EF-S 18-55 IS -> EF conversion FAIL!

Here I documented my own efforts at modifying an 18-55 IS to fit the EF mount; I failed because I couldn't figure out how to sand the lens down to fit the mount without destroying the IS sensors.

( from https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=10183063&po​stcount=17 )
but the story gets better! I found someone on FM who had done what I believed to be impossible...

I obtained another 18-55IS, pre-modified by an FMer (purchased from http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/89750​9/), and the first thing I did was to take shots at 18mm on a 1D Mark III. Yes, I'm insane, and it hit the mirror, giving me an Err 20. For all you lens hackers out there, the mirror is a lot more durable than you think and was completely unharmed -- however, the glass coating got smudged (which was later removed with q tips and alcohol - no permanent damage).

However, it does work at 19mm or so (the lens focal length encoder seems to not have a 19mm setting - it'll display 18 or 20) - the mirror barely hits the lens at 18mm. And while the corners aren't soft, they aren't exactly pretty either - they have extreme distortion.

This picture is the first -- and last -- picture my 1D3 will ever take at 18mm (w/ the lens zoom stop at the widest end)

pics? of both?

dmo580 wrote in post #10076581
pics? of both?

I wish. I didn't have a camera with a lens on it at the time. Both still work, though probably dirtier than when I started out.

You would need to shave part of the rear mount of lens.

http://www.bobatkins.c​om …hy/tutorials/ef​s-10d.html

Jardiniboy wrote in post #10076688
You would need to shave part of the rear mount of lens.

http://www.bobatkins.c​om …hy/tutorials/ef​s-10d.html

You can't do that; there are sensors mounted in the part that needs to be shaved off.

Here is a photo showing the wiring in the back of the 18-55 IS mount. It does appear as though it would cause a problem. It might still be possible to modify the mount, but it will not be as easy as the non-IS version.

Even if you were not going to get IS, wouldn't the conversion be worth it for the optics alone? A $100 wide angle lens is still worth it isn't it, especially when compared to the earlier version, and any other alternative?
What body were you thinking of putting it on....?

kitacanon wrote in post #10078337
Even if you were not going to get IS, wouldn't the conversion be worth it for the optics alone? A $100 wide angle lens is still worth it isn't it, especially when compared to the earlier version, and any other alternative?
What body were you thinking of putting it on....?

Currently have the 18-55 II on an Elan IIe. Would be moving to a 1D3 or 5D2 sometime very soon, so it would be nice to have a ultra wide angle.

Have you bothered to develop any film yet? You're gonna get vignetting from about 18-30mm, which begs the question... whats the point?

nureality wrote in post #10078895
Have you bothered to develop any film yet? You're gonna get vignetting from about 18-30mm, which begs the question... whats the point?

I've developed four rolls of film, and get vignetting at 20mm and lower. A 20-55 lens is pretty darned wide, compared to the rest of my kit.

I find that very hard to believe. Its not designed as a 20mm (wide-end) FF lens. And for good reason, its damn difficult to do so - thats why such lenses cost so much. They require very difficult lens geometry, which I'm afraid to say, the 18-55 does not have.

The 18-55 is essentially a reverse-engineered (if you will) version of the 28-90's old. None of those were any good either.

nureality wrote in post #10079408
I find that very hard to believe. Its not designed as a 20mm (wide-end) FF lens. And for good reason, its damn difficult to do so - thats why such lenses cost so much. They require very difficult lens geometry, which I'm afraid to say, the 18-55 does not have.

The 18-55 is essentially a reverse-engineered (if you will) version of the 28-90's old. None of those were any good either.

Shot 20-21mm on film. And yes, the corners are absolute disasters qualitywise - so bad it shows up in a 4x6.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Okay, it works...now...how well does it work when the corners no longer negatively impact the image?

If it were a good 24mm/F4 lens (say @ 5.6-F8 ) on a full frame camera, at $100 it would be a very reasonable lens to have around...

Once you get to 28mm you have the 24-105/3.5-4.5 EF, a very nice lens for $100-140, or the 28/1.8 for a bit more....and by 35mm you have the 35/2, also for a bit more, so the only real advantage for the conversion would be @24...and THAT I would very much like to see...

Any chance of posting a 24mm shot? Thanx...

kitacanon wrote in post #10082734
Okay, it works...now...how well does it work when the corners no longer negatively impact the image?

If it were a good 24mm/F4 lens (say @ 5.6-F8 ) on a full frame camera, at $100 it would be a very reasonable lens to have around...

Once you get to 28mm you have the 24-105/3.5-4.5 EF, a very nice lens for $100-140, or the 28/1.8 for a bit more....and by 35mm you have the 35/2, also for a bit more, so the only real advantage for the conversion would be @24...and THAT I would very much like to see...

Any chance of posting a 24mm shot? Thanx...

I'm not about to rip my 18-55IS apart again to try at 24mm, but the 18-55 II has never been a corner master, even on 1.6x crop. In any case, I won't have pictures for a while since I have to finish shooting the current roll of film first, then get it scanned, etc. Digital folks have it easy!

EDIT: And no, I don't have a 24mm shot. I used the lens at 20-21mm the entire time I had it on the camera - just way too cool to not use that setting!

Well...I've got this thread bookmarked if you can get more pix posted...thanks....