Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 31 May 2014 (Saturday) 08:50
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

EOS Film Lenses Don't Work W/Rebel XSi

 
alamogunr
Mostly Lurking
14 posts
Joined Jun 2008
     
May 31, 2014 08:50 |  #1

I realize that I shouldn't even be here considering my use of photography(snapshots of family, holidays, travel), but I thought the knowledgeable people here could help.

For years I used an EOS 10S and lenses. When I decided to upgrade to digital, I bought an EOS Rebel XSi, thinking that those lenses would work with the digital. NOT! They do not autofocus correctly. All photographs are slightly out of focus. The lenses are a 35mm-135mm f4-5.6 and a 100mm-300mm f4.5-5.6. The 100-300 is better than the 35-135. I have worked around it foe a couple of years but am no longer satisfied.

Is my only recourse to buy new lenses for the Rebel XSi or am I missing something.

John




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
rrblint
Listen! .... do you smell something?
Avatar
20,612 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 1435
Joined May 2012
Location: U.S.A.
     
May 31, 2014 09:26 |  #2

There is no reason why those lenses shouldn't work on your XSi unless they have been dropped or otherwise mishandled. Please post some images with which you are unhappy, with EXIF intact. We can have a look at the EXIF to see what is wrong. There are many reasons for photos being out of focus, old lenses is not one of them.


Mark

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,170 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 47
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
May 31, 2014 10:10 as a reply to  @ rrblint's post |  #3

It isn't unknown for a body to be miscalibrated when you buy it, and front or back focus with most lenses that are put on it. It is possible that you bought a faulty XSi and that is where your problem lies, and not the lenses. If it has had this issue since you bought it, and it sounds like you have, the best course of action would have been to simply return it and have it replaced straight away.

After so long, that option has gone, however you could still send the body, with your lenses, to Canon and have the calibration checked and adjusted. I doubt they still service those lenses, but if it is the body at fault then they will just calibrate it to the lenses. It will cost a bit to get done, unless you have an extended warranty, but way cheaper than new lenses.

It's a pity you didn't query this when you bought the camera.

Of course, there may be another reason for the problem, so post some shots here first and we can give a more informed opinion.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidc502
Goldmember
Avatar
3,456 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 31
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Tennessee
     
May 31, 2014 10:10 |  #4

I own both of those lenses, and they do indeed work on Canon DSLR's.

Here's the problem, those lenses were designed in another era. If you're going to take shots and print 3x5 or 4x6, it's going to be fine. However, if you're going to pixel peep and blow the sizes up, the flaws with those lenses are going to show.

Both of those lenses were great in the day I shot 35mm film and used my EOS Elan, but those days have past, and those old lenses just aren't relevant anymore. Funny, the last time I used my 35-135mm, I shot F/8 on everything, and did have a few keepers, but it was slim pickings.

This one was shot at f/10 with the 35-135mm. <edited since photo changed>

IMAGE: http://personalpages.tds.net/~davidc502/Canon/IMG_2721A.JPG

_
My Gear is ---> Here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MakisM1
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,424 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 231
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
May 31, 2014 11:00 |  #5

It could very well be that the body front/back focuses. I have the EF 35-70 from the EOS 630 (ca 1989) and it is sharp as a tack! The AF leaves much to be desired, but this is another story (i.e. it will not be responsive in demanding situations).

Here is a photo and 100%crop:

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i37.photobucket​.com …MG_5197DT_zps7f​acd082.jpg (external link)


PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i37.photobucket​.com …_zps057c563c.jp​g~original (external link)

Gerry
Canon 5D MkIII/Canon 60D/Canon EF-S 18-200/Canon EF 24-70L USM II/Canon EF 70-200L 2.8 USM II/Canon EF 50 f1.8 II/Σ 8-16/ 430 EXII
OS: Linux Ubuntu/PostProcessing: Darktable/Image Processing: GIMP

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
48,310 posts
Gallery: 79 photos
Likes: 4433
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
May 31, 2014 11:07 |  #6

How to test for front/Back focus;
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=10526

Dare to repair it yourself;
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=345457


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,170 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 47
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
May 31, 2014 11:23 |  #7

davidc502 wrote in post #16942179 (external link)
This one was shot at f/8 with the 35-135mm. Still, look at the trees in the background, notice how they aren't very sharp. Even shot at f/8 the photo isn't sharp through the entire frame.

Three points:

Firstly, the trees in the background are just that, the background. Quite some distance away from where you focused, so they aren't going to be "very sharp" with any lens. You should be judging the sharpness of a lens by looking at what you actually focused on, not something hundreds of metres further back.

Secondly, the processing is so heavy and so artefacted it is hard to tell how the trees would look before you applied that effect. Why not demonstrate with a straight shot so we can see how it actually looks?

Thirdly, the exif says that shot was taken with an EF 50mm f/1.4 prime, not the 35-135 zoom.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidc502
Goldmember
Avatar
3,456 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 31
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Tennessee
     
May 31, 2014 12:04 |  #8

sandpiper wrote in post #16942307 (external link)
Three points:

Firstly, the trees in the background are just that, the background. Quite some distance away from where you focused, so they aren't going to be "very sharp" with any lens. You should be judging the sharpness of a lens by looking at what you actually focused on, not something hundreds of metres further back.

Secondly, the processing is so heavy and so artefacted it is hard to tell how the trees would look before you applied that effect. Why not demonstrate with a straight shot so we can see how it actually looks?

Thirdly, the exif says that shot was taken with an EF 50mm f/1.4 prime, not the 35-135 zoom.

Sorry, but you are incorrect :p The photo was indeed shot with the 35-135 @f/10. Look again. I picked that one out, just for you -hind-end- :)

Yeah, I grabbed the wrong photo, but replaced with the correct one. I was shooting with several lenses that day, and the 50mm f/1.4 was put in the wrong bucket. Easily corrected though.


_
My Gear is ---> Here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DwainRowe
Senior Member
Avatar
783 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 9
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Northeast Tennessee
     
May 31, 2014 15:49 |  #9

davidc502 wrote in post #16942365 (external link)
Sorry, but you are incorrect :p The photo was indeed shot with the 35-135 @f/10.

davidc502 wrote in post #16942365 (external link)
Yeah, I grabbed the wrong photo, but replaced with the correct one.

davidc502 wrote in post #16942365 (external link)
Look again. I picked that one out, just for you -hind-end- :)

This is very confusing. Sandpiper is incorrect?

But then, you agree that he is correct and post a photo that corrects yourself by editing your post to put up a photo taken with the lens you claimed you used on the previous photo but didn't?

All in the same post? My head is spinning.

Also, unless you have some mutually respectful relationship (built around humor) with Sandpiper about which we are unaware, simply adding a smiley face doesn't make up for calling someone a "hind-end".


6D | EF 17-40 f/4 L | EF 70-200 f/4 L IS | EF 50mm f1.4 USM -|- Rebel T2i | EF-S 17-55 IS | Σ 10-20 f3.5 EX DC | Σ 70-300 4-5.6 DG Macro (Yes, I am cheap) | Speedlite 580EXII | YN622c
EOS M | EFM 22 f/2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,170 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 47
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
May 31, 2014 16:02 |  #10

DwainRowe wrote in post #16942712 (external link)
This is very confusing. Sandpiper is incorrect?

But then, you agree that he is correct and post a photo that corrects yourself by editing your post to put up a photo taken with the lens you claimed you used on the previous photo but didn't?

All in the same post? My head is spinning.

Also, unless you have some mutually respectful relationship (built around humor) with Sandpiper about which we are unaware, simply adding a smiley face doesn't make up for calling someone a "hind-end".

No, there is no relationship between us, I have no idea who the guy is and I didn't appreciate the "hind end" comment either, but figured it wasn't worth a reply. The original image was as I described, he then swapped it for one that was taken with the correct lens, and didn't have an arty filter applied, and claimed I was incorrect.

I suspect his reply was meant to be humorous and in fun, but just came out wrong in print, so seems insulting to those who just read it without knowing the intent.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
alamogunr
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
14 posts
Joined Jun 2008
     
Jun 01, 2014 22:37 |  #11

Thanks for the responses. We've been away this weekend. Granddaughter's dance recital. I couldn't take photographs so I let our daughter-in-law do the photography. She is much better at it than I am anyway.

I'll take some time this week to try some of the suggestions and do some prints. I did not mention that the 18-55 mm lens that came with the camera works fine. That may not mean anything.

I'm beginning to think that if my tests(?) don't provide any answers, sending the camera and lenses to Canon may be my only option. It will at least remove all doubt even if I have to buy new lenses.

I do agree that the lenses I have are older technology. I still have trouble relating to the FL of lenses w/digital camera.

John




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Choderboy
I Chimp, therefore I am
Avatar
4,804 posts
Gallery: 82 photos
Likes: 1691
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Jun 02, 2014 02:22 |  #12

Longshot, you're not using polariser?

In the early days of digital I took a used 70-200 lens back to a shop as I could not get it to auto focus.
Salesman acted offended, he was confident lens was good.
Instead of getting his knickers in a knot, he should have checked if I'd been using a polariser...
I had, not being aware I needed a Circular Polariser for my DSLR.


Dave
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/12185187@N00/
5D4, 1D4, 1DS2. Canon, Sigma lenses
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
apersson850
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,790 posts
Likes: 197
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Traryd, Sweden
     
Jun 02, 2014 04:55 as a reply to  @ Choderboy's post |  #13

You need a circular polarising filter on EOS cameras for film as well.


Anders

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,539 views & 0 likes for this thread
EOS Film Lenses Don't Work W/Rebel XSi
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Ronaldwilliam
702 guests, 329 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.