What constitutes compatibility?

[philip_hartlieb]

I just received a Tokina AT-X pro 80-200mm f/1.8 from a generous

uncle...on loan for a while....i put it on the 300D with no

problem...zoomed, autofocused and shot not problem...tack sharp

pick...can i now state that it is indeed compatible with the 300D at

this point?...B&H lists a relative/next gen of this lense as being

EOS compatible....My concern is that there might be errors that will

build up overtime with use (electronic in nature...along the same

lines as what happens when you don't shutdown a computer properly

and after a while the thing craps out)... Is the approach that if it

works it works and that's that...I'm just concrened that the

firmware or AF or f-stop electronics might freak out one day without

notice...thanks...

[beauh44]

I think if you've used it for a day or so and not encountered any problems, it's unlikely you will. From what I hear, Sigma seems to have more problems than Tokina and you'd likely know it from the start. Good luck!

[carl smith]

I presume that's actually a 2.8 lens.

 

I have a 28-70 2.8 AT-X I got for dirt cheap (pretty good optically, very sturdy) and it works fine on my Elan 7e but won't AF on my EOS 3. I have yet to have it rechipped (they will do it for free).

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Third-party lenses tend eitehr to work fully with a given body, or have problems. They don't generally work fully and then develop problems (unless something actually goes wrong with the lens).</p>

 

<p>There is a fair bit of information that goes back and forth between the lens and the body. You've listed most of it (look also at the EXIF data to see if it's correctly reporting things like focal length and subject distance); the only things that jump out at me as missing from your list are manual focus (no reason it shouldn't work properly; just test it anyway, to make sure the body notices when you switch back and forth between AF and MF) and aperture selection (which is electronically controlled).</p>

 

<p>If all of that stuff works, then you're all set. Enjoy your new lens!</p>

[adi_peterhans]

Hi all,

last week I wondered about my (used) new EOS3, which refused to focus properly with the macro lens Tokina ATX 100/2.8 :-( After struggling for a while, it became worse: when I pusted the shutter the "bc" message appeared on the display, and that was it...apart from the mirror that flipped away, but not more. After switching off and on again, you could hear the sound of the shutter, but the film was not fed to the next frame. Yupp!

The camera is OK, as with all the other lenses if works simply perfect :-).

Do you know if there's any database about compatibility of bodies and lenses?

 

Greez

Adi

 

'The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we used when we created them.'

A. Einstein

[jay_chadney]

That's weird, because I just bought a Tokina AT-X 100mm f2.8 macro for my EOS 3, and it works perfectly at all apertures. My Tokina 28-70 AT-X Pro II f 2.6-2.8 works just as well. I did have problems with a Tokina AT-X 300mm f4 and a Sigma APO 400mm f5.6. Both of those would only fire at their widest aperture.

[terry_hall1]

I've been using a Sigma 70-300mm lens with my Canon EOS 300D for a couple of weeks now, and it's superb! No problems at all with it, despite the fact that it is primarly for a film SLR, not digi. And the macro function works well too. No problems with ither manual focus or auto. It's certainly one I would recommend.

[philip_hartlieb]

thanks for the feedback everyone. i think ill put it through the paces this weekend then sift through the data using some canon software to make sure my settings and results jive...pjh

[michael_peters1]

<i>(electronic in nature...along the same lines as what happens when you don't shutdown a computer properly and after a while the thing craps out)</i>

<br> <br>

As a computer geek - I can 100% assure you that is only the fault of inferior operating system and bugs, and has nothing to do with electronics. I personally have used desktop machines with well over a year of uptime (Linux) and servers with several years of uptime (solaris and AIX) - in fact, with servers - rebooting is scarrier than letting it run forevor. Boot is when problems/issues are most likely to happen ... (bugs in init scripts)