EF-S on D30/D60/10D

Hi,

In a german photo forum someone has successfully used the EF-S 17-85mm lens on a 10D. He just pulled out the cover on the back and it worked. It's of course not nice to have the lens naked backside. But might be an opportunity to modifiy the 10-22mm as well? Maybe with a modified cover.

http://www.willi-schlitt.de/jagabua/images.../dforum/001.JPG

http://www.willi-schlitt.de/jagabua/images.../dforum/002.JPG

http://www.willi-schlitt.de/jagabua/images.../dforum/003.JPG

http://www.willi-schlitt.de/jagabua/images.../dforum/004.JPG

http://www.willi-schlitt.de/jagabua/images.../dforum/005.JPG

So the extended back seems to be more a marketing joke than an optical circumstance. Maybe to prevent people using these lenses on full frame cameras and complaining about vignetting in online forums . They just didn't have in mind when releasing the D30/D60/10Ds. :wink:

Julian

I posted this earlier.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/sho...=&Number=230366

It does look like there's enough room for the glass of the 18-55 and 17-85 in the EF mount if you got rid of the "extra" plastic. I don't think you can assume that it'll work for the 10-22. There's clearly more room behind the mount point in the EF-S mount. I suspect a wider lens will make use of more of it.

We look forward to the results of your experiment.

Hi Herb,

I knew the modification for the 18-55. But I've never heard people doing it with the 17-85 until now. Somehow I thought there is a possibility it could be different with the new 17-85.

Will be interesting to see the 10-22mm's backside :-)

mh, using the Sigma 12-24 for several month I just started a friendship with it.

Julian

Does anyone know of any tests about the new 17-85mm EF-S? Is it really much better than the 'kit' lens and how does it rank with the 17-40mm L?

Please forgive all the questions, but I have a trip in four weeks and am trying to decide between these two lenses to replace my kit lens.

Thanks!

Dave

Hi,

I had expected the 17-85 being a better one than the kit lens (18-55). Like the 28-135 IS has been for fullframe/film.

From what I have seen I am not sure if the 17-85 even beets the kit lens. Some images showed very heavy purple fringing. The wide end seems to be very poor at all.

Beside the better range, true USM and IS I wouldn't expect to much from the 17-85.

Having that said I have never tried the lens. But I am not interested in it anymore as I was when it was introduced.

But one thing is for sure: The 17-40 is many classes above ("L" line) and clearly the better lens.

I would say the kit lens and the 17-85 are roughly about the same. The 17-40 is far better for sure. I would recommend getting this one. But you have to find something for reaching longer. 40mm is almost no tele (equals ~ 64mm on full frame).

You may want to check some reports and fullsize images at www.dpreview.com or somewhere else.

regards,

Julian