D-30 and standard lens

The sensitive ("film") area of the D-30 is very close to that of the APS film format. Consequently, it seems reasonable to use the APS-camera zoom lens 22-55 mm as standard also for D-30. Why does Canon not suggest this?

Well, I can think of several reasons.

The first thing to understand is why they built an APS lens in the first place. It's quite simple really. Since the design only needs to fill an APS sized plain, verses a much larger 35mm plain, the received light can be displayed over a smaller area which means the lens will be faster at a reduced cost due to the minimal glass involved to produce a smaller light field, and of course it would also be lighter. This is why digital cameras with .5" CCDs can have such light, low cost, 10x lenses at 2.8f. It's easy to do.

Now for the down side. Since it's designed for the APS market, it's probably a 'relatively' low cost lens with 'fair' sharpness, and a 'somewhat' flat field, with 'acceptable' distortion at the lens periphery. When I say 'relatively', 'fair', 'somewhat' and 'acceptable' above, I'm taking about for a basic point a shoot camera. This is fine for general purpose APS photos (not really designed for pro use), but the EOS-D30 is a different animal.

Although the EOS-D30 was not designed as a 'pro' camera, it has certainly found its way into this market area. There are many pros who use the D30 due to it's image quality. I'm sure Canon knew this would happen during the design stages. Even so, the image size is limited to 2160x1440, so any cropping other than resizing to standard formats (8x10, 11x14, etc [from the 2160 end]), should be avoided at all costs. Which brings up the next point.

If you are shooting fine grain 35mm film, it's not uncommon to compose the shot within most of the field of view, but you might fudge it a bit if you can't decide exactly where you might want to crop. In addition, I will quite often zoom out a tad if I realize the shot might accent any lens distortion due to the zoom level involved. This is not an acceptable option for the D30 IMO due to the 3.1 mega pixel format, regardless of quality. However, we do have a built in safety shield with the D30.

Since the D30 captures a much smaller percentage of the 35mm light field produced by a standard 35mm lens, we are working in what is known as the 'sweet spot' where flatness of field, lack of distortion, and sharpness are at their optimum. This, for the most part, eliminates many of the negative attributes of even a cheap 35mm lens.

As a quick side note. While I'm at it, I'd like to dispel the concept of the 1.6x zoom advantage for the D30. I'm sorry but it's just a illusion. It's nothing more than a ratio we need to consider when using standard 35mm lenses so we understand what the field of view will look like in the finder, but there is no real lens multiplication advantage. Period. The actual image captured is 2160x1440 regardless. It's nothing more than the result of the 'digital zoom' concept in reality. ie, the 35mm light field produced by the lens is large, but we are only capturing a small part of it.

If the D30 had a full 35mm format CMOS sensor it would produce a 7.7+ mega pixel image assuming the same pixel size for the 35 verses the current D30 sensor. Since we are using a smaller sensor, we are only imaging part of the available image from the lens. This is exactly what a 'digital zoom' does. It captures the entire field of view from the lens on the sensor but then displays a smaller portion of it when we select 'digital zoom'.

Ok, back to the subject at hand.

When we use a standard 35mm lens on a D30, only a smaller portion of the lenses' usable light field is utilized (ie, the 'sweet spot'). This means even though we currently only have 2160x1440 image size to work with, it's optimized (within reason) for the best attributes of the lenses being used. Even if we transfer the lenses to a new system with a full sized 35mm sensor, we would have more cropping options than currently available for the D30, but if we didn't need them, we would gain more usable resolution.

So, if Canon were to produce a large number of APS lenses, including a few 'L' series APS lenses (Canon, what were you thinking), and we were to invest in them, then when Canon came out with the new larger than APS format for their SLR body (ie, full frame 35mm, or even the EOS-1D), we would be stuck with lenses that could not be used with the new format since they would not image all of the sensor. This would not be acceptable to any user who had a large lens investment.

Yes, I ramble on a bit... Anyway, I hope that helped a bit.

Thank you Jray..Anyhow, the 22-55 works very well and that particular zoom range is certainly needed considering the physical size of the D-30 "film". Indeed, Canon lists the 22-55 as usable for all EOS cameras...not only APS. If they mean that it could be acceptable for full frame 24x36, it should certainly be more than acceptable for APS/D-30 picture areas. The L-type 24-85 is a tad too long, also much haevier. I look forward also to an official Canon opinion! olle

Then I have to assume it is a standard 35mm lens that is just 'suggested' for the APS format to accommodate the wider format that might be needed for panos (22mm).

I use a Tamron 24-135mm as my standard lens on the D30. Clean, sharp, and the colors jump out at you. The only problem is seems to be a victim of the 'fudge factor' wars as so many lens manufacturers are guilty of.

I have a 80's Sigma 70-200 2.8 lens that meets specs. The Tamron should be 38.4-216mm, however it's far less than 200mm (my guess 180).

Even the best quality lens can be deceptive as to its function and purpose. I attribute a lot of this to marketing. Sad but true.

This is what Canon says about the 22-55:- " EF 22-55mm f/4-5.6 USM. The replicated aspherical lens element makes this wide-angle zoom lens light and small. The Canon-exclusive Micro USM makes it fast and quiet, too. Great for traveling light. It is also perfect as your regular wide-angle lens. When the lens is attached to an EOS Advanced Photo System SLR camera, the 35mm-equivalent focal length is 28-69mm." - It is listed among the regular 35 mm lenses, but NOT among the specific D-30 lenses...looks a bit weird to me. Probably Canons thinks an expensive camera like D-30 should not have a relatively inexpensive lens like the 22--55. On the other hand they cannot outright say that its should not be used for full size 24x36 mm. MTF curves look much like the 17-35 mm L-type. I use a Tamron 28-200 occasionally, but it is very heavy. - Most of the time my D-30 sits on a fundus camera (I am an ophthalmologist and eye photographer); the 22-55 is for "family use".- Anyhow, when I started serious photography in the early fifties, it took fourteen baths to produce an Ansco printon print from a slide and now I do it with D-30 and photoshop in one minute. Absolutely fascinating period to have been around, where are you, by the way? olle

Location wise, I'm in Northern California, and am dealing with the current terrorist crap. Time wise... Oh my God, Ansco film!!!

I started using Ansco slide film when I was 13 years old (I'm 49 now). $2.95 for a kit that would develop 8-10 rolls within 5-10% development accuracy from the first to the last, if you knew the trick, (Ansco wouldn't tell you). I still have the fudge charts and reversal times somewhere. This was about 1965. Remember the replenisher kits?

I shot my trip to Vancouver Island in Canada (Victoria, 50 - 36 EXP rolls, Nikon F (OLD, no TLM)), and all my Butchart Gardens photos are on Ansco slide film. I need to digitize them (probably a little late, but they are in slide reels that have been hidden from light).

Oh, the joy of placing the film on a development tank spool. I was actually quite good at it. I have several SS spools for Ilford HP5 B&W film at 72 exposures per roll (great B&W film) that I could load and tank in 24 seconds per roll.

For those of you who are reading this and saying 'What on earth is he talking about', well all I can say is, 'you are lucky, and yet you missed a very special period in photography'. To be honest, I miss it, but I also love the joy of digital processing which allows me far more freedom in the creative process than I ever had before. Over all, no complaints... BTW, have you ever heard of Adox film, or Dupont Cronar motion picture film? I used these a lot during the 60's. Remember Freestyle?

Back to the lens issue, 22-55mm at 4-5.6f is easy, so I would assume it 'would' be light and small. Have you looked at any user reviews of this lens? I just don't know of it personally.

Dear Jim, I choose to answer/comment in this way

"Location wise, I'm in Northern California, and am dealing with the current terrorist crap.

###..and I live and work in Southern Sweden.. I began reading Popular Photography as a teenager just after WWII..I think I learned English that way, particularly difficult words like rangefinder and equipment. I am 69 and well remember when Kodahchrome came to us in 1947..some of the slides are still quite good.

Time wise... Oh my God, Ansco film!!!

I started using Ansco slide film when I was 13 years old (I'm 49 now). $2.95 for a kit that would develop 8-10 rolls within 5-10% development accuracy from the first to the last, if you knew the trick, (Ansco wouldn't tell you). I still have the fudge charts and reversal times somewhere. This was about 1965. Remember the replenisher kits?

I shot my trip to Vancouver Island in Canada (Victoria, 50 - 36 EXP rolls, Nikon F (OLD, no TLM)), and all my Butchart Gardens photos are on Ansco slide film. I need to digitize them (probably a little late, but they are in slide reels that have been hidden from light).

Oh, the joy of placing the film on a development tank spool. I was actually quite good at it. I have several SS spools for Ilford HP5 B&W film at 72 exposures per roll (great B&W film) that I could load and tank in 24 seconds per roll.

For those of you who are reading this and saying 'What on earth is he talking about', well all I can say is, 'you are lucky, and yet you missed a very special period in photography'. To be honest, I miss it, but I also love the joy of digital processing which allows me far more freedom in the creative process than I ever had before. Over all, no complaints... BTW, have you ever heard of Adox film

###….like KB 14..not to mention Agfa 13/10 DIN..and Rodinal developer. Kodak Super SS was the fastest film here in the late forties..TRI-X came early fifties and was a revolution together with Promicrol..400 ASA! - I remember my first M Leica with the wonderful rangefinder and the Summicron… One or two Hasselblads intervened (Victor H was a great sponsor of my university, also supprter of low vision research. The camera was buil in my home town, Göteborg

, or Dupont Cronar motion picture film? I used these a lot during the 60's. Remember Freestyle?

Back to the lens issue, 22-55mm at 4-5.6f is easy, so I would assume it 'would' be light and small. Have you looked at any user reviews of this lens? I just don't know of it personally.

### No reviews, but I am looking..it works good for me....yes, back to today. However, one grandson insists on trying out D-76 on real film..I support that.. Nice talking to you, olle