Your current GAS list? (1 Viewer)

[Mike Frezon]

Huh. So an EF 70-200mm would effectively become a 120mm-320mm lens, but otherwise work normally?

Interesting.

 

[Citizen87645]

Correct (though it's actually 112mm at the low end).

However, the 70-200 zoom I found to be the most problematic on an APS-C body like the 80D. In most cases, it was just too long at the low end for my uses, which is people and event photography. Shooting wildlife and sports would be a different story, where the extra reach would be welcomed.

Eventually, I got a Sigma 50-150mm that more closely aligned with the typical 70-200 range. Unfortunately, the lens is no longer manufactured and a "70-200 for APS-C bodies" didn't really take off in general.

 

[JohnRice]

Not necessarily. EFs will fit on the EF-S mount, but the focal length will be multiplied by 1.6. So a 50mm would be an 80mm on your EF-S DSLR.

Which is exactly the same as a 50mm EF-S lens would be. It'll just have more coverage than the crop sensor will use.

Just to clarify, lenses for DSLRs always give the real focal length. Not the "effective" one.

 

[Citizen87645]

True. Though they don't make 50mm lenses for EF-S mount, do they?

 

[JohnRice]

True. Though they don't make 50mm lenses for EF-S mount, do they?

No, I doubt there are any fixed 50mm that are strictly for crop. My point is just that a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens, regardless of if it is made for full frame or crop. It's what it produces on the different formats that changes, not the focal length.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Now you all made me go look.

My 50mm IS a Canon EF 1.8 II. So I should have known EF lenses would work on the 80D.

FYI: my other lenses are a Canon EFS 18-135mm IS USM. That's the one I usually keep on the camera in case I want to grab and shoot.

And a Canon EFS 55-250mm 1:4-5.6 IS

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Personally, I never cared for the cropped lenses and only bought full-frame 35mm, except for the Nikon 17-55mm DX f/2.8 widezoom, which is actually serviceable, if not ideal, on a FF body -- even then, I only bought used at a pretty good price since I figured I'd eventually move to full-frame and not sure I'd keep using it for long.

I did also have the Nikon 18-70mm DX, but that was only a (albeit pretty decent) kit lens that came w/ the old D70.

If I actually went w/ Canon, I probably would never buy their EF-S lenses since they definitely cannot be used on FF bodies...

@Mike Frezon, something to realize is FF lenses do generally yield better PQ around the corners/edges of the cropped frame since you're generally using the best part of the image circle (and leaving out the FF edges and corners)... although the lenses will be heftier...

_Man_

 

[Scott Merryfield]

I was just about to express an interest in one of your lenses, Scott (for when you were ready to list them)...but realized I need EF-S lenses.

Oh well.

As discussed, Mike, any EF lens will work on a Canon crop sensor body. The reverse is not true -- you cannot use a EF-S lens on a full frame Canon body. The rear element protrudes into the body too much, so the mirror will hit the rear element. Plus, the lens is designed for the smaller sensor size, so it will vignette severely.

If you are interested in my EF 70-200mm f/4L IS, let me know. It's the original version, not the recently released version II. It's been a great lens, and I used it quite often on my crop sensor bodies. It also works well with a 1.4x teleconvertor. I used that combo when I wanted to travel lighter and leave my EF 100-400L II at home.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Now you all made me go look.

My 50mm IS a Canon EF 1.8 II. So I should have known EF lenses would work on the 80D.

FYI: my other lenses are a Canon EFS 18-135mm IS USM. That's the one I usually keep on the camera in case I want to grab and shoot.

And a Canon EFS 55-250mm 1:4-5.6 IS

Mike, if you already own a EF-S 55-250mm, why the interest in the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS? While the 70-200 does have some benefits, unless you have some very specific telephoto needs it addresses you are probably better off with what you have and saving your money.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Mike, if you already own a EF-S 55-250mm, why the interest in the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS? While the 70-200 does have some benefits, unless you have some very specific telephoto needs it addresses you are probably better off with what you have and saving your money.

Oh...I was just pondering it. I read a lot of good things about that lens (ratings are thru the roof!) And I figured that you had taken extremely good care of it and that it would be a bit of an upgrade for me. And I would never spend the $$$ on anything close to a 400mm zoom. The idea of getting a high quality 320mm zoom intrigued me.

Without knowing your asking price, I probably would end up balking at spending that much money for not enough bang for my buck.

Plus the gray color is kinda cool!

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Oh...I was just pondering it. I read a lot of good things about that lens (ratings are thru the roof!) And I figured that you had taken extremely good care of it and that it would be a bit of an upgrade for me. And I would never spend the $$$ on anything close to a 400mm zoom. The idea of getting a high quality 320mm zoom intrigued me.

Without knowing your asking price, I probably would end up balking at spending that much money for not enough bang for my buck.

Plus the gray color is kinda cool!

The color is more of an "off white" than gray. The lens is going for around $500 - $550 used. Your EFS 55-250mm is a pretty well regarded lens in that EFS line up, so I'm not sure you would get enough benefit in the upgrade. Now, if you were considering buying a full frame body, then the lens would make a lot of sense, as your 55-250mm will not work on such a camera.

 

[Sam Posten]

Dunno if it was a price mistake or model close out as a product refresh is about to happen but I finally bought a set of constant lights. I intended to just get a cheapie $50 light to use with my 3D printing streams but this 3 light set Was $205 when I was searching yesterday. It’s up to $255 now but has a $15 off coupon. Much experimentation to come.

3 lights, 3 stands, remote and travel bag

See on Amazon

 

[Scott Merryfield]

I am finally getting around to completing the changeover of my kit to Canon's mirrorless RF mount system. I sold my Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L, EF 16-35mm f/4 IS L and EF 70-200mm f/4 IS L lenses, and will soon be getting rid of my Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro and Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 pancake lenses. That will leave me with just one Canon EF lens -- the 100-400mm IS L II. I may hang onto that for awhile.

So far, I have the following Canon RF mount lenses: 50mm f/1.8, 35mm f/1.8, and 24-105mm f/4 IS L. I plan on adding the 14-35mm f/4 IS L first, and then maybe the 800mm f/11 IS (it's a pretty inexpensive way to get some serious reach). I don't think I will replace the 70-200 f/4 or Sigma macro, as I didn't really use them much. Upgrading my EF 100-400mm to the RF 100-500mm is probably further down the road.

I still want to add another mirrorless body. I sold my two dSLR's about a year ago, and have just been sitting on the money since, as I have not been shooting as much, as we have not been traveling to locations during this pandemic. While I would like the Canon EOS R5, it's too pricey for my budget. I may pick up the R6 through Canon's loyalty program, as I can save about $400.

 

[Citizen87645]

I really enjoy using the R6. It is a culmination of the features I've been wanting in various cameras over the years in a perfect size and weight for my hand. The tech is at the point that if there are performance issues I am confident it's me or my overlooking a setting in the camera, and not some shortcoming in the device or features.

If I could afford and justify a second R6 I would, but for my second body I've gone with the RP that I managed to get 10% off at Best Buy with a coupon that wasn't supposed to work with camera gear.

Maybe down the road I will pick up a used R6 if my opinion of it holds up.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

I really enjoy using the R6. It is a culmination of the features I've been wanting in various cameras over the years in a perfect size and weight for my hand. The tech is at the point that if there are performance issues I am confident it's me or my overlooking a setting in the camera, and not some shortcoming in the device or features.

If I could afford and justify a second R6 I would, but for my second body I've gone with the RP that I managed to get 10% off at Best Buy with a coupon that wasn't supposed to work with camera gear.

Maybe down the road I will pick up a used R6 if my opinion of it holds up.

I have owned an EOS R for a couple of years, so that would become my 2nd body.

Glad to hear you are enjoying the R6. The only thing that's made me hesitant on that body versus the R5 is the resolution of around 20MP. It's a slight step back from my old Canon 5D Mark III's 22MP, and even more from my EOS R's 30MP. For most shots, it's not a big deal, but I do shoot wildlife and the added resolution is useful when I need to crop the image in post processing. I just cannot justify the much higher cost of the R5, though.

 

[Citizen87645]

Yeah the 20MP resolution is a bit lower than I would like in principle but so far in practice I haven't run into any problems with what I tend to do with my photos (i.e. not a lot of large prints being made). My slight hesitation about the pixel count was overcome when I saw that the 7D2 that I'd used for many years was also 20MP, which I never paid that much attention to until it came time to transition to the R6.

 

[Citizen87645]

As far as RF lenses, I'd eventually like to side-grade to the RF 70-200 f/4, but that's really only for the benefits of its size in transport alongside the other camera with the RF 24-105. So very low priority.

Higher interest would actually be for the RF 24-240mm for travel purposes.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

As far as RF lenses, I'd eventually like to side-grade to the RF 70-200 f/4, but that's really only for the benefits of its size in transport alongside the other camera with the RF 24-105. So very low priority.

Higher interest would actually be for the RF 24-240mm for travel purposes.

I have never been into "super zoom" lenses, so the 24-240 does not really appeal to me. I have the RF 24-105L f/4 IS L, and it works great for my purposes. If I need something longer, it's usually much longer for wildlife. I will eventually need something wider, so the RF 14-35mm f/4 IS L will replace the EF 16-35mm f/4 IS L I just sold. My landscape style does not trend to the ultra wide angle views too often, though, so this is not an urgent need. I have a EF-M 11-22mm to go with my compact M50 APS-C sensor mirrorless that I can use in a pinch for now.

The last time I used my EF 70-200 f/4 IS was in the summer of 2019 when we went to Iceland and I wanted to travel lighter, so I took it with a 1.4x TC instead of my 100-400L (the RF 70-200 f/4 doesn't work with a TC). I have a Canon EF-M 55-200mm lens for my M50, which is even more compact. The only other place I used the 70-200 was when I would shoot ice hockey (the constant maximum aperture worked well), and I have not done that in probably 5 years. If I need a compact RF mount telephoto, I will probably buy the relatively inexpensive RF 100-400mm IS, which has a higher max aperture of f/8 at the long end.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Yeah the 20MP resolution is a bit lower than I would like in principle but so far in practice I haven't run into any problems with what I tend to do with my photos (i.e. not a lot of large prints being made). My slight hesitation about the pixel count was overcome when I saw that the 7D2 that I'd used for many years was also 20MP, which I never paid that much attention to until it came time to transition to the R6.

The 7D2 (which I also used to own) is an APS-C sensor, though, so that is really an apples to oranges comparison. When shooting distant subjects, the crop sensor will get you a lot more "pixels on target" than a comparable resolution full frame sensor. I believe the math works out that if you needed to crop a 5D3 shot with its 22MP FF sensor to get the same field of view as a 7D2, you would end up with around an 8MP image.

The above is the main reason I hope the rumors are true and Canon eventually releases a RF-mount body with an APS-C sensor. When I had just dSLRs, I dedicated my 7D2 to wildlife shooting and used my full frame 5D3 for everything else. The 7D2 only was used with my two telephoto lenses. I would buy a Canon EOS R7 (the probable APS-C model number) to pair with an R6 and sell my EOS R.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

FWIW, I prefer the way Nikon implements their FF bodies (and cropped lenses) by offering in-body crop modes instead of forcing me to buy a different cropped body (and forcing cropped lenses to only be usable w/ such bodies), especially making better usage of the (more) electronic/digital nature of mirrorless. Just wish they kept the in-between 1.2x crop mode that I regularly used on my D800, especially for the lower MP Z6...

OTOH, it's nice that Canon's able to offer so many options in their R lenses so quickly w/ quite a few significantly cheaper and/or less bulky than Nikon's nearest offerings... though I've actually been plenty fine w/ Nikon's range since I've not actually been in any rush to buy new (mirrorless only) lenses, especially these last couple years... and the iPhone 13 Pro may shift me further away from lugging dedicated camera gear so regularly (as I did in the past) once I get back to being out and about more...

_Man_