Digital Cameras & Lens Help DSLR / SLR EF Lenses

[webby]

I know some of you guys are really into dslr cameras/ photography, so maybe you guys can help me more. I have an old school canon slr camera with (2) EF 52mm lenses. Everywhere I look I get conflicting answers on these lenses working on a dslr body. Both lenses are canon brand lenses, with af built onto the lens.

note - I've got nothing against nikon... I've used many SLR Nikon cameras in the past. I've got more experience with canon cameras in general though. Most likely I'll end up purchasing another canon body since I'm used to the layout/buttons etc.


I found this bit

The EF Lens will fit the D30, D60, 10D, 300D, 350D, 20D and I am sure I might have left some out. They also fit the certain film SLR cameras also.

The EFS will only fit the 300D, 350D, and 20D. I have a modded EFS 18-55mm that will also fit the 10D.

I don't know how much to believe from some random poster, because I've read a bunch saying the images will come out like crap, and others staying you need a special adapter....

then another person talking about ef-s lenses vs ef

The 10D is a 1.6 crop factor as well as the 20D, However, The 10D will not accept EF-S lenses, I believe it has to do with the mirror.

You Will not see ANY difference between an EF and EF-S lens. The difference is in the mounting to the camera, Thats it.

I was in a similar position when I went digital. I already had a decent lens (Tamron 28-300mm) and wanted to put all of my limited resources into the camera. I bought a 30D. I can tell you that the quality of the pictures I can take is noticeably better than the film camera I had even with the film lens. My experience is that with a good digital and a good film lens you can take very good quality pictures. Maybe if you know another photographer you can borrow a digitally optimized lens and see for yourself before deciding whether to purchase one.

meaning I should be buying a lens specifically for the new dslr?

While the "hype" element is there to be overplayed, the fact that digital sensors reflect far more light than film did, means that internal reflections within lenses are greater than they were before. Newer lens designs take this into account and increase the number of multicoated elements and eliminate any flat surfaces that could reflect back down to the sensor which in turn reduces the flare issues caused by the digital nature of the sensor. "Optimized for digital" has a sound, if overblown, basis in lens design.

Given how far away the rear lens element is from the sensor ( to leave room for the mirror ) even a wide angle lens's rays will not be at such a steep angle as the FL would suggest (they are "retrofocal" designs). The CA problems are more from the design challenges of short focal length design (1.6x shorter for some cameras) than from the sensor properties. Now, if the rear element of a 10mm lens focused at infinity needed to be 10mm from the sensor, at the centre, you'd have problem people imagine with the microlenses, but all EF lenses are (I think) 43mm away so that angle can't be a big problem.

fighting with another member on "digitally optimized" lenses vs standard EF lenses....

[You can have very good results with an old film lens. I mostly takes pictures of Airliners, if you want to take a look. I took that one (and the others in fact) with and old Canon EF 75-300 that I used on my Canon 1000FN film camera. You can find a used one for around 100$.
Heres the link.
http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=5835779
It can do the job in my opinion.

now another person stating it works fine

IMO, it is more about cutting costs then an actual change in lens design. All the more expensive Canon dSLR bodies do not accept EF-S lenses. Lens manufacturers have been using multicoated lens elements for quite some time. I've found that all my lenses are pretty good at eleminating flare. Just recently I photographed some sunsets with my somewhat older 70-200mm EF lens. Even if the setting sun was in the shot and at an angle, I didn't get any flare ups from the lens to sensor.

I've read some marketing hype about "optimized for digital" lenses having their elements somehow more resolute then their film counterparts: to help sharpness with resolution. Perhaps this could be true for higher crop cameras with more pixel density. However, film had a pretty high resolution if we think about it that way. An older EF L lens is still going to have much sought after optics for dSLRs. At least last time I checked, XT and 30D owners lust over EF L lenses just like 1D and 5D owners.

more on the debate

When Canon introduced the Digital Rebel (300D), they also introduced a new lens format called EF-S. This new configuration took advantage of the smaller CDD to allow for a shorter lens that sits closer to the image sensor. This is where the “S” comes from as it stands for Short Back Focus. The original 18-55mm 300D kit lens was the first, and for awhile the only, EF-S lens.

Shortly after the 300D was introduced, Canon came out with the 20D. This camera also accepts EF-S lenses, and ships with the same kit lens as the 300D. Both cameras can also use the full range of EF lenses, including Canon’s “L” glass, most of which cost more than the camera bodies on which they are mounted.

The introduction of the 20D cemented Canon’s commitment to the new lens mount format. They further solidified that commitment with the introduction of more EF-S lenses in August

meaning it will work

The EF-S lens mount is a relatively new offering from Canon, so the selection of available lenses is limited compared to the full EF range, but it is backwards compatible with the EF mount, and can therefore still accept all EF lenses.

Is there a good thing going about the EF-S lenes? Am I avoiding upcoming technology by not going this route....? Basically, I just want to hear solid info that my lenses will work on a new dslr body, OR.... solid info telling me to scrap my idea of using the old lenses, and go to the EF-S.

Or where photography is going in general if that is going to be a waste. I've yet to have enough time to research what I need to do.

School me - insert camera suggestions as well if desired.

[Tim]

Most old Canon and Nikon lenses will work on the new Digital bodies. The new lenses are just optimized for the digital sensors. I'm not real familiar with Canon technology, but when I use old lenses on my digital camera body, it's effectively like I'm multiplying the focal length by 1.5.

For Nikon the reason you want digital-specific lenses is only because the extra short focal lengths are available only when using wide lenses for digital cameras.

[Izzy]

You can still use EF lenses, no problem. The image quality basically boils down to the lens itself. EF-S lenses are made specially for the 1.6x crop factor, while the EF line can work on both the full frame and cropped DSLRs.

Most photographers will stick with the EF line, especially since all L lenses are EF lenses.

You're still going to be good with your lenses though, there's no reason to scrap them in order to get all EF-S lenses. The two lenses I use are actually both EF.

[webby]

thanks to you both for your replies.

[8thgenuser]

Originally Posted by Izzy

You can still use EF lenses, no problem. The image quality basically boils down to the lens itself. EF-S lenses are made specially for the 1.6x crop factor, while the EF line can work on both the full frame and cropped DSLRs.

Most photographers will stick with the EF line, especially since all L lenses are EF lenses.

You're still going to be good with your lenses though, there's no reason to scrap them in order to get all EF-S lenses. The two lenses I use are actually both EF.

If you get a Canon digital camera that has the crop factor, that EF-S lens will work fine. That EF lens will work fine, too! However, you can't use that EF-S lens on a non-EF-S mount, like your old Canon film camera, since the EF-S lens mount is not backwards compatible. Even if you could, you would get dark circles in your pics.

Found a pretty thorough FAQ on Canon EOS cameras (warning, it's long!):
http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/

If you just want to know about the lenses (compatiblity and known issues), check here (it's long, but less long): http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html

[webby]

now that I've got the lens thing situated...

can someone explain the 30d/40d price tag vs the xti?

why am I seeing double the price, yet 2 megapixel difference?
solely the .5 inch lcd size upgrade on the d's?

[brdhouse]

a bit late but I thought I'd chime in anyway. The only EF-S lens I have is the 18-55mm kit lens that came with my 20D. It's a POS... but does the job with some cleanup and tweaking in photoshop. I know a few others on here have the 10-22mm EF-S and have taken some amazing pics.

I was in the same boat... bought a canon DSLR because I had some older EF lenses from a film SLR. The lenses are not "L" quality, but do the job just fine... never noticed any extra flare (office space?), but then again, I never knew they had those issues so I guess I just dealt with it!? You might as well just start saving for L lenses now, because sooner or later you will end up wanting them just like everyone else.

[wing_gundam]

I don't know too much about Canon's lens nomenclature but from my understanding about the old lenses vs the "optimized for digital" is this:

35mm/film cameras have a much larger working area. They use the full frame of 35mm film. The lens designed for the camera will take an area equivalen to a full frame for 35mm film.

The digital cameras don't quite get that large in size, at least not in its sensory applications. I'm not 100% on the technical aspects, but there is a conversion factor between the lens distances, such as my 200mm lens on a digital = 300mm on a 35mm camera. So the digital is basically working with a smaller area.

Now when you put a 35mm lens on a digital camera, there is a possibility that the lens will capture a larger area than the camera can handle. What this means is in lower light areas, or when the flash is on, you might have dark corners (which can be cropped out of course), because the digital camera isn't designed to use that space.

It's one of the reasons why Nikon's new camera - the D3 has a lot of buzz over it: It has a "full frame" sensor, which will capture a larger area. That's a pro camera which will run over $2K for just the body.





Now seeing as that full frame camera has a lot of buzz, you might have guessed, but the sensor is really the most important part of the body of the camera. The sensor will record the data in pixels, or MP, so the more it records, the better the detail of the camera. A 12MP camera is thus better than an 8MP camera. But the interesting trade off is that you don't always need it. The more MP a camera stores, means the better it will look at full size. This is say when you go 100% or so on the detail in your computer. So if you are going to print an 8.5" x 11" than a 10-12MP camera will look a lot better than an 8MP one. If you are printing 4"x6" or whatever the standard photo size is than it shouldn't really matter. The other issue for printing, is thus the printer. Whether you have a great camera, or a pro camera, if you have a $100 printer, you're not going to print as great as you could by taking it in somewhere. It will still look nice, and good for handing pics out etc. For web-based pics, which are usually cropped down anyways, 8MP is more than enough.

Now Canon's 30D/40D line is its pro-sumer line (meaning pro consumer - consumer who wants to be like a pro etc). These cameras are built more solidly (heavy) with a metal body like what your 35mm one has. The XTi is the first SLR line which takes adv of lightweight materials that most digicams have and runs off that. It doesn't mean it has less quality, just some people prefer a heavier camera (no really ).

The 30D/40D also have more advanced features that you will never use for two reasons: its the features like 1/4000th of a second for shutter speed, or 5frames/second in burst mode. These are great but as I said, there are two reason why they are not useful for you.

1) They are for sports. And while you might want to take pics of cars, baseball etc. you have seen my camera's pic of the baseball in stop motion at 1/200 second or so. Car's too are much slower than that. There isn't much you can really take at 1/4000th of a second, and that's why they are reserved for pros usually.

That being said the second reason why you will probably not shoot 1/4000th relates to the original part of my response - the lens and how it relates to the camera. To shoot at that speed requires a lens that a) can take in enough light for that quick shot; b) be fast itself to do that. Not all lenses can shoot at that speed either.


Anyways, that's my morning info, if that doesn't really answer which cam to buy or anything *achoo* nikon, then I will talk more about it later. If you can infer anything from that is that the sensor is important, and that the lenses are important. The saying "you are buying into the lens family" is really that. Both Nikon and Canon offer exceptional lenses. Nikon's have always been a tad better IMO, but Canon's are excellent too.

[Izzy]

30 and 40Ds are also guaranteed a much higher lifespan than the XTi. Again, they're built more solidly (magnesium body vs. plastic body) and the features are more robust in the 30/40D.

I chose a 30D simply because of the lifespan it offers over the others. Since the 40D came out, the price dropped, so I got the body for 900 to my door. Not too shabby, I think.

A 30D/40D may have less in terms of megapixels, but the ISO output will be cleaner at higher levels than the XT/XTi. IMHO. The Megapixel race is pointless, really at 8-10MP. That is, unless you're planning on printing a lot. It does help if you're massively into photoshopping really small details, especially when you get into full frame cameras (the details will be easier to see, obviously, since your picture is blown up) but for most people, they won't see a damn difference between 6 to 8 to 10 MP.

The only thing I wish they made the 30D and 40D is to weather proof it. But, can't have everything.

[webby]

ic ic... thank u for those tid bits

[Bootsie]

I have both EF and EF-S lenses. They both work great, just get good lenses, and don't worry about EF/EF-S unless you plan on getting a full frame camera. This forum is great for learning what lenses will best fit your needs, and getting the best for your money! I have learned a ton from them.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/

[webby]

thank u for the link

[ethlar]

when considering XTi vs 30/40D, you definitely want to go play with them in person. The XTi is very small in my hand and i didnt like that, which is part of why i went for the 30D over the XTi. The 30/40D body is larger and metal frame build, its a bit heavier, but feels better constructed to me.

[Izzy]

Originally Posted by ethlar

when considering XTi vs 30/40D, you definitely want to go play with them in person. The XTi is very small in my hand and i didnt like that, which is part of why i went for the 30D over the XTi. The 30/40D body is larger and metal frame build, its a bit heavier, but feels better constructed to me.

Very true. When I use my buddy's 300D, it feels light, but...not in a good way. When I hold my camera, it's much heavier, and balances well in hand. Imagine having a heavy 200mm 2.8L lens in front of a camera that doesn't weigh more than a pound or so...

...not very enticing IMHO.

One thing to consider as well, the 30D's jog dial is infinitely useful. It has the top dial and a jog dial beside the preview screen. The top dial sets shutter speed, while the jog sets aperture. That's awesome, and easy to use! It's easy enough to set them with the XT/XTi, but having both at your fingertips without having to press/hold the aperture button setting, that's easy peasey!

[Bootsie]

Originally Posted by webby

thank u for the link

No problem!

[sasebonian]

Originally Posted by Izzy

The only thing I wish they made the 30D and 40D is to weather proof it. But, can't have everything.

I agree. I mean, they weather seal the battery and card door, but not the rest of the body. I guess that's their way of making you get something in the 1D line. LOL.