# Using EF-S lens on FF body???



## fotoray (May 26, 2011)

Can you use an EF-S lens on a FF body IF you use Liveview where the mirror is in lockup position?


----------



## alipaulphotography (May 26, 2011)

I'm pretty sure you can't even fit the lens to the body. But someone else will have to confirm that!


----------



## DJL329 (May 27, 2011)

Even if you could, you're still not going to fill up the a full-frame sensor, so why bother risking it?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 27, 2011)

fotoray said:


> Can you use an EF-S lens on a FF body IF you use Liveview where the mirror is in lockup position?



How are you going to mount the EF-S lens? What happens when you activate Live View, then remove an attached EF lens? What happens when you activate Live View without a lens attached then attach a lens. Try those steps, then tell us if you still think your idea will work...


----------



## zerotiu (May 27, 2011)

you can't and don't try it, because the mount will hit the mirror


----------



## fotoray (May 28, 2011)

I'm convinced.


----------



## DarStone (May 28, 2011)

Interesting concept, unfortunately an EF-S lens cannot be mounted on a FF or APS-H camera the EF mount of the camrea is different.


----------



## Admin US West (May 28, 2011)

DarStone said:


> Interesting concept, unfortunately an EF-S lens cannot be mounted on a FF or APS-H camera the EF mount of the camrea is different.



And yet, many photographers have found ways to do it. I wouldn't fool with my expensive equipment that way, but it is not impossible at all. The electrical interface is identical, just a physical obstruction on the lens that, in some cases can just be popped off.

Here is how its done for the 10-22mm L
http://www.flickr.com/groups/canondslr/discuss/72157604422834954/

http://www.flickr.com/groups/canondslr/discuss/72157604422834954/


----------



## funkboy (May 29, 2011)

There was a similar thread like this on the Macrumors photo forums about a year ago:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=10132263#post10132263

Many 3rd party APS-c specific lenses are still normal EF mounts (not EF-s) so the restrictions are optical, not mechanical. My Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 works great as a 16mm FF lens, on both digital & film. On a 1DIIn it vignetted too much below about 14mm but was acceptable at 14 & great at 15 & 16.

I also cut the plastic extension off an 18-55 kit lens with a hacksaw a couple years ago so it would work on my brother's 10D (I got the lens as a gift for helping out a friend). Never bothered trying that one on an FF body (don't really see the point as you'd probably have yourself a 35-55 f/4.5-5.6) but the remaining plastic bits that clear the mirror box on the 10D probably wouldn't clear the mirror of an FF camera.


----------



## MossTech (May 29, 2011)

Not FF, but I have mounted the EF-S lenses on my 1D IV using a 25mm extension tube. Just as an exercise!


----------



## Kim (May 29, 2011)

I mounted my EF-S 10-22mm on an old EOS 1n.

It is only usable from ~17-22mm with no vignette.

It does not work at 10mm as the mirror will hit the optical element of the lens. At 12mm it works but it gives a black circle around the image.


----------



## unexposure (May 30, 2011)

you can use ur ef-s mount lenses on 1D-Models, there's just a "pin problem" which is in your way. Using it on FF might indeed result in the mirror touching it (not only in live-view).


----------



## adamdoesmovies (May 30, 2011)

Some lenses seem to work just fine on full-frame... I just tried my Tokina 11-16 and it fits my old film cameras, and only vignettes at the wide end (but looks kinda like a fisheye, so it's kinda cool). My sigma 17-70 is similar, but the edge quality is pretty crappy. Some lenses have a rear element that sticks out but if you do your little live view trick with mirror lockup, you can at least get some interesting results. In some instances, vignetting looks cool.


----------



## Blaze (May 31, 2011)

To get around the mechanical issue, couldn't you just use a short extension tube designed to accommodate both EF and EF-S lenses? You'd lose infinity focus, but I would think it would work other than that.


----------



## PHYSICA (May 31, 2011)

Someone modity the mount of a cheap EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS , you may refer to the link below

http://blog.dcview.com/article.php?a=U2RQMlAyUWA%3D
** This is a taiwanese homepage , you need a translator if you didn't know chinese....

Due to the circle of illumination limitation , the 18-55 IS lense is limited to be a 24-55 IS Lens.

If you did nothing, the EF-S Lens does not fit to the FF body, except the DC / DX Lense produced by other party.


----------



## puqq (Jul 23, 2011)

I have used Sigma 10-20mm on film EOS with a reasonable success. As far as I remember, the image circle was large enough to cover the entire frame around 14mm (which is still impressively wide). 

A while ago I have seen a forum post by a guy who had his Voigtlander 15mm rangefinder lens mounted on 5d Mk II during Live View exposure. The mirror stays above the protruding part of the lens and does not move, hence you do not risk causing any harm to your camera (maybe, a little bit more dust).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 24, 2011)

puqq said:


> A while ago I have seen a forum post by a guy who had his Voigtlander 15mm rangefinder lens mounted on 5d Mk II during Live View exposure. The mirror stays above the protruding part of the lens and does not move, hence you do not risk causing any harm to your camera (maybe, a little bit more dust).



The camera can drop the mirror unannounced for any number of reasons while in liveview, timing out, overheating, low battery, autofocus, etc. I'd think the guy was pretty foolish to believe that the mirror would stay up.


----------



## ions (Jul 24, 2011)

The Tokina 11-16 is usable on fullframe, pretty much a prime though. If interested there's a decent amount of info on using the Tokina in that way to be found on flckrgoogle.


----------



## dr croubie (Jul 24, 2011)

This may be my interpretation only (so don't wreck your camera trying, please), only Canon-brand EF-S lenses protrude deeper into the body than EF lenses.
3rd-party brands have a smaller image circle, definitely, but they don't protrude any deeper than an EF lens?

When you think about it, only canon have the dedicated shorter-mount, no other camera does. If you build a lens for a Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus body, and sell it with different mounts and electrical contacts only, you make the lens fittable to the longest mount (generally Nikon F) and don't change the optical formula for the other brands. Even Nikon DX lenses fit FX bodies (i think) without breaking a FF mirror.

So I would not be surprised if any 3rd-party aps-c only lens fits a 5d/1d/s (as long as it's not a canon-specific non-canon-brand lens).

But i would still be very careful, mirror-lockup/liveview can turn itself off at any time, as noted (i always forget to change the time-out on my camera when manual-focussing with liveview, until the screen goes black and mirror flaps down, then i remember)


----------



## puqq (Jul 25, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> puqq said:
> 
> 
> > A while ago I have seen a forum post by a guy who had his Voigtlander 15mm rangefinder lens mounted on 5d Mk II during Live View exposure. The mirror stays above the protruding part of the lens and does not move, hence you do not risk causing any harm to your camera (maybe, a little bit more dust).
> ...



I do not think this would be a serious issue- the mirror goes down without much force. Basically, the camera just throw Error 99, and would return to normal operation after lens removal and restart. I've had my Takumar 50mm 1.4 hitting 5D MkII mirror for many times without any further problems- notably, mirror goes up with much more force.


----------



## macgregor mathers (Jul 25, 2011)

What's the attraction of using EF-S lenses on FF bodies ?

There is no focal length gain, e.g. an EF-S 10-22mm would not cover an FF sensor at 10mm, and buying expensive lenses for a cheap body is smarter than the other way around. If the mirror is locked up, as Nikon does to support DX lenses on FX bodies, the autofocus mechanism would be disabled, forcing either manual focus or contrast based focus, neither being a big attraction.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 25, 2011)

macgregor mathers said:


> What's the attraction of using EF-S lenses on FF bodies ?
> 
> There is no focal length gain, e.g. an EF-S 10-22mm would not cover an FF sensor at 10mm, and buying expensive lenses for a cheap body is smarter than the other way around. If the mirror is locked up, as Nikon does to support DX lenses on FX bodies, the autofocus mechanism would be disabled, forcing either manual focus or contrast based focus, neither being a big attraction.



Well, not sure about FF, but if you look at the Flickr discussion linked earlier, you'll see that the 10-22mm is useable from ~12mm onward on an APS-H. The only other way to get that wide is the Sigma 12-24mm, which is reportedly pretty soft (whereas the EF-S 10-22mm is relatively sharp), and comes with the notorious Sigma QC.


----------



## AJ (Jul 25, 2011)

macgregor mathers said:


> What's the attraction of using EF-S lenses on FF bodies ?
> 
> There is no focal length gain



I think the point is being able to shoot short focal lengths, dual use of gear for those who have both FX and DX gear, and also just messing around for fun.

I've mounted my Tokina 10-17 fisheye on my A2E body and looked through the viewfinder. If I zoom just right I can get 180 deg diagonal coverage, i.e. no real need for me to buy a FF fisheye. Now, my A2E doesn't have 100% viewfinder coverage so I will need to extrapolate a bit to get the exact corner-to-corner coverage. At 10 mm I can get close to circular fisheye coverage (top and bottom are cropped a little).

I should divulge that I haven't run any film through my camera with this lens mounted.


----------



## puqq (Jul 25, 2011)

macgregor mathers said:


> What's the attraction of using EF-S lenses on FF bodies ?
> 
> There is no focal length gain, e.g. an EF-S 10-22mm would not cover an FF sensor at 10mm, and buying expensive lenses for a cheap body is smarter than the other way around. If the mirror is locked up, as Nikon does to support DX lenses on FX bodies, the autofocus mechanism would be disabled, forcing either manual focus or contrast based focus, neither being a big attraction.



It does make sense in several scenarios, for example, if you already have EF-S lens and just bought a FF body, or if you have a FF body in addition to APS body and want to play with an ultra-wide (there is not really much <16mm on offer for <Â£400 to cover FF, trust me). 

Though, I would probably get some sort of old manual focus ultra wide. ATM I am using Zuiko 24mm 2.8 on 5d- and it's quite amazing


----------



## J. McCabe (Jul 25, 2011)

puqq said:


> macgregor mathers said:
> 
> 
> > What's the attraction of using EF-S lenses on FF bodies ?
> ...



And which <16mm EF-S lenses do NOT vignette on FF ?


----------



## puqq (Jul 27, 2011)

J. McCabe said:


> And which <16mm EF-S lenses do NOT vignette on FF ?



All of them. That is, the only one  Mostly people start noticing vignetting around 14mm @ FF


----------



## macgregor mathers (Jul 27, 2011)

puqq said:


> J. McCabe said:
> 
> 
> > And which <16mm EF-S lenses do NOT vignette on FF ?
> ...



There's at least one other - the EF-S *15*-85mm.


----------



## -zero- (Jul 27, 2011)

macgregor mathers said:


> puqq said:
> 
> 
> > J. McCabe said:
> ...



the 15-85 vignette on an aps-c I can't imagin what it would look like on FF

using an ef-s on a FF you would still need to crop your pictures to a certain degree (you may not be forced to crop to an aps-c size but at least very close to it)

you are basically losing 90% of the advatages a FF sensor has over apsc (no crop factor, thinner DOF, resolution) the only advantage might be the improved iso performance


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 27, 2011)

-zero- said:


> you are basically losing 90% of the advatages a FF sensor has over apsc (no crop factor, thinner DOF, resolution) the only advantage might be the improved iso performance



Cropping exaggerates the noise in an image, so you're losing that advantage as well.


----------



## -zero- (Jul 27, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> -zero- said:
> 
> 
> > you are basically losing 90% of the advatages a FF sensor has over apsc (no crop factor, thinner DOF, resolution)
> ...



I thought that might be the case but wasn't sure 



> the only advantage might be the improved iso performance


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Jul 27, 2011)

The one definite APS-C advantage, albeit a theoretical and contrived one, that I can think of is in wildlife or similar photography where you want the most "pixels on target." For the same focal length, the APS-C camera is not necessarily putting more pixels on target - assuming the same pixel pitch as the full frame camera, of course (full frame often would seem to give you a slightly chunkier picture due to lower pixel pitch) - your frame has less extraneous data off-target, which means that you should in theory have a better ratio of used to unused data in each camera file.

In practice, of course, APS-C sensors have been higher density than full frame sensors (probably something to do with reject rates - bad small pixels on a FF sensor would mean an appreciably more expensive chip to throw away, so they probably use older production processes) so, assuming the lens is up to the task, you can pick out more details as well - generally good for wildlife once again.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 27, 2011)

Edwin Herdman said:


> In practice, of course, APS-C sensors have been higher density than full frame sensors (probably something to do with reject rates - bad small pixels on a FF sensor would mean an appreciably more expensive chip to throw away, so they probably use older production processes) so, assuming the lens is up to the task, you can pick out more details as well - generally good for wildlife once again.



Its more difficult to make FF sensors: From Canon White Paper 

"the circuit pattern of a fullframe
sensor is too large to be projected on the silicon wafer all at once; it requires
three separate exposures (See page 53). This means that the number of masks and
exposure processes is tripled. For now, appreciate that a full-frame sensor costs not
three or four times, but ten, twenty or more times as much as an APS-C sensor"

Aligning those masks is very difficult, and as photosite size decreases, it must be even more critical.

I wonder if thats why Nikon has kept with 12MP on their own FF sensors. Sony and Canon had the technique to do a finer alignment for a reasonable cost?

APS-C and APS-H do not require the triple masking and alignment process, so they are much easier to make.


----------



## iaind (Aug 15, 2011)

Possible with 25mm ext tube

When I went FF I got a s/h 17-35 2.8L 10-22 now gathers dust.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Aug 16, 2011)

Remember that Nikon does have the D3X which is full frame and 25MP. Also Nikon has to buy their sensors from Sony because they don't make their own FF sensor. Every Nikon FF machine has to include in its' price the profit for Sony to take home from their sale of the FF sensor to Nikon. Canon has quite an advantage in being first to CMOS production in house which keeps that profit also in-house. In addition, Canon can engineer the chips to their complete specfication. I'm sure that Nikon has a great amount of sway in the sensors that Sony delivers, but they seem to be the same as what is in a Sony camera (the sensor itself and not the support chips).


----------



## rossbeckernz (Sep 4, 2011)

I use an EF-S 10-22mm on my 1D4. But this is only possible when you have removed the plastic base insert and replaced it with an appropriate EF base. This is because the EF-S lens protrudes a lot further into the camera body than an EF lens. In fact the construction of the FF & 1.3 crop bodies ensures that the EF-S lenses will not normally mount. With my 1.3 crop bodies I have limited the zoom to 12-22 as wider than that two things happen.
1 the mirror hits the rear lens.
2 the image circle gets too small & you get cutoff at the corners.

You can see how I did it here. There is also a gallery of photos taken with the modified lens on my 1D3.
http://bitly.com/cxTMuw

Cheers
Ross Becker
New Zealand


----------



## ontarian (Sep 4, 2011)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ontarian/4561467724/
Here is how I did the 10-22 on my 1D3 a few years back. Great mod and I kept the mirror from hitting by putting a foam sticker inside the uv filter to stop the movement below 12mm, worked like a charm. -Ed Mika


----------



## ecka (Sep 4, 2011)

EF-S on FF sounds cheap and not very smart  APS-H is a better reason for such discussion.
IMHO, Canon should have made 1D bodies compatible with EF-S lenses, because now they are selling a pro body that can't shoot UWA with OEM lenses. 14mm x1.3 ~ 18mm, 16mm x1.3 ~ 21mm.
Big mistake, Canon.


----------



## ontarian (Sep 4, 2011)

ecka said:


> EF-S on FF sounds cheap and not very smart  APS-H is a better reason for such discussion.
> IMHO, Canon should have made 1D bodies compatible with EF-S lenses, because now they are selling a pro body that can't shoot UWA with OEM lenses. 14mm x1.3 ~ 18mm, 16mm x1.3 ~ 21mm.
> Big mistake, Canon.



Problem is 1D bodies have full frame mirrors so even if the EF-S image circle is ok enough for 1.3 crop, the -S(short throw back distance) causes mirror interference.


----------



## DJL329 (Sep 4, 2011)

ecka said:


> EF-S on FF sounds cheap and not very smart  APS-H is a better reason for such discussion.
> IMHO, Canon should have made 1D bodies compatible with EF-S lenses, because now they are selling a pro body that can't shoot UWA with OEM lenses. 14mm x1.3 ~ 18mm, 16mm x1.3 ~ 21mm.
> Big mistake, Canon.



The 1D bodies weren't made for shooting UWA; they're for shooting action/wildlife at tele and super-telephoto focal lengths, hence the 1.3x crop and higher frame rates. A pro or serious amateur who needs to shoot UWA, is going to use one of the full frame (1Ds or 5D) bodies.


----------



## ontarian (Sep 4, 2011)

DJL329 said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > EF-S on FF sounds cheap and not very smart  APS-H is a better reason for such discussion.
> ...



That may be true from Canons perspective but after getting addicted to the 1D interface I don't want to go back to a small body and can't afford/justify a 1DS so we run a pair of 1D4s. I'm an (arguably) serious amateur and sometimes I like to shoot wide and theres the rub.


----------



## DJL329 (Sep 4, 2011)

ontarian said:


> DJL329 said:
> 
> 
> > ecka said:
> ...



Well, life is about making compromises.  If you really want to shoot landscapes, then you can't go wrong with the 5D (either version). A used 5D classic will run you about a grand. Personally, I love the "Custom" modes on the 5D Mark II: configure all the settings any way you want and save it. Then, just turn the dial to that setting and you're ready to shoot!

Another option is the new EF 8-15mm f/4.0L fisheye. You'd have to use software to "de-fish" it and you'd lose a bit of the frame in the process, but it would still be wider than any other EF lens.

Finally, you could use the original EF 15mm f/2.8 fisheye and not "de-fish" it. Here's a link to a guy I found on fredmiranda.com who uses fisheyes on all 3 formats: full frame, 1.3x and 1.6x. On the crop bodies, the 15mm isn't too "fishy" looking, so it might be a usable compromise.

http://www.pbase.com/dbehrens/15fe


----------



## ontarian (Sep 4, 2011)

The EF 14mm 2.8 II we traded our 7D and 2x ii extender for a few weeks ago is doing the trick for us. I'm currently trying the 8-15 fisheye for a few weeks to see how I like it but I have a feeling that my 300 dollar Optex 6.5 fisheye will be hard to justify upgrading from.


----------



## ecka (Sep 5, 2011)

DJL329 said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > EF-S on FF sounds cheap and not very smart  APS-H is a better reason for such discussion.
> ...


I know what 1D is made for, but if you are a professional and you want the best from both UWA and telephoto then you need both 1D and 1Ds. If you are a serious pro photographer then you must have a backup camera for each of those. Even if your backup is 7D and 5D2 you will end up spending a lot more than, let say, if you were a Nikon shooter (D3s is FF, high fps and does UWA). Not every pro can make such investment. If 1D was EF-S compatible then it would be much easier choice. Something like 1D + 7D as a backup camera could do the trick. Both can use the same UWA lenses, both good for telephoto, both got high fps. The only compromise is that none of them is FF.


----------

