laugh. A lot.

;-)


Glad to be of assistance :-)
  #14  
Old November 14th 05, 06:00 AM
G.T.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Canon EF & EF-S lenses


"Skip M" wrote in message
news:gkNdf.51$K26.12@fed1read02...


wrote in message
...
In message ,
John A. Stovall wrote:

Simple solution don't buy EF-S lenses and plan to go to a 5D on 1D
body.


But what do you substitute the 10-22 EF-S or 17-85 IS EF-S with?

The 10-22 with a 1.6x crop is better in the corners than the 16-35L on a
FF. The 28-135 IS not a stellar lens; it's only quality is its IS.
--

The 17-85 and 28-135 are roughly on the same level, optically, from all
reports. And the 16-35 stopped down to the f3.5 that the 10-22 starts at
starts to look a little better in the corners. And the 10-22 really sucks
at f2.8... ;-)


Yeah, it is pretty unusable at f/2.8.

Greg


  #16  
Old November 14th 05, 10:41 PM
Colin D
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Canon EF & EF-S lenses



"John A. Stovall" wrote:

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 17:35:06 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
wrote:

wrote:
What are canon EF-S lenses? What is the difference between EF-S & EF lenses?
Are EF-S optimized for digital cameras, to take into account the 1.6x
conversion factor on small-framed sensors?


Yes. EF-S lenses are optimized for digital cameras. They
are mechanically set up so that they are difficult or
impossible to mount on full-frame cameras.


You seem to forget there are Full Frame Digital cameras.

The reason they are made not to mount on FF Canon bodies is they are a
compromise for small sensors.

Not exactly. They are designed for the APS-C sensor. There is no
compromise involved.

Colin D.
  #18  
Old November 15th 05, 03:18 AM
Paul J Gans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Canon EF & EF-S lenses

John A. Stovall wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 17:35:06 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
wrote:


wrote:
What are canon EF-S lenses? What is the difference between EF-S & EF lenses?
Are EF-S optimized for digital cameras, to take into account the 1.6x
conversion factor on small-framed sensors?


Yes. EF-S lenses are optimized for digital cameras. They
are mechanically set up so that they are difficult or
impossible to mount on full-frame cameras.


You seem to forget there are Full Frame Digital cameras.


The reason they are made not to mount on FF Canon bodies is they are a
compromise for small sensors.


Sorry. Badly written. See my last sentence above.

---- Paul J. Gans
  #19  
Old November 15th 05, 03:24 AM
Paul J Gans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Canon EF & EF-S lenses

John A. Stovall wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:41:37 +1300, Colin D
wrote:




"John A. Stovall" wrote:

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 17:35:06 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
wrote:

wrote:
What are canon EF-S lenses? What is the difference between EF-S & EF lenses?
Are EF-S optimized for digital cameras, to take into account the 1.6x
conversion factor on small-framed sensors?

Yes. EF-S lenses are optimized for digital cameras. They
are mechanically set up so that they are difficult or
impossible to mount on full-frame cameras.


You seem to forget there are Full Frame Digital cameras.

The reason they are made not to mount on FF Canon bodies is they are a
compromise for small sensors.

Not exactly. They are designed for the APS-C sensor. There is no
compromise involved.


An APS-C sensor by its existence is a compromise.


AHA! Religious war in the offing!

Anything under 8x10 is a compromise.

We need an 8x10 sensor. Nothing else will do.

---- Paul J. Gans

  #20  
Old November 15th 05, 04:05 AM
Colin D
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Canon EF & EF-S lenses



"John A. Stovall" wrote:

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:41:37 +1300, Colin D
wrote:



"John A. Stovall" wrote:

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 17:35:06 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
wrote:

wrote:
What are canon EF-S lenses? What is the difference between EF-S & EF lenses?
Are EF-S optimized for digital cameras, to take into account the 1.6x
conversion factor on small-framed sensors?

Yes. EF-S lenses are optimized for digital cameras. They
are mechanically set up so that they are difficult or
impossible to mount on full-frame cameras.


You seem to forget there are Full Frame Digital cameras.

The reason they are made not to mount on FF Canon bodies is they are a
compromise for small sensors.

Not exactly. They are designed for the APS-C sensor. There is no
compromise involved.


An APS-C sensor by its existence is a compromise.

There speaks a true 35mm Luddite.

You realize there was a time when the 35mm negative size was looked down
on as a compromise, as was in turn anything smaller than about 10x8 -
and probably still is by some.

You are in peril of ignoring modern advances in image capture, and of
the uses for which APS_C sensors are designed.

Everyone seems to want to stack up an APS sensor against films like
Velvia. Not too many want to contest the point with 800 or 1600 ISO
films though - why is that, do you think? Because a sensor of that
size, Canon, Nikon, Minolta, whatever, will lick the living daylights
out of any color film above about 400 ISO, and give 200 and even 100 ISO
films a bad fright.

Compromise is in your mind.

Colin D.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter Bill Hilton Digital Photography 7 October 24th 05 11:27 PM
Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter Bill Hilton 35mm Photo Equipment 7 October 24th 05 11:27 PM
Considering the Canon 5D, but new to Canon lenses...(long) Martin Francis Digital SLR Cameras 3 September 2nd 05 10:00 PM
FS: Canon L Lenses - 200 f/2.8 and 20-35 f/2.8 Folkie 35mm Equipment for Sale 1 February 23rd 05 03:48 AM
FA Canon EOS bodies, "L" Lenses, access... J&C 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 December 20th 03 04:28 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.