EOS compatibility dangers

[the_macman]

My sister will soon be leaving for a trip and she asked me, as it happened

before, to lend her my 70-200 f/4L. Normally, I'd also lend her my EOS-1V but

turns out I'll need it then. So the 70-200 f/4L will go on her Rebel Ti.

 

I'd like to understand once and for all why some people advise against such a

match. I've read many comments here on photonet such as "the Rebel is just

a fancy lens cap for the 70-200" :-) but I always failed to catch the reason why.

Isn't the Canon marketing dep't successful enough to make clear the root of

the EOS philosophy which is basically all lenses go for all cameras? For

instance I've often heard many fellow canonists trembling in profound fear

before a camera which doesn't have a metallic lens mount such as older

Rebels. Let's be serious: has anyone of you guys ever seen a Rebel torn-

down into pieces from lens imbalance or a "serious" lens falling off a "cheap"

camera ? :):)

 

Of course, I understand that some people may screw the camera on a tripod

and mount a heavy lens on it which should normally go collared and tripod-ed

itself... this is either inexperience or stupidity, but it's not the case here. Given

that the low-end camera and heavy-professional lens combo will be held with

both hands and no tripod will be used, thus avoiding the risk of unbalance... is

there any OTHER serious risk in matching those two?

 

Thank you

[jake_ridge]

If it works for you who cares what others think? Seriously the 70-200mm F4L isn't really a "giant" lens and I see no problem when the lens and camera body is both suspended.

[peter_phan]

I regularly use the Canon 70-200/4L, as well as the much larger Canon 100-400L IS, with a plastic-mount Rebel X. I've never had a single problem. As long as you support the rig primarily by the lens and not by the camera body you should have no problems. My opinion is that it would take a SEVERE impact or force to cause any damage to the plastic lens mount. And that kind of force is likely to destroy the camera anyway, irrespective of whether or not the lens is metal or plastic. With good holding technique, the plastic lens mount is plenty strong even with heavier lenses. With bad holding technique (ie. having both hands on the camera body with the lens entirely unsupported, which is pretty ridiculous anyway), all bets are off.

[NK Guy]

It'll work fine. The sort of idiots who think it's a bad idea are probably the sort

of people who buy EOS 1Vs and stick 28-80 IIIs on them.

[majid]

It'll work fine, the clean slate is the whole reason Canon redesigned its mount compared to Nikon's baroque and confusing alphabet soup of pre-AI, AI, AI-S, AF, AF-S, G and now DX lenses. Balance is an issue, though. A friend asked me for a camera recommendation, I told him to get the Ti with a 24-85, and even that comparatively small lens is enough to unbalance the camera completely (yes, it is that light).

[nick roberts]

It'll certainly work fine, but balance is most definately an issue - it'll feel very odd. But so what? I use my EOS 300 on my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 (yes, it does feel that way round!) from time to time, and although it's very weird, it works fine. I actually have more problem using that camera with the 28-135 IS, as it's a bit too short to feel comfortable with the lightweight body. It's the same issue with the EOS IX and these lenses. But yes, that's one of the nice things about the EOS system - I can use any of my lenses on any of my bodies, and beyond the issue of comfort, there's no problems whatsoever.

[jay_.]

My backup body is a Rebel 2000. I sometimes go with it loaded with color neg in case of very contrasty light, and have mounted it on my 300/2.8IS with stacked 2x and 1.4x teleconverters with no problem.

[photobyalan.com]

For some reason, some people think that an inexpensive camera body is somehow less capable of taking a great photograph than an expensive body. The camera, after all, only needs to be a light-tight box that will hold film. What you sacrifice in buying a cheaper body is durability, some reliability, the comparative performance of such features as autofocus and autoexposure, various custom functions, PC terminal, features such as mirror lockup and dedicated DOF preview, and convenience items like the rear thumbwheel. The beauty of the EOS system is that even the cheapest body will be able to use the best, most expensive lens in the lineup and is (theoretically, at least) capable of making photographs that are every bit as good as any taken using the EOS 1V.

[herman_hiel]

One word of caution against a cheap camera on a 'heavy' lens: my first Canon camera was a 1000FN ( Rebel something in the US ) about 10 yrs ago; when I stuck a Tamron 200-400mm on it, after a while the bayonet connection of the camera got twisted. The lens attachment is made of plastic and that is just not strong enough to hold a heavy lens. I upgraded then to an Elan II and had no problem with the same lens. If you still want to attach a heavy lens to a light camera, put the camera strap on the lens so you carry the lens in stead off the camera.

[eosdoc]

<a href=mailto:uce@ftc.gov></a>

I have an <a href=

http://eosdoc.com/manuals.asp?q=1000FN++

>EOS 1000FN</a> and have used it on heavy glass, including

an EF 100-400 IS USM. I agree that it makes sense to bear

the weight by the lens or tripod ring instead of by the camera,

but I have not noticed any difference when my <a href=

http://yahoogroups.com/group/elan7e

>Elan 7E</a> is mounted.

<P>

Perhaps the EOS 1000FN was trying to tell you by rejecting the

Tamron 200-400?</a>

[vandit]

In response to those who still persist in the fantasy that a metal mount is somehow stronger than a plastic mount: what do you guys think the metal mount is attached to in all non-1v bodies? Plastics (read: composites) have quite remarkable properties these days - ask NASA.

 

To the original poster - the mismatch has more to do with balance, as others have suggested here. Also, most people who invest in big lenses have some idea about exposure, metering etc. - for them, an entry level body with its limited choice of metering modes (evaluative, evaluative and more evaluative with some spot metering if you lock exposure) makes the body less useful.

 

The body will function fine and the lens mount wont come off.

[anov]

That "lowly" Rebel Ti your sister have BTW has a metal mount. And like previous poster said is fully capable to take great pictures.

[carl smith]

Make sure your sister knows to hold the camera by the lens. The lens is still heavy enough. In fact, while the Rebel Ti has a metal mount, I'm not sure if it's actually integrated in to some sort of metal chassis under the polycarobonate shell. On the EOS 3 it is, and it's very sturdy but I think the Ti is mostly plastic, even the frame underneath.

[lee_shively]

I have a Rebel 2000 that has seen use with an EF 70-200/2.8L and an EF 400/5.6L. The ONLY compatibility difficulties I have ever noticed is that it is extremely difficult to manually focus the 400mm lens when a Canon extender. The Rebel has a mirror prism, not a real prism. It's not a very bright finder, thus the difficulty. Otherwise, no problems at all.

[mike f]

Gosh, maybe I should have been concerned about using that Rebel X on my 600mm f4 for all of those years? ;)