Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 20, 2007, 2:34 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 172
Default

Duplicate
leeraff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2007, 2:38 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 172
Default

Dupe
leeraff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2007, 4:05 PM   #33
Member
 
edwardr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 44
Default

Some comments:

1) Unless it clearly says "equivalent" then the focal length of a lens is it's actual focal length. So the 17-55mm EF-S lens really has a focal length range of 17 to 55 mm. The "S" in the name "EF-S" indicates that the lens will work ONLY on a cropped sensor body like the 30D, it will not fit and/or will damage a full frame body if you tried to use the lens on a full frame body.

2) When the books talk about 85mm being a good length for a portrait lens, they mean on a full frame body. If you already have the 50mm f1.8, then you already have a great portrait lens for the smaller mormat sensor of the 30D.

3) You can't have your cake and eat it too. There is no one lens that can do everything. The 24-70mm f2.8L EF is a great lens, but it won't be long enough for outdoor sports, and have you ever held one? It's a honking big heavy lens!
edwardr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2007, 4:38 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 172
Default

edwardr,
Thanks. All made sense. Yeah, it was funny. I'd always wondered about the red dots and white dots you align on the body with the lens. then, one day, I guess it hit, white equals the ef-s lenses. (I assume that's right.)

2) 85mm "perfect" length for portraiture is for full frame. thanks, got it. But, the 50mm 1.8 is an EF lens, right? So, one is still dealing with the 1.6 crop factor and actually shooting 80mm, right?

3) Yeah, believe me, I'm beginning to understand there isn't a "cake and eat it too." Seems like there is certainly a compromise somewhere with every lens. I understand the 24-70mm is a "big honker." I may be keeping the 28-135mm as a walk around and only expect the "point and shoot" pictures I'm currently capable of getting with it. I really like the pics I see with that 24-70mm though. That and a 70-200mm 2.8 may be in the future and be "MY LENSES ONLY." Only come out of their protective little caves for very specific needs.

And, yes, I understand the 70mm is not long enough for sports. I will say, though, most things I'm currently shooting, I have access as close as I want. Goofed around with the 85mm prime and got some GREAT shots on a golf course, ball frozen off the club face, etc. Certainly not Sports Illustrated or even local newspaper but my nephew and his dad were blown away. Eleven year old hitting over water with pond, stone wall and green/flag in background with ball frozen in mid-air at eye level. Gorgeous. I was ecstatic when I saw it. Got some pretty nice little league baseball with it too. Of course, no expectations for anything too distant, but, it's fun while I'm learning...
leeraff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2007, 5:12 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
algold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Israel
Posts: 369
Default

with either EF or EF-S lenses on a 'cropped' body with an APS-C size sensor you have to multiply the actual focal length of the lens by 1.6. So your 85mm prime gives you the equivalent of a 136mm lens (still very nice for portraits and great for some sports) and a 17-55 EF-S lens gives a field of view of a 27-88mm lens on a full frame DSLR or a 35mm camera.
algold is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:44 AM.