Compatibility of Full Frame lenses...
 

Hello,

Currently, I'm looking into buying lenses for my Canon EOS Rebel XT, but I do plan on purchasing a 7D sometime in the not too distant- but not too close -future.

My question is, will the lenses that I buy for my Rebel XT still work for the APSC sensors since my camera is equipped with full frame sensor...and vice versa. Will the APSC lenses work with my full frame XT?

Thanks in advance!

Full frame will work on the APS-C sensor, but will give a field of view 1.6x smaller. Meaning your 50mm will look quite like an 80mm in terms of field of view.

The APS-C specific lenses will not work (in most cases) on the full frame camera. In some cases the lenses are physcally prevented from mounting, in others even if mounting hasn't been physically blocked, you'll see a black fringe around the picture where the APS-C lens simply cannot cover the bigger sensor with image.

bummer that the APSC lenses wont work on the XT!

Thanks for the quick response Perrone.

To be clear, the Rebel XT and the Canon 7D are both APS-C sensors, neither one is full-frame (35mm).

So, to be clear, any lense that works for the 7D will work just fine for the XT? I was under the impression that the XT was a full frame camera, but upon further research, I find that it is a reduced frame. I would like to get a Tamron 18-270mm but wasn't sure if it would be compatible with my XT because BH and other retailers listed it as specifically being designed for 7D ASP-C cameras...

So, just to be sure, any 7D lens is compatible with my XT and vice versa?

Thanks for the help!

Yes. But those cheap superzoom are about the worst lenses you can get for video work.

In a word, yes.

The only digital full-frame camera that Canon sells is the 5D and 1Ds

You don't want to do that. That's like buying a one-size-fits-all pair of clown pants. You can wear 'em, but do you REALLY want to?

As far as I am aware.

Thanks Perrone!

What about the Tamron do you not like? It has solid reviews and looking at sample shots that I googled, it looks like a solid choice. Unfortunately, I do not have the money to buy fixed focal length primes, otherwise I would love to. I also need the versatility of being able to go very wide to telephoto.

I'll mostly be shooting my kids, nature and urban photography. Nothing commercial, yet. But I figure a good walk-around lens will get me started in the right direction.

I'm at odds right now between the Tamron 18-270 and the Canon 18-200mm...both solid reviews. I'm even considering the 70-300mm, but having to swap lenses is a bit cumbersome and can cause me to lose my shot.

Versatility is key. Do you have any recomendations for a solid zoom lens that wont break the bank?

I laughed hard on that one. :)

Another alternative to consider (if you haven't already) is two moderate zoom lenses instead of one superzoom. You get much better image quality with the EF-S 18-55 IS and EF-S 55-250 IS, and you can get both of them for 30-40% less than the Tamron superzoom.

If you can kick the budget up a notch, you may be much more pleased with the EF-S 15-85. The image quality is superb and the I.S. is not as loud as most of the others, so it's a little more suited for video (manual focus is pretty smooth, but not enough rotation distance). Doesn't leave much money for a longer telephoto, though.

What do I not like? It's slow, it's distorted on the two ends, and apparently has CA issues. All the things that rob you of getting a sharp picture. I sure wouldn't pay the asking price for it. EVERYONE wants the versatility of going wide to telephoto. The question is how much quality are you willing to give up for the privilege?

Good. So buy a good walk around lens. An 18-270 is not a walk around lens. A 35mm is a walk around lens. My el cheapo 18-55mm is a walk around lens (actually it's a dust-cap but that's a different story).


Lose your shot? At the long end of the lens, you're talking about stuff you couldn't see with the naked eye. You'd never know the shot was there. "Swapping is cumbersome". Yep. Just like it was for the past 50 years. Somehow people got it done and took magnificent photos that we all admire today. And how in the WORLD did they do that having to open up the camera every 12 or 24 frames to change film? Talk about cumbersome.


I have very few zooms to recommend because most are awful. Fine for stills awful for video. I recommend you put a good 35mm F2.0 on there and go shoot. I know. That's not helpful advice to you. But I'll tell you what. Get your Tamron, shoot it for a month or two. Then come back here and update us with your EXIF information. Let's see what focal lengths you find yourself at 75% of the time or more.

That Canon "kit" lens that sells for $200 when you get it with a 7D, but for close to $400 if you buy it on its own is not all that bad. It's the 28-135. Starts out at a 3.5, I think, and stops down to a 5.6 as you zoom in. It's perfectly good for the intended use of the original poster. Not very wide on a a cropped sensor. It does have IS, but even with a shoulder mount and solid LCD viewer, you're not going to shoot handheld at anything beyond about 40 mm and be steady.

I got that lens as part of the package when I got a 7D, because it was relatively cheap. I found that it was quite acceptable for outdoor work. Not great, but useable. You have to go with what you can afford.

I agree that the more extreme zooms are not worth it. That 135mm on this Canon lens comes out to looking like a 216mm on the 7D and Rebel. That's way long enough for most things unless you're doing sports or wildlife. For video and even for stills unless you're at a high shutter speed, obviously you'll need a tripod for shooting that long a focal length.

There's also a Canon 18-135 that they sell for $400 with a package deal. I think it probably is over $500 on its own. If you have to just use one lens, it might be better for you than the 28-135. I think (but I'm not sure) it is probably an S lens, meaning for cropped sensor only. Both of these lenses are relatively cheap and either one will get you started. If you need wider angles, I'd go for the 18-135. But I would not go for a longer range zoom. The 28mm of the other one is probably not going to be wide enough for you, since you said you also need a wide angle. Keep in mind that these are slow lenses, meaning you'd have to shoot at a higher ISO in low light conditions. Shooting static stills you can use a slower shutter speed (if you're on a tripod and nothing moves much), but with video you're stuck at 1/50 (for 24 fps), so a higher ISO is all you can do if you don't light the scene.

When I had the 7D I also had a Tamron 28-75 (I was not yet committed to the DSLR concept for video, so I didn't want to spend serious money on lenses at that time) that I used for interviews. It was sharp and seemed solid and well built. The focus ring sucked. Even less throw than the Canon lenses, and felt very loose. It was useable but an irritant.

The EF-S 18-135 is down to the same price as the 28-135 now (at least in the US) for package deals as well as separately.

Thank you all for your input, however, I think there is a misconception that I am already an owner of a 7D and the primary use of the soon to be lens is for video.

In fact, I do not own a 7D and it's primary usage will be for Photography- not video. Having said that, does the 18-270 sound more appealing? Again, this is not for video use.

I actually own a Rebel XT. When I will updgrade to a 7D is anyone's best guess, including my own. If and when I do get a 7D, it's primary use will be Photography and experimental home videos. Any video use will be strictly non-commercial...until I start generating some income from my hobby, then and only then, will I consider prime lenses and somethign with a lot less focul range.

Is the same true for Photographs? Again, my main use will be for Photography. If this is true for both then It's something I will most definitely consider before I buy.

Touché. However, just because it has been that way traditionally doesn't mean it has to continue to be so...Technology is constantly changing and with the advent of digital...a lot of traditions just don't make any sense anymore. Cumbersome indeed. I'd rather not complicate my hobby if a simpler route is available, however, that's not to say I'm lazy and unimaginative to get around limitations. In regards to the range...well, not everything is out of the naked eyes sight. Example.

My boy and I are playing in our backyard, he's a running machine and runs past my 55mm limit, but is within range of 200 and even 300. He'll be tiny, but not invisible. I'm not doing Astro-Photography here.

I'm OK with them being awful for video. My primary use will be stills on a Rebel XT.

The reason I posted this on the 7D forum is because:

1) I plan on purchasing one

and

2) I was looking at lenses advertised as being specifically for the 7D and I wasn't sure if the older Rebel models (XT) were compatible.

Sorry if I caused any confusion. I really appreciate your input guys! Please keep in mind this is primarily for Photography and not videography. I've got my XL2 for that. Sure, it's not as Shallow, but it's got all the bells and whistles I need to make good looking (and sounding) video.

Fixed that for you.

Thank you, I was not aware of that model.