# Does anyone know of any adaptors which allow



## sharagim1 (May 26, 2011)

If possible I wish try and fit the Canon 10-22mm lens to my new Canon 5Dd markll,
i don"t have any wide lens for my new 5d mark ll, except 85mm1.8, 28-135,
2 days ago i preapered money for buy canon lens 17-40, on the last minute when i searched on the photography forums, i saw some people said this not great lens and have some issue on the edge, and something els,
now i just need one wide canon lens, thanks for any advice


----------



## zerotiu (May 26, 2011)

Let's make a wide lenses list : canon 17-40, 16-35 II , tokina 11-16, 12-24. 

The 16-35 II is great, but it costs more. Tokina is cheaper and wider too and it's fine. 

I have a plan to buy 17-40 or tokinas when I have the next 5d, because there are people that make good photos from this lenses anyway.


----------



## sharagim1 (May 26, 2011)

i should to buy canon lens 17-40, and my money alreday was ready, but i spent it and i"m so unhappy fo this, 
i hav eto save my money to buy this lens,


----------



## weilin (May 26, 2011)

Have you thought about renting a 17-40mm and see if its image quality is acceptable to you? I'd imagine something like the 17-40mm on lensrentals.com is really cheap for a few days.


----------



## DJL329 (May 26, 2011)

sharagim1 said:


> If possible I wish try and fit the Canon 10-22mm lens to my new Canon 5Dd markll,
> i don"t have any wide lens for my new 5d mark ll, except 85mm1.8, 28-135,
> 2 days ago i preapered money for buy canon lens 17-40, on the last minute when i searched on the photography forums, i saw some people said this not great lens and have some issue on the edge, and something els,
> now i just need one wide canon lens, thanks for any advice



Even if you could mount it, the EF-S 10-22mm will not fill up the sensor on a full-frame dSLR (or 35mm SLR, for that matter), as it is designed for the smaller 1.6x crop sensor. Lots (most?) of lenses are 'soft in the corners,' but unless you're making *large* prints, I doubt it will be a big problem. Don't be a 'pixel peeper' -- worry about your subject and how it's framed. Besides, if they could make lenses 'perfect,' they wouldn't have to keep designing new ones... 

The 17-40mm f/4L is one of Canon's "L" lenses, so it'll be of higher quality than the 10-22mm. That wide, the only other options for full-frame are the 16-35mm f/2.8L (more expensive, of course) or the 14mm f/2.8L, which is even _more_ expensive.

You could also check out 3rd party lenses, like the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 (also sold under other names, such as Bower at B&H Photo). I've seen lots of good reviews of that particular one, however it is *completely* manual, so no auto-focus.

My recommendation is to check out the Canon forums on fredmiranda dot com for reviews and samples images taken with the 17-40mm. (They also have a buy&sell forum, for purchasing used equipment.) And, as someone else mentioned, try it out before you buy (always a good idea with an expensive item).


----------



## 87vr6 (May 26, 2011)

What he said above me, you can actually use extension tubes and physically mount the EF-S lens onto a full frame canon, but you're not going to be happy with it due to the coverage, or lack there of.

I personally have a 17-40L for my 5D2. And like they said, don't read into what the pixel peepers say. I think I;ve done quite well with it. I'm not making billboard sized prints.

Save your money, buy the 17-40 and just enjoy it, ok?


----------



## Flake (May 26, 2011)

You can mount an EF-S lens on a 5D MkII but it involves cutting bits off the mount and then you run the risk of the mirror hitting the back of the lens as it flips up (short back focus).

The two lenses sell for roughly the same price, so do what most of us do - sell the one you can't use and buy a used one which you can. If you are the kind of person that has to buy new then you'll have to put some money to it. 10 - 20mm is not a normal focal length to use on a FF camera, the FOV would be enormous and resulting images just look plain odd. 10mm is the same FOV as a 16mm on FF so you won't notice the difference.

I don't consider myself a pixel peeper, I do expect a certain standard though, and the 17 - 40mm L has such poor corner & border resolution it's easily possible to see it viewing at normal dimensions. Of course if you really do want ultra ultra wide there's Sigmas 12 - 24mm , I could never get along with it even when calibrated by Sigma it appeared to have one side sharper than the other and 12mm just has a strange look.


----------



## ronderick (May 26, 2011)

@sharagim1: Canon has a safety design on the mount that prevents users from fitting a EF-s lens onto a Canon fullframe camera body (I'm not sure if it's the mount shape or something else... perhaps someone else can fill in the details).

However, I believe that third party lens designed for APS-C bodies (DC, Dii, etc.) will fit the fullframe 5D2 since they don't have the mount limitation of the EF-s lens; Unfortunately, you'll end up with a black "rim" on all your pictures because the sensor of ur camera is bigger than the image circle.... 

Again, I won't say the 17-40mm is one of the top L lens, but for the price tag and the size, I think it gets the job done pretty well.


----------



## Admin US West (May 26, 2011)

There are simple modifications to the 10-22 that do not involve cutting or damaging it. It is not designed for a 5D MK II, so you would only get a good image in the center portion, same as a crop camera, but less mp.
Also, you would have the mirroe interfering at the wider settings.

From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF-S_10-22mm_lens

Modification:

The lens is easily modified to allow use on 1.3x crop EF-Mount bodies such as the 1D Mk III by removing the snap-in rear plastic piece. The same modification allows the lens to mount on full-frame bodies such as the 5D, although the rear of the lens contacts the mirror at wider focal lengths.[7]


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 26, 2011)

scalesusa said:


> There are simple modifications to the 10-22 that do not involve cutting or damaging it. It is not designed for a 5D MK II, so you would only get a good image in the center portion, same as a crop camera, but less mp.
> Also, you would have the mirroe interfering at the wider settings.
> 
> From Wikipedia:
> ...



Full disclosure - "...you would have the mirror interfering at the wider settings," and, "...the rear of the lens contacts the mirror at wider focal lengths," sounds sort of benign, but what is means is that if you try this with a 5DII, if you're not careful your mirror assembly will get *broken* and your new camera will *need to be repaired* (and no, your warranty won't cover it). 

If you want an ultrawide lens for your 5DII, get a FF-compatible UWA lens.


----------



## Admin US West (May 26, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Full disclosure - "...you would have the mirror interfering at the wider settings," and, "...the rear of the lens contacts the mirror at wider focal lengths," sounds sort of benign, but what is means is that if you try this with a 5DII, if you're not careful your mirror assembly will get *broken* and your new camera will *need to be repaired* (and no, your warranty won't cover it).
> 
> If you want an ultrawide lens for your 5DII, get a FF-compatible UWA lens.



Yes. I suprises me as to why so many take a $750 lens and a $2600 camera and try this. The lens may lose its value, and repairs to the camera would be expensive. If a person has enough money to risk damaging expensive equipment, surely he could afford a proper lens.


----------



## branden (May 26, 2011)

For what it's worth, here's an image I shot with a APS-C Sigma Fisheye lens mounted to my 5D MkII





Notice the heavy mechanical vignetting.


----------



## Cornershot (May 26, 2011)

I've had the 17-40 and currently have the 16-35. Both great lenses but I sold the former because it wasn't fast enough for what I needed. The 16-35 is just great and one of my favorites. But you won't be disappointed with the 17-40 unless you plan to use it for low light. 

There is one great older film lens that you can get that works really well that might be worth considering if you're on a budget. It's the Tamron 20-40mm. It's f2.7 on the wide end and 3.5 on the long. But it's very sharp and fairly cheap if you can get a clean example.


----------



## Admin US West (May 27, 2011)

I had the Canon 17-40mm, and it was sharp, but I could never seem to want to use it, so I sold it. I found a used Tokina 17mm f/3.5 prime for well under $200, and find it to be at least as good as the 17-40mm L. The build is supurb.

From my 17-40mm L and 5D MK II:







A quick snapshot with the Tokina and 5D MK II a couple of days after I bought it last fall.


----------



## sharagim1 (May 27, 2011)

thanks a lot guys for your response with sample of imges, it was my big mistake for chnage mind of buy 17-40,
in last minute, i should to buy it , and i hope discribe my question a couple of days ago, anyway now i just have 5d markll withut any wide lens, i have plan for buy it , thanks guys .

my grear: canon 7d, canon lens 70-200,2.8,usm ll, canon lens 85mm.1.8, canon lens 28-135 , canon lens 10-22 ultra wide
canon 5d markll


----------

