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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 16, 2004, 9:39 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 69
Default SLR vs DSLR lenses

Is there truely a downside to using Canons EF lenses designed for 35mm on my 10D? Or, for what reason, should I use those designed for digital? :mrgreen:
csnudelman is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 16, 2004, 10:13 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default Re: SLR vs DSLR lenses

Quote:
Originally Posted by csnudelman
Is there truely a downside to using Canons EF lenses designed for 35mm on my 10D? Or, for what reason, should I use those designed for digital? :mrgreen:
There's only one Canon lens designed for digital SLR's and it won't fit your 10D.

The only downside is that the format is not the same as 35mm, in the case of the 10d, the crop factor is 1.6. This becomes an issue when wide angle shots are desired and your 24 mm lens behaves more like a 38mm lens.
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2004, 11:13 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

I concur with Ohenry, there is no downside to using the normal EF lenses. Some consider the 1.6 crop a downside (you need real small mm lenses to get wide angle shots), some consider it a real upside your 300mm acts like a 480mm and gives you more reach for things like birding.

There is a downside to using the new special digital EF lense, they form a smaller image circle, and only work on the drebel.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2004, 6:56 AM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 69
Default lenses

Okay, what about the non-Canon lenses made for digital? I understand about the smaller 'footprint' but how is this helpful? I guess I'm asking what harm does the larger, unused, footprint cause if any? Is a smaller, lighter lens the only advantage to the new 'designed for DSLR' lenses?
csnudelman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2004, 10:12 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default

You can use either lenses made for SLR or dSLR. It makes no optical difference.
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2004, 12:19 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default Re: lenses

There is no harm in using the normal lenses, the only advantage I can see for the "digital" branded lenses with their smaller image circles is they are cheaper to make for the manfacturers.

If you buy a whole kit load of them now and decide to move up to a new body with a larger sensor you are in for another round fo lense buying.

Notice that there are no "digital" branded lenses in the pro quality high end "L" series. They are made to work well with any current and future EOS camera including the full frame sensor of the 1Ds.


Quote:
Originally Posted by csnudelman
Okay, what about the non-Canon lenses made for digital? I understand about the smaller 'footprint' but how is this helpful? I guess I'm asking what harm does the larger, unused, footprint cause if any? Is a smaller, lighter lens the only advantage to the new 'designed for DSLR' lenses?
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2004, 2:22 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

The other advantage should be that the "for digital" lenses can be smaller & lighter. This should reduce the cost, but it isn't reducing the price... and therefor I think they are over charging for those lenses.

I think that Canon has only 1 digital lens right now (and another one coming) but they only work on the DRebel (right now.) So this means that you get them and sell them with the camera when you replace it (or hope they work with your next camera.)

Not a great strategy, but it works for some people. The Kit lens is supposed to be good for what it is (f-stop wise) so for the extra $100, it seems a reasonable choice.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2004, 5:22 PM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 69
Default 28-135mm

Eric, how do you like your 28-135mm? I was thinking about getting a 28-105mm.
csnudelman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 18, 2004, 8:11 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 227
Default

The EF-S 18-55 lens that is built for the Digital Rebel is a good lens and an excellent value for the price. If I were buying a digiRebel I'd get one.

As far as the Sigma lenses with smaller image circles, I don't see the value in them. They are not that much cheaper so why limit yourself. Other lenses are being marketed as 'digital ready' or some such nonsense - Tamron is using Di as an indicator. I don't see much benefit in those over regular lenses - I think it's a gimmick aimed at goosing sales in those cases.

For what it's worth, I find my Sigma 28-105f2.8-4 to be an excellent all around lens. The range of zoom is very handy, group shots, portraits and even landscapes.
ursa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 18, 2004, 9:21 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default

Digital advantage or not, the Tamron 28-75 Di lens is an excellent lens. I don't know what the technical differences are on the DI lenses over their other lenses, but I do know that it has proven to be a solid performer.
ohenry 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 11:04 PM.