Going from APS-C to APS-H -- Lenses?

Very much considering going to APS-H once the 1DX comes out. I imagine there will be a good deal of 1D4's on the market around that time.

My question is regardling lenses. I have three lenses that were made for APS-C cameras: Canon 17-55 2.8IS, Sigma 30mm 1.4, and Tokina 10-17 3.5-5.6 fisheye.

I use the 17-55 as a generic walk-around lens. Options are the 24-70 or the 16-35. I am leaning towards the 16-35 to replace it, as I generally use my 17-55 on the shorter end.

The sigma 30 1.4 I use mostly for performing arts -- it is very sharp and the 1.4 aperture makes it great for this type of stuff. It can also work as a portrait lens in a pinch. I have heard that this actually will work on a APS-H body, just after about f4 or so it starts to Vignette. I rarely have this lens above f4 anyways, so this may be a keeper.

The fisheye, I have no idea what the options are, however, I am using it less and less as of late. I may sell it and get a portrait lens (sigma 85 is calling me). Still undecided.

Anyone have any input on this? Anyone else gone from APS-C to APS-H?

Any EF-s lens won't work - there is a rubber "bumper" on the back that will make contact with the mirror when it flaps. Some people have removed the bumper and used lenses such as the 10-22 EFs with success, but i'm not sure if the 17-55 IS produces a large enough image circle - mount it on the camera and peek through the viewfinder, just don't operate the shutter

I've used a Sigma 30 f/1.4 on a 1D classic and it works, but vignettes pretty heavily, even wide open.. The Tokina will work from 14mm on up or so. Any wider and you'll see the limitations of the image "square" - you could always just crop

If you like the 30mm FL on APS-c, get the 35L for APS-h

I've gone from APS-c to FF to APS-h - Most lenses with less than awesome corner performance are great on APS-h, such as T/S lenses when used with aggressive tilt/shift applied, or primes at their maximum aperture.

FWIW, I tried the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 on my 1D and it vignetted to a useless extent, but my Tokina 50-135 is pretty much flawless throughout the zoom range. It may be worth finding out if the Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 works well on APS-h

I won't venture any opinions on the lenses as I'm not into WA at all, as far as the move from APS-C to APS-H (if it is the MK IV) is concerned I will give the thumbs up, just don't rely on too many people parting with their MK IV's I know I won't, IMO the most underrated Canon ever.

'Walkaround' lenses are the main problem with the 1.3X format.

For most telephoto stuff, the 1.3X format is awesome. Fast primes are also easy to adapt with....Just think of the 24L as your moderate wide and the 35L as normal.

The problem is for a walkabout, and it's the main reason I use my 5D so much still despite having a 1D Mark IV.

In general lenses like the 24-70 and 24-105 are perfect on FF but drive me batty on 1.3X. The wide end is simply never wide enough, and I know I need to bring a second lens for wider.

So OK, I grab the 16-35L II for my walkabout which is nice and wide, but now the long end is kind of short. So should I also bring along the 50L, or perhaps a 70-200? No, the 70-200 is too damn heavy. What about bringing along the 24-105? This is the point where I get pissed because I know the 24-105 on a FF sensor would be perfect all by itself.

IMO the 1.3X sensor always wants two lenses along because no one lens matches up perfectly.

Well, by the time I got the 1D3 I had already obtained the 16-35, the 24-70 and the 70-200, so for my purposes I was "set". I can't complain about that combo. Yes, for the wide-to-"short tele" range it can help to pack two lenses, or for an event I'll likely pack, say, the 24-70 and the 70-200 and get good use from both.

But, I also have a 5DC so get more use out of my lenses. And the 24-105 came with the 5D as a "kit" lens and so gives me other options. The 24-105 is, by the way, a great "general purpose" lens whether on the 5D or the 1D3. For most of what I shoot, the f/4 aperture is perfectly usable. I don't need an f/2.8 lens for most of my "stuff"!

They should make a walkaround for the 1.3x cameras. They have been around long enough.

Coppatop85 wrote in post #13716383
They should make a walkaround for the 1.3x cameras. They have been around long enough.

Canon announced the end of the 1.3X sensor recently.

Coppatop85 wrote in post #13716383
They should make a walkaround for the 1.3x cameras. They have been around long enough.

JeffreyG wrote in post #13716502
Canon announced the end of the 1.3X sensor recently.

Heh! There is that! Seriously, though, either the 16-35 or the 24-70/24-105 can serve quite well as a walkaround lens! The 35mm gives close to the equivalent of a full-frame 50mm field of view, which is pretty good for a walkaround focal length on a ff body, and I find 35mm is decent on an APS H body.

I went from APS-C to APS-H, which forced me to give up my Tokina 11-16.

As for your lens choices...when you use your 17-55 on the wide end...are you happy with it, or do you still feel like you want to go wider? If you're happy, get the 24-70. If you still want to go wider (I always want as wide as possible) get a 16-35, it's an amazing combination...it's been responsible for 99% of my shots since I got it.

For what I like, though...30mm would be too short a prime for me. If I were you I'd get at least a 50 or better yet an 85.

JeffreyG wrote in post #13716502
Canon announced the end of the 1.3X sensor recently.

Did they explicitly state this? The 1D X announcement wasn't a clear announcement of the end of the sensor format - just the end of the 1D/1Ds distinction (and since then at least some Canon Japan employees have appeared to hedge bets on this, saying they'll watch the market for demand of a high resolution camera).

@ Coppatop85: You're going to have some competition. FlyingPhotog and others have said they'll be looking to stockpile 1dIVs for a while. Canon really has put some folks in a bind, considering they've already tailored their lens collections and shooting styles to the format. As FlyingPhotog said, for many it represents a good balance of resolution, density, and ISO performance.

Cassiedup wrote in post #13714382
I won't venture any opinions on the lenses as I'm not into WA at all, as far as the move from APS-C to APS-H (if it is the MK IV) is concerned I will give the thumbs up, just don't rely on too many people parting with their MK IV's I know I won't, IMO the most underrated Canon ever.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

Why not move to FF?

archpictures wrote in post #13716986
Why not move to FF?

I need the focus accuracy/speed, shutter speed, and high ISO performance for the majority of what I shoot. While the 1Ds 3 and 1Dx would suit these needs as well, I cannot afford them.

archpictures wrote in post #13716986
Why not move to FF?

If directed to me, I've got the 1D4 as well as 5D MKII, gives me all I need at this moment as well as having a backup camera in emergency and a lot less lens swopping so the 1DX isn't a temptation at all and the combo propably cost me less than the 1DX will.

LowriderS10 wrote in post #13716836
I went from APS-C to APS-H, which forced me to give up my Tokina 11-16.

As for your lens choices...when you use your 17-55 on the wide end...are you happy with it, or do you still feel like you want to go wider? If you're happy, get the 24-70. If you still want to go wider (I always want as wide as possible) get a 16-35, it's an amazing combination...it's been responsible for 99% of my shots since I got it.

For what I like, though...30mm would be too short a prime for me. If I were you I'd get at least a 50 or better yet an 85.

I'd certainly agree that having, say, an 85mm f/1.8 would be great for a fast action lens and on a 1D body even the 85 f/1.2L has a great reputation (but I rarely use mine on my 1D3, 'cause it is just too comfy on my 5D).

But the OP can certainly get a sense of whether an 85 would be a useful focal length since he has a 70-200. I'm still in favor of filling the range from 16-70 with the good zooms, but I happen to be a "fan" of the good zooms, and use the primes for "special needs"...

tonylong wrote in post #13717572
I'd certainly agree that having, say, an 85mm f/1.8 would be great for a fast action lens and on a 1D body even the 85 f/1.2L has a great reputation (but I rarely use mine on my 1D3, 'cause it is just too comfy on my 5D).

But the OP can certainly get a sense of whether an 85 would be a useful focal length since he has a 70-200. I'm still in favor of filling the range from 16-70 with the good zooms, but I happen to be a "fan" of the good zooms, and use the primes for "special needs"...

Yup, I'm pretty much the same way! Give me a good wide-angle zoom, a decent long zoom and a prime or two for when I want to mess around with shallow DOF or just to challenge myself by having to footzoom and I'm happy