Lens "A" vs. "B" on Canon EOS-"C"?!?

[alan_schietzsch]

Is it just me being too picky after a long day? I keep seeing (what

to me is) the same question:

- has anyone tried Sigma 24-70/2.8 EX DG DF on an EOS 50E?

- Canon 24mm f/2.8 vSigma EX DG 24mm f/1.8 on an EOS 50E

- Use of Tamron/Sigma Lenses on EOS 300

 

Do people think the lens' characteristics or performance

somehow changes when used on a different body? Does the

glass magically grow somehow? Yikes.

 

If I compare a 200/1.8L and a Promaster 28-200/5.6-8, will the

200 be suddenly softer than the cheap zoom on an EOS 1v and

then sharper when on an Elan? What has the body got to do with

this?

 

"I have a 1/2 inch socket wrench and currently own a 1/4, a 3/16,

and a 5/8" socket. I'm planning to drive my Ferrari to Chicago.

Which size socket should I buy next?"

 

Maybe I'm a cranky 'ol photographer who needs a Tylenol. (-;

 

Hope I didn't offend anyone, just blowing off steam at something

that seems annoyingly repetitive to me right now. Cheers, and

hope I made you laugh.

[NK Guy]

Beginner photographers, nervous about making a big (to them) purchasing decision. I know I've been there.

[the the]

People have lost the ability to make their own decisions, so they just look for the experts for help.

[eos 10 fan]

Stating the body is actually not such a bad idea as there are some issues with flash (Type 'A' bodies Vs. type 'B'); as well, there are some known IS lens issues out there that are body specific - not to mention Sigma's woes with some of their older lenses. In general Canon's claim to fame of no incompatabilities is true, but there are enough exceptions to warrant listing the body in a query.

<p>

<a href=http://eosdoc.com/manuals.asp?q=IScompat>http://eosdoc.com/manuals.asp?q=IScompat</a>

[alan_schietzsch]

You're right in saying that some lens-body combos have issues,

that's "Does Lens 'A' work OK on Body 'C'?", a totally legit (wise,

even!) question.

"Lens A vs. B" is a different, non-body dependent question, that's

what bugged me.

[eosdoc]

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

<blockquote><i><small>

Do people think the lens' characteristics or performance somehow changes when used on a different body?

</small></i></blockquote>

This statement might be closer to the truth than you imagine

(and not just because of the 1/3 and 1/2 EV steps for aperture

in different EOS bodies)

<P>

Most EOS bodies operate with "standard precision" autofocus,

which appears to be achieve focus within the depth of focus,

no matter how large or small the maximum aperture.

<P>

The professional EOS bodies (EOS 3, 1, 1n, 1v) offer a

"high precision" mode that achieve focus withing 1/3 of depth

of focus, but only if fast lenses are used. So a lens with

f/2.8 WILL behave differently on an EOS 1v than it will on an

<a href=

http://yahoogroups.com/group/elan7e

>Elan 7E</a>.

<P>

And, perhaps more surprisingly, a slow f/5.6 lens, like the

EF 100-400 IS USM will focus on vertical and horizontal detail

with an Elan 7E, while the EOS 3 and EOS 1v can only focus

on horizontal detail, since none of the 45 AF sensors are

set to detect vertical detail.

<P>

Hard to believe? Read for yourself:<BR>

. <a target=loser href=

http://eosdoc.com/manuals.asp?q=AFcompat

>http://eosdoc.com/manuals.asp?q=AFcompat</a><BR>

. <a href=

http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/faq30/eos3af.html

>http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/faq30/eos3af.html</a><BR>

. <a href=

http://camera.canon.com.my/what_new/product/eos3_n.htm

>http://camera.canon.com.my/what_new/product/eos3_n.htm</a><BR>

. <a href=

http://www.canon.com/eos/af_tech.html

>http://www.canon.com/eos/af_tech.html</a>

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

saves someone saying 'you didn't tell us what body you have' later on, there's always one.

[ocelote71]

Alan I would recommend a metric socket set before driving that Ferrari

to Chicago. : )

[eshifri]

How about putting Mac PCI card into the PC? Both are PCI, aren't they? :-) Modern cameras are almost computers. Sigma 24/2.8 works fine on ELAN and does not on ELAN II. There is a long list of lens/EOS body incompatitilities on the Sigma site. So it is a wise question to ask.

[canon man]

What about someone wanting to buy the long and heavy 70-200 2.8 and will be putting it on the EOS 630? If you knew he was going to put it on that camera you may be able to recommend the GR10 to improve the handling of that small camera with that bulky lens. Ergonomic issued can come up in some combos as well.

[carl_weller]

well, i don't want to give an opinion about whether or not you need a tylenol, but i can answer at least part of your question.

 

i've used the Sigma 24-70/2.8 EX DG DF on an eos 3 and eos 300 with no problems at all. it's quite a loud lense though - even louder than canon's non usm lenses. quality-wise i'm happy with it. it's perhaps not quite as good as a canon pro lense, but for the money i'm willing to accept a bit less - and the difference is not as great as many like to think.

 

the only issue with the sigma on an eos 300 is that you can't use the built-in flash - very ugly shadows on the bottom of your pictures will be your reward for trying.

 

as to whether or not the body makes a difference to picture quality:

 

No - or maybe sort of!

 

the lense takes the picture, not the body, but the better bodies normally have better AF - which can make a small difference, even if it's only subjective. better bodies are also built to higher precision and tend to last longer - which could make a small difference due to better-aligned film-planes, 'preciser' metal bayonet-mounts instead of plastic, etc. bottom line? the body is (largely) irrelevant so long as the lense works fine with it.

 

what you notice with a better body is that photography is easier and more fun. i use my eos 300 when i'm worried about theft in bad areas and i hate it. the 3 spoilt me, i'm afraid.

 

cheers,

 

carl

[james_harvey1]

>Beginner photographers, nervous about making a big (to them) >purchasing decision. I know I've been there.

 

Too right: I signed over the money for a 70-200 UIS at the weekend. My hands were *shaking* because of the amount of money I was spending.

 

I know that everyone on here scoffs at anything less than big L glass: but the prices really are Scary for those of us in the real world...

[alan_schietzsch]

James Harvey (wunch_of_bankers@hotmail.com) writes:

"My hands were *shaking* because of the amount of money I

was spending....the prices really are Scary for those of us in the

real world..."

My sympathies (genuine!), but I've got to ask for yours, too.

Think of this: you had a choice to spend the money or not. We

have a lesser choice - this is our JOB, so if we can't get the shot

because we didn't want to spend the money, we're FIRED by the

client. So we're scared if we spend and scared if we don't. This

isn't play, it's survival. We ARE in the real world. Very much so.