EF-S to EF?

In the near future I would like to upgade to a new Canon with a full-frame sensor, and I know they only have EF mounts on them. One of my most favorite lenses that I have is an EF-S, and I get color from that that is comparable to the L lenses when compared, which I think is attributed to the wide-angle attachment I have. Anyways, i was wondering if there is some sort of ring or attachment that I can make my EF-S about to mount on an EF camera? Or are they just made specifically for full-frames that there would be vignetting with the EF-S?

mknabster wrote in post #10337058
In the near future I would like to upgade to a new Canon with a full-frame sensor, and I know they only have EF mounts on them. One of my most favorite lenses that I have is an EF-S, and I get color from that that is comparable to the L lenses when compared, which I think is attributed to the wide-angle attachment I have. Anyways, i was wondering if there is some sort of ring or attachment that I can make my EF-S about to mount on an EF camera? Or are they just made specifically for full-frames that there would be vignetting with the EF-S?

There isn't a adaptor ring that would make an EF-S work on full frame without a huge amount of vignetting. Looking at your gear list, are you talking about your 18-55? Do you really rate it that much, coz there's a lot that are better, build quality and IQ-wise.

Assuming you just want to do macro work, an EF12II or EF25II extension tube will let you mount an EF-S lens on a full frame camera since it moves it out farther from the sensor and mirror so you won't bump the rear elements of the lens or anything. It won't focus to infinity of course...

With some EF-S lenses you can just pop the rubber ring off the back and it will mount but the rear elements of the lens may still jam the mirror depending on the focal length (zoom lens only obviously) or subject distance (During focusing).

I know some people love the 17-55 f/2.8 and wish it was EF but just do yourself a favor and get the EF 24-70 f/2.8L USM, it is a beautiful lens for full frame in the same sort of equivalent focal length.

I once did a quick test with 5D2, kenko extensio tubes and EF-S 17-55 and EF-S 10-22 but stopped almost immediately when I noticed that it's not going to be very practical.

With EF-S 10-22 I was not able to focus at all and with EF-S 17-55 it was possible only in the long end for subjects that were very near.

The EF-S 10-22 can be used by pulling the rear rubber bumper off as long as you're careful not to zoom all the way to 10mm where the rear elements protrude and hit the mirror when you shoot.

mknabster wrote in post #10337058
One of my most favorite lenses that I have is an EF-S, and I get color from that that is comparable to the L lenses when compared, which I think is attributed to the wide-angle attachment I have.

So you have the "meh" kit lens, and by sticking a cheap wide-angle attachment it suddenly becomes your favorite lens with color comparable to L lenses?

Have you ever used an L lens?

I honestly wouldn't bother trying to adapt the cheap kit lens to a high-end full-frame body.

If you have the money for a FF body, you should budget some money for a decent and proper lens.

you'd probably be amazed how much better it'll be without the wide angle attachment...i'd upgrade your current lenses

I think you should get some real lenses first before upgrading to fullframe. Otherwise you will probably create another thread complaining about all the soft images your brand new and expensive 5Dmk2 or 1Ds Mk3 are producing.

I'd even go as far as saying you should gradually replace all of your current lenses if you go FF; to get the best out of the current 1Ds/5D series bodies you would need better lenses than the ones that you have currently got.

Once you stick an L series lens on your camera you will see the difference

No one has mentioned the fact that, even if his EF-S lens did fit on the Full Frame camera, they would not be the same lens he was used to because the field of view would now be totally different.

I wonder if the OP even knows that?

Probably not. Call me cynical, but people who want to use crap lenses on awesome cameras probably don't know much

Not being mean (intentionally), but I didn't know jack when I first joined up either - i'd like to think that I learned a lot from reading and buying/selling/trading​/returning nearly 20 lenses in just a few months.

OP, you'll appreciate a good standard wide angle zoom that is meant for your camera. the 17-40 is really not that expensive

I don't have the money for L lenses myself, but I have used them on cameras that my boss used to have, and I honestly wasn't impressed with the color. I'll probably be going either Sigma or Tamron from now on. I was just curious as a cheap alternative with what i currently have, but if the vignetting is great, i'll probably just want till I can save up enough for a good lens with a good camera. But thanks for your responses!

mknabster wrote in post #10340352
I honestly wasn't impressed with the color. I'll probably be going either Sigma or Tamron from now on.!

You really weren't impressed? Which Ls did you try? Most folks go with Sigma or Tamron because they're cheaper, NOT because they produce better image quality than an L.

I used the 100-400mm L, and some other people I talked to weren't too impressed by it either. I bought my Tamron because the reviews for that compared to the 100mmL macro were significantly better. And I am very happy with the Tamron, I don't have to do anything to my images when I bring them through CameraRAW.

mknabster wrote in post #10340397
I used the 100-400mm L, and some other people I talked to weren't too impressed by it either. I bought my Tamron because the reviews for that compared to the 100mmL macro were significantly better. And I am very happy with the Tamron, I don't have to do anything to my images when I bring them through CameraRAW.

First off, let me take a second to look out my window and wave to "your" nuclear power plant

The Tamron is a nice macro lens from what I've seen. I had the 28-75 when I shot Pentax a few years back.

But the 100-400L is "almost" without equal. The Sigmas (120-400, 150-500, 50-500s) are close, but not quite...

To get better quality in the ~400mm range, you have to either go prime (300/4 or 400/5.6) OR Prime and insanely expensive (300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4)