I am new in this DSLR frenzy, Going to get the T2i to get me started, My question is what lenses can I buy for the T2i that will also work on the 5D (future purchase). I know there is a crop factor on the 5D with the Full Frame sensor, but can you still use the same lenses for both ? Like the Tokina 11-16mm it says ( not designed for cameras with Full Frame sensors).
Can anyone explain ?
Thanks

I'm interested in this too - to be honest, I've never used any sort of SLR camera and am a total novice about lenses for them...

I wonder what sort of lens comes with the package deal (and if it;s any good).

john

T2i SLR kit come with ef-s 18-55mm zoom lens which is a $170 lens, $100 when you buy it with the T2i camera.

There are two types of lens mounts compatible with the T2i/550D: EF and EF-S lens mounts. The 5D is only compatible with EF lenses (and not EF-S). So all lenses you can use on a 5D you can use on a T2i/550D, but not necessarily the other way around.

APS-C sensors (found in the T2i and 7D) are smaller than the Full Frame sensors (5D) and need less room inside the camera for the mirror to swing, hence leaving more room compared to the Full Frame sensor. The EF-S lenses take advantage of this extra room which allows the an EF-S lens to have a shorter back focus distance, allowing wide angles for EF-S lenses at cheaper prices.

Further Reading! (http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html) Srcroll down to the section called "What is an EF-S lens?" Probably Explains it better than I could... :P

Canon EF lenses = 35mm Full Frame
Canon EF-S lenses = APS-C

So if you want something you can slap on either without thinking about it, buy EF glass.

Thanks Aaron and Bill for that information, it is more clear to me now about lenses, I guess I would not be buying the Tokina 11-16mm after all :(
Any suggestion for a fair price for EF lenses ?

T2i SLR kit come with ef-s 18-55mm zoom lens which is a $170 lens, $100 when you buy it with the T2i camera.

Thanks for that! Has anyone used this particular lens before, or is it a new lens just for the Rebel?

If it's an older lens, can someone comment on the quality?

john

As a rule of thumb the "L" zooms are a lot better than the non L zooms. With primes some of the non L glass is top notch and very reasonable in price. There are several websites with reviews of every lens Canon offers.

What are those websites, I'd be interested in checking them out?

"Any Canon EOS camera with a red dot on the lens mount can take EF lenses. Any Canon EOS camera with both a red dot and a white square on the lens mount can take both EF lenses and EF-S lenses."

If this statement is true I have an old Canon AE-1 program 35mm camera with some old lenses which they all have the red dot on them, do I have a lens collection that I can use with T2i & 5D that I did not know about it that is collecting dust for years ?

All Canon EOS cameras, film and digital, use the EF mount. EF-S is not a mount; it's the designation used for lenses that can only project an image circle big enough for an APS-C sensor (but not anything larger, such as APS-H or full frame).

The AE-1 is not an EOS camera. It uses old FD lenses, which cannot be adapted for the EF mount without using an optical element (in the adapter) that significantly reduces image quality. However, you can adapt Nikon, Olympus OM, Pentax K, and M42 lenses without losing quality.

L series lenses are expensive. Primes might individually have lower MSRPs than zooms, but you're only getting one focal length with each lens. A couple of primes could easily cost more than a single zoom.

L lenses are probably overkill for video. Considering the downscaling and aliasing issues that come with producing an HD image from an 18.1 MP sensor, the advantages of a top-class new autofocus lens over an old (but good) manual focus lens are lost. If you're buying the camera primarily for video use, then L lenses are probably not the best value proposition. If the still photo capability is just as important to you, then, yes, every little bit of extra lens quality helps.

Thanks for that! Has anyone used this particular lens before, or is it a new lens just for the Rebel?

If it's an older lens, can someone comment on the quality?

john

Review of the lens: Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens Review (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx)

Thanks Aaron and Bill for that information, it is more clear to me now about lenses, I guess I would not be buying the Tokina 11-16mm after all :(
Any suggestion for a fair price for EF lenses ?

There are three major off-brand (third party) lens vendors today: Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina. All three offer good lenses at prices way less than Canon's. Just about any lens from one of those brands will be a suitable choice. If you're buying lenses with both a T2i and a 5D in mind, then be aware of the following:

On the T2i, <24mm is "wide," 28-35mm is "normal," 50mm is "portrait," and >70mm is "telephoto."

On the 5D, <40mm is "wide," 50mm is "normal," 85-100mm is "portrait," and >105mm is "telephoto."

Because of the crop factor, lenses that are wide enough for both the T2i and the 5D are expensive. The best thing to do is to buy a wide-end lens specifically for the T2i. It won't work on the 5D, but I'm sure that it will be cheaper than a really wide lens that works on both.

@Fei Meng:

For filming is a little bit different because of 16:9 image:

APS-C (like 7D, T2i): 25mm is normal
APS-H (like 1D IV): 31mm is normal
FF (like 5D II): 40mm is normal


Daniel

All Canon EOS cameras, film and digital, use the EF mount. EF-S is not a mount; it's the designation used for lenses that can only project an image circle big enough for an APS-C sensor (but not anything larger, such as APS-H or full frame).

That's not true. The EF-S mount is physically different from the EF, the "S" stands for "short back focus". You cannot mount an EF-S lens on a 1D, 1Ds or 5D or any EOS film camera or EOS mount teleconverter or extension tube (I think you might be able to find an EF-S tube on Ebay now tho) without physically modifying the lens. It will not fit, there's an extra ring/riser at the back that prevents it from mounting.

It's correct that the image circle is designed to only cover APS-C, but many third party lenses sold for the 1.5x or 1.6x crop can actually cover APS-H.

EF-S is only available from Canon, all third-party cropped lenses are not called EF-S since they're not actually using the EF-S mount.

so if I need a good wide lens for this camera, not a fisheye, but a nice wide lens, what's the

-widest
-sharpest
-fastest
-cheapest

(combo of all of the above) option there? The Tokina 11-16? Is there a decent wide prime lens for this camera, so that I could maybe get a wide prime and then a decent standard-to-telefoto zoom and cover my bases with those two (I can always rent lenses for more specific purposes)?

I say wide prime because I don't really need to zoom with a wide shot, so why add the extra glass and cost there? Seems smarter to let that be a prime and then use the zoom where it's truly useful...

Review of the lens: Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens Review (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx)

Thank you Fei! Lot's of info - bottom line seems to be that's it a good bang for the buck...

john

David, If you look in the 7D section you'll see lots of recent discussion about wide angles for crop sensor Canons. Not all (hardly any) of the suggestions will fit a full frame like the 5D (as per the title of this thread).

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-7d-hd/472783-cheap-wide-angle.html

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-7d-hd/470245-recieved-my-7d-today-wide-angle-lens-advice-have-2-mind.html

@David,

The Tokina 11-17 is pretty well the only lens that meets the description. Lots of wides, but few are fast, and then only one that's cheapish.

It's not the fastest, widest, cheapest or sharpest, but it's best combo of all four.

(combo of all of the above) option there? The Tokina 11-16? .

Just keep in mind that the Yokina 11-16 only works on T2i-7D Not 5D(Full Frame sensors).

@David,

The Tokina 11-17 is pretty well the only lens that meets the description. Lots of wides, but few are fast, and then only one that's cheapish.

It's not the fastest, widest, cheapest or sharpest, but it's best combo of all four.

This lens, right?
Amazon.com: Tokina 11-16MM F/2.8 ATX 116 Lens for Canon EOS AF Digital - Tokina ATX116PRODXC: Electronics

...Wouldn't want to buy the wrong one....

john

@Fei Meng:

For filming is a little bit different because of 16:9 image:

APS-C (like 7D, T2i): 25mm is normal
APS-H (like 1D IV): 31mm is normal
FF (like 5D II): 40mm is normal


Daniel
That's the first time that I've ever seen anyone make that claim. I think that it's irrelevant. There's a reason why I put "wide," "normal," etc. in quotation marks. Labels are practically arbitrary and a matter of convention/consensus.

The 16:9 mode crops the top and bottom. So the horizontal field of view remains unchanged. 50mm provides a "normal" horizontal FOV for FF, whether shooting in 3:2 (for stills) or 16:9.

This lens, right?
Amazon.com: Tokina 11-16MM F/2.8 ATX 116 Lens for Canon EOS AF Digital - Tokina ATX116PRODXC: Electronics (http://www.amazon.com/Tokina-11-16MM-ATX-Canon-Digital/dp/B0014Z3XMC/ref=sr_1_2/183-5807266-5482734?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1267202162&sr=8-2)

...Wouldn't want to buy the wrong one....

john

That's the right one. Just make sure that they actually have it in stock.

The 16:9 mode crops the top and bottom. So the horizontal field of view remains unchanged. 50mm provides a "normal" horizontal FOV for FF, whether shooting in 3:2 (for stills) or 16:9.

For filming only the used height of the sensor / negativ is important for what is normal focal length - the format 3:2, 16:9 or 2,35:1 is only a art decission.

Normal focal lenght = double height of used sensor part.

From the sensor of the 7D / T2i is only 12,5 mm height used for filming = normal focal lenght is 25 mm.

If you shoot 2,35:1 format with the 7D / T2i without a anamorphic lense only 9,5 mm height is used = 19 mm normal focal lenght.


Daniel

Ofc I posted this in the wrong topic -- hopefully this is more correct:

If I buy an Nikon series-E adapter, will pretty much every series-e lens work with the 550d withput problem? Or are there some things to consider, like for example not being able to use zoom-lenses or you have to have lenses that are no more than 100mm or something

Or is it a perfect match?

For filming only the used height of the sensor / negativ is important for what is normal focal length - the format 3:2, 16:9 or 2,35:1 is only a art decission.

Normal focal lenght = double height of used sensor part.

From the sensor of the 7D / T2i is only 12,5 mm height used for filming = normal focal lenght is 25 mm.

If you shoot 2,35:1 format with the 7D / T2i without a anamorphic lense only 9,5 mm height is used = 19 mm normal focal lenght.


Daniel
I've never seen that definition. In still photography, the normal focal length is equivalent to the diagonal of the image format. In cinematography, the normal focal length is equivalent to twice the diagonal of the image format.

Thus, 50mm is considered the "normal" focal length in 35mm cinematography (22mm*16mm frame size). 25mm is "normal" in 16mm cinematography (10.3mm*7.5mm frame size). Just about every cinematography book says this, such as the popular Kris Malkiewicz and David Mullen book.

I try to explain why using "the diagonal of the image format" make no real sense for filming - but my english is not very good.

Let us compare a FF sensor (36mm * 24mm) with an fictive 2,35:1 sensor with a size of 39,81mm * 16,94mm:

- Both sensors have the same diagonal but different image heights 24mm to 17mm.

- Regarding the still photography definition "equivalent to the diagonal of the image format" on both sensors the normal focal lenght will be 43mm.


If you will understood why the defination "twice of the image height" make more sense and not the still photography definition let us make a medium long shot with both cameras.

If you shoot this medium long shoot from the same disatance with both cameras you must use a wider lense on the 2,35:1 sensor because this sensor is 7mm smaller in height than the FF sensor.

So if you use a 24mm objective on the camera with the FF sensor you must use a 17mm lense on the 2,35:1 sensor to make the same medium long shot from the same position.

The only difference between the 2 shots is that the image is wider - but this is only an art decission.


Daniel

@Fei Meng:

Ok - i have found the problem.

The old cinematography definition "twice the diagonal of the image format" for a normal objectiv have nothing to do with a focal lenght that correspondent with normal vertical human viewing angel of 30 degree.

So you have right but for a cameraman is more usefull to knew what is the focal lenght that correspondent with the vertical human viewing angel - that is what i understood under normal focal lenght.


regards
Daniel

For me, I think the height is the critical item. Look at 16x9 TV shows that are also made for 4x3 TV viewing. Rather than letterbox for 4x3 or crop vertically to get 16x9, the 16x9 view gets more width. This makes a lot of sense, because the framing is mainly to get a certain amount of a person's face or body.

When shooting 2.35:1 I would definitely want wider lenses than for 4x3 or 16x9. It's all about how I want to frame the people vertically. The wider aspect simply gives more peripheral view.

I try to explain why using "the diagonal of the image format" make no real sense for filming
Your "twice the height" definition makes no sense, and your comments suggest that you made-up this definition yourself, rather than getting it from professional cinematographers.

Here an implication of your definition: Consider two sensors. One has an active area of 13.3mm*10mm (1.33:1 aspect ratio, the original silent film AR). The other has an active area of 23.9mm*10mm (2.39:1 aspect ratio, which is the true AR of anamorphic productions these days). According to you, a "normal" lens for both sensors would be 20mm. So you're telling me that the same lens approximates human vision even though the second sensor provides a 1.8x wider horizontal field of view?

Regarding the still photography definition "equivalent to the diagonal of the image format" on both sensors the normal focal lenght will be 43mm.
Yes, and that's why 50mm is considered "normal" in the still photography world.

You cinematography definition "twice the diagonal of the image format" is nonsens because the normal focal lenght after this defination will be 86mm.
My definition is the one that professional cinematographers, working in such major industry venues as Hollywood, use. In fact, 86mm for "normal" is not nonsense. The reason why you don't see cinematographers using and talking about that number is because nobody shoots in VistaVision (which has the same frame size as full frame) anymore.

Your argument here is self-defeating because there's no such thing as 39.8mm*16.9mm image format.

Normal focal lenght for 16mm or 2/3" Video is 14mm/13mm not 25mm.
Who says this? The source that I cited is a book written by two professionals. One of them is a professor of film. The other is a major Hollywood cinematographer. Maybe conventions are different in Germany, but I have no way of knowing unless you cite your sources.

If you will understood why the defination "twice of the image height" make more sense and not the still photography definition let us make a medium long shot with both cameras.

If you shoot this medium long shoot from the same disatance with both cameras you must use a wider lense on the 2,35:1 sensor because this sensor is 7mm smaller in height than the FF sensor.

So if you use a 24mm objective on the camera with the FF sensor you must use a 17mm lense on the 2,35:1 sensor to make the same medium long shot from the same position.
You have a point here, but the problem is that when cinematographers compose an image, the horizontal FOV is more important than the vertical FOV. In the days before widescreen, when close-ups were used far more sparingly and shots were held for longer, cinematographers had to resort to medium shots just to be able to fit more actors into the frame at one time.

Directors in classical Hollywood cinema loved (and, I would say, preferred) to compose shots in which most or all of the key characters in every scene were in view most of the time. The aesthetic advantages of this approach are obvious: It allowed the director to better establish spacial relationships between characters and their environment and between each other. Those relationships were then used to express the themes or emotions that the director wished to convey in the scene.

I find that to be superior to the dominant conventions today, which favor more close-ups and shorter shot durations. These have the effect of isolating the characters from each other and from their environment, while bringing them closer to the audience. I believe that the proliferation of widescreen is partly to blame for this change in aesthetic, because directors and cinematographers realized that they could fit more information in a frame without losing the sense of intimacy that they wanted for the characters.

And perhaps everyone got used to tighter shots, to the point that tighter shots became preferred, which naturally led to faster cuts in order to allow the camera to show more of the space within a scene. That, combined with the popularization of shallow depth-of-field and flatter compositions, has ultimately resulted in the ironic development of a modern aesthetic in which the average shot conveys much less information than typical shots from classical Hollywood.

So in the end, when considering field of view and image format, what matters most to most cinematographers and directors is not what sort of shot (medium, long, close-up) they want, but rather what information they want to convey in the shot. And that's why you can't downplay the difference between two image formats by saying that one is only wider than the other. It's not "only an art decision"; it has major implications for storytelling.

By the way, legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins discusses the "normal lens" issue on his forum (http://www.deakinsonline.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=427&start=0) and his own idea of "normal" for 35mm cinematography is 32mm. (He considers 27mm to be "wide" due to the distortion in close-ups.) Really, the labels are more or less arbitrary for experienced shooters. But presenting good information is important for beginners, since they have no frame of reference. What's the use of telling them at 25mm is "normal" for an APS-C camera like T2i/550D when nobody else in the world uses that convention?

For me, I think the height is the critical item. Look at 16x9 TV shows that are also made for 4x3 TV viewing. Rather than letterbox for 4x3 or crop vertically to get 16x9, the 16x9 view gets more width. This makes a lot of sense, because the framing is mainly to get a certain amount of a person's face or body.

When shooting 2.35:1 I would definitely want wider lenses than for 4x3 or 16x9. It's all about how I want to frame the people vertically. The wider aspect simply gives more peripheral view.
What's worth noting is that shots captured on Super 35, which are composed for different release formats, are cropped vertically and horizontally to achieve the desired final aspect ratios. In other words, a 2.35:1 theatrical print will actually have less vertical information than the 1.33:1 "full screen" home video master.

Pixar doesn't do any cropping for their "full screen" home video releases. They actually rearrange the elements within every shot so that the same information is conveyed as in the widescreen version.

Having seen both the IMAX and regular versions of Avatar, I can say that the regular 2.35:1 version is definitely cropped vertically from the IMAX. And in my opinion, the IMAX aspect ratio is the better presentation of the movie, because the 2.35:1 felt a bit too tight in many shots.

By the way, legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins discusses the "normal lens" issue on his forum (http://www.deakinsonline.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=427&start=0) and his own idea of "normal" for 35mm cinematography is 32mm.

That exactly what i mean. The image area of 35mm film is 22mm * 16mm - twice the height is 32 mm.

That is the modern definition (not my definition) and this definition is for beginners more useful than the old.



After the old definition the standart lense for T2i will be around 50mm.

Beginner will think 50mm is the normal lens for filming - cool, for wide images i need a good 24mm lens.

But in reality a 24mm lens on a T2i will not archiv a wide image.


Daniel

I grew up with this stuff. But I teach and I know there are people reading this who are confused. The holes in 35mm film run along the top and bottom in an old fashioned SLR. In a movie camera they run on the left and right side. So the width of the image is defined by the width of the film in movies and the height is defined by the film in an SLR. So a 35MM SLR Still image is a whole lot bigger than a 35MM movie image. Hope this helps and not hurts the newbies that the T2i will bring in.

The DoF of the 7D or T2i is very near the DoF of 35mm movie image.
Why should this "hurts the newbies that the T2i will bring in"?


Daniel

Hi guys,

Just noticed that you are talking about which lenses are working with the new Canon Rebel T2i / 550D.

I wrote a review / shot a video ("February") with a pre-production 550D earlier this week that you might have seen and read.

I've just started a new series on my blog talking about essential accessories for this camera, especially considering if you're on a budget. I started out with lenses:
On a budget? Pimp your new Canon EOS Rebel T2i / 550D with essential accessories! Part 1: BASIC LENSES | Nino Film - Blog - Nino Leitner (http://ninofilm.net/blog/2010/03/01/pimp-t2i-550d-part1/)

Looking forward to feedback! Please write me if you feel I missed a lens that is a "must-have"! Thanks!