EOS-R - It's out. Thoughts?

AlanU wrote in post #18713366

Hosted photo: posted by AlanU in
./showthread.php?p=187​13366&i=i88998458
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

B and H description

And Amazon includes:

"Available in Canon EF (EF-S), Sony Alpha (dot), Nikon f (DX) mounts"

mdvaden wrote in post #18713337
If an 18-35mm is made for an EF-S mount body, the lens is an EF-S mount lens and can be called such, even using a figure of speech. There are over 200 figures of speech and some are more precise than regular words. If they were not using a figure of speech, what you shared may help them looking up lens model information.

It can be called that but it is wrong. An EF-S lens cannot be mounted on a APS-H or Full frame camera. The mount is different from an EF-S.
A physically different mount should, IMHO, warrant exclusive use of the term EF-S to actual EF-S lenses.

Crop is an easy word and that's what an 18-35 Sigma is.
Rather than misinforming people that the Sigma is an EF-S lens, the word crop is accurate and then DC can be mentioned, the Sigma term to describe a crop lens.
(And Di-II for Tamron crop lenses)

mdvaden wrote in post #18713371
And Amazon includes:

"Available in Canon EF (EF-S), Sony Alpha (dot), Nikon f (DX) mounts"

And Amazon is wrong. Amazon have products in so many technologies. As this is a Photography forum, why not use common sense and logic rather than follow the lead of a retailer?

Choderboy wrote in post #18713374
And Amazon is wrong. Amazon have products in so many technologies. As this is a Photography forum, why not use common sense and logic rather than follow the lead of a retailer?

Amazon is right. I know plenty of photographers who have used the 18-35 on the EF-S mount cameras. And regarding the other person's post, the following is from B & H's own website on another of their pages. It boils down to the other person posting (#1238) was correct in a day-today figurative way of speaking. Feel free to write B&H to try and correct them, but they may laugh at their end, knowing their text conveys an understanding, and is reasonable for communicating. Provided B&H means a certain mount and not just any or every 18-35mm. I think B&H of usually logical and common sense.

B&H Photo website RE Sigma 18-35mm lens ... Quote:

"available for Canon EF-S, Nikon F, Sony Alpha, Pentax K and Sigma SA mounts. "

AlanU wrote in post #18713366

Hosted photo: posted by AlanU in
./showthread.php?p=187​13366&i=i88998458
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

B and H description

Added a note above from B&H that you didn't quote or copy for more context.

Now that we've wrapped up Amazon, B&H or others choosing to refer to "EF-S" mounts for some 18-35mm lenses, we can transition to the thread topic Canon EOS R

mdvaden wrote in post #18713378
Amazon is right. I know plenty of photographers who have used the 18-35 on the EF-S mount cameras. And regarding the other person's post, the following is from B & H's own website on another of their pages. It boils down to the other person posting (#1238) was correct in a day-today figurative way of speaking. Feel free to write B&H to try and correct them, but they may laugh at their end, knowing their text conveys an understanding, and is reasonable for communicating. Provided B&H means a certain mount and not just any or every 18-35mm. I think B&H of usually logical and common sense.

B&H Photo website RE Sigma 18-35mm lens ... Quote:

"available for Canon EF-S, Nikon F, Sony Alpha, Pentax K and Sigma SA mounts. "

Added a note above from B&H that you didn't quote or copy for more context.

Now that we've wrapped up Amazon, B&H or others choosing to refer to "EF-S" mounts for some 18-35mm lenses, we can transition to the thread topic Canon EOS R

it's not EF-s, it's DC, made for crop which is NOT the same as EF-s even if similar. EF-s cant mount to full frame without mods.

Charlie wrote in post #18713389
it's not EF-s, it's DC, made for crop which is NOT the same as EF-s even if similar. EF-s cant mount to full frame without mods.

Like a couple others, you haven't really added anything further other than trying to confirm a technically-correct-self-confidence.

When someone like B&H says they've got an 18-35mm that can fit an "EF-S" mount, they most certainly can ship one that does what they said. I've read "EF"s and "DC"s for years, but still understand why B&H chooses their descriptions. They are communicating to a broad audience.

If the Sigma can be mounted on a Canon FF DSLR without adapter, then it has an EF mount (EF lenses can mount on crop camera models). EF-S lenses are made to not be able to physically mount to a FF mount (unless you alter them or mount them to an extension tube). The Canon R would be the first of their FF cameras that have a crop mode for EF-S mount lenses. If 3rd party lenses have an EF mount, then they wouldn't physically trigger crop mode.

The EOS-R will agree with me, ie it won't crop the Sigma 18-35 as it is not an EF-S lens.

The EOS-R will use technically correct self confidence. That was the point of my original comment pointing out that the Sigma is not an EF-S lens.
It is the only relevant point why the EOS-R will do what you want it to do, not crop when you mount your 'figure of speech EF-S Sigma'

It won't crop figure of speech, technically correct self confident Tamron DiII lenses either.

'Crop' is so much easier than figure of speech technically-correct-self-confident EF-S (but not really EF-S) lens.

elitejp wrote in post #18713291
Is this a canon camera we are talking about?
Then why dont the big dslrs have the same DR as sony?

Some of them do (or very close)

Little ones:
80D
200D
Probably something else I have forgotten about.

Big ones:
5D4
1DXII

I put my Sigma 8-16 on my Canon 5D MkIII all the time. At 16 mm it doesn't even vignette. It is an EF mount. Period.

Its projection circle is appropriate to the Canon APS-C format for the complete zoom range 8-16. So yes, nobody in his right mind would buy it to use it only at 16 mm on a FF, but the mount IS an EF mount.

An EF-S mount is physically different and only Canon makes it. It allows Canon to design lenses which can protrude closer to the mirror of a crop camera and prevents them being mounted on a FF.

Is it that difficult to understand?

Or you can't admit you are wrong?

mdvaden wrote in post #18713391
Like a couple others, you haven't really added anything further other than trying to confirm a technically-correct-self-confidence.

When someone like B&H says they've got an 18-35mm that can fit an "EF-S" mount, they most certainly can ship one that does what they said. I've read "EF"s and "DC"s for years, but still understand why B&H chooses their descriptions. They are communicating to a broad audience.

If a lens can mount to a ff body which only has an EF mount, then it is not an EFS lens, plain and simple. The EFS moniker is for a different mount point on a body, where the white dot is. Only Caon makes EFS mount lenses. You are so clearly wrong, but stew in your insolence, it is funny to watch.

Also regarding retailers, any market savvy business person is going to describe their products to appeal to the lowest common denominator of the consumer market, which means often describing the products inaccurately as a minimum, and grossly incorrect at the worst. So many are led astray by the descriptions found online, as is now very evident. Thank you for being a great example for Marketing 101!

elitejp wrote in post #18713291
Is this a canon camera we are talking about?
Then why dont the big dslrs have the same DR as sony?

Canon and Sony run neck and neck with DR, and get very close the higher up the ISO range you go. Not sure what you are asking though? The 5D4 and A73, for example are very close to each other, and only at 2 ISO values is the Sony somewhat noticeably better, but nearly identical everywhere else. The 200D and the A series are also very close in the same regard.

They are so close to the point that DR isn't the deciding factor any longer. It is feature (burst speeds, eye AF, IBIS, etc) that drives the discussions, and sometimes weight, but as we know, only prime shooters can really make use of the weight differential.

Those that degrade the Canon line as being inferior and ridicule those here for using and/or buying them are just distant claps of thunder in the gentle rain of continued technological advances and new product announcements. They make a noise, people look for a second, then they are gone. Speaking of that, I hope the rain holds off for this evening's events.

davesrose wrote in post #18713104
Actually. from what I've read the largest crop the EF-S lenses might do is Super-35mm (just slightly longer from APS-C Canon crop). That would mean the crop would be getting closer to 20MP.

That would be very cool,. I know a lot of EF-S sized lenses came very close to covering the entire 1.3X APS-H sensors of the 1D series.

mdvaden wrote in post #18713337
If an 18-35mm is made for an EF-S mount body, the lens is an EF-S mount lens and can be called such, ...

No it really isn't and thus really can't.
The MOUNT is exactly an EF mount. If it were EF-S it would not happily mount to a 1D or 5D or 6D. But it can, and thus it is in fact the EF mount.

The optics are designed to project an image circle that will over the APS-C sensor,. but the mount is most definitely NOT EF-S

What defines EF-S is the mount, the deeper setting of the rear elements, and the physical changes that make mounting to an EF/FF body impossible without physical modification.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18713431
If a lens can mount to a ff body which only has an EF mount, then it is not an EFS lens, plain and simple. The EFS moniker is for a different mount point on a body, where the white dot is. Only Caon makes EFS mount lenses. You are so clearly wrong, but stew in your insolence, it is funny to watch.

Also regarding retailers, any market savvy business person is going to describe their products to appeal to the lowest common denominator of the consumer market, which means often describing the products inaccurately as a minimum, and grossly incorrect at the worst. So many are led astray by the descriptions found online, as is now very evident. Thank you for being a great example for Marketing 101!

It sounds like you may not have paid attention to several replies I put earlier. Including that B&H photo is correct about the use of the lens they were quoted about. So if you think they are clearly wrong, the conclusion is that their page more broadly communicates and still delivers a product, while your idea is in a more tiny bubble of technicality.

In the end, no matter how many dozens of replies you write, if someone orders the lens from B&H it's going to work and fit B&H's description. It's slightly odd, because like a dozen posts ago, one person wrote something about a Sigma lens that aligns with what could also be found in a general description or review by a company like B&H. And several people feel they need to relentlessly prove their technical stats, while B&H's page will remain static and understandable, and still deliver the goods.