hello canon friends (raises white flag) Im a nikon shooter but am trying to get a buddy of mine, shooting with a t3i, into some faster canon glass. i mentioned to him a 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 -- Any special "in body motor" or non motor lens compatibility with a canon t3i?
All Canon EOS auto focus lenses have focusing motors in the lens, there is no concept of a focusing pin/motor in the body. Also make sure your friend understands that a T3 is a crop sensor body with a 1.6X FOV multiplying factor.
We're talking soccer mom, theyre headed to disney in December i think itll fall on deaf ears Wes... but your saying this 50 has USM (AFS nik eq) and will drive on the t3i?
Canon does not have the compatibility problems that Nikon suffers. Canon never made the mistake of trying to drive the focus mechanism from within the camera. Thus all EOS cameras can "drive" all EF lenses because the connection is purely electronic.
USM Ultra-Sonic Motor. Basically a lens motor that is faster and quieter than a non-USM lens. The 50 f1.8 does not have USM.
EF- Lens compatible will all full-frame and crop bodies.
EF-S lens only compatible with crop bodies (it will not physically fit on a full-frame body). Early Canon DSLR crop bodies were not compatible with EF-S mounts (e.g., D30, D60, 10D). If the crop body was made in the last 10 years it is compatible.
IS Image Stabilization (like Nikon VR).
FTM Full Time Manual Focus. You can manually focus the lens even if it is in auto focus mode (i.e., you dont have to flip the mechanical AF/MF switch). The 50 1.8 does not have FTM.
In the simplest of terms any lens from Canon, Tamron or Sigma in a Canon mount that says it's compatible with EITHER the EF, or EF-S mount system will work just fine. I think you'd have a very hard time trying to buy a Canon mount lens NEW these days that wasn't Ef or EF-S.
EF fits full frame & crop.
EF-S fits crop ONLY if from Canon.
Tamron & Sigma make lenses DESIGNED for the EF-S mount but they don't add anything behind the mounting that prevents them from being mounted on a full frame body, and they can (any I've owned) by used but they don't cover the larger sensor with light right to the edges. The image will appear to have been shot through a pipe to some degree.
Canon does not have the compatibility problems that Nikon suffers. Canon never made the mistake of trying to drive the focus mechanism from within the camera. Thus all EOS cameras can "drive" all EF lenses because the connection is purely electronic.
Ill refrain from the c/n debate suffice to say your post was a stupid thing to say and offers nothing. Thanks for stopping in.
Canon does not have the compatibility problems that Nikon suffers. Canon never made the mistake of trying to drive the focus mechanism from within the camera. Thus all EOS cameras can "drive" all EF lenses because the connection is purely electronic.
Justin Huffman wrote:
Ill refrain from the c/n debate suffice to say your post was a stupid thing to say and offers nothing. Thanks for stopping in.
Sorry, but it answers your OP question exactly, and explains what happened. However, given the tone of your post, your thanks seem insincere.
Justin Huffman wrote in the Original Post:
Any special "in body motor" or non motor lens compatibility with a canon t3i?
Canons EOS film and digital Autofocus cameras never had any "in body motor". Thus there is not that kind of issue. Both of the lenses you asked about (50 1.8 & 85 1.8) are EF lenses and are therefore compatible with all EOS cameras, including the T3i. All EF lens have the focus motors in the lens. All EF lenses communicate electronically with the EOS cameras. There is no mechanical connection between EF lenses and EOS cameras for metering or for driving focus. This is different from Nikon. Is this restatement clearer for you or more to your liking?
Canon does not have the compatibility problems that Nikon suffers. Canon never made the mistake of trying to drive the focus mechanism from within the camera. Thus all EOS cameras can "drive" all EF lenses because the connection is purely electronic.
Justin Huffnam wrote: Ill refrain from the c/n debate suffice to say your post was a stupid thing to say and offers nothing. Thanks for stopping in.
Geesh... This person took his valuable time to answer your question. Did it in a polite way, and it was technically correct - and you respond to him in this way!
I can think of more than one person who won't bother replying to you in the future.
Monito - i couldnt get past the words probem, suffers and mistake from your first post. However I do appreciate your reply it was very helpful thank you
Mr Jimbo your comment suggests I was rude or otherwise unappreciative which simply wasnt the case. It felt like the seed for a canon/nikon debate which isnt the path I was interested in. I do value his time and yours which is why Ill stop here thanks again to those who helped out. Cheers
Justin Huffman wrote:
Monito - i couldnt get past the words probem, suffers and mistake from your first post. However I do appreciate your reply it was very helpful thank you
I apologize for missing that you wrote "white flag" in your OP. I would have chosen a little lighter tone if I had taken that in.
No hard feelings (never were). There is always give-and-take / back-and-forth in the forums, but though I frequently write directly and at times with determination, I don't do so with malice or emotion. I value clarity, logic, and knowledge.
In the final analysis, the equipment is rarely the limiting factor these days for 99+ % of photographers in these forums; a point of view I often express here. That is why I encourage people dissatisfied with Canon to switch to Nikon, and then back, as frequently as they like; and vice versa. It subsidizes the steady users of both systems.
