Canon 7D aps-c camera using medium format lens

<p>I am traditionally a Hasselblad shooter. I have a number of awesome Hassy lenses and have recently purchased a Canon 7D, but haven't received it yet. Does anyone have experience with coupling a Hassy lens, for example a fisheye 30mm lens to a DSLR, aps-c (In my case, a Canon 7D)? My question is what the effective focal length would be of a medium format lens considering the .6 multiplier?<br>

I can figure the difference if it's a normal DSLR lens, but a medium format lens on a 35mm body confuses me.<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>The focal length stays the same. Cut a square of paper the same size of the sensor and put it on a negative shot with your fisheye lens to see what the Canon image will include.</p>

 

<p>Bob is right about focal length. I haven't tried Hassy lenses on my 5dII but I have tried the SMC Pentax 67 300mm EDIF as well as the 120mm soft focus. Works well.</p>

<p>After some digging the 7D sensor measures 22.3 x 14.9 mm, just a wee bit smaller than the Hasselblad frame size. It will look more like your 80mm lens on the Hassy. :(</p>

 

<p>Here are some equivalences -- far better than using some phony-baloney "conversion factor"<br>

It's easy enough in theory to covert 6cm format lenses to Canon EOS mounts, but the only ones I've used have been for the shutterless Pentacon 6 lenses. Not all larger format lenses are really great on the smaller format given the tiny slice out of the middle taken by them.</p>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="466" height="217">

<col width="55"></col> <col span="3" width="67"></col> <col width="65"></col>

<tbody>

<tr height="48">

<td width="55" height="48"> </td>

<td width="67">Actual Focal Length of lens (mm)</td>

<td width="67">6cm (2 1/4)</td>

<td width="67">35mm</td>

<td width="65">APS-C</td>

</tr>

<tr height="12">

<td height="12"> </td>

<td >20</td>

<td>NA</td>

<td>ultrawide</td>

<td>wide</td>

</tr>

<tr height="12">

<td height="12"> </td>

<td >35</td>

<td>ultrawide</td>

<td>wide</td>

<td>normal</td>

</tr>

<tr height="12">

<td height="12"> </td>

<td >50</td>

<td>wide</td>

<td>normal</td>

<td>short tele</td>

</tr>

<tr height="12">

<td height="12"> </td>

<td >80</td>

<td>normal</td>

<td>short tele</td>

<td>tele</td>

</tr>

<tr height="12">

<td height="12"> </td>

<td >135</td>

<td>short tele</td>

<td>tele</td>

<td>medium tele</td>

</tr>

<tr height="12">

<td height="12"> </td>

<td >200</td>

<td>tele</td>

<td>medium tele</td>

<td>very long</td>

</tr>

<tr height="12">

<td height="12"> </td>

<td >400</td>

<td>medium tele</td>

<td>very long</td>

<td>

<p>wow</p>

 

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>Imagine your lens when fitted to a 35mm camera and multiply by x1.6 ... the 30 would be 48mm equivalent ... no longer a bug-eye but just a 'standard' lens near as dam it.</p>

<p>Whilst Hasselblad make some great lenses, from using medium format gear of various brands extensively in the past, it is my understanding that most of these lenses actually resolve less detail than equivalent good quality 35mm lenses. The benefit of the larger format is that you don't need to enlarge your original image as much as an equivalent image taken on 35mm or digital these days, but the larger lenses on medium format are much larger and heavier than Canon lenses would be of similar focal lengths. Nice idea in theory to try it out, but not sure if it will really benefit you at all.</p>

<p>Medium format lenses can work well and also benefit from using the sweetest part of the lens, the center so they avoid many issues like distortion & falloff. That said, a 30mm fisheye doesn't sound very attractive at all on a APS-C camera as you'd lose most of the fisheye effect--you'd just get a rather mild wide angle with rather heavy barrel distortion. A typical fisheye lens on 24x36 would have been 15-17mm, and on APS-C a typical fisheye would be 8-10mm.</p>