Interesting thoughts from a second hand camera shop

[SammyC]

Noticed a shop round the corner that sells second hand cameras etc so I popped in to see if he had any tripods.

As I was there I started to have a browse round the hundreds of A1 and AE1-Ps etc he had when I came across a EOS650 with EOS lens. So, thinking he might have some other EOS lenses I could have a butchers at, I asked if they would work with my 350D.

He said that the older EOS lens don't work because they don't provide enough parallel light to the sensor so that you get really bad vignetting!

Now I have to take this as slight truth because he was effectively doing himself out of a sale, unless that £30 tripod was enough business for the day to close up early lol.

What are peeps thoughts?

 

[Matt]

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

no idea, interesting theory though....

 

[CT]

You'd think he knows his business best wouldn't you? Given that your 350D sensor (and focusing screen) is so much smaller than the 35mm (1:1) format the old lens was designed for, I'd think that vignetting would be extremely unlikely though. Don't take that as gospel - I'd be inclined to take your 350D body and check to be sure.

 

[Adrian]

I think that he was talking cobblers, which in my experience is not that uncommon even in "expert" camera shops. The whole point of Canon's EOS system is that cameras and lenses are all backwards compatible, which is one reason why Nikon lost ground as a lot of their newer lenses/cameras aren't. The only issues I've heard of are a few AF and IS issues with older EF lenses not working with newer EOS DSLR's but vignetting certainly won't be an issue, because, as CT suggests, the sensor is only receiving the inner area of the projected image.

 

[dazzajl]

I think there is something in this. I'm sure I read about it on a U.S. board where they all get very anal about the techy stuff.

IIRC it's something to do with the way that sensors need the light to strike at a fairly perpendicular angle to register accuratley while good ol' film can cope with quite an accute angle of light and still record the detail correctly.

That could all be total cobblers but it does sound very familair.

 

[SammyC]

Ah, now that sounds about right 'cos he drew a diagram and started talking about angles. At which point my vision blurred and I started thinking 'Nice beard' rather than pay attention.

 

[dazzajl]

Ah, now that sounds about right 'cos he drew a diagram and started talking about angles.

Although looking back at my post I'd have to seriously doubt any info with soooooooo many spelling mistakes. Must have done too much last night. :blush:

 

[Adrian]

I think there is something in this. I'm sure I read about it on a U.S. board where they all get very anal about the techy stuff.

IIRC it's something to do with the way that sensors need the light to strike at a fairly perpendicular angle to register accuratley while good ol' film can cope with quite an accute angle of light and still record the detail correctly.

That could all be total cobblers but it does sound very familair.

It's true that sensors need more perpendicular light, but with smaller-than-35mm sensors, that's generally all they get. The problems start happening with 35mm size sensors where light from the outer edges of the image circle strikes the sensor at a more oblique angle, causing vignetting. Even some new EF lenses have problems in this respect, and don't work so well with the 1Ds MkII (and probably the 5D).