Rebel to full frame

Hi guys,

That made me kind of angry and I heard that my 60mm canon lens will not fit on a full frame camera. I own a canon 450D rebel, and enjoy using it a lot with my macro lenses, 60 mm and 90 mm. However, I would like to buy a good wide angle lens, and all I read recommend the canon 10-22mm which will also not fit a full frame camera. I am actually saving to buy a full frame camera, but now If I buy the 10-22 I won't be able to use it with my full frame.

Anybody with a solution?

Cheers

Daniel

That's peculiar; do the lenses not fit or do they just not connect electronically. I can see where super wide angles may not work because of vignetting etc, but with longer lenses that's surprising. Not an issue with Nikon and even with wider lenses the cropped sensor lenses will still work.

My experience has been that Canon EF-S lenses will not fit the EF mount (I don't own a FF dSLR but have a film SLR and a couple of teleconverters that have the EF mount). DX lenses by other manufacturer's (at least the Tokina and Sigma lenses I own) will fit the EF mount. Depending on the lens and focal length you use may experience vignetting using these DX lenses in a EF mount.

Anybody with a solution?

Tough Love Man says: Don't buy any more EF-S lenses. And add the cost to buy new WA and longer (100/150/180) macro lenses when you're ready to add a full frame body to your collection.

This whole APS-C/EF-S/DX lens issue is something that people need to understand before they make a large $ commitment into these lenses.

If you really want to use the EF-S 60 macro with the new camera you could put a short extension tube such as a Kenko 12mm between the lens and the EF mount on the camera (I've tested this and it works). Downside of doing this is decrease in working distance (ie can't focus at infinity), upside is maximum possible magnification will be slightly increased.

FYI Nikon uses DX lenses, that have the same problem.

Paul (PGK) uses the 60mm with an extension tube quite a bit on his full frame canons.... Maybe worth a search for his posts (or maybe he will jump in)

FYI Nikon uses DX lenses, that have the same problem.

I'm not exactly sure what the "same problem" is ... but ... the Nikon 60mm AF-S and AF-D Micros both mount just fine on an FX body and do not vignette as they are not DX lenses.

Nikon does not have the same lens mount issues as Canon.

For NIKON, DX lenses mount on FX bodies ... and FX lenses mount on DX bodies. A DX lens may vignette in FX mode on a FX camera, but it will mount.

For CANON, an EF-S lens will not mount natively on a Canon FF digital or film body.

just wanted to point out that Canon is not the only one that makes lenses specially for the cropped sensor.

As for the fit : its a feature, not a bug, I wouldnt call it an issue at all. Any canon lens that fits your body works......... Canon designed them to not fit the full frame bodies.... to avoid issues like vignetting using the lens, and because the lens extends a bit more into the body (which could lead to damages to mirrors etc)...for cameras nog designed to accept them. I do think they would be better of designing the 60 mm in EF, rather then EF-S. For wide angles it is probably easier to make a EF-S 10-22 then a EF 10-22.....

tips for full frame wide angle from other threads: either fisheye (15mm, canon or sigma) , 17-40mm f4L, or 16-35mm : the zooms apparantly have corner issues etc behind a dome.

its a feature, not a bug

Ok ... So Canon FF cameras have a "feature" that prevents them from using EF-S lenses and Nikon FF cameras have "feature" that allows them to use DX lens.

I like the Nikon feature better.

As for the fit : its a feature, not a bug, [...] because the lens extends a bit more into the body (which could lead to damages to mirrors etc)

I wouldn't call it a feature or a bug. The EF-S lenses simply extend further into the body to be able to position a lens closer to the sensor. The mirror of a FF body is larger than the mirror of an APS-C body and will hit with the intruding EF-S lens. Canon decided to do things this way to build more compact lenses since they did not have to make their lenses fit several body makes as the other brands like Sigma, Tokina etc have to.

I wouldn't call it a feature or a bug. The EF-S lenses simply extend further into the body to be able to position a lens closer to the sensor. The mirror of a FF body is larger than the mirror of an APS-C body and will hit with the intruding EF-S lens. Canon decided to do things this way to build more compact lenses since they did not have to make their lenses fit several body makes as the other brands like Sigma, Tokina etc have to.

I agree with this sentiment - it's "the way that things are" and it's fairly well documented and advertised. Canon FF bodies take EF lenses. Canon crop bodies can take EF-S and EF lenses. The benefit is clear - EF-S lenses require less glass and can be produced for less for those people buying crop bodies.

Many people can get around the issue by putting an extension tube between the EF-S lens and FF body, but you lose infinity focus. Some people will put a TC between the two, but this degrades image quality and also introduces the TC factor (typically 1.4x).

If you have plans on moving to FF, simply sell off the EF-S lenses and buy an EF equivalent lens.

In the case of the EF-S 60mm macro, the EF 100mm f2.8 macro is a very clear and obvious upgrade path.

I agree with this sentiment - it's "the way that things are" and it's fairly well documented and advertised.

All true ... and it is also something that differentiates Nikon and Canon. I'm truly not trying to pick a fight or anything ... just pointing out a real difference.

A Nikon user who bought DX lenses and who buys a Nikon FX body can use those DX lenses.**

A Canon user who bought EF-S lenses and who buys a Canon FF body cannot use those EF-S lenses.

** for example, seems that lots of people are using the DX 12-24 on the D700 in FX mode ... apparently works great from about 16-24 without issues.

Tough Love Man says: Don't buy any more EF-S lenses. And add the cost to buy new WA and longer (100/150/180) macro lenses when you're ready to add a full frame body to your collection.

 

This whole APS-C/EF-S/DX lens issue is something that people need to understand before they make a large $ commitment into these lenses.

 

I completely agree with you, and do not really know what I should do.

Well, maybe if I update with a 1.3x camera from my 1.6x camera, will the 10-22mm and 60mm work on it ?

Cheers

Daniel

Jeremy: who cares? What good is a DX lens on an FX body? I used to have a Kodak ProSLRn and you could put the 12-24DX on there - but it wouldn't do you a lot of good.

In response to the original post: the EF-S lenses still hold their value really well. If you want to move to FF you can sell the EF-S lens here or on Ebay and get most of your money back.

Cheers

James

Jeremy: who cares?

Well ... like I said ... I'm not trying to play "fanboy" or pick a fight ... I have no beef with Canon or its system. I owned a G9 and almost bought a 40D ... but then the D700 came out.

I was originally responding to this comment:

"Nikon uses DX lenses, that have the same problem."

I was just pointing out that there's a difference between Nikon and Canon is this respect ... no big deal and not worth anyone getting their feathers in a bunch.

What good is a DX lens on an FX body? I used to have a Kodak ProSLRn and you could put the 12-24DX on there - but it wouldn't do you a lot of good.

I think many people would disagree with you here. There are lots of DX folks who have upgraded to FX that are finding utility in their old DX lenses.

The 12-24 works perfectly well from 16-24 and for many, that's a nice substitute for buying the 14-24 FX. I've seen REALLY nice images at 16mm on that lens on a D3/D700.

There are also lots of people who are happily using the 18-200mm DX on the D700 in DX mode, happily making very nice 5.1MP images.

Lastly, with the introduction of the D3X, DX mode is a 10.5MP camera ... not a bad option if you own a bunch of DX lenses.

That's all ... no biggie ... like I said - not trying to pick a fight.

Gotcha - no biggie.

Cheers

James

I actually think it is a 'feature' of Nikon, and a relative (though not major) disadvantage or bug of Canon. On a Nikon FX camera you can turn off the auto DX crop so that a DX lens will not crop. Yes it will vignette at the wide end but still useable. Add a 1.4 TC and the lens (like a 12-24 ) becomes perfectly useable as is the 17-55. Is it a deal breaker, maybe not, but a nice Nikon feature nevertheless. I think this 'bug' is probably acceptable with wideangle lenses but I'd be kind of pissed if my longer lenses like my 60mm did not fit as well. Something to consider for someone buying a cropped sensor camera who may one day upgrade to full frame, and for some folks like myself who still use both DX and FX.

I actually think it is a 'feature' of Nikon, and a relative (though not major) disadvantage or bug of Canon. On a Nikon FX camera you can turn off the auto DX crop so that a DX lens will not crop. Yes it will vignette at the wide end but still useable. Add a 1.4 TC and the lens (like a 12-24 ) becomes perfectly useable as is the 17-55. Is it a deal breaker, maybe not, but a nice Nikon feature nevertheless. I think this 'bug' is probably acceptable with wideangle lenses but I'd be kind of pissed if my longer lenses like my 60mm did not fit as well. Something to consider for someone buying a cropped sensor camera who may one day upgrade to full frame, and for some folks like myself who still use both DX and FX.

The term "bug" is certainly not appropriate here. The lenses and bodies work totally as designed and as advertised. There's no bait and switch or other technical confusion beyond learning the terms. It is what it is and is works exactly how it's intended.

I can understand if someone wants to call the EF/EF-S compatibility on full frame a "disadvantage" in the Canon line compared to Nikon -- that's more subjective and an easier opinion to justify (not that one has to "justify" opinions) in a bullet list of pros vs. cons.

But it's clearly not a bug in the sense that it doesn't work as it's supposed to.

The term "bug" is certainly not appropriate here. The lenses and bodies work totally as designed and as advertised. There's no bait and switch or other technical confusion beyond learning the terms. It is what it is and is works exactly how it's intended.

 

I can understand if someone wants to call the EF/EF-S compatibility on full frame a "disadvantage" in the Canon line compared to Nikon -- that's more subjective and an easier opinion to justify (not that one has to "justify" opinions) in a bullet list of pros vs. cons.

 

But it's clearly not a bug in the sense that it doesn't work as it's supposed to.

OK just a minor advantage Nikon has over Canon, but not really an opinion or subjective, simply a fact.

Here the thing, both systems have advantages and disadvantages over each other. In this respect, Nikon clearly has an advantage over Canon.

Some might argue that Nikon's choice to allow this type of interchangeability limits Nikon's lens designs etc, which of course is another discussion.