Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by jay_drew, Feb 13, 2013.
So, would I be correct to say that all EOS lenses have no f-stop control ring around the lens? No?
Yes. You will be correct.
Well I wish there was but no you will not have no stop on the lens that you can control it's all in the camera .
A clue brought to you by the letter "E" in the EOS system name/lens mount name: E(lectro) O(ptical) S(ystem).
If you miss diddling a mechanical ring you can mount a ROMless and motor less lens like a Rokinon or Sam Yang. There are dozens of models on the market:
Or buy an adapter 'n use old AI Nikkors.
If you miss diddling a mechanical ring you can mount a ROMless and motor less lens like a Rokinon or Sam Yang.And in some cases, the Samyang lenses are sharper than their Canon EF counterparts, as is the 14/2.8.
With full electronic control of the lens from the camera, there's no need for an aperture ring on the lens. Nikon retained the aperture ring for a long time for compatibility with older cameras, but the newer "G" lenses they've been making since about 2003 no longer have aperture rings.
And in some cases, the Samyang lenses are sharper than their Canon EF counterparts, as is the 14/2.8.
Mark, are you referring to the Mk.I version of Canon EF lens? I don't own one, but I was considering one for occasional use. Is the Samyang actually better than the Mk.I? I read that the Mk.II is far better, albeit at a much higher premium.
But of course, not all lenses made to fit on a Canon EOS camera body are EF lenses made by Canon. And old MF lenses made for Nikon F mount or others do have aperture controls on them and can be mounted on EOS bodies and used in Av or manual mode.
Even on the "manual" EF mount camera, the Canon EF-M (link), setting the aperture was necessarily "Electro".
Thank you so much for pointing that out. I had never looked @ EOS in than light, although it's quite obvious.
My thoughts behind the question were different that many of the members are answering. Which I can not blame them. I tried to ask the simplest question to further my thought process on a question that I haven't figured out how, for myself, to ask yet.
Basically it involves balancing these factors: Money; Switching from Nikon to Canon; Having > a half dozen AiS & AF-D lenses; Desire to use film as long as possible; Hands not as steady as when younger; Very few AF-D lenses in longer focal lengths having vibration reduction; Not being able to MF as quickly & reliably as before; No matter how good the AF, there will always be a need for MF, therefore the need to choose viewfinders & screens; An F5 (which i have) is the only film Nikon that makes "G" lenses viable & it's bigger, heaver than some view cameras; The F6 doesn't allow viewfinder choice; All EOS film cameras use all Canon lenses back to ~1987, which would give me across the board f-stop control; But do any Canon EOSs give a choice of viewfinders?
The next question I need to ask, do any EOSs give a choice of viewfinders?
Thank you for all input, Jay Drew
The next question I need to ask, do any EOSs give a choice of viewfinders?Yes, if you mean, viewfinder screens or size of coverage (100% vs. 90 or whatever).
No, if you mean, can you switch to waist-level viewfinder by taking the prism off, high-point or such.
Jay: what is it that your current system doesn't do?
If you think that the grass is greener over here you are wrong... I started using the Nikon 800 thing under duress, with just one lens and in fully controlled conditions, and it took me literally months to sort out all kinds of issues that I never remember having with Canon. I'm afraid that your experience might be identical to mine should you switch systems. As a life-long Canon shooter I much prefer the ergos on Canons than on Nikons, BTW, but if you are a long term Nikon user you might hate the Canon's controls, at least initially.
MF is a bitch with anything other than a real manual focus camera and Canon is no different. There are replacement focusing screens that help a bit but you are stuck with a prism, eye-level, on all EOS bodies. Yeah, you can use an angle focus finder attachment but it's good only for macro. On digital bodies you've got Live View that helps a lot with MF but of course no such animal on film bodies.
I mean the latter. With my Nikons I have Waist Level, 'Chimney', & of course eye level finders. I don't have any Sports Finders, which if I had one I would like to, try, customizing w/ a swing away high quality (4,6, or 10 power, one that has a 24 X 36mm format) lope.
As an aside, I wish Nikon made a sports/ action finder as cool as the Canon F1 w/ the re-orientable screen.
Thank you for clarifying my question, JD
Michael, thank you for your response
My thinking on this is not fully formed. It's going something along these, perhaps faulty, lines of thought:
I want to stick w/ film as long as possibe.
Nikon was / is behind Cannon when it comes to AF & vibration reduction.
SFAIK Nikon does not have any / many vibration reduction lenses until the G.D'ed. "G"s
An F5, which is as big as a truck is the only film Nikon that controls "G" lenses, that I would want. I have no interst in the F6 due to it's fixed prisim.
The "G" lenses (from some of what I've read) tend to have better optics. But that's a rather minor point, if even true. It's mainly the "G's" vibration reduction.
The film EOSs, I believe, tend to be smaller (< an F5) & control all EOS lenses including the ones w/ VR, from ~'87 to now.
Also I'm under the impression that Canon has some VR lenses shorter that 135MM. Is that correct?
Thanks, Jay Drew
I still shoot EOS 1n and yes, it is indeed smaller than the F5. (I vividly remembera a Nikon dog and pony show at Waxman's in Denver when the F5 came out and my first impression which was: damn, it is huge! But I was still shooting with Canon F1N and a small EOS...)
In terms of VR/IS, yeah, Canon has some interesting single-focal-length lenses with IS (24 and 28 f/2.8, 24-70/4) so that alone might be a valid reason to switch if you need that kind of functionality. But Nikon and Canon seem to be locked in playing a perpetual one-upmanship game so Nikon might soon come up with something similar. Besides, in the film times I used 3 lenses (24,50,200) 95% of the time so it was much simpler...
As an aside, I hate switching systems: the switch from FD to EOS/EF mount and then to digital was a do or die thing so I had to do it regardless of the pain, but a much earlier switch from Hasselblad C/M to Mamiya RZ wa a major disruption and a royal PITA, I felt like I needed to relearn photography anew.
How are the EOSs (w/ only 1 viewfinder) about ease of MF compaired to Nikon F's ease of MF?
I doubt that U or anyone can answer that. As an example of what I mean; I was out shooting a few days ago w/ my F4 (plain) I had taken the 60mm f2.8D macro, on a whim instead of the usual 50mm f1.4D. It snapped in & out of focus more clearly than the f1.4, making it ez'er to focus. That makes no sense, 2 stops slower. Same screen "E" bright, same eye level viewfinder, same magnifying viewfinder eyepiece. Why, how could that be?. I remember my Canon F1 the lenses popped in & out of focus better than my Nikon Fs, but I attribute that to be due to better eye sight 25yrs ago.
Thank you JD
Separate names with a comma.