# Lens adapters EF-S to EF



## Cariboucoach (Jan 1, 2014)

I have been searching here and at B&H Photo, to see if there is an adapter to attach my EF-s 15-85mm to a Canon 6D. Does anyone know it a thing like that exists?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 1, 2014)

Why would you want to do that? The image circle is too small - you'd have severe vignetting. 

In any case, there's no adapter and no room for one, since both lenses have the same flange focal distance. You could use a short extension tube, but you'd lose infinity (and even moderately distant) focus.


----------



## surapon (Jan 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why would you want to do that? The image circle is too small - you'd have severe vignetting.
> 
> In any case, there's no adapter and no room for one, since both lenses have the same flange focal distance. You could use a short extension tube, but you'd lose infinity (and even moderately distant) focus.



Wow, Wow, Wow, Dear Teacher, Mr. neuroanatomist , You are Genius---And You have Great Scientist's Beautiful Thinking Brain = " since both lenses have the same flange focal distance. You could use a short extension tube"-----,Yes, Same thing as use Adapter EF to EOS-M for both EF and EF-s Lens= I never think like this, Thanks you, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## Cariboucoach (Jan 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why would you want to do that? The image circle is too small - you'd have severe vignetting.
> 
> In any case, there's no adapter and no room for one, since both lenses have the same flange focal distance. You could use a short extension tube, but you'd lose infinity (and even moderately distant) focus.



Thank you. I never thought about the image circle. I own a 70-200 f/4.0, and a 50mm f/1.8. I was looking for the least expensive way to get a wide angle view. I guess I will have to keep saving my pennies for a 24-xx lens.


----------



## tat3406 (Jan 2, 2014)

Cariboucoach said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Why would you want to do that? The image circle is too small - you'd have severe vignetting.
> ...




If you are not using the lens 15-85mm any more, trade it with 24-105L with little top up.


----------



## NWPhil (Jan 17, 2014)

here:
http://sorenjohansen.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/modifying-the-canon-10-22mm-lens/

yes, it can be done but you better off selling it and use the money to buy a FF lens


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why would you want to do that? The image circle is too small - you'd have severe vignetting.
> 
> In any case, there's no adapter and no room for one, since both lenses have the same flange focal distance. You could use a short extension tube, but you'd lose infinity (and even moderately distant) focus.



Severe vignetting? That's an understatement 
I have tried a sigma 10-20 lens (EF-S) on a 5D2. It clears the mirror and works perfectly. What you see is a round circle of fish-eye looking image surrounded by black! It looks really cool, but the images are worthless.


----------



## m (Jan 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why would you want to do that?


To be able to use the lens on a full frame body, I guess.
If I remember correctly, nikon does that. (attach crop lens to full frame body to shoot in crop mode)

As you pointed out, that's not possible with canon.


----------



## BozillaNZ (Jan 21, 2014)

If you have big enough balls, just zoom the lens to 85mm, then put your finger into the rear lens hole, and pull the rear lens protector out of the mount.

Then you can put the lens on 6D but get severe vignetting. And BEWARE that the mirror might hit the lens rear element if you zoom out too far so that the lens protrudes out of the metal mount plane.

Look at this exact same step for EF-s 10-22
http://sorenjohansen.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/modifying-the-canon-10-22mm-lens/

I do this all the time to test a EF-s lens on my 1D since I don't have a APS-C camera anymore.

Exclaimer: I am not responsible to any potential damage you do to your camera/lens/fingers.


----------



## Cariboucoach (Jan 24, 2014)

If you are not using the lens 15-85mm any more, trade it with 24-105L with little top up.
[/quote]

If I could, I would sell the 40D and lens but, my wife wants my daughter to use the camera, so selling it isn't an option now.


----------



## rs (Jan 24, 2014)

I've used my 10-22 on FF, and while the corners are covered when zoomed in beyond ~13mm, at any aperture or zoom setting the area outside of the crop image circle is beyond a joke. Not to mention the mirror/rear element clearance issue.

If you just want a cheap FF lens, get a 28-135. Or if that's too much, buy one used, or one of the many tiny 28-80, 28-90 or 28-105 lenses.

Having said that, a white box 24-105L is the most sensible option if you can stretch to it.


----------



## bholliman (Jan 24, 2014)

Cariboucoach said:


> > If you are not using the lens 15-85mm any more, trade it with 24-105L with little top up.
> 
> 
> 
> If I could, I would sell the 40D and lens but, my wife wants my daughter to use the camera, so selling it isn't an option now.



I agree that a white box 24-105L would be a great option, a really nice FF std. zoom for a reasonable price. 

Assuming the 70-200 is your only EF lens currently, and you don't have the money saved yet for a 24-105, maybe a 40mm pancake would temporarily cover the sub-70mm range until you have money saved up for a 24-XX zoom?


----------



## Cariboucoach (Jan 27, 2014)

bholliman said:


> Cariboucoach said:
> 
> 
> > > If you are not using the lens 15-85mm any more, trade it with 24-105L with little top up.
> ...



I do currently have an old 35-80 f/4-5.6 II. Not quite wide enough, or fast enough. I can only save my money slowly so I don't want to buy an interim lens and start my savings at zero again. I have the 50mm 1.8 II as well for the low light situations, but indoors I need to go wider sometimes and can't always back up. I am eyeing the 24-70 f/2.8, the older version (used), but might settle on a new 24-105. It depends on how fast I can save the money. Given those two options, which would any of you go. Speed of the 2.8, or reach of the 105?"


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jan 28, 2014)

"On a budget" can mean different things to different people. The first thought that comes to mind when you said wide angle on a budget was the *20mm f/2.8*. Although the sharpness is not good in the corners.

Another to consider is Canon's *EF 28mm f/1.8*. While not as wide as the 20mm, it is considerably better in terms of image quality. It has low distortion, but a bit of chromatic aberration. 

The newer Image-Stabilized primes are pretty good but more expensive than the older generation USM options.


----------



## Cariboucoach (Jan 31, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> "On a budget" can mean different things to different people. The first thought that comes to mind when you said wide angle on a budget was the *20mm f/2.8*. Although the sharpness is not good in the corners.
> 
> Another to consider is Canon's *EF 28mm f/1.8*. While not as wide as the 20mm, it is considerably better in terms of image quality. It has low distortion, but a bit of chromatic aberration.
> 
> The newer Image-Stabilized primes are pretty good but more expensive than the older generation USM options.



On a budget for me is saving about $20 a week in a dedicated account. So in a year I will have $1040. I would also love the TS-E 24mm. Wide and versatile, but that much more expensive. Maybe I will check back in a year when I have saved enough.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 31, 2014)

Cariboucoach said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > "On a budget" can mean different things to different people. The first thought that comes to mind when you said wide angle on a budget was the *20mm f/2.8*. Although the sharpness is not good in the corners.
> ...



24-70/105 is good, but if you want wider than 24mm (~15mm FoV equivalent on an APS-C x1.6) then I'd recommend the 17-40L. It's fairly decent in the center wide open, although the corners are fairly soft, but stopped down it's a pretty good. And not nearly as expensive as the 16-35L v2, and will go to short 'normal' FL.


----------



## Halfrack (Jan 31, 2014)

+1 on the 17-40 lens .

As for the daughter, you may want to get her the 18-55 as a first step (depends on age). Figure you can get both from the sale of the 15-85 (and a few dollars).


----------

