Lenses for Full Sensor Cameras

I have been pondering either the Nikon D90 or the D300, but now that the Canon 5D Mark II is out, I'm tempted to convert. The first two, of course, are DX format and the preferred Nikon lenses to use are the DX series, where the "conversion" factor for the cropped sensor is 1.5 to 1 (i.e. a 20 mm DX lens gives you what you used to get from a 35 mm film camera lens).

Dumb question: For the so called "full sensor" cameras like the 5DII, does that mean we're back to the old rules that applied to 35 mm film cameras on what to expect from a lens? I assume so. Literature seems clear that the 5DII would take the old (pre-digital) EF lenses, not the digital EF-S lenses.

If that's so, you Canon guys out there: What's your favorite lens choice for wide and macro work? I was looking at the Tokina 11-16 and the Nikon 60 macro in the Nikon digital world, but now I have to start all over.

Any help out there? Thanks.

I'm a Nikon guy, but maybe you would be happy with the Tamron 90mm for macro? I have the older one, not the Di version, but like it very much. As I understand it, it is available in Canon mount, and works with full sensor cameras. Lots of favorable reviews out there...

My non-Di version was a lucky ebay purchase, not much over $100 as I recall, in great shape with original box etc. The Di is supposed to have coatings on the rear glass to minimize reflections from the sensor. I don't know what I'm missing, so I love mine.

I have been pondering either the Nikon D90 or the D300, but now that the Canon 5D Mark II is out, I'm tempted to convert. The first two, of course, are DX format and the preferred Nikon lenses to use are the DX series, where the "conversion" factor for the cropped sensor is 1.5 to 1 (i.e. a 20 mm DX lens gives you what you used to get from a 35 mm film camera lens).

 

Dumb question: For the so called "full sensor" cameras like the 5DII, does that mean we're back to the old rules that applied to 35 mm film cameras on what to expect from a lens? I assume so. Literature seems clear that the 5DII would take the old (pre-digital) EF lenses, not the digital EF-S lenses.

 

If that's so, you Canon guys out there: What's your favorite lens choice for wide and macro work? I was looking at the Tokina 11-16 and the Nikon 60 macro in the Nikon digital world, but now I have to start all over.

 

Any help out there? Thanks.

You should do a search on this site on DX vs FX and /or full frame vs cropped sensor. There are many discussions on the pros and cons of both.

For topside I really like a 24-70mm lens for my "all around" stuff. Canon also makes a great 24-105.

For underwater, I use the 17-40L, the Sigma 15mm fisheye, the Canon 100mm macro, and the Sigma 150mm macro.

Cheers

James

Phoenix

I empathize with you im gonna go through the same thing shortly when the 5dII housings hit the market, as i have a compliment of lens for land use but UW I only have a 17-40 so far.

james

you prefer the 17-40 over the 16-35 (either version).

just wondering i own the 17-40 and love it but there are times where a 2.8 would be a great help.

Dan

I wish tokina would do a full frame version of the 10-17 fish

Hi Dan,

I think the 17-40 performs better than the 16-35 version I and it's a lot cheaper. The 16-35 II is better but it's too big and doesn't take 77mm diopters.

Cheers

James

James

Thats what i thought you where going to say on the 17-40 vs 16-35, and will agree with the mark II version. I still dont know why canon did that as right now thats the only lense in the whole canon line up that has a filter of that size

I think the 17-40 performs better than the 16-35 version I and it's a lot cheaper. The 16-35 II is better but it's too big and doesn't take 77mm diopters.

I think you have a very subjective opinion, James . I'm not sure what you mean by the 16-35 II being too large (?), but (for both 16-35 MkI and MkII) the faster f/2.8 aperture means the ability to utilize the higher accuracy of cross-type AF sensors and provides a brighter viewfinder to compose - both qualities very important underwater, and especially applicable in often darker temperate waters. Certainly the 17-40 is by no means a slouch, but you have to make a fair comparison.

I feel that Canon was smart in moving to an 82mm filter size (even though I understand the annoyance of having to replace previously owned 77mm versions) - it allows you to use regular (non-slim) filters with the lens without vignetting at the wider focal lengths. Is there anyone who actually enjoys using slim filters?

Matt: which diopter did you buy for your 16-35 II? How much was it?

Cheers

James

Good discussion.

I was showing Eric my 17-40 as the lens has a small rub of the coating( ie rubbed a small part off)...which would be bad in sunlight so, I most likely need to replace it. Unless someone has another option. SO I was pondering there very lenses you are talking and comparing right now. Granted not FF yet for me.

Cheers

Todd

Hi Matt

Please let us know more about this magic tool:

I feel that Canon was smart in moving to an 82mm filter size (even though I understand the annoyance of having to replace previously owned 77mm versions) - it allows you to use regular (non-slim) filters with the lens without vignetting at the wider focal lengths. Is there anyone who actually enjoys using slim filters?

I would like to get my 16-35 II working behind my dome!

Cheers,

Matthias

I would like to get my 16-35 II working behind my dome!

So would lots of other people.

I've held on to my 16-35 I for the time being - it's a good copy!

I'm more excited to get a chance to work with the new 24 II before even considering the 16-35 II, but there was a healthy discussion about the latter in an earlier forum discussion that I imagine could be revived with recent efforts and results?

Seriously, though, slim filters are terrible .

I still use the 16-35L1, it was the first lens I shot UW with my modified 10D housing, the images posted HERE by Eric were taken with the lens, a B+W +4 behind the Subal SWC Port and EXR-40. Corner sharpness is pretty good. Aside from the 16-35, my UW full frame lenses have been the 28-105, 50 & 100 Macro (with and without a Tamron SP14 Teleconverter) , 15mm FE.

Stu