Lens question

John Navas <> wrote:
> Jürgen Exner <>
>>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

Ray Fischer

nospam <> wrote:
>In article <hci9pg$20dv$>, No spam please
><> 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

Ray Fischer

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
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Larter

In article <hckgd8$147b$>, No spam please
<> 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.

nospam

In article <>, Floyd L. Davidson
<> 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.

nospam

In article <>, John Navas
<> 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.

nospam

In article <>, Neil
Harrington <> 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.

nospam

In article <>, Neil
Harrington <> 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.

nospam

In article <hcksno$1pcf$>, No spam please
<> 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.

nospam

Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:
>"No spam please" <> wrote:
>>"nospam" <> wrote:
>>>Ray Fischer <> 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

Ray Fischer