"Normal" lens for 1.6x crop factor?

[Big Mike]

Ack... I'm not going to be buying a fish-eye lens in the near future but that doesn't sound too great for DSLR users.

I've heard about a fish-eye lens that is 8mm or something like that...which would probably be for crop bodies.

I've heard of full frame DSLRs but they are usually extremely expensive right?

There were a few older ones from Kodak, but let's not mention them. Right now, there is the Canon 5D (fairly expensive) and the Canon 1Ds mk II and the 1Ds mk III (very very expensive).
There is also the new Nikon D3, which is also very expensive.

 

[Mav]

Ack... I'm not going to be buying a fish-eye lens in the near future but that doesn't sound too great for DSLR users. I've heard of full frame DSLRs but they are usually extremely expensive right?

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3337&navigator=6

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/535763-USA/Sigma_477_101_10mm_f_2_8_EX_DC.html

$649 seems like a good price. I suspect this will be a hot item for Canon 1.6x DSLR owners since this is the first fisheye being made for those bodies. Nikon's 10.5mm DX body fisheye came out in 2003 so most people who want one have one. I have this lens and love it. It's great for all sorts of things, and with the various software out there you can leave it full-fish or do a full rectilinear conversion or anything in between.

 

[fatsheep]

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3337&navigator=6

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/535763-USA/Sigma_477_101_10mm_f_2_8_EX_DC.html

$649 seems like a good price. I suspect this will be a hot item for Canon 1.6x DSLR owners since this is the first fisheye being made for those bodies. Nikon's 10.5mm DX body fisheye came out in 2003 so most people who want one have one. I have this lens and love it. It's great for all sorts of things, and with the various software out there you can leave it full-fish or do a full rectilinear conversion or anything in between.

Ack... I'm not going to be buying a fish-eye lens in the near future but that doesn't sound too great for DSLR users. I've heard of full frame DSLRs but they are usually extremely expensive right?

One word makes all the difference doesn't it? I've done that many times before though so don't worry about it. I'll make a note of the lens you recommended though.

 

[dipstick]

It's about time we get a sticky about the big focal length confusion on crop cameras. People seems to be confusing the field of view with focal length. It is not only a problem among beginners, I even tried to explain this to professional photographers that doesn't seem to have a clue.

What I don't get though is why the confusion is so massive nowadays. For those of us who have been shooting film, we always knew that a 50mm would give a different angle of view on a 6x6 then on a 35mm camera.

Instead of saying "this 18mm is really a 28mm", we should say "this 18mm lens on a cropped sensor camera will give you the same field of view as a 28mm lens on a 35mm camera.

The strange thing though is that a lot of people haven't been using anything else than crop cameras, and they are still confused about the "real" focal length. Why bother unless you shoot two different formats?

It is what it is...

 

[fatsheep]

It's about time we get a sticky about the big focal length confusion on crop cameras...

I'd agree, a general beginner's sticky would be a good idea. It could cover the issue discussed here as well as basics: exposure, shutter speed, aperture, ISO, depth of field, etc... Then maybe a section about common problems and such.

I'd be willing to write up a little explanation of exposure (shutter speed, aperture, and ISO) for the sticky.

 

[Big Mike]

People rarely read stickies anyway.

All of these topics have been discussed many, many times before...all someone needs to do, is use the search function.

 

[fatsheep]

People rarely read stickies anyway.

All of these topics have been discussed many, many times before...all someone needs to do, is use the search function.

Sure, searching the forum works but the information is going to be spread out over many different topics. We could make that search a lot faster by just making a sticky. People could contribute to the sticky and revise to make it up to date, accurate, and easy to read. Basic questions could be referred to the sticky instead of answered individually. That would make things easier for the novice (as well as the people answering questions) in my opinion.

 

[Josh66]

What exactly is the difference between EF and EF-S lenses? They look the same to me. The mount doesn't appear to be physically different...

 

[Sideburns]

It's about time we get a sticky about the big focal length confusion on crop cameras. People seems to be confusing the field of view with focal length. It is not only a problem among beginners, I even tried to explain this to professional photographers that doesn't seem to have a clue.

What I don't get though is why the confusion is so massive nowadays. For those of us who have been shooting film, we always knew that a 50mm would give a different angle of view on a 6x6 then on a 35mm camera.

Instead of saying "this 18mm is really a 28mm", we should say "this 18mm lens on a cropped sensor camera will give you the same field of view as a 28mm lens on a 35mm camera.

The strange thing though is that a lot of people haven't been using anything else than crop cameras, and they are still confused about the "real" focal length. Why bother unless you shoot two different formats?

It is what it is...

I agree. Unless you shoot both film/FF and digital/crop...then why does it matter...you don't know the difference anyway.

What exactly is the difference between EF and EF-S lenses? They look the same to me. The mount doesn't appear to be physically different...

The back lens is closer to the sensor...it's smaller in diameter...and they're cheaper to make.

 

[AmericanJesus]

Whats it meant by 1.6 crop factor?

 

[Mav]

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=crop+factor

 

[Big Mike]

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/search.php?searchid=1061433

 

[yeti]

What exactly is the difference between EF and EF-S lenses? They look the same to me. The mount doesn't appear to be physically different...

It was already mentioned that EF lenses have a wider image zone than the EF-S ones. It was also mentioned that EF-S lenses protrude a bit further into the camera.

I would like to contribute the following:

Wide-angle lens have to collect light from a very wide angle and then produce an image on a sensor or film of a fixed size. With a mirror moving back and forth you have to leave some space before the film/sensor for it. This is typically very hard to do and requires lots of expensive elements to collect light from so large an angle, bend it in all sorts of ways and then make it produce an image of certain size, distance and quality into the camera.

If you get closer to the film/sensor, however, you can shorten the focus distance of your lens, which means you don't need to bend light so much anymore to produce an image on your film/sensor. This translates into fewer and cheaper elements for your wide-angle lens, which translates into lower production costs for a good-quality lens, which finally directly translates into more $$$ in your pocket and happier parents/spouse.

On film cameras there is so much you can do: you can't ask the world to change the film they use, and if you did, quality would suffer. Your film is 35mm, therefore your mirror has to be approximately 35mm as well. Well 35mm is 35mm and requires so much space to swing and that's that. With a digital cameras things are different: your CCD is as big or as small as you can make it (and still have customers buying your cameras). So, Canon, seeing that a 35mm CCD is currently so incredibly expensive to make (I assume because of all the noise it picks up and the purity of the silicon required), decided to do something about it and have two problems solve each other.

Telephoto lens are fine with EF: the larger the distance to produce image, the better as they tend to bend light THE OTHER WAY. Having them as EF-S is silly. Instead all Canon has to do is make sure EF-S and EF mounts compatible (read physically and electrically the same) and your telephoto lens would work just fine without being specially crafted for EF-S. However wide-angle lens, which benefit from cropped-sensor cameras, are cheaper as EF-S than they would be if they were EF. The same goes for the cameras that use them.

The bottom line is that EF-S is basically a way to cut production costs for both your lens and your camera, with the tradeoff that your not-so-expensive-lens-anymore will only work on your not-so-expensive-camera-anymore (or your camera's mirror will crash into the lens as it swings and your expensive camera would be ruined).

That's my take on things. Correct me if I am wrong. I hope it helps.