Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Lens question

Reply
Thread Tools

Lens question

 
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2009
John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Jürgen Exner <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>In general: a DX lens mounted on a FF camera will typically result in
>>vignetting under at least some condition (apperture/focal lenght
>>combination). The other way round, i.e. mounting a FF lens on a DX
>>camera is no problem.
>>
>>Canon specific: Any EOS-lens can be mounted on any EOS-camera. However
>>the EOS system (using the EF mount) is completely incompatible to the
>>earlier FD mount system.

>
>More's the pity, because Canon FD lenses still are some of the finest
>lenses ever made. That Canon orphaned them without even a single
>digital body was a big betrayal of customers and a good reason to avoid
>Canon products.


LOL! And tell us: What are you going to do when you upgrade to your
next P&S? Keep the lens and put it on a new body?

You really are an idiot.

--
Ray Fischer
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2009
nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>In article <hci9pg$20dv$(E-Mail Removed)>, No spam please
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Actually, you may find there's more of a mess with Nikon lenses than with
>> Canon lenses.
>>
>> I have no problems using any Canon EF lens on any EF body.

>
>there are no problems using any nikon af lens on any nikon body either.
>the only issue is that entry level cameras won't autofocus old lenses,


So there's no problems except for the problems.

Sheesh.

--
Ray Fischer
(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bob Larter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2009
PaddleHard wrote:
> I have a question about lenses, Canon in particular. I have a Digital
> Rebel 300D and am looking to purchase a 50D in the next year. I'm
> looking at a EF 28-135mm IS USM lense. Will this work with both
> cameras?


Yep.

> What's the rule of thumb for Canon lenses and their
> 'compatibility' with older and new cameras?


Any EF (not EFS) lens should work fine on any Canon DSLR.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2009
In article <hckgd8$147b$(E-Mail Removed)>, No spam please
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> People who buy entry-level cameras often rely on the shop's recommendation.
> In small towns there may be only one shop and not a lot of choice. People
> who buy entry-level cameras are often new to SLR photography and don't
> always understand specifications.


that may be true, but entry level buyers don't tend to buy a lot of
lenses. actually, most slr owners don't.

> I haven't used Nikon bodies since the days of film. It wasn't until my
> friend bought an entry-level Nikon DSLR that the problem became apparent. If
> you look around this newsgroup I believe you will see that some Nikon users
> see the old lens / entry-level DSLR as a problem whereas others do not.


some might find it to be a problem but most don't. that's why it sold
as well as it did.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2009
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Floyd L. Davidson
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> You are still missing the point. The problem is not
> with Nikon's camera/lens design. They *do* provide
> camera bodies that function perfectly with older lenses.


exactly. if someone wants to use old lenses they should pick a camera
with that capability. many users have no interest in old lenses (or for
that matter, new ones other than the kit lens), so why pay for a
feature that won't ever be used?

nikon removed the motor that was never used which made the camera
smaller, lighter and less expensive and it sold like crazy.

> (A distinct difference from other manufacturer's who had
> a less technically advanced lens mount in the 1970's and
> had no choice but to abandon *all* compatibility.)


indeed. the fd mount sucked, to be blunt.

minolta, on the other hand, didn't have a good reason to change mounts
but they did anyway and they didn't stop with the lens, they came up
with a wacky hotshoe too.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2009
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >Personally, I stayed with the FD bodies and lenses until there was something
> >better on offer.

>
> There's still nothing better on offer.
> The issue is the lack of even one digital body.


wrong. there are currently several digital bodies that take fd lenses
with an appropriate adapter.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2009
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Neil
Harrington <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I know a good number of people who bought SLRs for the first time and not a
> single one of them ever bought "second-hand old lenses" (meaning lenses so
> old as to be incompatible) for them. At least half of them in fact never
> bought any lens other than the one that came with the camera. Those who did
> buy a second lens in every case bought one suitable for the camera.


exactly. last time i checked, there were over 80 lenses that would work
from several manufacturers. by now it's probably 100 or more. it's a
non-issue.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2009
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Neil
Harrington <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > Before you ask - not all airlines permit digital cameras to be used during
> > flight and many prohibit them during the take-off and landing phases of
> > the flight. I fly with an airline that has a total ban on digital
> > equipment. It's a good airline (usually on time, plenty of leg room and so
> > on) so I'm happy to use a film body.

>
> I never heard of such a ban. When I fly I always take a DSLR to take
> pictures in the airport (I love airports) and a digital compact to take
> pictures out the airliner window, and sometimes of the cockpit when the door
> is open. No one has ever objected yet.


all airlines prohibit electronic devices during takeoff/landing, but
some go further than that. some airlines ban cd/dvd players (can't have
a laser!) or they require removable batteries to be removed and put in
checked luggage. so while it may be rare, i wouldn't rule it out.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2009
In article <hcksno$1pcf$(E-Mail Removed)>, No spam please
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >>I haven't used Nikon bodies since the days of film. It wasn't until my
> >>friend bought an entry-level Nikon DSLR that the problem became apparent.
> >>If
> >>you look around this newsgroup I believe you will see that some Nikon
> >>users
> >>see the old lens / entry-level DSLR as a problem whereas others do not.

> >
> > You are still missing the point. The problem is not
> > with Nikon's camera/lens design. They *do* provide
> > camera bodies that function perfectly with older lenses.
> > (A distinct difference from other manufacturer's who had
> > a less technically advanced lens mount in the 1970's and
> > had no choice but to abandon *all* compatibility.)

>
> The shop which sold my friend the D50 didn't ask if she would be buying any
> other lenses. She simply wanted a DSLR to use for her work as the cost of
> film and processing was getting quite high.
>
> The kit lens with the D50 was fine for her work. The telephoto lens for bird
> photography was an afterthought and, as it wasn't revenue earning, had to be
> as cheap as possible.


*all* autofocus lenses from any lens manufacturer will focus and meter
with the d50, which means that *every* lens that store carried would
work. there is *no* issue whatsoever, and it is *exactly* the same
situation as with canon.

as for cheap telephoto lenses, the 55-200vr is a good choice, or the
non-vr version for slightly cheaper but the vr lens is a much better
lens and the difference in price isn't all that much. the 70-300mm vr
is another option for a little longer reach, but it's more money. none
are really ideal for bird photography, however.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2009
Floyd L. Davidson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>"No spam please" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>"nospam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>Ray Fischer <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >there are no problems using any nikon af lens on any nikon body either.
>>>> >the only issue is that entry level cameras won't autofocus old lenses,
>>>>
>>>> So there's no problems except for the problems.

>
>The point is that the lens *will* work.


The more relevant point is that nobody cares except for a few
cronic malcontents.

--
Ray Fischer
(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Another question - How to convert medium format lens to equivalencyof a 50mm normal lens (35mm camera) in APS-C digital cameras aniramca@gmail.com Digital Photography 13 05-31-2009 10:02 PM
Canon 10D lens Nikon Lens SteveJ Digital Photography 29 06-14-2004 12:52 AM
Anyone use the Kodak DX6340 Lens Adapter and Telephoto Lens? Amyotte Digital Photography 3 02-11-2004 10:25 PM
Good everyday lens for Digital Rebel -- kit lens, 17-40mm f/4L, or...? Mike Kozlowski Digital Photography 5 12-30-2003 08:04 AM
Tamron lens *is* crap --> interesting lens comparison! Beowulf Digital Photography 12 08-24-2003 05:21 PM



Advertisments