I'm looking to get a lens that will work on my 350D and my Elan7E, so I'm selling my EFS 10-22, and I need an EF wide lens. I'm looking to spend no more than $600 if possible, and I'll take a used lens. What do you recommend? Oh, and if you're interested in my lens, PM me. (https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/277621/)
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Looking for a good EF ultra-wide zoom, around $500-600
- Thread starter seenew
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
16-35mm f/2.8 and 17-40mm f/4 are really your only options for ultra-wide. That latter you can find in your price range used, or for ~$700 you can get a new one.
I have the 17-40 and really like it... although there are definitely times I wish it was wider (using it on a Canon 350D).
If you're coming from a Canon 10-22, you'll probably miss the wide angle too.
The Sigma 12-24 that Abstract mentioned would be the closest to what you have now...
Or, better yet, whip out the credit card and get a 17-40 and use it on a Canon 5D body which is full frame like your film camera.
If you're coming from a Canon 10-22, you'll probably miss the wide angle too.
The Sigma 12-24 that Abstract mentioned would be the closest to what you have now...
Or, better yet, whip out the credit card and get a 17-40 and use it on a Canon 5D body which is full frame like your film camera.
Sigma 12-24 mm. That's a bit extreme, though.
I think that only works on EF-S mounts.
If EF-S in the Canon world means that a lens is designed for digital cameras, then no, the Sigma 12-24 mm is not an EF-S lens. It was designed for "full frame" 35 mm film cameras. The Sigma 10-20 mm is designed for digital and is "EF-S".
Well actually, I said the Sigma 12-24 mm would be extreme in this case because it's wider than the Canon 10-22 mm if used on a film camera. Wideangle lenses are easy to find for 35 mm film cameras and "full frame" digital SLRs like the Canon 5D.
The Canon 10-22 mm would be equivalent to a 16-35 mm (in 35 mm format) on a Canon 350D. The Sigma 12-24 mm would be even less wide, and is equivalent to a 19-38 mm on a Canon 350D.
On the 35 mm film side of things, the Sigma 12-24 mm used on a Canon film camera would be wider than the Canon 10-22 mm on a 350D. The Sigma 12-24 mm would give you a 12-24 mm focal range on a film camera. Even with the Canon 10-22 mm, the widest you ever got was 16 mm because of the so-called "crop factor."
The 16-35 mm and 17-40 mm suggested by Grimace would also give you the same level of wide-angle ability on a film camera. I'm not sure if these lenses are digital only, so check.
Well actually, I said the Sigma 12-24 mm would be extreme in this case because it's wider than the Canon 10-22 mm if used on a film camera. Wideangle lenses are easy to find for 35 mm film cameras and "full frame" digital SLRs like the Canon 5D.
The Canon 10-22 mm would be equivalent to a 16-35 mm (in 35 mm format) on a Canon 350D. The Sigma 12-24 mm would be even less wide, and is equivalent to a 19-38 mm on a Canon 350D.
On the 35 mm film side of things, the Sigma 12-24 mm used on a Canon film camera would be wider than the Canon 10-22 mm on a 350D. The Sigma 12-24 mm would give you a 12-24 mm focal range on a film camera. Even with the Canon 10-22 mm, the widest you ever got was 16 mm because of the so-called "crop factor."
The 16-35 mm and 17-40 mm suggested by Grimace would also give you the same level of wide-angle ability on a film camera.
I'm not sure if these lenses are digital only, so check.I have the 17-40 and really like it... although there are definitely times I wish it was wider (using it on a Canon 350D).
If you're coming from a Canon 10-22, you'll probably miss the wide angle too.
The Sigma 12-24 that Abstract mentioned would be the closest to what you have now...
Or, better yet, whip out the credit card and get a 17-40 and use it on a Canon 5D body which is full frame like your film camera.
Well I do plan on upgrading to a 5D within a year or so, so that is a possibility, just not immediate. I'd spring for the 17-40, so long as I can sell that 10-22.
Also, Abstract-- I wasn't aware there were "digital only" lenses? My Elan 7E was made in 2000, so I would think it's new enough to support most/all EF lenses?
What?
If your Elan 7E uses EF lenses, then getting any Canon EF lens, like the 17-40 mm, is fine. The Sigma 12-24 mm is also meant to be used on a 35 mm film camera like your Canon Elan, or a FF digital camera like the Canon 5D/1Ds Mk II, so you can technically call it an "EF" lens.
The lenses marked EF-S are lenses that share the same mount as your EF lenses, but the lenses themselves are smaller. The amount of light that passes through EF-S lens is lower due to its smaller size, and there isn't enough light to project light over something as large as 35 mm film. Why? The lens is too small for it and only meant to project light onto the smaller digital sensors used in almost all DSLRs (eg: your Canon 350D).
For example, if you mount the current Canon 18-55 mm EF-S kit lens onto a Canon 5D or your Elan, it'll definitely mount fine because it has an EF mount. The problem isn't that it won't mount. The problem is that you'll get large amounts of vignetting, since the lens isn't large enough to cover the film. If Canon made an EF18-55 lens (ie: one designed for film cameras or FF cameras like the 5D), it would be larger, heavier and have a larger diameter.
OK just to clarify things- EF-S lenses are designed for FOV crop cameras on Canon. The "S" stands for short back focus, and EF-S lenses are compatible with all Canon DSLRs, save for the 5D and MK-1s (not sure about the MK-IIn). They are not just smaller, their mount is different. They will not work with 35mm cameras.
EF lenses will work with any Canon SLR.
That being said, if you're planing to upgrade to the 5D in the near future, you will need good glass. The FF sensor is ruthless on inferior glass. Your safest bet is to get the 17-40 f/4. While the 16-35 is faster (f/2.8), most people would claim that the f/4 is significantly sharper, and it's cheaper. Another option is to go for primes in the wide end, but quality glass will cost you.
Edit: here
EF lenses will work with any Canon SLR.
That being said, if you're planing to upgrade to the 5D in the near future, you will need good glass. The FF sensor is ruthless on inferior glass. Your safest bet is to get the 17-40 f/4. While the 16-35 is faster (f/2.8), most people would claim that the f/4 is significantly sharper, and it's cheaper. Another option is to go for primes in the wide end, but quality glass will cost you.
Edit: here
Attachments
Um.
No.
All of Canon's film SLRs (in the EOS series) use the EF mount. So too do the EOS 1Ds series, the EOS 1D series, the EOS 5D, and the EOS 10D. The other EOS cameras (300D, 350D, 400D, 20D, and 30D) use the EF-S mount.
A camera with an EF-S mount point will accept EF lenses. A camera with an EF mount will not accept EF-S lenses. They physically will not mount. This is because EF-S specifies a mirror size that is smaller than that allowed for EF, which in turn means that an EF-S lens can have elements that protrude further back than an EF lens.
if you do manage to mount an EF-S lens on an EF body, it is liable to collide with the mirror as it swings up, causing damage to the lens, the body, or both. It can be done safely on the 10D if you modify the lens, but Canon officially discourages such a practice.
If you have a Canon film SLR, and you're planning on getting a 5D, probably the best wide-angle lens to get is the 17-40mm f/4L. It'll mount on any EOS body, and is excellent value for money. The 16-35mm f/2.8L, I'd only recommend if you have a need for the faster glass. It won't be particularly wide on a crop body (one that accepts EF-S glass), but it'll do a fair job for the interim.
The rest - about the reduced image circle, and so forth - is correct, though.
sjl is right, an EF-S mount lens won't mount on a EF mount. However an EF lens will mount on an EF-S body. On a full frame body the mirror will hit the back of an EF-S lens.
You can see how much deeper the EF-S lens is here (EF-S is on the left)
You can see how much deeper the EF-S lens is here (EF-S is on the left)
BTW, I'd suggest the 17-40. Its a nice lens on a 1.6x body, and you'll really enjoy it on a film body or FF digital.
Oh ok. I didn't know. As a Nikon person, I just thought that since EF-S digital cameras can fit EF lenses, it would work vice versa. I thought that in the worst case scenario, some of the pins may be different and wouldn't allow for full functionality, but that the lenses would still be technically usable on the camera.
Thanks for clearing it up.
