# Canon Full Frame body with crop mode ( that can use EF-S lenses)



## Angryoak (Feb 15, 2012)

Is a Canon Full Frame body with crop mode (that can use EF-S lenses) outside of the realms of possibility? I mean Nikon can do it, and it would be ideal if one could still use quality glass that is accumulated (eg:- EF-S 17-55 USM IS F2.8 ) when graduating to a FF, and also be able to utilise a crop reach on say 70-200 2.8 when desirable. :-\


----------



## akiskev (Feb 15, 2012)

I think it's not possible for a FF Canon reflex, because the mirror will be hitting the back of the ef-s lens.. 
Maybe with a FF mirrorless it will be possible!


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 15, 2012)

it would only be a problem with the current EF-S 10-22 since that is the ONLY EF-S lens that takes some advantage of the EF-S short back flange concept (rear element closer to sensor). All other current EF-S lenses have no rear elements protruding into the mirrorbox.


----------



## JR (Feb 15, 2012)

I could be wrong but I thought that only Nikon could do it because they hold the patent for it. So for sure Canon can technologically do it, but if it anything remotely close to the way Nikon does it, they wont be able to because of Nikon's patent. That was my understanding...maybe soomeone can confirm...

Jacques


----------



## cfargo (Feb 15, 2012)

Why do you need to crop in the Camera? Why not just do it in Post so that you have the option to do or not do later? As far as EF-S Lenses, they don't make any L ones so why even consider them? This is just my thought process.


----------



## bainsybike (Feb 15, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> it would only be a problem with the current EF-S 10-22 since that is the ONLY EF-S lens that takes some advantage of the EF-S short back flange concept (rear element closer to sensor). All other current EF-S lenses have no rear elements protruding into the mirrorbox.



Are you sure about that? I've just had a look at my EF-S lenses (15-85, 18-55, 55-250 as well as the 10-22) and they all seem to have the same protrusion.


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 15, 2012)

akiskev said:


> I think it's not possible for a FF Canon reflex, because the mirror will be hitting the back of the ef-s lens..
> Maybe with a FF mirrorless it will be possible!


to my knowledge this is correct


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Feb 15, 2012)

JR said:


> I could be wrong but I thought that only Nikon could do it because they hold the patent for it. So for sure Canon can technologically do it, but if it anything remotely close to the way Nikon does it, they wont be able to because of Nikon's patent. That was my understanding...maybe soomeone can confirm...
> 
> Jacques



Canon DSLRs already have mirror lockup. Canon pocket cameras can autofocus using contrast detection. The rest is technicalities, specifically -

1. A way to turn the camera off with the mirror locked up.

2. Check if an EF-S lens is connected to the camera, and if so -
2.1. If mirror is down, keep it down, display a message on the back screen, and under no condition move it up.
2.2. If mirror is up, keep it locked up, and use contrast detection to autofocus.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 15, 2012)

bainsybike said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > it would only be a problem with the current EF-S 10-22 since that is the ONLY EF-S lens that takes some advantage of the EF-S short back flange concept (rear element closer to sensor). All other current EF-S lenses have no rear elements protruding into the mirrorbox.
> ...



Thanks! You are right, I stand corrected.

Just checked it again myself. The physical protrusion is the same, only the rear lens element seems to not really fully use it - except at the 10-22 where it does come back all the way, and the 60 Macro seems to use a small part of the way.


----------



## Radiating (Feb 16, 2012)

There's little to no practical reason to use an EF-S lens with a full frame body. Comprable full frame lenses will always get better resolution. In fact I made a list a while ago of every EF-S lens and the coresponding full frame lens at that price range and in every case the full frame lens was sharper than the EF-S lens in LPPM. Meaning using EF-S lenses would always be more expensive and result in lower quality. There would be some rare situations where it would be a good idea to be cross compatible though I'm sure though.


----------



## smirkypants (Feb 16, 2012)

cfargo said:


> Why do you need to crop in the Camera? Why not just do it in Post so that you have the option to do or not do later? As far as EF-S Lenses, they don't make any L ones so why even consider them? This is just my thought process.


A couple of reasons. First, if you could see the cropped view properly in the viewfinder, you could frame the picture better and get a better shot.

Secondly, and more importantly, I would be shooting 16 ~ 18MP RAW files instead of 36 ~ 45 MP RAW files. This translates into much smaller files, much less wasted space, much higher equivalent capacity on the CF cards and much faster write speeds. All of these are important if you're shooting sports.


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 16, 2012)

The mirror, ever since the 20D was the problem... If i'm not mistaken, the 20D was the first camera that allowed such as lens with a recessed back to fit inside with some tweaking of the mirror placement. It's been a good 8-9 years ago so it's hard to remember vividly the details... the 10D, while being a crop camera, because the mirror is in the same spot as all the other FF cameras, cannot take ef-s lenses. I have heard of work arounds such as removing the back element of the lenses, and some 3rd party lenses dont have an extended back which may or may not work with the sensor, albeit, the image circle is not big enough for FF so you get what you get from that lens. I'm not sure how nikon does it, or if their lenses are designed similar to canon's in the rear of the ef-s lens, but unless canon implements a mirror to either slide back a bit or has a mirror lock up/live view only with ef-s, I dont know how they could work around it without redesigning lenses, which i dont see happening.


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 16, 2012)

If you really wanted to put an EF-S lens on a FF camera you could use extension tubes. It would vignette badly of course but it can be done.


----------



## ejenner (Feb 16, 2012)

OK, Nikon can do it because their sensor to mount distance is larger than EF mount. Hence their DX lenses don't hit the mirrors and can be mounted on the FF Nikons.

Of course this is exactly the reason you can use Nikon F mount lenses on Canon with a simple adapter with no internal glass, where as you cannot use an EF mount on a Nikon.

In fact the short Canon mount is very nice four mounting 3rd party lenses and was a great idea until the 'crop' format lens came along. Actually apart from not being able to mount EF-S lenses on FF, the short mount distance is a very nice feature IMO, but may in part also explain why Canon has a harder time designing FF UWA lenses.


----------



## Lyra Video Productions (Feb 16, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> cfargo said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you need to crop in the Camera? Why not just do it in Post so that you have the option to do or not do later? As far as EF-S Lenses, they don't make any L ones so why even consider them? This is just my thought process.
> ...



Another reason, and correct me if I'm wrong somebody, it could be useful for video for a few reasons. Beyond the ability to use cropped lenses, in video this would also allow you to "zoom" in (in theory) without a loss in resolution. Since video is only 1920x1080 pixels and takes samples from the larger sensor, this cropping would just be taking the sampled pixels from different crop values, still giving you full HD 1920x1080.

I'm too lazy to check the D800 stats, but isn't this a video feature it has?

EDIT: Okay I'm not too lazy afterall. It has it: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/features02.htm


----------



## Dbleznak (Feb 16, 2012)

Angryoak said:


> Is a Canon Full Frame body with crop mode (that can use EF-S lenses) outside of the realms of possibility? I mean Nikon can do it, and it would be ideal if one could still use quality glass that is accumulated (eg:- EF-S 17-55 USM IS F2.8 ) when graduating to a FF, and also be able to utilise a crop reach on say 70-200 2.8 when desirable. :-\



I totally agree. I love my EF-S 17-55 USM IS F2.8 and wont switch to ff without it.


----------



## DJL329 (Feb 16, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> cfargo said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you need to crop in the Camera? Why not just do it in Post so that you have the option to do or not do later? As far as EF-S Lenses, they don't make any L ones so why even consider them? This is just my thought process.
> ...



That answers why you would want to use a Crop body and an EF-S lens, not why you would want to put an EF-S lens on a FF body. The image circle produced by an EF-S lens wouldn't fill up a FF sensor, so like CFARGO, I fail to see why you would want to do it.


----------



## DJL329 (Feb 16, 2012)

Angryoak said:


> Is a Canon Full Frame body with crop mode (that can use EF-S lenses) outside of the realms of possibility? I mean Nikon can do it, and it would be ideal if one could still use quality glass that is accumulated (eg:- EF-S 17-55 USM IS F2.8 ) when graduating to a FF, and also *be able to utilise a crop reach on say 70-200 2.8 when desirable*.



In your scenario, I don't think you won't get the crop "reach" that you seek, because the pixel density on a Crop sensor is much higher than on a FF sensor.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 16, 2012)

The answer is simply NO. EF-S lenses are designed so they cannot be mounted to a FF body! No exceptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF-S_lens_mount

"Canon designers have taken steps to ensure it is physically impossible to mount EF-S lenses on EF-only cameras. This is because the increased proximity of the lens to the sensor means that on full-frame sensor or 35mm film EF cameras the lens itself would obstruct the mirror's movement and cause damage to the lens and/or camera. While it is possible to modify the lens such that the physical obstruction is removed, allowing for mounting to EF mount cameras, the rear of the lens would still obstruct the mirror. An additional reason is that the lenses produce a smaller image circle of even illumination (circle of no vignetting). An EF-S lens alignment mark is indicated by a small white rectangle, whereas the EF employs a small red dot. The lens will insert into the body when the alignment marks on each are matched, and the lens can then be rotated and locked into the operating position. EF-S camera bodies have both EF-S and EF alignment marks, while EF bodies have only EF marks. Some have reported success attaching EF-S lenses to full-frame bodies with the use of an extension tube; however, this does not eliminate the vignetting problem, and also removes the lens's ability to achieve infinity focus."


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 16, 2012)

Time to chime in on this one. I am a 7D user here just to get that out of the way...

Now....

knowing the system your on is very important in deciding what to buy. I made the 7D decision based on my finances. As an emerging pro with little resources I decided on the 7D because it was the best body I could get within my budget. And since then, all the purchases I have made have been with the thought of eventual upgrade.

I bought the 24-70 2.8 mki, because for my needs it fit the bill. A lot of the jobs I have are concerts/events, so the flexibility of a zoom was necessary. Low light is generally what I work in as well, so i needed it to be a fast as well as flexible. Prime lenses are on my list, but until I am doing more work in portraiture, the want does not = the need. My next lens purchase was a 70-200 2.8 non IS. L quality glass, good range, especially with the 1.6 crop factor. I also have 2 580 ExII flashes and plan to add a third, and eventually some form of transmitter (pocket wizards maybe?...not sure yet, for now I am going to use 580 as master). 

The third lens I bought made me groan a little. the 10-22mm 3.5-4.5. I snagged it used from B&H thinking it would resolve my lack of wide angle ability. I had wanted it to be good for events, but at the wide end the distortion is just too much (don't get me wrong, it does make a nice image when there's enough light to use it throughout the focal range. But it is very hard to work with for events. It is a great lens for art though...

In making the decision to buy a super wide, I came very close to pulling the trigger on a 16-35mm, but I just didn't feel like it was wide enough on a crop sensor, great for FF, but not exactly what I was looking for. Do I regret the choice? No, I like my little 10-22 and if i can swing it financially, I would like to make my 7D be a second body, with a 5d mkiii being the one i use when quality is needed (weddings, art, portraits - 7D becomes what I bring to lower paid events). As i made the decision, I definitely took note, not only of the purchase value, but the used value as well. I made the final call to snag the 10-22mm knowing that at same point down the line it would probably be on ebay. 

With all that said -----if your on a 7d, or any of the xxD, xxxD series camera's, don't pinch on glass, use the time on the cheaper body to invest in good glass! The only time you'll really feel left out glass wise on a crop sensor is for the super wide angle work. And, if your lusting after FF, then you should also be lusting over the L glass. Why buy a FF camera, and put a lens on it that won't give you the full punch of the sensor? 

Stated another way - the good EF-S lenses actually aren't that far off in price from their EF brothers. I know it doesn't help if you've already bought them, but, if your looking and on the fence, why buy a 17-55 2.8 for over $1000 if you know that lens is limited to 1.6 crop bodies? And if you have already bought one, do some homework, see what the resale value is - not sure how well the higher end ef-s glass holds its value. Save up, swap, then go FF... It gets right back to knowing the system you are on though and planning upgrades for the long term...
http://chuckalaimo.com/


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 16, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Time to chime in on this one. I am a 7D user here just to get that out of the way...
> http://chuckalaimo.com/



LOL i had to laugh it made me think of AA... "Hi my name is.... and I'm a 7D user"

But I think you are right if you have a good WA like the 10-20 or the tokina then the 24-70 is better on a crop than on FF especially if you are shooting people with it effectively 38mm to 112mm, wide enough for group shots, long enough for tight portraits head shots and some candids. 
Although if the new 24-70 is as sharp as it promises i'll have to seriously consider it
but i'm trying very hard to resist buying the 24 f1.4L II at the moment


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 17, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > Time to chime in on this one. I am a 7D user here just to get that out of the way...
> ...



I've been seriously eyeing the 50mm 1.4... I think I want to wait to pull the trigger on that one until I go FF though. On a crop its effectively 80mm, and I really doubt I'll be shooting in large enough spaces between now and then to make it an effective purchase. But then again, that also depends on when they both announce the 5d mkiii and make it actually available - and, whether I can hold on to what I'm saving long enough! lol, if a good condition used 5dmkii comes along for $1700 it may be hard to resist!!!! 

That's lots of if's though, and slightly off topic - other than it demonstrates how to strategically plan purchases! Plan for the future - don't invest a ton in glass without a plan!

http://chuckalaimo.com/


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 17, 2012)

i love my 50 f1.4 I think i got a good copy, some people are not happy with theirs so i guess before paying for it test it out


----------



## decltype (Feb 17, 2012)

Radiating said:


> There's little to no practical reason to use an EF-S lens with a full frame body. Comprable full frame lenses will always get better resolution. In fact I made a list a while ago of every EF-S lens and the coresponding full frame lens at that price range and in every case the full frame lens was sharper than the EF-S lens in LPPM. Meaning using EF-S lenses would always be more expensive and result in lower quality. There would be some rare situations where it would be a good idea to be cross compatible though I'm sure though.



Did you perform the sharpness tests yourself, or did you use third-party data? Reading various internet reviews, I have yet to see a full-frame zoom that outresolves the 17-55 IS within the APS-C imaging circle. Of course, that is likely to change very soon 


From personal experience, my 17-55 was visibly sharper than 24-105, 17-40 and 24-70 at all tested focal lengths.


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 17, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > I could be wrong but I thought that only Nikon could do it because they hold the patent for it. So for sure Canon can technologically do it, but if it anything remotely close to the way Nikon does it, they wont be able to because of Nikon's patent. That was my understanding...maybe soomeone can confirm...
> ...



2.1 -> You need to move it up to take a picture, all you'd have then is a telescope - if you have the 55-250 or maybe the 18-200 on. 

2.2 -> You'd then have a glorified and overpriced point and shoot - you can't use your viewfinder, and you're stuck using liveview/slow contrast detection...


As its been said, the EF-S design is significantly different from a Nikon DX vs FX lens. The S stands for short back focus - means its closer to the sensor, which allows the smaller circle for the smaller camera, and also lower pricing. It keeps costs down, so thats brilliant. 


That all said and done: if you can afford full frame, you can afford L glass. just saying. Why you'd want to go full frame them have it crop in-camera with a relatively inferior piece of glass is beyond me....


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 17, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> As its been said, the EF-S design is significantly different from a Nikon DX vs FX lens. The S stands for short back focus - means its closer to the sensor, which allows the smaller circle for the smaller camera, and also lower pricing. It keeps costs down, so thats brilliant.



Looking at my EF-S lenses I notice, that while of them have the "EF-S protrusion" [ca. 4mm] at the mount that sticks into the mirror box. But I can only see that extra space really being used up by the rear element in the EF-S 10-22. On all my other EF-S lenses the space offered within the protrusion at the back is never actually used by the rear glass element. As far as I can see, all of these other EF-S lenses could easily fit in a lens with an EF-mount without any changes in the optical formula/layout of lens elements. 

So in essence, Canon is not actually using the "short back focus" in almost all of the current EF-S lenses. They might as well have done them in a regular EF-mount. Of course, the image circle would still be APS-C and not larger. But it would have allowed for the same "in-body crop concept" Nikon is using. Yes, that is also only a "workaround" but I find it way better to have DX lenses that are - within their limitations (small image circle) - perfectly usable also on FX camera bodies rather than being stuck with Canon EF-S lenses that are totally useless on Canon FF bodies ... 



D.Sim said:


> That all said and done: if you can afford full frame, you can afford L glass. just saying. Why you'd want to go full frame them have it crop in-camera with a relatively inferior piece of glass is beyond me....



exactly my opinion! 

However, the financial hurdle "to go FF" is aggravated for those "enthusiasts" coming from a Canon AP-S body + a setup of the - very good - EF-S lenses (e.g. 10-22, 17-55, 15-85, 60 Macro) and aspiring to "go FF". They need to either sell their APS-C gear or keep it and spend a significant amount of money for a 5D II or coming 5D III/X plus good L-wide-angle glass (16-35 II, 24-70 II) in order to really tap intpo the expanded photographic capabilities (shallow DOF, Hi ISO, ...) and somewhat higher IQ of FF over APS-C. For most non-Pros without income from photography that is quite a big step money-wise.


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 17, 2012)

Most people looking to make the step up would be seriously upgrading lenses, before the body though. So it'll be more of a gradual thing, rather than spur of the moment, and wont be as big a step up as people initially think. 

Especially for those who have always been planning for the upgrade from the start, and have been investing in good glass. Part of the reason I went for the 17-40 myself was because I intend to step up to a full frame, and the 17-55 would then pretty much become a paperweight. i *could* sell, true, but I'm a pack rat, and hate to part with anything of my own...


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Feb 17, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > JR said:
> ...



This is a security measure against the case in which the photographer does not lock the mirror up before mounting the EF-S lens.



D.Sim said:


> 2.2 -> You'd then have a glorified and overpriced point and shoot - you can't use your viewfinder, and you're stuck using liveview/slow contrast detection...



Yes, that's the best that can be done in this situation.



D.Sim said:


> That all said and done: if you can afford full frame, you can afford L glass. just saying. Why you'd want to go full frame them have it crop in-camera with a relatively inferior piece of glass is beyond me....



I bought a 5Dmk2, and only the zoom lenses I bought are L. The primes I bought (50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 15mm f/2.8) are not L, but more than satisfactory to me.


----------



## smirkypants (Feb 17, 2012)

I've read just about one too many 5D vs 7D, crop vs. FF threads. They aren't mutually exclusive. You don't have to be in one camp or another. Get both if you can. Liberate yourself from this Us vs. Them mentality.

Let's leave aside the predictable and stale arguments. The pro-FF crowd usually ticks off the same list of benefits and the pro-crop crowd enumerates theirs. Guess what, they are both right.

There is something great about owning both: each lens becomes two lenses. Since they use the same battery and can share most of the same lenses, it's a cost effective way to double your lens collection because you have two focal lengths, assuming you avoid ef-s lenses.

Your 50/1.4 can act as a full body shot lens on your 5D and a head/shoulder lens on your 7D.
Your 24/1.4 is a good wide angle on your 5D but more of a normal lens on your 7D.
Your 70-200 is a nice portrait/event camera on the 5D but is vaguely equivalent to the 70-300 on a 7D.

And an extra body in your camera bag really doesn't take up that much weight and space. It's about the same as a normal zoom lens with the added benefit of in a pinch having a backup camera.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 17, 2012)

decltype said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > There's little to no practical reason to use an EF-S lens with a full frame body. Comprable full frame lenses will always get better resolution. In fact I made a list a while ago of every EF-S lens and the coresponding full frame lens at that price range and in every case the full frame lens was sharper than the EF-S lens in LPPM. Meaning using EF-S lenses would always be more expensive and result in lower quality. There would be some rare situations where it would be a good idea to be cross compatible though I'm sure though.
> ...


Sounds to me like you have 2 options - keep your 17-55, keep your crop sensor camera, and upgrade when the time comes to a better crop sensor camera. It sounds like you know what your doing, IE: buying lenses that only work on a 1.6 crop with the knowledge that they only work on a 1.6 crop body as opposes to buying EF mount lenses that can work on either a crop body or an FF body. 

Your second option is to move nikon, so then you can invest in whatever glass you want and not worry.

I for one do not feel limited my EF glass, theres plenty to choose from. It's all about picking a path and planning your upgrades man. If your dead set on EF-S glass, then use it, except it's limitations, find your niche with it, and run with it. 

Just out of curiosity - how did you test the 17-55, 24-105, 17-40 and 24-70? Did you rent all of them? Did you rent a FF camera too to see what the EF lenses could do on a FF body?


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 17, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> D.Sim said:
> 
> 
> > However, the financial hurdle "to go FF" is aggravated for those "enthusiasts" coming from a Canon AP-S body + a setup of the - very good - EF-S lenses (e.g. 10-22, 17-55, 15-85, 60 Macro) and aspiring to "go FF". They need to either sell their APS-C gear or keep it and spend a significant amount of money for a 5D II or coming 5D III/X plus good L-wide-angle glass (16-35 II, 24-70 II) in order to really tap intpo the expanded photographic capabilities (shallow DOF, Hi ISO, ...) and somewhat higher IQ of FF over APS-C. For most non-Pros without income from photography that is quite a big step money-wise.
> ...


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 18, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> ... That's a lot of money to spend on glass. I don't know about you guys, but, if i am going to spend over $200 on anything I am going to do my due diligence and research it. If an enthusiast has that kind of money to throw around and doesn't read the specs enough to realize that these lenses cannot be used on a FF camera, well then i have zero sympathy - do some research before you shell out lots of money.



Don't worry, I have done all the research myself.  

I was and am fully aware that EF-S lenses are not FF-capable. All of the EF-S lenses in my current setup (10-22, 17-55, 60 Macro) offer great IQ with less weight and bulk and typically also significantly less cost than focal-range equivalent EF lenses. 

Like gazillions of amateur/enthusiast (=no significant income from photography) Canon users, my current setup of body (7D) and lenses has evolved over time. Starting out with a "lowly" 350D/Rebel XT plus the infamous first generation EF-S 18-55 kit lens through quite a number of purchases and sales, new and used - to where the setup is now (in addition to the EF-S lenses mentioned I currently have the EF 50/1.4, 100/2.0, 70-200/2.8 II). Overall I am quite happy with these lenses, they cover almost all of my shooting interests and situations. 

I have no immediate plans to purchase an FF camera body. I just point out, that existing Canon EF-S lens owners face a major financial obstacle if they want to upgrade to a Canon FF body, because Canon decided to bring out APS-C lenses with an incompatible lens mount, wheras Nikon offers a far more sensible solution with their DX-lenses that can be readily used on any of their FF bodies ... of course the limitations of the smaller image circle will fully apply. So from both the customer and system perspectives Nikons approach is a way better solution than Canon's. In other words: Canon is making it more difficult that Nikon for their APS-C user base to "upgrade" to FF. 



Chuck Alaimo said:


> If you bought all these lenses, I have one big big q - why in the world would you buy a 15-85 if you have a 17-55 and a 10-22?????? If you needed the range, why not get the 85mm 1.8 for $390? The 85 is an EF mount, on a crop its effective range is 136mm. It's much faster than the 15-85mm (3.5-5.6 compared to 1.8) and its half the cost!



I do not own the 15-85, I just mentioned it as one more example of a very good and highly useful EF-S lens owned by a good number of Canon APS-C users. And sorry, but an 85/1.8 is in no way or form a possible substitute for a wide-range universal zoom like the 15-85. 



Chuck Alaimo said:


> And the macro, for not very much more $$$ ($555) there is a 100mm 2.8 macro that is EF mount, and, there is a 50 mm 2.5 for less $$$ than the 60 mm ($275).


While it is a quite sharpt and cheap lens, I have no interest whatsoever in the odd-ball "1:2 semi-Macro only" old design EF 50/2.5. The 60 Macro with its great optical performance - great, low CAs - plus fast USM and native 1:1 macro runs circles around that old clunker. I really love the 60 because it is optically great, short, light and compact! It is my favorite "light and sharp fixed focal" general walk-around and outdoor-portrait lenses (despite the 50/1.4) as well as my dedicated "small objects"-lens (no living creatures however), since all my other lenses happen to have very weak magnification ratios. Overall I consider the EF-S 60 a truly outstanding value. 

Nevertheless I may trade in the 60 Macro plus the 100/2.0 against a 100 Macro IS some day. I'm still sitting on the fence over this one - trading in a stop (2.0 vs. 2.8) on the 100 vs. IS and hopefully less hard to remove ugly LoCAs on the 100 IS. Unfortunately it is a much bigger lens than the 60. 



Chuck Alaimo said:


> Bottom line here is, knowing that the EF-S line is not compatible with FF cameras, why would you buy these lenses if you did in fact want to move to FF? Don't expect canon to re-engineer their whole system because you either didn't do the research, or, cause you were fine with crop, invested in crop, then one day decided you wanted FF.



Like with almost everybody else, my current lens park has been assembled over numbr of years (since 2005). I did not want to move to FF. I will not move to FF any time soon. 

All I am syaing is: Canon is making it financially rather hard for most of its APS-C user base to "upgrade" to FF. Plus I do not consider the possible small gains in photographic capabilities and IQ significant enough to justify the expense. Neither for myself nor for the vast majority of fellow non-income from photography earners with a good Canon APS-C setup of body and lenses. Unless one has specific photographic interests that bbenefit from FF in a big way. Or if money is little or no object. In that case I would like a 5D III please, and a EF 14L II, a TS-17/4 and an EF 24-70L II to go with it. In additon to my 7D and EF-S lenses, not instead!


----------



## danski0224 (Feb 18, 2012)

I also do not understand why Canon decided to make it physically impossible to mount EF-S lenses onto an EF body.

It doesn't "help" the consumer.

It may keep consumers from "moving up" to full frame.

It *does* create more sales, though.


----------



## danski0224 (Feb 18, 2012)

dilbert said:


> I think that it is actually bad marketting to allow crop lenses to be used on full frame.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Well, for starters, it means that your X-MP camera is no longer an X-MP camera but a camera with about 1/3 of the number of MP. There's enormous potential for confusion there, both in the shooter and the market of people receiving such images.



I will admit to not knowing the technical end of why or why not, but if all that happens is essentially less than 100% coverage of the FF sensor when using EF-S lenses, what's the big deal?

This could be cropped out later, right?

While it may not be an ideal application, it makes no sense to me why EF-S on EF isn't allowed.

Does the short back focus really save that much money in the lens and camera manufacturing process?


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 18, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Well, for starters, it means that your X-MP camera is no longer an X-MP camera but a camera with about 1/3 of the number of MP. There's enormous potential for confusion there, both in the shooter and the market of people receiving such images.



I do not care about confused know-nothing idiots at all. As a matter of fact, I would happily accept any sort of confusion amongst those, as long as it gives me and all other ***photographers*** who deserve this designation the possibility to use APS-C lenses also on FF cameras.

It is as simple as this: Nikon is doing it 100% right by giving their customers total freedom to use any DX lens on any FF/FX body. With the D800 and the 36 MP sensor, this has just gotten even more valuable. I for one would be more than happy to get a 15 MP image from any of my APS-C lenses on any FF sensor ... at roughly the same pixel pitch as a 7D/D7000 - but technically a full generation newer and more advanced. 

Canon has taken a wrong, "dead-end" route with the EF_S mount. 

This is all the more irksome, because Canon is not even utilizing the potential advantage of EF-S (rear element closer to sensor) in most of the EF-S lenses: to my knowledge only the rear glass element in the 10-22 uses the extra space provided by the protrusion at the mount end. All other EF-S lenses could have just as well been fitted with an EF mount.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 18, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Well, for starters, it means that your X-MP camera is no longer an X-MP camera but a camera with about 1/3 of the number of MP. There's enormous potential for confusion there, both in the shooter and the market of people receiving such images.
> ...



Honestl, after reading and participating in this thread and another thread which brings up the same thing I think the best answer canon can give right now is to simply phase out the EF-S series!


----------



## danski0224 (Feb 18, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> This is all the more irksome, because Canon is not even utilizing the potential advantage of EF-S (rear element closer to sensor) in most of the EF-S lenses: to my knowledge only the rear glass element in the 10-22 uses the extra space provided by the protrusion at the mount end. All other EF-S lenses could have just as well been fitted with an EF mount.



Has anyone chucked an EF-S lens into a lathe and cut off the protrusion?


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 18, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> Like with almost everybody else, my current lens park has been assembled over numbr of years (since 2005). I did not want to move to FF. I will not move to FF any time soon.
> 
> All I am syaing is: Canon is making it financially rather hard for most of its APS-C user base to "upgrade" to FF. Plus I do not consider the possible small gains in photographic capabilities and IQ significant enough to justify the expense. Neither for myself nor for the vast majority of fellow non-income from photography earners with a good Canon APS-C setup of body and lenses. Unless one has specific photographic interests that bbenefit from FF in a big way. Or if money is little or no object. In that case I would like a 5D III please, and a EF 14L II, a TS-17/4 and an EF 24-70L II to go with it. In additon to my 7D and EF-S lenses, not instead!



LOL! So let me get this right, you want canon to re-engineer bodies and lenses so that EF-S can be used on FF - but you don't even want to go FF??????? Wow, if i were part of canon's research team, you would have just proved why doing such a thing wouldn't be worth it, you want them to do it but you wouldn't buy it if they did!

And to the last paragraph - no one is forcing anyone to buy anything here. Canon did not write you a letter saying you must buy EF-S lenses. The EF mount selection is greater than the EF-S selection. You made the choice to buy EF-S lenses, and you knew what that meant - therefore you can't say Canon made it hard for you to upgrade to FF - you made it more difficult. the price difference between the 17-55 and the 24-70 is minimal (the mki version). And most reviews favor the IQ on the 24-70 over the 17-55 (not to mention that the 24-70 has a much more durable build, weather sealing, etc etc). The only real viable argument for going 17-55 over the 24-70 is if your lacking and need wide angle performance. i would question adding the word 'need' here, only because pros have needs, while enthusiasts have wants. That's not meant to bash enthusiasts, that's just being real - not all pros have gob loads of money and do have to carefully plan their purchases so they make sense - IE - buying whats needed to get the job done - pros have wants too! I want the 8-15mm variable fisheye, and a TS lens. But, the ROI on buying those just isn't there at the moment. An enthusiast doesn't have to worry about ROI. 

Either way, back to the point - you made the choice to go EF-S, and you had your reasons for doing so, and you knew the limitation of the lens. That's not Canon's fault.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Feb 18, 2012)

What percentage of photographers who start with an APS-C camera, uprades to FF, and doesn't keep the APS-C body as backup?


----------



## AdamJ (Feb 18, 2012)

Given that EF-S lenses were always designed specifically not to fit FF bodies, this thread is seven years out of date - the same issues were probably debated on forums like this when the original 5D was launched in 2005.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 18, 2012)

Of course I take the liberty to compare what Canon is offering and what competitors are offering. Canon is offering an objectively inferior solution to Nikon as far as usefulness of APS-C lenses is concerned. Nikon is giving its DX-lens customers more versatility for their money than Canon with the EF-S lenses. Thats all I am stating.

And yes, as I was writing all along: I have no immediate need nor desire "to go FF". I am very happy with APS-C. I got great wide-angle lenses and I got great tele lenses with reach I could not get at amateur-reasonable cost with FF. 

And should I ever decide to move to FF, I can freely consider other brands as well, since staying with my current supplier (Canon) would not afford major cost benefits, since the EF-S lenses won't be of any use then. Thats the point were Canons profit maximizing EF-S scheme backfires on them.


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 20, 2012)

danski0224 said:


> I also do not understand why Canon decided to make it physically impossible to mount EF-S lenses onto an EF body.
> 
> It doesn't "help" the consumer.
> 
> ...



Long story short, its impossible because the rear of the lens is closer to the sensor. On an FF body the larger sensor would mean a larger mirror - which would then make contact with the closer lens. A bad thing.

Why is it closer to the sensor? To keep prices down. Long story short - with the back of the lens closer to the sensor, it means that it becomes easier to get wide angle/super wide angle - with less glass, a smaller size, and a larger aperture than otherwise possible. 

In other words, it does help the consumer - in fact, it helps the larger consumer group - the APS-C users. 

Would it keep them from moving up to FF - if they were planning on moving up in the first place? Nope - EF-S shows its quality most at super wide angles. IE: APS-C users will have one, maybe two at lenses at the most to (really) replace. 10-22/17-55 - two lenses with a big enough market for resale, so not really a problem. Maybe a third, 55-250, if you really think about it, but again, easy resale.


----------



## D_Rochat (Feb 20, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> Would it keep them from moving up to FF - if they were planning on moving up in the first place? Nope



I always intended on moving up to FF, so I stayed away from EF-S lenses. That being said, I believe some people go ahead and buy EF-S lenses before understanding that they don't work on FF cameras. I could see how that might frustrate some people and depending on how may EF-S lenses they have, it may persuade them to stay with APS-C rather than move up to FF.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Feb 20, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> Why is it closer to the sensor? To keep prices down. Long story short - with the back of the lens closer to the sensor, it means that it becomes easier to get wide angle/super wide angle - with less glass, a smaller size, and a larger aperture than otherwise possible.
> 
> In other words, it does help the consumer - in fact, it helps the larger consumer group - the APS-C users.
> 
> Would it keep them from moving up to FF - if they were planning on moving up in the first place? Nope - EF-S shows its quality most at super wide angles. IE: APS-C users will have one, maybe two at lenses at the most to (really) replace. 10-22/17-55 - two lenses with a big enough market for resale, so not really a problem. Maybe a third, 55-250, if you really think about it, but again, easy resale.



Based on reviews, it seems the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 is as good as optically the Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, though it's back is not closer to the sensor.


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 20, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> D.Sim said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it closer to the sensor? To keep prices down. Long story short - with the back of the lens closer to the sensor, it means that it becomes easier to get wide angle/super wide angle - with less glass, a smaller size, and a larger aperture than otherwise possible.
> ...



And if Canon made it, it would cost a bomb.

having it closer to the sensor doesn't make it a sharper performer - it makes it easier to design, and cheaper to produce.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Feb 20, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > D.Sim said:
> ...



Based on B&H prices at the moment, the EF-S 10-22mm is $100 more expensive than the Sigma 8-16mm

As for ease of design, that's not something customers care about.


----------



## The Bad Duck (Feb 20, 2012)

It is the second time Canon does this. The first move was to not make FD-lenses fit their EOS mount. However if I understand it right that move made their EF autofucos better then the competition. 

I would REALLY like to be able to use my old FD lenses on my 5D mkII!! I have a nice set of primes and now I am buying them again in EF-mount. Expensive (but now I only lack the 200 /2.8 and then I am complete once again...). 

I knew I wanted to go FF from the start but it took me 4 years to get there. So I stayed away from EF-s lenses except from 10-22 (I got that in the UK and sold it back in Sweden when I got my 5DII and lost nothing). It was not hard. 

That said, building your system takes some planning. That is the reason we are here, is it not? To get information of what might happen and use that information to plan for future investments? 

Nikon and pentax makes it right in a way - you can use all your lenses on all your cameras. But the cheap Nikon bodies have no AF with the cheap lenses (no AF-motor in the body). That is kind of bad - you buy a cheap house and then you must buy an expensive lens instead? How is that user-friendly? And manual focus with an aps-c body is hard/unrelyable. At least the canon lenses that does not work as a beginner would expect on a body does not fit. You always have AF on your AF camera if you mount a fiting canon lens.

Perhaps Canon did not forsee the huge resolutions we currently see in FF cameras when they designed the EF-s mount? I mean, it is first at high MP-counts that you would want to use a EF-s lens on a FF body. Take the 5D with 13 MP, you would not get a very high res shot if you mounted a EF-s lens on that.

In the end what makes the photogear so interesting is the fact that it always boils down to compromise. I love that since that makes it an optimization.


----------



## danski0224 (Feb 20, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> Long story short, its impossible because the rear of the lens is closer to the sensor. On an FF body the larger sensor would mean a larger mirror - which would then make contact with the closer lens. A bad thing.
> 
> Why is it closer to the sensor? To keep prices down. Long story short - with the back of the lens closer to the sensor, it means that it becomes easier to get wide angle/super wide angle - with less glass, a smaller size, and a larger aperture than otherwise possible.
> 
> ...



I believe it has been pointed out that none/very few of the EF-S lenses actually make full use of the protrusion and have glass there.

The only APS-C specific lens I own is a Tokina 11-16, and it fits on a 5DII. Nothing sticks out of the back of the lens.

I avoided purchasing any EF-S lenses because of the full frame incompatibility problem (at least with OEM lenses). I returned an EF-S 17-55 for the EF 16-35 II, and I realize that the two lenses are not the same.

And if there really is a difference in focus distance, why/how does an EF lens work on an EF-S lens body?


----------



## Meh (Feb 20, 2012)

danski0224 said:


> D.Sim said:
> 
> 
> > Long story short, its impossible because the rear of the lens is closer to the sensor. On an FF body the larger sensor would mean a larger mirror - which would then make contact with the closer lens. A bad thing.
> ...



You have several posts in this thread saying you don't understand and that it makes no sense to you. Allow me to take a shot at explaining some of the technical details.

Not sure what you mean by "focus distance" in this context as that normally refers to the distance the subject is from the camera. The flange focal distance is the same between EF and EF-S mounts (44.0 mm) precisely because EF-S is a derivative of EF mounts... i.e. EF will work on APS-C body so the flange distance must be the same. 

A lens can be designed to focus and create a certain image circle at almost any distance between the rear element and the sensor and there are optical advantages and disadvantages to that choice of distance. Now, the flange distance and the rear element distance are not the same thing. The flange distance is simply the distance between the physical mount and the sensor but the rear element does not have to be placed precisely flush with the mount... it can be further or closer.

After digital cameras came about Canon, knowing that the sensor was smaller than FF and thus had a smaller mirror and more clearance, decided to create the EF-S mount to allow designers to make use of the optical advantages of having the rear element closer to the sensor and of having a smaller image circle. The smaller image circle is the main reason why EF-S can be smaller and lighter (and cheaper as well). The ability to be closer to the sensor can contribute to smaller lenses as well but the main benefit of being closer is in wide angle designs.

There is nothing stopping a lens designer from from making an EF-S lens that does not make use of the option to be closer to the sensor but the image circle is still smaller thus it is still an EF-S lens and must conform to the EF-S mount which is different so that an EF-S lens that does have a protruding rear element can not be mistakenly mounted on a FF body and result in a damaged mirror.


----------



## danski0224 (Feb 20, 2012)

Ok, so going on what at least one other poster has stated- there are no actual lens parts sticking out of at least some of the EF-S lenses, then why have the protrusion?

I have read that there is a piece of plastic (or similar) that can be removed from a Canon EF-S lens that will then allow it to be installed on an EF body.

As I am understanding it, the one big thing contributing to the "cost savings" of EF-S lenses is the smaller image circle.

So, if Canon wanted to, they could essentially put an EF mount on the EF-S lenses where mirror interference is not a problem.

I'm probably not the only person that "does not understand" this.


----------



## Meh (Feb 20, 2012)

danski0224 said:


> So, if Canon wanted to, they could essentially put an EF mount on the EF-S lenses where mirror interference is not a problem.
> 
> I'm probably not the only person that "does not understand" this.



Yes, of course, Canon can design any lens they want to. An EF-S lens is an EF-S lens because of the mount which defines the specifications it must conform to including minimum clearance between the rear element and the sensor... if it had an EF mount it would conform to EF mount specifications and therefore it would be an EF lens and they do make those. Lot's of them. Many more than EF-S.

And, if you were sure that a particular EF-S lens did not have a rear element that would interfere with a FF mirror you could physically alter the mount so that it would fit on a FF body. But why would you want to? Just buy EF lenses. If you have crop and FF bodies the only extra lens you need to buy is a 10-22mm to shoot ultra-wide on your crop body if you so desired.

Canon has a mount specification that takes advantages of crop body designs that are incompatible with FF. They don't have to.. they could only market one mount and all lenses would be compatible with all bodies. But they, and customers, would be foregoing the advantages... smaller, lighter, cheaper... that can be achieved for customers who only have a crop body.

Where does this fixation come from with being able to use an EF-S lens on a FF body? Is this just a classic case of people being annoyed with having a restriction imposed on them and are compelled to rebel against it and find ways to circumvent it?


----------



## mkln (Feb 20, 2012)

it's funny to read a lot of people having an elitist view of L glass and FF bodies.

"if you can afford FF, buy L"
"EF-S is no good for FF"
"no reason to use EF-S on FF"

I actually think it would make perfect sense to "ease" into the transition from APS-C to FF. 
Many people might not switch exactly because as someone stated, they are expected to sell all their EF-S lenses.
and by the way, EF-S lenses are still optimal for APS-C:
- wanna use 24-70 or 24-105 ? yeah right, a "normal zoom" starting from 35mm. the 17-55 has IS, 2.8, starts from 17, is great. why not use that?
- how about wide angle? oops, need to buy EF-S or other brand.

so yeah there's plenty of reasons for canon to give some sort of compatibility for FF and EF-S lenses.
and who said we need the mirror to actually move? just force liveview and keep the mirror up until the lens has been taken off. not that hard really.
I believe this would be greatly appreciated by those who shoot video (do they need a mirror?) but also to those who just bought a FF body and are going through the process of buying new gear.

when I switched to FF I had to sell all my APSC stuff just to buy a 5d2, but that doesnt mean that somebody shouldnt be able to use, say, a 10-22 in live view crop mode 8mpix in a 5d2, while saving for a 17-40.

this is just another feature that canon doesn't include and that others (*cough* nikon *cough*) have. and no it's not because it's not possible at all, because it is, even if not perfect.
canon needs to lose this attitude.


----------



## mkln (Feb 20, 2012)

Meh said:


> Where does this fixation come from with being able to use an EF-S lens on a FF body? Is this just a classic case of people being annoyed with having a restriction imposed on them and are compelled to rebel against it and find ways to circumvent it?


hmm in part.. yes! when you consider that
- you need no physical change in cameras
- you only need a firmware update to force live view
- competition offers this feature

so yeah maybe I wouldn't use APSC lenses on my 5d2, but maybe somebody would.
and no it's not the same as with the FD mount.


----------



## Meh (Feb 20, 2012)

mkln said:


> and who said we need the mirror to actually move? just force liveview and keep the mirror up until the lens has been taken off. not that hard really.



Possibly, but then you've just disabled the phase detect AF which is a significant feature of a DSLR.

And, the camera would have to be turned on when attaching and removing the lens for the mirror lockup to be enabled. This is possible of course, but requires the user to remember to keep it on which is not assured and therefore Canon would get a lot of calls from angry customers insisting Canon fix their broken mirror because obviously it's Canon's fault for making it work that way.


----------



## danski0224 (Feb 20, 2012)

mkln said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > Where does this fixation come from with being able to use an EF-S lens on a FF body? Is this just a classic case of people being annoyed with having a restriction imposed on them and are compelled to rebel against it and find ways to circumvent it?
> ...



This pretty much sums it up for me.

Thanks.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 20, 2012)

mkln said:


> it's funny to read a lot of people having an elitist view of L glass and FF bodies.
> 
> "if you can afford FF, buy L"
> "EF-S is no good for FF"
> ...



You know, if the EF-S line was more robust (more lenses in all focal lengths + primes, with UD elements and weather sealing, constant aperture...) I could see your point. But, even at the ultra wide end, all you have specifically for EF-S is the 10-22. I own it, it's a decent lens. If the light is just right, results are very good, comparable to L series lenses (which i own 2 of). But, take it out of that just right light and you see its flaws - 3.5-4.5 means that in low light, your pretty restricted. unless you want a ton of distortion (fully wide at 10mm, your talking higher ISO/slower shutter speeds). To me, its the no brainer super wide for a crop sensor camera, but, if on FF, its not a lens I'd want to use because the flaws would be exaggerated even more. 10-22 on crop is essentially 16-35 FF, the IQ, built quality, and constant aperture in the L series super wide is far superior. That's not elitism, the 16-35 is just a more versatile lens (especially so FF bodies). 

Back to the point, do a search on B&H, lenses, you can use the APS-C/FF sensor filter - you see that there are 28 EF-s lenses and 108 EF ones. And if you click on EF-s, you find that with the exception of a few, most are in the $100-400 range, and really geared to rebel users/xxD users. And I can truly see why canon would not want those lenses on pro level bodies ------

why? every shooter is essentially a piece of the canon marketing team. When you shoot, and post the photos, others see the results. IF you were able to mount your $125 EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 on a 5d, the resulting image would give observers no reason to shell out $2+ on a 5d (sensor is only as good as the glass)....

Either way the EF-S filter on B&H isn't even accurate. If you click and scroll down, a few EF lenses are there - 3 in fact, so that brings the total down to 25 available. I would be on board with this idea of cross comparability, if there were 50+ EF-S lenses, but there isn't. I could also see it if there were EF-S lenses that were good enough that FF users WANTED. But as far as i can tell, there aren't many (the only clamor I hear is from APS-C users.)


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 20, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Either way, back to the point - you made the choice to go EF-S, and you had your reasons for doing so, and you knew the limitation of the lens. That's not Canon's fault.



Of course it is Canon's fault, that all EF-S lenses are incompatible with all of their FF cameras. Canon decided this and they messed up here. Nikon has done this one - but not everything else!  - perfectly right, going with just one lens mount for all of their lenses (except the 1, which is one of their mss-ups) AND implementing additional measures in their FF/FX bodies to make the use of DX lenses on FX bodies as easy as possible for its users: automatic detection and viewfinder masking to the smaller image circle as soon as a DX/crop lens is mounted. This is way better and way more custormer-friendly than Canon's approach. This remains a fact, irrespective of whether you or I are directly affected by that Canon mess-up. 

Furthermore, I the claimed theoretical advantages of the EF-S mount do NOT materialize at all in practice: EF-S lenses are not smaller, not lighter, not cheaper, nor optically better "by design" than crop lenses from other manufacturers. In practice, the freaking EF-S protusion is just a nusiance on almost all of the EF-S lenses rather than a superior lens design. And IF EF-S lenses are cheaper to manufacture for Canon, then they certainly do not pass any of these savings along to us by way of lower prices than competing manufacturers.

Anyway, this game will get even more fun very soon, if/when Canon introduces their mirrorless ILC with yet another lens mount ... EF, EF-S, EF-X or whatever it may be called. ;D


----------



## Meh (Feb 20, 2012)

mkln said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > Where does this fixation come from with being able to use an EF-S lens on a FF body? Is this just a classic case of people being annoyed with having a restriction imposed on them and are compelled to rebel against it and find ways to circumvent it?
> ...



Nikon offers this because they chose not to make use of the advantages of designing a lens in which the rear element is closer to the sensor. It was a choice. Canon made a different choice. Canon chose to offer customers certain lenses that take advantage of a rear element that is closer to the sensor. In other words, Canon offers customers a choice... you can take advantage of lenses designed only for an APS-C sensor or you can buy EF lenses not all of which are L lenses.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 20, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > Either way, back to the point - you made the choice to go EF-S, and you had your reasons for doing so, and you knew the limitation of the lens. That's not Canon's fault.
> ...



Sorry, I stand by my statement here. EF-S lenses - count em, 25 available. EF, 108. EF has more choices, and, its not like fine print, it's stated pretty openly that EF-S is not compatible with FF. Canon isn't forcing anything on you really. Anything you buy is your choice. It's not like Canon sends a goon to your house and threatens your family if you don't buy EF-S lenses. It was your choice to buy them. 

And now it's your choice to either live with your purchasing decisions, make a new plan and sell some lenses to buy EF mount lenses, or, complain endlessly about it here on this forum...


----------



## TexPhoto (Feb 20, 2012)

The really weird thing is that Sigma's and other 3rd party Lens maker's "crop" lenses work fine on Canon FF.

Now Canon did have the 10-22 way before there were Superwide Nikon's or Sigma or anything equivalent...

Honestly i wonder if way back in the day when crop DSLRs were the *1st and ONLY* DSLRs available, did Canon think there were never going to be FF DSLRs?


----------



## mkln (Feb 20, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> mkln said:
> 
> 
> > it's funny to read a lot of people having an elitist view of L glass and FF bodies.
> ...



I agree with all that you say. I had a 450D with 10-22 and switched to a 5d2 and had to sell my 10-22, of course.
but I had to sell it to buy the 5d2.
I know that it wouldn't have been a perfect match for the 5d2 had I used it cropped, but

- selling a lens has a cost (just like changing system has): maybe I could have waited for a better deal for the 10-22 if I knew I could use it cropped on my 5d2. on the other hand I had a great deal for a 5d2 and I could not have waited for it.

- having a FF body does not necessarily imply that you use L glass on it. Sure, L glass is L glass and everybody loves it. But for the first 1-2 months I just used my only EF lens leftover from my 450D: the canon 50 1.8. It still took better pics on my 5d2 and was a great experience ("normal" lens on FF). I had the body before I had the lenses, everybody here would throw rocks at me, but I would do it again, anytime. 
of course keeping 10-22 for some time and not buying a new 17-40/16-35 would have been cheaper than selling 10-22 and substituting it at once (which some of the people here seem to think is necessary once you switch to FF)

- it's only a matter of SOFTWARE. when you attach a lens the mirror is either DOWN or UP. it's easy: if you attach an EF-S lens and the mirror is DOWN (viewfinder works) then display a message "CANNOT TAKE PICS: mirror is DOWN". Then make the user remove the EF-S lens, turn the camera on -> mirror goes UP --> attach EF-S lens --> automatically switch on liveview and prevent user from turning it off / block mirror UP.

well now that I think about it, the remove-then reattach process may be too hard for some users  but nothing prevents canon from adding EF-S mount compatibility and mirror check at startup of the camera.
the thing is, they don't need to market EF-S as compatible with FF. they just can say "if you are able to make it work, you can make it work".

and of course nikon made a different choice and they have 100% compatibility between FX and DX.
canon at this time has 0% compatibility
I'm saying there could be 50% compatibility. and I'd love to have compatibility if I was a VIDEO shooter. but I dont know much about video needs. does video need L glass? 17-55 2.8 IS looks good to me on 5d2. of course, it would behave like in a 60d, but then in the 5d2 you can have other glass for shallower dof.


----------



## Meh (Feb 20, 2012)

TexPhoto said:


> The really weird thing is that Sigma's and other 3rd party Lens maker's "crop" lenses work fine on Canon FF.



Why is it "weird"? The EF-S specification includes a minimum distance between the rear element and the sensor so that the APS-C sized mirror has sufficient clearance. An EF-S lens can not be designed to have less than that minimum clearance (because then the APS-C mirror would hit it) but it can be designed to have more clearance. A lens designed with an APS-C sized circle does not have to have protruding rear element... it can... but does not have to.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 20, 2012)

TexPhoto said:


> The really weird thing is that Sigma's and other 3rd party Lens maker's "crop" lenses work fine on Canon FF.
> 
> Now Canon did have the 10-22 way before there were Superwide Nikon's or Sigma or anything equivalent...
> 
> Honestly i wonder if way back in the day when crop DSLRs were the *1st and ONLY* DSLRs available, did Canon think there were never going to be FF DSLRs?



FF EOS film SLR's came long before crop DSLR's, and when DSLR's came along, they used FF lenses from the film Era. The first DSLR's were APS-H. Their were no special "digital" FF lenses that were not interchangable on film bodies, anf still aren't!

However, it was very difficult and expensive to build high quality FF lenses at 10mm. It is possible, however to design lenses that sit closer to the film plane and have a smaller image circle for a lower cost. Some of the lens elements might hit a FF mirror, however. 

Thats why the EF-S lenses were designed to be incompatible with FF, in 2002, there were still lots of FF film cameras in use and Canon did not want people damaging their camera.

Early Canon Crop cameras, D30, D60, 10D only had FF lenses to use, and this caused a lot of complaints from users wanting very wide angle lenses.

Lens technology has evolved, and it is now practical to make wide angle lenses that work with crop bodies, but it would be very confusing to create a third Canon EF lens type.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 20, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> And now it's your choice to either live with your purchasing decisions, make a new plan and sell some lenses to buy EF mount lenses, or, complain endlessly about it here on this forum...



Don't worry, I stand by my decisions. I get excellent pictures with my APS-C gear and EF-S lenses. To me FF overall only hold marginal advantages that are way smaller than what Canon (or others) charge for FF gear. 

So ... I don't "complain". I just state the facts ... and I do so as long as I please. 

Fact is, Canon makes it way harder for their (non-pro) APS-C users to migrate to FF or adding an FF body in addition to their APS-C setup than Nikon. In practice there are hardly any advantages that Canon users derive from the incompatible EF-S mount. Canon EF-S lenses are generally not better nor cheaper nor lighter than comparable Crop lenses from other manufacturers. Short back focus and claimed theoretical advantages are nothing but marketing bogus for almost all of the EF-S lenses. All of the current EF-S lenses could have just as well been fitted with an EF mount - with little or no change to the optical layout and without any compromise to optical performance, size, weight or cost (to us customers). As proven by all other lens manufacturers.


----------



## danski0224 (Feb 20, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> Fact is, Canon makes it way harder for their (non-pro) APS-C users to migrate to FF or adding an FF body in addition to their APS-C setup than Nikon. In practice there are hardly any advantages that Canon users derive from the incompatible EF-S mount. Canon EF-S lenses are generally not better nor cheaper nor lighter than comparable Crop lenses from other manufacturers. Short back focus and claimed theoretical advantages are nothing but marketing bogus for almost all of the EF-S lenses. All of the current EF-S lenses could have just as well been fitted with an EF mount - with little or no change to the optical layout and without any compromise to optical performance, size, weight or cost (to us customers). As proven by all other lens manufacturers.



+1. 

Quoting this should be good for another "smite"


----------



## traveller (Feb 20, 2012)

Sorry, I fail to follow the logic behind the complaints that EF-S lenses aren't compatible with full frame cameras. Why on Earth would you invest a considerable amount of money in a full frame camera, just to use APS-C lenses on it at reduced resolution. It just doesn't make sense and I'm not convinced that many Nikon owners make use of this facility. I think that Nikon does it simply for psychological reasons to sell APS-C lenses: "don't worry about buying them, you can still use them in crop mode if you go full frame". The whole point of upgrading to a full frame camera is to make full use of the wide range of professional glass available. If there's no money in your budget for full frame lenses, then in my view, there's no money in your budget for a full frame camera. Criticize Canon for not producing enough EF-S lenses (especially wide angle primes) if you like, but not for EF-S' incompatiblity with full frame!


----------



## Meh (Feb 20, 2012)

danski0224 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Fact is, Canon makes it way harder for their (non-pro) APS-C users to migrate to FF or adding an FF body in addition to their APS-C setup than Nikon. In practice there are hardly any advantages that Canon users derive from the incompatible EF-S mount. Canon EF-S lenses are generally not better nor cheaper nor lighter than comparable Crop lenses from other manufacturers. Short back focus and claimed theoretical advantages are nothing but marketing bogus for almost all of the EF-S lenses. All of the current EF-S lenses could have just as well been fitted with an EF mount - with little or no change to the optical layout and without any compromise to optical performance, size, weight or cost (to us customers). As proven by all other lens manufacturers.
> ...



Probably  (but not from me)

So, you like the comment because it agrees with your similar complaints? And despite all the responses that attempt to explain the technical issues and Mt. Spokane explaining the history (i.e. the short-back focus having substantial value when it was first introduced) you guys just keep reiterating the same complaints over and over like some kind of broken record, it doesn't make sense to you, Canon made a big mistake, Nikon doesn't do it, why is Canon trying to screw me over, etc. etc. etc.


----------



## danski0224 (Feb 20, 2012)

Meh said:


> Probably  (but not from me)
> 
> So, you like the comment because it agrees with your similar complaints? And despite all the responses that attempt to explain the technical issues and Mt. Spokane explaining the history (i.e. the short-back focus having substantial value when it was first introduced) you guys just keep reiterating the same complaints over and over like some kind of broken record, it doesn't make sense to you, Canon made a big mistake, Nikon doesn't do it, why is Canon trying to screw me over, etc. etc. etc.



If the lenses use the space taken by the protrusion... then fine. But apparently, they don't (or at least some of them based on prior postings).

So, Canon *could have* (just maybe) retained the EF mount and made some "cheaper" lenses with a smaller image circle. That seems to be what Nikon has done.

Canon could choose to enable some sort of automatic cropping feature that shuts off part of a FF sensor with a crop lens... or not, and let the user mess with it in post.

Doesn't have anything to do with "Canon screwing me over".

But, it could provide a path for APS-C and EF-S users to move into a FF body using the EF-S-type stuff they have, at least temporarily. I would imagine that many would eventually spring for a proper EF lens, because it seems pointless to have a FF body and only use EF-S style lenses on it.

I have read the prior posts. 

If it just boils down to a smaller image circle, I don't see the harm in allowing EF-S lenses on an EF body (without the protrusion, of course).

If I didn't like the result, then I could go and buy some new EF lenses.

Seems simple enough.

I avoided buying EF-S lenses because of the incompatibility. I only have the 60mm EF-S, and the rear lens does move into the protrusion space.


----------



## TexPhoto (Feb 21, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> FF EOS film SLR's came long before crop DSLR's, and when DSLR's came along, they used FF lenses from the film Era. The first DSLR's were APS-H. Their were no special "digital" FF lenses that were not interchangable on film bodies, anf still aren't!
> 
> However, it was very difficult and expensive to build high quality FF lenses at 10mm. It is possible, however to design lenses that sit closer to the film plane and have a smaller image circle for a lower cost. Some of the lens elements might hit a FF mirror, however.
> 
> ...



Canon made Film SLRs before they made DSLRs!!? How has this been kept a secret? -Just Yankin your chain. Yes, i understand that Canon's First DSLR was APS-H. But what about the The Canon EOS DCS 3? It was a 1.7X crop and came out in 1995, six years before the EOD 1D. I wonder what kind of lenses it used? 

And maybe it's just me, but looking at Canon's naming conventions of 1D-1Ds, Mark this or that,5D, 50D, 500D... I can't imagine they care about confusing people. What is the plural of 1Ds ? Imagine standing at the Canon drive through and trying to order; Yea, give me 5 1Ds, 5 1Ds-es and 2 5D Mark IIs.... What? Um Yea, and one EOS Kiss Digital X. (A japanease 400D)


----------



## Meh (Feb 21, 2012)

danski0224 said:


> So, Canon *could have* (just maybe) retained the EF mount and made some "cheaper" lenses with a smaller image circle. That seems to be what Nikon has done.



The could have. But they didn't. They chose to create the EF-S mount to allow lens designs to take advantage of the smaller image circle and the greater clearance of the mirror in crop body for wide angle lenses. As MtSpokane pointed out, that was a big deal at the time. They had reasons for doing it. But, times have changed and perhaps they could do away with the EF-S mount now. Maybe Canon will never make another new EF-S lens and start phasing them out. Who knows.

EF-S was meant to be cheap(er). Along the way the market for DSLR crop bodies exploded and Canon added a few pretty good EF-S lenses because there was a market. But most of them are less-than-great kit lenses. But sure, buy a $3k FF body and mount that EF-S kit lens on it by using a DX crop mode a la Nikon. Sure Nikon can do it.. but so what... Nikon are the ones hosing the customers with promises of "don't worry, move up to FF, you can use still use your DX lenses". Canon is more honest "EF-S lenses are crap and it was just to get you to buy an entry level DSLR, we don't want you using them on our good bodies and showing anyone the pictures"

There's a great line in a old episode of Law and Order, might have been a Jack McCoy line... "Sure, I'll concede your point... if things were different they wouldn't be the same".

Anyway, it's not that I don't understand the point you guys are making, there is even a certain validity to your point... you bought a few decent EF-S lenses and you'll lose a few bucks to sell and replace with sweet L glass to use on your FF body.

It's a fun discussion meant to be fun and nothing more.


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 21, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> D.Sim said:
> 
> 
> > Ellen Schmidtee said:
> ...



And if Canon made hte 8-16, it would be 500$ more expensive.

Sigma are able to price significantly lower than Canon - compare the comparable lenses, 70-200 for example. The ease of design is something customers *do* care about - you just don't know it. If not for the 10-22, made possible by its very design, you'd be up into the 16-35 L range, and good luck paying the price on that.


The argument that other manufacturers (Nikon, Sigma, whoever) makes "crop" lenses as well that can be used on a FF doesn't make sense. if you can use it on an FF, its not a "crop" lens. Canon took a totally different route in designing a lens for a crop sensor - take advantage of the smaller sensor to provide the customers with more possibilities AND lower prices.

Did Canon think of their crop customers who want to move to FF? Yes. They're called EF lenses, and are widely available. 


[quote author=danski]
So, Canon *could have* (just maybe) retained the EF mount and made some "cheaper" lenses with a smaller image circle. That seems to be what Nikon has done.
[/quote]

Yep, do what Nikon have done, sell a Full Frame camera with only the ability to use part of the sensor equivalent to a DX camera. What a useful way to use your FX camera.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Feb 21, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > D.Sim said:
> ...



Thanks for saying that in practice, having the back of the lens closer to the sensor does not make EF-S lenses cheaper, wider, or significantly faster than similar lenses that do not have the back of lens closer to the sensor.



D.Sim said:


> The ease of design is something customers *do* care about - you just don't know it. If not for the 10-22, made possible by its very design, you'd be up into the 16-35 L range, and good luck paying the price on that.



What is it that Sigma can do, and Canon can't?



D.Sim said:


> The argument that other manufacturers (Nikon, Sigma, whoever) makes "crop" lenses as well that can be used on a FF doesn't make sense. if you can use it on an FF, its not a "crop" lens.



The Sigma 8-16mm's image circle doesn't cover a full frame sensor, so how can it be anything but a crop lens?



D.Sim said:


> Canon took a totally different route in designing a lens for a crop sensor - take advantage of the smaller sensor to provide the customers with more possibilities AND lower prices.



Only the Canon EF-S 10-22mm is neither wider nor cheaper than the Sigma 8-16mm, and hardly any faster.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 21, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > And now it's your choice to either live with your purchasing decisions, make a new plan and sell some lenses to buy EF mount lenses, or, complain endlessly about it here on this forum...
> ...



I love this assumption that all pro photogs are obviously making jobloads of money and can just buy this stuff on a whim? That's what it sounds like! Quality camera's with quality sensors, and quality lenses cost a lot of money. How much does a FF cost? Currently they are about $2400. As an emerging pro, that right there is a lot of dough. And when the mkiii comes out, it will be even more dough. Just because your a pro that doesn't mean your rich. depending on where you look, pro photog average salary ends up between 30-60k, which in todays economy isn't rich by any means. So get it out of your head that pro's buy L glass because they're rich! It's bought as an investment to fulfill the need to get their jobs done! Hell, some of us don't even buy! Some rent when the need arises because it makes more sense to spend 100-200 on a rental body or lens than it does to purchase.

Fact is, when FF bodies are $2400+ to purchase. So all of us could make a similar statement - 

Fact is, Canon makes it way harder for their (non-pro) APS-C users to migrate to FF or adding an FF body in addition to their APS-C setup, _and so does nikon!_. I mean, $3000 is a pretty penny to spend. We could all say they make it so hard... but...

Do the math, you could easily have a used 5di + a used 16-35L for less than a nikon d800 new - you could also snag a used 5d mkii + a used 24-70L for about the same cost as the d800 new! Boom, entry to FF made not so hard at all! (that is, of course, if its so easy to just go FF but big bad canon won't let me use ef-s lenses so now its hard!!!) There ya go though, if you've got the bucks for a FF camera, you also have the bucks for lenses to go with it (unless you consider yourself too good for the used market).


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 21, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> I love this assumption that all pro photogs are obviously making jobloads of money and can just buy this stuff on a whim?



Don't get me wrong here. I KNOW, that many (most?) Pro's do NOT make or have loads of money. 

I made the distinction Pro vs. amateur with respect to the topic at hand, because in in 2012 only Pro's with very specific specialization [sports, wildlife/BIF, image journalists, etc.] have the choice to not use FF. All others who are or want to be "a Pro" earning income from photography need and have got FF gear - more often than not for a long time already. Typically (at least) a 1-series body [APS-H or FF] and/or 5D/II - for main camera(s) and backup(s). Depending on the nature of work they may have crop body/ies too. And all of them have EF lenses, but only maybe a EF-S lens or two. That is why this group generally has no issue whatsoever with EF-S incompatibility with FF bodies. As can be witnessed by many responses in this thread.  

The picture is different for non-income from photography earning amateurs/enthusiasts, meaning people who "progressed" past a Digital Rebel plus 18-55 kitlens - the latter having no problem with EF-S incompatibilty either.

The user base affected by Canons's bad decision to fit their crop lenses with a mount incompatible with FF bodies are "enthusiasts". Almost all of these started out with APS-C sets, since 1D/1Ds (all Mk.'s) was financially out of reach. That group progressed through some Canon APS-C bodies (xxD/xxD/and now 7D), until appearance of the game-changing 5D (2007). All of a sudden, FF was financially possible/justifiable for "hobby use only". But ... just barely.  

That is why a many/most of these people had/have to sell their APS-C gear (one body plus a few lenses) in order to migrate to FF ... with one body and one WA FF-lens (typically 24-105). Good EF-S lenses are obsolete at once and cannot even be used for a limited timeframe as "stop gap" measure until (really expensive) FF (L) lenses can be purchased. 

Nikon is making it a lot easier for this group as well as for some pro's with both FX and DX bodies and lenses. With the new generation of high-megapixel FF cameras (D800) the benefit of being able to use a crop lens on a FF body have just become even larger. A 16 MP crop picture from a D800 taken with a decent DX lens is certainly more than good enough to "not be an embarassement for the camera manufacturer". Neither would be a 12-15 MP picture taken with an EF-S 17-55 on a 1Ds III, a 5D III/X or whatever pixel monster will come. But ... to take that picture, the EF-S should be fitted with an EF mount.  



Chuck Alaimo said:


> Fact is, when FF bodies are $2400+ to purchase.


the body itself is not even that expensive ... currently a new 5D II is available from € 1.700 ... even in European countries with high sales tax. But to get a lens complement that is as good on FF as the better EF-S lenses are on APS-C ... will require another 4500 Euros [10-22 <> 16-35 II, 17-55 <> 24-70 II]. 

Yes, cheaper is possible, but ... it will be an unsatifsfactory compromise on tomorrows FF bodies, if not on today's even when it is "L" glass ... 17-40 purchasers will regret the purchase at the latest on the day the 5D III/X comes out ... or 24-105 without ultra-wide angle focal range and without f/2.8 capabilities. 

Personally I am not really affected by Canon's wrong EF-S decision, since I am quite happy with my APS-C gear and do not lust after FF. My next camera [after current 7D] will not be an FF DSLR, but hopefully a compact APS-C mirrorless with IQ and AF/performance better than a 7D plus 2-3 ultra-compact but good pancake primes. If this mirrorless allows use of both my EF-S and my EF lenses with full AF and IS functionality by means of a sensible priced and sized adapter ... then it will likely be a Canon. If Canon forces me to buy new lenses, then it will very likely not be a Canon. It really is as easy as that.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 21, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > I love this assumption that all pro photogs are obviously making jobloads of money and can just buy this stuff on a whim?
> ...



Again dude, i still think your view of this massive group (it's not so massive) the 'pro's' is skewed. Sure, if you have been in the business of photography for 10+ years, then you may very well have multiple 1 D series camera's and a few 5's as back up and a closet full of L glass (actually, that's more like for those very successful, or have been in the business for closer to 20 years). Pros have to start somewhere dude. It's not like we one day make the decision, I want to be a photographer and gear magically appears. Most pros start as enthusiasts. And, everyone starts with a different background too (financially). I started my photography after losing a job an moving back to my hometown. So it was barebones. First body was a rebel xsi. But, if your a doctor/lawyer/accountant/etc, etc, etc, welll then you can drive your bmw to any store you want, buy any body you want, with any lens, give the clerk a $200 tip an not flinch about doing it. Me, i had little to no resources. I worked that xsi like crazy, until i could afford a 7D, then savfed my pennies for glass. Bought a 24-70 2.8, loved it, its been my workhorse. I then applied for and received a loan, which is how i got my 70-200 2.8, my 10-22 (yup, i own an ef-s lens), new tripod, new computer that was up to the task of processing. Now I'm saving my pennies for the next upgrade, probably to a 5dmkiii (or maybe even a mkii if the used price is right, like closer to 1600). I am genuinely happy with my 7d, but have gotten to the point where I am just sick of having to have the 10-22 to cover the wide end, when my 24-70 would be wide enough for most of the work that I'm doing. In fact, I like like my 7d enough that if i can swing it financially, I plan to keep the 7d for the rare occurance i need the reach a 1.6 crop can provide, and for lower paying gigs at places i wouldn't feel comfortable bringing my FF into. 

Either way, the rate of success/failure for a photographer isn't that good. It does follow most models, where 80% of the startups fail within the first year. So in reality, the cost of gear in general makes it hard for those aspiring to be pro, i'd say even harder than those who are enthusiasts. I mean, if your just looking for a good cam to shoot your vacation, well then any EF (or ef-s) lens on a decent body will do you fine. It's not like you may risk losing clients because you can't get the best quality in low light. It's not like your worrying about losing portrait clients because you don't have tack sharp images with creamy bokeh. 

So, while I agree that " All others who are or want to be "a Pro" earning income from photography need and have got FF gear" - with one exception - the need for FF gear I agree with, the have though, I do not!!!!

I recently had a conversation with a successful wedding photog who breaks your mold - no 1 d series in her bag, but 2 5dmkii's, and one of her favorite lenses - the 50mm 1.4 - which shocked me, considering her income flow i expecte that she' have the l series 1.2. She got the 1.4 on her way up, rented a 1.2 and liked it, but didn't like it enough to warrant spending the extra 1K for it. So she produces amazing shots with her 1.4, ef, non L!!! (granted, she does have other pieces of L glass)....

there are a lot of lenses available, even more if you bring in 3rd party products. The majority of what canon offers is EF mount. And, frankly, the majority of ef-s glass kind of sucks! Which leads me back to something I said way earlier in this topic - I would maybe be on board with this idea of ef-s to ef comparability if the selection of ef-s lenses was more robust. But there are only 25 ef-s lenses. And of the 25, less than a handful are worth talking about. The only one that i can see the worth in desiring on an FF body is the 17-55. Even the 10-22, which i own, and is a fun lens, I wouldn't want that on a FF body. The IQ just isn't good enough.

So, to a large extent, I feel that the ef/ef-s argument is really one of those is the cup half full or half empty arguments. Yeah, you could see it as a big ol road block. Or, you could see it the other way, as an opportunity to invest in better glass...


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 22, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> I am genuinely happy with my 7d, but have gotten to the point where I am just sick of having to have the 10-22 to cover the wide end, when my 24-70 would be wide enough for most of the work that I'm doing. In fact, I like like my 7d enough that if i can swing it financially, I plan to keep the 7d for the rare occurance i need the reach a 1.6 crop can provide, and for lower paying gigs at places i wouldn't feel comfortable bringing my FF into.



well, pro or non pro then ... you just confirm my point that Canon is making it financially very challenging to move from APS-C to FF ... forcing all but their better-heeled user base to sell off all their APS-C gear ... EF-S lenses plus body! ... in order to finance an FF body and at the same time, immediately also some EF glass. 



Chuck Alaimo said:


> The only one that i can see the worth in desiring on an FF body is the 17-55. Even the 10-22, which i own, and is a fun lens, I wouldn't want that on a FF body. The IQ just isn't good enough.



Your 10-22 may be a sub-par copy. I had bought my first10-22 used and it had a decentering issue showing as softness on the right bottom part of images. I sold and bought a new one, which is absolutely fine. From all the tests and picures I see, I do not believe that the 16-35 II pulls off comparatively better IQ on an FF body. 



Chuck Alaimo said:


> So, to a large extent, I feel that the ef/ef-s argument is really one of those is the cup half full or half empty arguments. Yeah, you could see it as a big ol road block. Or, you could see it the other way, as an opportunity to invest in better glass...



Only problem with that: the lenses we want are not better in EF mount or with a red "L" ring than their EF-S counterparts, they just have a larger image circle and cost a lot more! 16-35 II expensive but IQ-wise no match at all for the Nikon 14-24 ... 24-70 I ... more expensive than 17-55 but slightly less IQ throughout overlapping focal range and no IS (not even on the II). Same for the 17-40 - optically not as good as the 10-22, just a bit of weather-sealing.


----------

