Fixed film camera lenses for EOS 60D?

[john_rodgerson]

Hello,

 

I have recently purchased a Canon 60D and have got a 50mm 1.8 on it. I'm now looking for a fixed lens at full frame equilivent of 28mm,

so taking the crop sensor in to account I guess I need around a 15, 17 or 18mm? My question is, what film camera lenses will work on the

60D, and can anyone recommend one that would be good? I'm looking at f2.8, similar to another camera lens I use which is a contax G1

with a 28mm 2.8.

 

Thanks, John.

[eric merrill]

<p>B&H is a great resource for seeing what's available.</p>

<p>Start here:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/SLR-Lenses/ci/274/N/4288584247">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/SLR-Lenses/ci/274/N/4288584247</a></p>

<p>Narrow down the filters on the left. For normal lenses, your choices are the 14/2.8 and 20/2.8 if you stick with Canon.</p>

<p>Why a prime?</p>

<p>If a zoom is a consideration, the 17-40/4, 16-35/2.8 or 17-35/2.8 (used only) might fit the bill. With the latest lens correction abilities in Photoshop, the older 17-35/2.8 produces excellent images for a fraction of the cost of the newer 16-35. (If your reason for a prime is weight savings, that won't help at all, though. :)</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[tkphotog]

<p>I use the 20 mm f/2.8 with my 60D with good results. Only caveat is that good filters for a 72mm diameter can be both harder to find and considerably more expensive than smaller-diameter lenses.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Good advice from Eric. </p>

<p>You'd need 17.5mm on a crop camera to give you the same field of view as 28mm on a full frame. Any Canon EF or EF-S lens or any third party lens made for the Canon EOS mount (Sigma, Tamron, etc.) will mount on your 60D. BTW, if you want to consider manual focus, you can also adapt such lenses as M42 screw mount lenses (e.g. Pentax SMC Takumars), old manual Nikkors, etc. with cheap adapters off of ebay; however, you are unlikely to find vintage lenses this wide.</p>

<p>There are a couple of minor differences between "film" lenses and "digital" lenses that are mostly inconsequential. First is that the coatings of "digital" lenses are a bit better. The often brilliant reflection off of the sensor could otherwise reflect back off of the optics to the sensor. Second, a sensor is receptive to light from a narrower angle than film, so the optics are designed accordingly. These are extremely minor differences. In most cases there aren't any differences at all -- at least none that you would notice. The designation of "digital" lens also sometimes refers to the APS-C format, meaning that it will not produce a large enough image circle to work on a full frame "35mm" (24x36mm) camera, whether film or digital. I flatly don't worry about labels such as "film" and "digital." I've never found them to be of any consequence.</p>

<p>Speaking of labels, a "fixed" lens is one that can't be focused, like on a disposable camera. I believe you're talking about a "prime" lens.</p>

 

[john_rodgerson]

Thats great thanks, yes it's a prime I'm looking for. I like the appearance of a short lens on the camera body. I'm also

looking at getting an affordable walk around lens such as the 18-135 kit lens which should be ok for what I need.

 

I'm finding it hard to search for a prime lens at 17mm 2.8 which will fit my 60D. I suggested a film camera lens if what I am

looking for will be more available in that format.

[phule]

<p>On the B&H site all you have to do is scroll down to the "Lens Mount" selection on the left-hand side and click "Canon EOS." Once selected, scroll down to the Fixed Focal Length options and select the ones you want. All the lenses returned will work on the 60D. </p>

[John Crowe]

<p>We need to find out your budget. As you can see now there are very few "film" lens options for you, in the wideangle range, without spending quite a bit of money. The Canon EF 20mm f2.8 is the least expensive autofocus alternative but is only about a 32mm film equivalent.</p>

<p>Opening up to zoom "film" lenses brings a few more options, opening up to manual focus "film" prime lenses a few more options, and opening up to manual focus "film" zooms a few more options. </p>

<p>The largest range of lenses and the most affordable lenses, are going to be the crop factor Canon EF-S and third party counterparts. For the wideangle range these may become a necessary evil. I say "evil" because I generally recommend "film" lenses over crop lenses just in case people may go full frame in the future. Lenses like the Canon EF 18-55 is so well accepted and so cheap that risking having to sell it later is not a big deal. </p>

<p>Why do you want to avoid the crop DSLR lenses?</p>

 

[philip_wilson]

You can buy almost the same Contax lens. The Contax SLR lens used - about $280 in top condition from KEH and add an adaptor (from

$50 up) but it will only be manual focus and manual aperture. I use the Contax 50 mm in this way and I am very happy with it - of course

the G series lenses are better than the Contax SLR lenses but this is due to the fact that they do not have to be designed to cope with the

space required for the mirror. As others mention Canon makes a 28 F1.8 which gives you AF and full auto modes for about $500. There

is also a manual focus Zeiss 28 F2 that is made for the Canon EOS bodies but this is $1300. If you need the same angle of view and

DOF then you technically need a 17mm F1 lens. Obviously this does not exist so you will have a larger DOF and slower lens. Canon

makes a 20 f2.8 and sigma a 20 f1.8 both for about $500-600 . New manual focus option include the Zeiss 18 f3.5 for about $1400

and Voigtlander 20 f 3.5 for $ 600 both of which give a look similar to your Biogon.

As this link shows you get what you pay for http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?

Lens=244&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=724&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p><em>I like the appearance of a short lens on the camera body</em></p>

<p>I suggest Tamron 17-50/2.8. This lens is small (67 mm front element), under-the-radar, and optically very very good. I have one and it outperformed my Canon 20/2.8 (which I sold) in most departments. I shoot this lens wide open without hesitation. It's an understated lens that delivers again and again and again. In terms of size, these two lenses are pretty close (20/2.8 has a 72 mm front element).</p>

<p>Sadly there are no 15 mm or 17 mm crop primes. Full-frame ultrawides in this range are large and expensive and often specialty (e.g. 17/4 TS, 15/2.8 fisheye). As such I suggest going with a crop zoom.</p>

<p>Canon 17-55/2.8 IS is another option. I own this lens as well. Compared to the Tamron it's a little more contrasty wide open, and wide open the corners are a little sharper. This lens has IS and USM autofocus. However it is substantially bigger and heavier than the Tamron, a lot more expensive, and when set at 17 mm the Tamron is a tad wider (the Canon feels more like 18 mm, or 30 mm equivalent).</p>

[john_rodgerson]

Thanks this is great. To respond to a few of the points made here:

 

- I don't mind getting a crop sensor zoom if it means I can shoot at a 28mm FF equivalent, with about 2.8 aperture.

- The Tamron 17-50 sounds great, but I was looking to save on price by looking for a prime but obviously if none exist for the camera I'll

have to get a zoom.

- Budget of around £200 so the Tamron fits well, just checked on eBay etc.

- Consistent aperture would be ideal as I'm going to be shooting some video as well.

 

I'm weighing up the differences now between the Tamron 17-50 as suggested and the Canon 18-135. Obviously gaining the constant

aperture from the Tamron but losing the extra focal length from the Canon. Already having my 50mm 1.8 it seems hard to get the Tamron

as it only goes to the same focal length.

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I used to have the old Tamron 17 3.5. Mine was in Nikon mount but the EOS version is just as common. It was a great little lens and, although out of production, can be found used. The use of metal in the barrel may be unsettling to those used to light plastic lenses but I found it a plus. </p>

[john_rodgerson]

Thanks, I need to make a decision and possibly sacrifice certain features for my budget. Choices are:

 

Canon 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS

 

Canon 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM

 

Tamron 17-50mm f2.8

 

Any thoughts inos these in terms of better optics? Need to make a decision!

[john_rodgerson]

I think I'll take the 18-135 off my list of options actually because I'd rather the consistent aperture on one and the IS USM

on the other over the focal length on the 18-35. So my decision lies between the canon 17-85 or the tamron 17-50. Any

help?

[JDMvW]

<p>Not sure about what you mean by "film camera lenses". If you mean older, non-Canon manual focus lenses, then there are lots of options out there, but relatively few that will be "full frame equivalent of 28mm" since back in the day when, lenses shorter than 28mm <em>actual</em> focal length were relatively rare and usually expensive.<br>

Of course ALL of the older EF lenses WERE "film camera lenses" to start with, and there are some good options there, but -again- it is hard to find an affordable prime lens short enough for your preference.</p>

<p>As many above have said, probably your best bet are in the modern short zoom lenses.</p>

<p>You'd get a better lens if you got the EF-S 15-85mm IS lens, but I have the older EF-S 17-85mm IS and have no handier lens in my APS-C inventory. There have been very recent threads here dealing with the issue of the 17-85 vs. the Tamron - I'd go for the EF-S lens myself (as I did), but others prefer the Tamron....</p>

[john_rodgerson]

<p>Yeah, I have been reading up on these 2 options tonight and found some interesting things about them.<br>

<br />It seems that there has been more issues like errors with the Canon 18-85 which is kind of putting me off. I like the fact the Tamron has 2.8 all the way but the only thing putting me off about the Tamron is the volume of auto focus. <br>

<br />I'm keen on the Canon 18-85 for the IS, USM and extra focal length compared to the Tamron and also my existing 50mm 1.8. <br>

<br />I jumped back to the 18-135 at one point tonight but just can't decide where to spend my money. </p>

[phule]

<p>[[it seems that there has been more issues like errors with the Canon 18-85 which is kind of putting me off.]]<br>

<br>

Most "errors" of this type that people crow on and on about can be distilled down to one simple problem: user error. New photographers with little experience blame the equipment rather than looking at their own (mis)understanding of a process, technique, or fundamental aspect of photography. <br>

</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>If 17-85 is on your radar then be sure to check out the new 15-85 IS. It goes wider and it's optically better.</p>

[john_rodgerson]

<p>Yes maybe I shouldn't consider all the complaints? Plus its getting old that lens isn't it? The 17-85 IS USM.<br>

<br />Looking at the 15-85 catches my eye for the newer appearance and obviously the newer model (Came out in 2009?) But its double my budget. Is there any others to compare it with? <br>

<br />In terms of the 3 choices I have listed above, does anyone have experience that could sway me either way? </p>

[john_rodgerson]

<p>I'll move this to a separate topic. Thanks for the help in suggesting some options!</p>