Is canon the only maker of EF-S (short back focus) lense?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by peter, Apr 12, 2008.

  1. peter

    peter Guest

    If I understand correctly, a short back focus lense does not need to bend
    light as much to achieve a wide angle lense. And the less you have to bend
    light, the better quality/cheaper the lense is.

    Is canon DSLRs the only ones that supports short back focus lense?

    If yes, does that give canon an advantage in wide angle lenses for non full
    frame sensor DSLR?
    peter, Apr 12, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. peter

    Doug Jewell Guest

    peter wrote:
    > If I understand correctly, a short back focus lense does not need to bend
    > light as much to achieve a wide angle lense. And the less you have to bend
    > light, the better quality/cheaper the lense is.

    But at the same time, if you have a short back-focus lens,
    the light is hitting the sensor at a greater angle from the
    vertical, and therefore more prone to fall-off.
    >
    > Is canon DSLRs the only ones that supports short back focus lense?

    Also Olympus.
    >
    > If yes, does that give canon an advantage in wide angle lenses for non full
    > frame sensor DSLR?

    I guess to answer that question you need to look at
    available lenses and reviews of them.
    Canon only offer 1 lens wider than 17mm in EF-S (the 10-22).
    All other lenses in the canon line-up that are shorter than
    17mm are EF lenses, so don't offer the short backfocus.

    In a few side-by-side comparisons between the Canon 10-22 vs
    the Sigma 10-20, the cheaper sigma usually comes out on par
    with, or even slightly better, than the Canon lens. The
    sigma is available for all major platforms, and isn't
    short-backfocus. This is probably about the only meaningful
    comparison of a short-backfocus lens vs a regular lens, and
    it would appear Canon gain no benefit from it.

    If you are a name-brand bigot and refuse to put any third
    party lenses on your camera, you will find a better range of
    wide and ultra-wide lenses bearing Nikon and Pentax badges
    than you will find in Canon. Although they are designed for
    the smaller digital sensors, these lenses have regular
    backfocus lengths.

    In the standard kit 18-50'ish range, the Canon (which is the
    only short back-focus model) is reviewed as pretty much the
    worst of the bad bunch.

    So I would conclude then that Canon gain absolutely no
    advantage by having the short backfocus. And if ultra-wide
    in crop-sensor DSLR is your thing, then Canon has the
    poorest range of lenses available.
    >
    >
    Doug Jewell, Apr 12, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. peter

    Jufi Guest

    "Doug Jewell" <> wrote in message
    news:48012383$0$14284$...
    > peter wrote:
    >> If I understand correctly, a short back focus lense does not need to bend
    >> light as much to achieve a wide angle lense. And the less you have to
    >> bend light, the better quality/cheaper the lense is.

    > But at the same time, if you have a short back-focus lens, the light is
    > hitting the sensor at a greater angle from the vertical, and therefore
    > more prone to fall-off.
    >>
    >> Is canon DSLRs the only ones that supports short back focus lense?

    > Also Olympus.
    >>
    >> If yes, does that give canon an advantage in wide angle lenses for non
    >> full frame sensor DSLR?

    > I guess to answer that question you need to look at available lenses and
    > reviews of them.
    > Canon only offer 1 lens wider than 17mm in EF-S (the 10-22). All other
    > lenses in the canon line-up that are shorter than 17mm are EF lenses, so
    > don't offer the short backfocus.
    >
    > In a few side-by-side comparisons between the Canon 10-22 vs the Sigma
    > 10-20, the cheaper sigma usually comes out on par with, or even slightly
    > better, than the Canon lens. The sigma is available for all major
    > platforms, and isn't short-backfocus. This is probably about the only
    > meaningful comparison of a short-backfocus lens vs a regular lens, and it
    > would appear Canon gain no benefit from it.
    >
    > If you are a name-brand bigot and refuse to put any third party lenses on
    > your camera, you will find a better range of wide and ultra-wide lenses
    > bearing Nikon and Pentax badges than you will find in Canon. Although they
    > are designed for the smaller digital sensors, these lenses have regular
    > backfocus lengths.
    >
    > In the standard kit 18-50'ish range, the Canon (which is the only short
    > back-focus model) is reviewed as pretty much the worst of the bad bunch.


    The old one, yes. The newer IS version is very good. Still the same build
    quality, but very sharp.

    >
    > So I would conclude then that Canon gain absolutely no advantage by having
    > the short backfocus. And if ultra-wide in crop-sensor DSLR is your thing,
    > then Canon has the poorest range of lenses available.
    >>
    Jufi, Apr 15, 2008
    #3
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. effi
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,860
  2. Travis
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,250
    grappletech
    Oct 1, 2006
  3. Carl Miller

    Why "Focus and Recompose" causes back-focus issues

    Carl Miller, Mar 7, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    862
    Owamanga
    Mar 10, 2005
  4. eh
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    667
  5. JOHNCHAP2
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    347
    Peter Jason
    Feb 5, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page