Jump to content

Tamron 17/50 f/2.8 on full frame?


Recommended Posts

My Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 just arrived. Definitively a step up from the 18-55 kit zoom that came with my 400D (XTi?).

In the reviews that I read before buying it, it was stated that this lens was for small sensor cameras only.

However, looking at the lens now, I am a bit puzzled. The EF-S 18-55 has a white square, that should be aligned

to the white square on the body. My EF lenses have a red dot to assist alignment, but so does the Tamron. Also,

the mount looks very similar to that on my EF lenses. So, would it fit on a full frame body? Would it fit on an

EOS film camera? And, would it work?

 

Henrik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would fit and it would work, although you would need to use partial metering only. At most focal length and aperture combinations it would produce a heavily vignetted circular image (think of a true fisheye in terms of image shape, though the image would not have fisheye distortion). It's possible that at some narrow apertures with closer focus and longer focal length you might get an acceptable frame covering image. If you have an EOS film body you can at least see the effect by mounting the lens and looking through the viewfinder - you could even experiment with some real film. DoF preview will allow you to see the benefit of narrower aperture on vignetting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tamron 17-50/2.8 is (as mentioned by Mark) a lens that does fit and work on a fullframe body.

 

Anyhow, due to the optical construction of this lens, it does NOT cover the full frame at any focal length with any aperture setting. (Tested on my EOS 300 (film)). So, coverage with this lens never becomes acceptable...unlike others (like the Tokina 12-24) which are said to become acceptable at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Also, the mount looks very similar to that on my EF lenses."

 

I think all third party lenses are normal EF mount even if the image circle is reduced. And why not, there's no reason to do EF-S, one mount, fits all (including 10D), simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tamron 17-50 is designed for corp sensors. While you may not get actual damage mounting int on a full frame it also will not work properly. With canon lenses, because the rear element protrudes deeper into the body, the mirror will actually smash into the back of the lens rear element damaging both camera and lens.

Why take chances.

 

Canon may use a white square for EFS and a Red dot for EF, but Tamron is under no obligation to identify their lenses in this manner, so the dot indicator doesn't mean much when jumping brands.

 

The Tamron 17-50 is meant to be a walk around lens on a crop body, with an adjusted range of about 28-80.

 

If you want the same type of lens for FF the Tamron 28-75 2.8 is the one. And if you want a UWA the Tamron 17-35 2.8-4 is it. These are all fine lenses with comparable image quality and AF speed. BTW these lenses are $400 and $300 respectively and I find a great value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Third party reduced image circle lenses are designed to fit a variety of camera mounts - at least Nikon, and probably Pentax and Sony/Minolta, in addition to Canon - simply by changing the mount and using slightly different circuitry or programming and often a different AF motor. Since the Canon mount has the shortest backfocus distance (between the lens mount flange and the sensor) the glass in these lenses is at no risk of being hit by an EOS full frame mirror - unlike with EF-S lenses, which protrude into the mirror box. The optical design has to cater for the worst case. Note, this is consistent with the fact that e.g. some Leica R lenses (made exclusively with Leica SLRs in mind) will interfere with the mirror when simply used with a Leica-EOS adaptor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy to get confused here.

 

Tamron makes two varieties of DI ("Digitally Integrated") lenses:

 

1. DI lenses -- good for crop sensor *and* full frame slr's; and

 

2. DI II [that's Roman numeral II] lenses -- designed for crop sensor, but not for full frame

 

More info is available on this Tamron page. Make sure you look at the text under both types of lenses:

 

http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/di.asp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I`ll confirm what Mark said, the Tamron rear element does not protrude past the inside of the mount and sits quite happyly :) on FF without hittin anything, (well mine seems that way) unlike canons equivilent :(<div>00QIOg-59739684.jpg.3b996d3956dbd2e02151bb0cbd3090d8.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

>> With canon [EF-S] lenses, because the rear element protrudes deeper into the body, the mirror will actually smash into the back of the lens rear element damaging both camera and lens. Why take chances. <<

 

I do not believe it is a case of `taking a chance`, as such.

 

Canon EF-S lenses are peculiar so they CANNOT physically mount on a non EF-S mount bodies (without modification to the lens).

 

What I mean is I cannot get the male tongue of the bayonet of the EF-S 18 to 55 F3.5/F5.6 to mesh with the female sleeve of the mount on my 5D, they do not kiss to be able to make the mesh.

 

I thought this was the situation with all EF-S lenses to all Non EF-S bodies, are there exceptions of which I am not aware?

 

i.e. are there any EF-S lenses that will actually couple and lock onto any Canon NON EF-S bodies . . . I am thinking maybe the 10D or earlier APS-C format but non EF-S cameras, for example, anyone know?

 

WW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

zG`day, I only have 1 efs lens 18 55 ver2, It does NOT fit my ol D30 or a D60, would not have another. The Tamron 17 50f2.8 works well tho, If the new 5d follows Nikons lead, they may fit (efs that is) IF canon feels its ready to do so :)

 

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Non-Canon lenses for small sensor cameras will work perfectly with the four oldest 1.6 crop bodies; D2000, D30, D60, and 10D. None of these will take EF-S lenses. This is really great because that will let me use the Tamron 17-50/2.8 that I'm giving my girlfriend on her birthday on my old D30 when she's not using it on her 400 D :--D)). These lenses will also work with all Canon 1.3 crop bodies; D6000, and the 1D series but they will not be able to completely fill the frame. For all of that, they do a lot better on these 1.3 bodies than possible on a 1 Ds, 5 D or 35mm film body because they are designed to cover the 1.5 crop factor that nearly everyone other than Canon uses in a DSLR. These lenses should also do well on the EOS IX APS bodies but I have never tried this myself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
<p>When I read this page, I couldn't resist to put my 17-50 Tamron to my 5D, got registered here to send an example...It worked well as you guys see in the picture. It fits well, it focuses and everything seems working. Surely result is strange...</p><div>00Szt6-122859584.jpg.c4f4c595f91e8ab99e8d5df0b76962d6.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong><em>"It worked well as you guys see in the picture. It fits well, it focuses and everything seems working. </em></strong><br>

<strong><em>Surely result is strange..."</em></strong><br>

<br>

There is nothing strange about the result. It is what is to be expected. <br>

It is as many above stated it would be. this lens only throws an image circle to cover an PAS-C sensor, which is quite smaller than the sensor on your 5D<br>

The heavy vignette becomes most apparent at FL = 17mm, and at F2.8, which is where you took this photograph.<br>

<br>

REF: "It would fit and it would work . . . At most focal length and aperture combinations it would produce a heavily vignette circular image" Mark U.<br>

<br>

"I`ll confirm what Mark said, the Tamron rear element does not protrude past the inside of the mount and sits quite happily :) on FF without hitting anything" chris jb<br>

<br>

"The Tamron 17-50/2.8 is (as mentioned by Mark) a lens that does fit and work on a full frame body. Anyhow, due to the optical construction of this lens, it does NOT cover the full frame at any focal length with any aperture setting. (Tested on my EOS 300 (film)" Rainer T <br>

<br>

Forgive me, if you meant something different by the use of the word “strange” other than: what was not to be expected <br>

WW <br>

<br>

</p>

<p > </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...