Compatibility of Full Frame lenses...
 

Hello,

Currently, I'm looking into buying lenses for my Canon EOS Rebel XT, but I do plan on purchasing a 7D sometime in the not too distant- but not too close -future.

My question is, will the lenses that I buy for my Rebel XT still work for the APSC sensors since my camera is equipped with full frame sensor...and vice versa. Will the APSC lenses work with my full frame XT?

Thanks in advance!

Full frame will work on the APS-C sensor, but will give a field of view 1.6x smaller. Meaning your 50mm will look quite like an 80mm in terms of field of view.

The APS-C specific lenses will not work (in most cases) on the full frame camera. In some cases the lenses are physcally prevented from mounting, in others even if mounting hasn't been physically blocked, you'll see a black fringe around the picture where the APS-C lens simply cannot cover the bigger sensor with image.

bummer that the APSC lenses wont work on the XT!

Thanks for the quick response Perrone.

To be clear, the Rebel XT and the Canon 7D are both APS-C sensors, neither one is full-frame (35mm).

So, to be clear, any lense that works for the 7D will work just fine for the XT? I was under the impression that the XT was a full frame camera, but upon further research, I find that it is a reduced frame. I would like to get a Tamron 18-270mm but wasn't sure if it would be compatible with my XT because BH and other retailers listed it as specifically being designed for 7D ASP-C cameras...

So, just to be sure, any 7D lens is compatible with my XT and vice versa?

Thanks for the help!

Yes. But those cheap superzoom are about the worst lenses you can get for video work.

In a word, yes.

The only digital full-frame camera that Canon sells is the 5D and 1Ds

You don't want to do that. That's like buying a one-size-fits-all pair of clown pants. You can wear 'em, but do you REALLY want to?

As far as I am aware.

Thanks Perrone!

What about the Tamron do you not like? It has solid reviews and looking at sample shots that I googled, it looks like a solid choice. Unfortunately, I do not have the money to buy fixed focal length primes, otherwise I would love to. I also need the versatility of being able to go very wide to telephoto.

I'll mostly be shooting my kids, nature and urban photography. Nothing commercial, yet. But I figure a good walk-around lens will get me started in the right direction.

I'm at odds right now between the Tamron 18-270 and the Canon 18-200mm...both solid reviews. I'm even considering the 70-300mm, but having to swap lenses is a bit cumbersome and can cause me to lose my shot.

Versatility is key. Do you have any recomendations for a solid zoom lens that wont break the bank?

I laughed hard on that one. :)

Another alternative to consider (if you haven't already) is two moderate zoom lenses instead of one superzoom. You get much better image quality with the EF-S 18-55 IS and EF-S 55-250 IS, and you can get both of them for 30-40% less than the Tamron superzoom.

If you can kick the budget up a notch, you may be much more pleased with the EF-S 15-85. The image quality is superb and the I.S. is not as loud as most of the others, so it's a little more suited for video (manual focus is pretty smooth, but not enough rotation distance). Doesn't leave much money for a longer telephoto, though.

What do I not like? It's slow, it's distorted on the two ends, and apparently has CA issues. All the things that rob you of getting a sharp picture. I sure wouldn't pay the asking price for it. EVERYONE wants the versatility of going wide to telephoto. The question is how much quality are you willing to give up for the privilege?

Good. So buy a good walk around lens. An 18-270 is not a walk around lens. A 35mm is a walk around lens. My el cheapo 18-55mm is a walk around lens (actually it's a dust-cap but that's a different story).


Lose your shot? At the long end of the lens, you're talking about stuff you couldn't see with the naked eye. You'd never know the shot was there. "Swapping is cumbersome". Yep. Just like it was for the past 50 years. Somehow people got it done and took magnificent photos that we all admire today. And how in the WORLD did they do that having to open up the camera every 12 or 24 frames to change film? Talk about cumbersome.


I have very few zooms to recommend because most are awful. Fine for stills awful for video. I recommend you put a good 35mm F2.0 on there and go shoot. I know. That's not helpful advice to you. But I'll tell you what. Get your Tamron, shoot it for a month or two. Then come back here and update us with your EXIF information. Let's see what focal lengths you find yourself at 75% of the time or more.

That Canon "kit" lens that sells for $200 when you get it with a 7D, but for close to $400 if you buy it on its own is not all that bad. It's the 28-135. Starts out at a 3.5, I think, and stops down to a 5.6 as you zoom in. It's perfectly good for the intended use of the original poster. Not very wide on a a cropped sensor. It does have IS, but even with a shoulder mount and solid LCD viewer, you're not going to shoot handheld at anything beyond about 40 mm and be steady.

I got that lens as part of the package when I got a 7D, because it was relatively cheap. I found that it was quite acceptable for outdoor work. Not great, but useable. You have to go with what you can afford.

I agree that the more extreme zooms are not worth it. That 135mm on this Canon lens comes out to looking like a 216mm on the 7D and Rebel. That's way long enough for most things unless you're doing sports or wildlife. For video and even for stills unless you're at a high shutter speed, obviously you'll need a tripod for shooting that long a focal length.

There's also a Canon 18-135 that they sell for $400 with a package deal. I think it probably is over $500 on its own. If you have to just use one lens, it might be better for you than the 28-135. I think (but I'm not sure) it is probably an S lens, meaning for cropped sensor only. Both of these lenses are relatively cheap and either one will get you started. If you need wider angles, I'd go for the 18-135. But I would not go for a longer range zoom. The 28mm of the other one is probably not going to be wide enough for you, since you said you also need a wide angle. Keep in mind that these are slow lenses, meaning you'd have to shoot at a higher ISO in low light conditions. Shooting static stills you can use a slower shutter speed (if you're on a tripod and nothing moves much), but with video you're stuck at 1/50 (for 24 fps), so a higher ISO is all you can do if you don't light the scene.

When I had the 7D I also had a Tamron 28-75 (I was not yet committed to the DSLR concept for video, so I didn't want to spend serious money on lenses at that time) that I used for interviews. It was sharp and seemed solid and well built. The focus ring sucked. Even less throw than the Canon lenses, and felt very loose. It was useable but an irritant.

The EF-S 18-135 is down to the same price as the 28-135 now (at least in the US) for package deals as well as separately.

Thank you all for your input, however, I think there is a misconception that I am already an owner of a 7D and the primary use of the soon to be lens is for video.

In fact, I do not own a 7D and it's primary usage will be for Photography- not video. Having said that, does the 18-270 sound more appealing? Again, this is not for video use.

I actually own a Rebel XT. When I will updgrade to a 7D is anyone's best guess, including my own. If and when I do get a 7D, it's primary use will be Photography and experimental home videos. Any video use will be strictly non-commercial...until I start generating some income from my hobby, then and only then, will I consider prime lenses and somethign with a lot less focul range.

Is the same true for Photographs? Again, my main use will be for Photography. If this is true for both then It's something I will most definitely consider before I buy.

Touché. However, just because it has been that way traditionally doesn't mean it has to continue to be so...Technology is constantly changing and with the advent of digital...a lot of traditions just don't make any sense anymore. Cumbersome indeed. I'd rather not complicate my hobby if a simpler route is available, however, that's not to say I'm lazy and unimaginative to get around limitations. In regards to the range...well, not everything is out of the naked eyes sight. Example.

My boy and I are playing in our backyard, he's a running machine and runs past my 55mm limit, but is within range of 200 and even 300. He'll be tiny, but not invisible. I'm not doing Astro-Photography here.

I'm OK with them being awful for video. My primary use will be stills on a Rebel XT.

The reason I posted this on the 7D forum is because:

1) I plan on purchasing one

and

2) I was looking at lenses advertised as being specifically for the 7D and I wasn't sure if the older Rebel models (XT) were compatible.

Sorry if I caused any confusion. I really appreciate your input guys! Please keep in mind this is primarily for Photography and not videography. I've got my XL2 for that. Sure, it's not as Shallow, but it's got all the bells and whistles I need to make good looking (and sounding) video.

Fixed that for you.

Thank you, I was not aware of that model.

If video was the primary use, a lot of this would take on less importance. And it doesn't matter if you're mounting this to a 7D, T2i, XTi, or any other crop sensor camera. The issues are the same.

Sounds less appealing.


Ok.


It's worse with photographs. The relatively low resolution of video (about 2.2 Megapixels, moving at 24/25/30/60 frames per second) tends to mask a lot of problems. Put those same issues out there in a 12 Megapixel photograph where the intent is to truly stare at a single image, and every issue will be there in all it's glory.

Technology changes, that is to be certain. But physics does not. Light bends through the glass just the same regardless of whether it's on a 35mm film camera, a 7D, or a $5 million dollar Genesis camera. Look, if you want to get this lens because it makes your life easier, then have at it. You asked our opinion, and it's been offered.

No disrespect, but have you actually ever shot with a 200m or 300mm lens? I have. For part of my living at one point. A 300mm lens on a crop sensor will have the field of view of a 450mm. Which means if you were standing on one side of a football field, trying to take a photo of a person on the other side (55 yards away), you'd be shooting a head and shoulders shot. We used 300mm lenses on film cameras to tight shots on people 70 yards away. I don't know how big your backyard is. Maybe it's the size of a football field or larger. But I can tell you from experience that trying to TRACK anyone running in random directions at that focal length, or even HALF that focal length is beyond most newer photographers.

But again, you do as you see fit.


If you understood this, you'd understand why it will look MUCH better in video use than stills use. Still work is infinitely more critical.


Best of luck with your purchase.

The 1Ds is Canon's flagship DSLR, and their original full frame DSLR. The current model, mkIII doesn't have video, but the mkIV due at Photokina next month definitely will. It is good candy... at $8000 a pop.

Perrone,

Indeed I did ask for your opinions and I appreciate your honest answers!

Actually, I've used the 55-250mm Canon lens. Not extensively, but a fair amount, enough to know the quality isn't as bad as you make it out to be. Of course, our applications are entirely different and you most likely do far more detailed, high resolution print work that I don't do that picks up on those ugly defects. But in my limited experience, it wasn't all that bad. You might also have a much more critical eye than me. Whatever the reason, I understand where you're coming from, I just don't entirely agree that this lens is THAT bad.

Well, thanks! I appreciate your honesty, it's hard to come by these days!

Roger,

Reading your answers, you seems to have already made your choice. If so, why asking? The Canon 55-250, while not a great lens, is significantly better than any superzoom. It have a 4.5x zoom ratio vs the 15x ratio of the lens you are looking at. Optically, there is a lot of compromises in order to acheive this kind of thing.

What's the point in having an interchangable lens camera if not to take advantage of the feature!??!? You might be more satisfied with a high end powershoot camera with a long zoom.

The advices you are receiving here are from people who wants to help you. You will be able to do good, perhaps great pictures with the tamron. But if you are a little bit serious about photography, soon enough you will regret your choice.

Jean,

Actually, I have not made my choice. Is it so wrong to ask many questions regarding other peoples views? Perrone has a strong opinion on the matter and all I'm doing is pickin' his brain for more info. He obviously knows what he's talking about but just because I know less doesn't mean I'm going to swallow the information without asking further questions if I have some.

I find myself liking this place less and less...in all honesty, it may be just me, but there seems to be a sense of elitism over here. I can't ask too many questions without getting slammed by it? Isn't this the place to discuss the pros and cons of anything related to cameras and camcorders?

I will most definitely NOT be more satisfied with a point and shoot, no matter how feature filled it is. I want to swap lenses...which is why I'm looking for some right now. I'm definitely getting myself the "nifty fifty" and a zoom lens...how does this indicate that I don't want to take advantage of the interchangeability? Is it because I want versatility in a single package? Like Perrone said, don't we all? And with so many lenses out there, I figured there has to be a winner out there.

Is it also to much to ask for to want good quality in something that costs $500-$600? Which is how much these lenses cost roughly.

I'm certainly no pro to buy the L lenses and I'm not generating any income from my hobby. I find the advice isn't practical for a regular joe like myself trying to shove his way into the industry. Not everyone can start off with a souped up DSLR camera.

The only one that gave me more practical advice was Bill. Nailed it when he said you have to go with what you can afford. Perrone, even with his valid points, is not practical. He made the lenses out to be as if they were mankind's biggest transgression in the camera world! He has his reasons for not liking them and I respect that completely. He was frank but offered little to almost no alternatives. His responses would be enough to discourage someone freshly coming into the world of Photography.

Forgive me for expecting a "cheapo" $600 lens to suffice. Anyway, I feel this thread may get out of hand. I don't want anyone taking anything the wrong way and if anyone interpreted any of my posts as unreasonable, all I can say is, I'm just asking questions. KNOWLEDGE!

Thanks again for all the advice! Someone lock this thread before it gets too personal!

I think the lens manufacturers are trying their best and the quality will improve over time, but so will the other lenses, so a 15X zoom will always trail a 3X zoom in quality. That said, the lens you take with you has infinitely more quality than the one you leave at home, so a superzoom may best.

Awe, I thought Roger was going to say my name. Curse you, Bill! You win this time, but we WILL meet again. :)

In fact it is fair to ask. But all the advices you got suggest to avoid the superzooms, and you come back saying you will take that path regardless of the advices based on experiences with other lenses. That's why you seems to have already made your choice.

600$ is indeed not cheap, but when a manufacturer pack all the features it can (IS, wide, tele) you can be certain the optical quality will suffer.

For about the same money, you would be much more satisfied with two lenses: A wide to normal zoom aand a telephoto zoom, like a 18-55 kit lens and the 55-250 zoom you tried, or some alternatives from third party manufactures.

Roger,

I think this merits a few comments, and hopefully you understand where they are coming from...

Roger, I feel fine with you picking my brain so to speak, and yes I have strong opinions. I've owned a bunch of cameras, and I've been where you are now. The same is true for others here. Everyone has to start somewhere, and the folks here in one way or another are trying to steer you clear of mistakes and regrets they may have had. Part of participating in a discussion forum is actually absorbing the information given. Whether you choose to follow that advice or not is solely up to you, but try to understand why it's being given.

It's not elitism. It's the fact that you are in many cases asking a professional about a product they wouldn't use. If you ask a carpenter about a $2 hammer, you're likely to get a laundry list why you should get the $50. You say, well I can only afford the $2 hammer, well then the decision is made. But it's not like the carpenter is going to say, "well then, that $2 hammer is just fine". It's the same hammer, but it's just the best you can do at the moment. That's fair enough, and that's exactly what I said to you.

It seems in this conversation you were far more interested in hearing and absorbing the pros of your intended purchase than the cons, and became defensive of it. That is not the way to get good advice about things. You have to be willing to hear the good AND the bad, and make decisions accordingly.

I wouldn't direct you to a point and shoot. But the basic facts are these. The more range a zoom has the lower quality the optics are going to be. In order to get those optics to be excellent, the price has to rise. There are zooms with the kind of range you're talking that have excellent optics. Angenieux makes some. They cost over $60k. That's what it costs to do it right with the labor and materials at this time. However, that same optical quality is available in prime lenses costing under $500. You may well say that I am willing to sacrifice ultimate optical quality for convenience. We ALL do that. My EX1 has a lens that is likely no better than that Tamron. May not even be as good, though it is faster. If I had the choice, would I change it? YOU BET! But I don't, so I can't. You, as the buyer of a new camera system, CAN change yours. So you get to make the choice.

"Good quality" is extremely relative. The zoom lens on my EX1 likely would cost about $3k retail. It has chromatic aberration, and other distortions. They are not always plainly visible, but they are there if you look. To make a lens with similar zoom range (which is what you're talking about), for less than 1/4 the cost, I know the corners that need to be cut to do that. Would I recommend that lens to someone? No. Does that mean it's not going to work out for them? Absolutely not. May be just fine.

I want a car that's as fast as a Ferrari, as good as a Cadillac on long trips, hauls lumber like a 2-ton truck, and has features that let me transport a family of 5. And I want it for $5k. Is that so hard? Well, yes, it is hard. And it's no different with these lenses. Something has to give somewhere. You just need to be sure that where things "give", is a place where you can live with it.

We've all given you practical advice. From our individual perspectives. Bill is the only one who gave you the advice you wanted to hear or were ready to hear. I could not offer you any alternatives, because frankly you offered no alternative options. You were not willing to sacrifice any of the parameters which would have allowed me to offer alternative choices. ANY lens with the range you're looking for, at the price point you're willing to pay is going to have the same problems. You'd just be trading one set of issues for another.

I'm sorry you find that discouraging. But my advice to you would have saved you a lot of money. Buy a good 35mm lens, and take a lot of pictures. I see you plan to buy a 50mm lens and that's terrific. You didn't mention that at the outset.

The lenses you are looking at are expensive because of the difficulty in trying to make them work. Not because they are optically great. There is a huge difference. And the user base at this site, more often than not, is going to sacrifice convenience at the altar of excellence every time. To expect otherwise is probably not a good bet.

Nothing here should be construed as personal. If you buy the Tamron, I hope you enjoy it to the fullest. It may work great for you or even exceed your expectations. Or it may not. Only you can be the judge of it.

Daniel, indeed you did offer some good alternatives! My current lens is the stock 18-55mm. It's a good stock lens and my sister owns the 55-250 which I think is great. I may end up purchasing that one, but still not entirely sure yet.

And it's for this very reason that I love this place. It may seem harsh at times, but it's a much needed reality check most of the time!

Sometimes I have a hard time understanding other times it's the medium on which it's being delivered and being that forums is nothing but text, it's sometimes easy to misunderstand people. You can mean one thing but depending on the person reading it, they could interpret it the complete opposite!

I guess deep down inside I was hoping to hear a little more positive feedback which is why I kept going back and forth on those particular lenses. I didn't want to have to sacrifice, but unfortunately, that is the reality. Your review just seemed a little unfair at first, but ultimately, like you said, it could save me money in the long run. I tend to think short term a lot, which can be great or can be extremely bad! Depends on the situation.

Makes absolute sense. I'm not too keen on the technical and mechanical aspects of photography. I know my settings and how each setting will affect my photos, but that's as far as my knowledge goes for now. Discussions like these are great because they help me understand these things a lot better than before. I was not aware of how much one sacrifices for these "all-in-one" lenses.

LOL! Point well taken.

I can see how I came off this way and those were not my intentions. I stopped myself for a moment and thought about all of this and it is true to some extent. I was a little unwilling to hear that these lenses are as imperfect as you say they are and I'm glad you've taken the time several times to explain yourself and your stance on the matter.

I appreciate your honesty and your looking out for a fellow photographers best interest! I probably should have mentioned the nifty fifty.

Now I need to decide of convenience is worth the optical sacrifice. I need to head down to Samy's and try these out! To actually see the end product is going to be my deciding factor. But the more I think about it, convenience is starting to take the back seat. I certainly don't want to be unhappy or wishing I had bought a different lens with less reach 2 or 3 months down the line. It's a big investment and I need to make sure I get what I need.

Whatever I chose, be it the Tamron or a Canon, I can only hope it's the right choice. I Can't stress it enough, but thanks for the advice. It really does help me see things in a different light.

Roger,

Thanks for taking this the right way. It's encouraging to see people step back for a moment and consider alternatives. You may get down to the store, try that Tamron and say, "BAH! Those guys are full of it!" And that's fine too. You will have listened to our concerns, tried things for yourself, and come to a studied decision.

Believe me, I've done the same thing numerous times. At this stage of the game for me, I KNOW what I am missing when I don't spend $15k on a prime lens. And I am VERY comfortable with my choice!

Best of luck with your lens choice. And if you need anything else, don't hesitate to ask here or mail me privately. I'll do what I can to help.

Much obliged!

Roger, I checked out your site, you have some good looking stuff.

In my humble opinion, while you don't need to go for L series glass juuuust yet... you should buy a higher quality tool than a superzoom.

While it doesn't have the reach of a 28-300 zoom, the 28-135 IS (or the EF-S version... 18-85 IS? I can't remember offhand), will give you better results, and if/when it comes time to move up, you'll be able to sell it for almost what you paid for it. Or keep it and add a good telephoto (like the 70-200 f4, used for $500) and a 50mm f1.8 (under $100), and you'll have a pretty balanced kit of quality tools on a very reasonable budget.

I say rent the lenses you're thinking about and try them for a couple of days. That will make your decision for you. Yeah, it won't be cheap to rent several lenses, but could save you a fortune from making the wrong decision blindly. Visiting a store will help, but not as much as using them in the real world for a couple of days, as opposed to shooting some random stuff inside the retail store.

And from someone that had a superzoom for about 2 weeks (RAN to the store to return it), go with a canon lens, particularly the 28-135 or a used 24-70 f/4 (over your budget but not by too much). If for nothing else, Dylan is correct that you can sell canon brand lenses for nearly what you paid for it, especially the popular ones or professional ones.

One more point... with the resolution of modern canons, you can shoot your son playing in the backyard at 70mm, crop way in tight, and still have enough pixels for an amazing 8x10 print.

Thanks for checking out my site Dylan! And I'm glad you think so.

I was actually thinking about getting a a 28-135 today at work. I do product photography there and we use a canon 40D. The crawl (or creep...can't remember the term at the moment) is very bothersome though. But it is a pretty good lens. We also went on some on-location shoots (these are for mountain bikes by the way) and the reach was actually pretty good!

I've only done two of those so far and I just remembered today how great that lens is, despite the creep (or crawl...). I was so hung up on having a super wide to telephoto lens that forgot about the lens I use and stare at every day for 5 days!

I also remember taking the 40D home and loving the range! Suddenly, I didn't seem as far as with my kit 18-55 lens! I'm already getting a 50mm f1.8 for sure. That's a must. The reviews are rock solid and for the price, it's worth a shot.

However, I do want to point out something. I've noticed whenever I open my aperture to about 5"+, depending on the angle and on the product, there is a nasty blotch. I don't know if this is a common issue or if it's in need of cleaning. I'm wondering if it's the 40D or the lens. Any ideas?

Thanks for the suggestions Dan! Sounds like a great idea if it's not to expensive.

Great suggestion Dan. Even better, he could rent the lenses from an online rental place, which are much cheaper than retail location rentals and will give him more time with the lens for less money. I was shooting with a 600mm f4 this past weekend that cost less for a full week from an online rental place than it would have for 1 day from a local shop. And this is coming from someone who rents out his own gear a lot!

I laughed both times. You are on a roll today, Mr. Ford.

Hello again!

Just updating those interested in my final choice. Although I did not rent the lenses, I ended up choosing the Canon 18-135mm IS lens. The price was right and has a reach that satisfies my needs for photographing my children. I also purchased the nifty fifty ($100 50mm) and let me tell ya...I find myself shooting with this lens more often than with my 18-135mm.

Also, whenever I do use the zoom lens, I find myself within the 50mm range more often than not! The prime also teaches me discipline and makes me concentrate on my frame choice more and allows me to be much more creative, which is ironic because I thought it would hinder it!

Thanks again for all the help and now that I own a a fixed lens, I understand where you guys are coming from better than ever. Both lenses are solid choices for my needs and am very happy with them!

This made my day Perrone. You have my vote, American Idol is still in the hunt for Simon's replacement. LOL

And now, you have a frame of reference for why I was such a pain in the rear to you! The 50 (or 35) is a darn fine lens for what you were describing. And as I expected, you are finding yourself in that range more and more often. There is a reason that since the dawn of SLR lenses, that focal length has been standard on the cameras.

Best of luck with your shooting!