Film camera lenses....

[Storky1980]

O.K so i am about to ask what may or may not be a stupid question.....

Are lenses for FILM SLR compatible with DSLR cameras?

The reason i ask is while looking online for lenses to buy (it will be my first progression from the kit lens), Some of the adverts for used ones on ebay etc etc have left me with a little confusion as to whether they are for film or digital cameras, i only just wondered lens-wise, is there a significant difference?

 

[fokker]

For your 1000D almost any lens from a film EOS SLR will work. Avoid the older FD lenses as they will not work. Anything designated EF or EF-S will work on your camera. Just keep in mind that a lot of the old film camera lenses are just cheap kit lenses as well, only with less suitable focal length ranges for your crop-sensor DSLR.

 

[Josh66]

Anything designated EF or EF-S will work on your camera.

Yes, but if you want to shoot film (or upgrade to a full-frame digital body later), avoid EF-S lenses.

Any EF lens will work on any EOS body (film or digital). EF-S lenses are for digital crop bodies only.

EF-S lenses are cheaper because the image circle is smaller. For a crop body, that's fine. At the wide end of the lens though (pretty sure all EF-S lenses are zooms), the image circle isn't big enough to cover a full frame sensor or a 35mm frame. Not to mention that it won't physically mount to a full frame camera without modification.

 

[Storky1980]

So basically they will work but probably not worth the saving a few bucks?
Ahh well, i guess it's handy to know if i'm ever offered one for free or next to free.
Cheers mate, thats exactly the info i was looking for :thumbup:

 

[Josh66]

Well, a stock EF-S lens will not even mount to a full frame body unless you modify it.
There's a little extra piece of plastic that you would have to cut or grind off.

So, you can make it work, but it won't work right out of the box. Not worth it IMO - unless you just have an extra EF-S lens laying around that you don't mind taking a grinder to.

If you plan on playing with film, just stick to EF lenses. Or at least try to keep the EF-S collection to a minimum. Same goes for full frame digital bodies too.

You wouldn't want to upgrade and find that none of your lenses fit your new camera...

I'm not saying that EF-S lenses are bad, just keep in mind that you won't be able to use them on a film body or a full frame digital body.

 

[Storky1980]

HAha no plans to play with film yet dude, still getting my head round digital.... one thing at a time for me i think.

I think i will get a good few years out of this camera before i feel the need to upgrade and part of choosing the less expensive model was so i could spend the saved cash on lenses and accessories anyway.
So thanks for the advice fellas, i'm a lot clearer on what i need to be buying now.

 

[Rekd]

HAha no plans to play with film yet dude, still getting my head round digital.... one thing at a time for me i think.

I think i will get a good few years out of this camera before i feel the need to upgrade and part of choosing the less expensive model was so i could spend the saved cash on lenses and accessories anyway.
So thanks for the advice fellas, i'm a lot clearer on what i need to be buying now.

We have much in common... the Sony Cybershot, the old 35mm lenses on a DSLR. If you're interested, I just wrote a post earlier today on a topic that fits here almost perfectly... I bolded the more relevant stuff.

Great shots, Ron.

...the photos I just presented are as good or better than a lot I see here from dSLRs. It is not so much my skill as that of the camera.

If your camera has a good lens it doesn't matter. Anyone that can frame can take good, clear shots. My Sony DSC H5 has a Zeiss lens and takes great shots. The first 3 years I made money from photos was with that camera shooting motorsports.

.5fps + .3 seconds shutter lag = a lot of *@#&$

Still, when I got my 7D less than a year ago using 35mm era cannon glass and the kit lens the results were meh at best. I could never get equal results as I got with the Sony. I had lots more decent shots, but the quality out of the camera was dissapointing.

Once I put the 70-200 f2.8 L on the quality of my photography went straight back to that of the Sony only better, and tons less shots of a corner with no vehicle in it (or just a rear quarterpanel) because I missed the shot waiting for the camera.

Now at 8fps, undetectable shutter lag and nearly instant focus, I got a record 45% keepers on my first event using the 2.8. And it was at a day-time/night-time concert, the Mayhem Festival. (I shot Korn, Rob Zombie, Lamb of God, Hatebreed and the freestyle motocross team Metal Mulisha.) :mrgreen:

So yeah, a dslr isn't needed to get good picts, but it takes good picture taking to a whole different level.eacesign:

The lenses I'm referring to are an EF 70-210mm f4.0 macro and a EF 20-35mm f3.5-4.5. They're the main reason I bought Canon; I had a good variety of lenses that I could work with. Problem was they were hard to get crisp shots that pop. With good glass I get stuff out of the camera that I could never do with post processing.