Lens and full fram compatibility

digital

digital

Messages
1,180
Edit My Images
No
Would Sigma 10-20, 18-250 and 150-500 lenses be compatible with a Canon full frame camera?
 
150-500 is full frame, the 10-20 isnt, so it will vignette till you reach about 15mm ( not positive on the actual FL there, perhaps someone knows the correct FL )

Not sure of 18-250, but i doubt if its FF
 
Sigma lenses with the "DC" designation are designed specifically for crop sensor bodies. Those with DG can be used on Full Frame or crop.
 
Just as a follow-up: are there any full frame equivalents to the Sigma 10-20 and 18-250 (not necessarily Sigma)?
 
digital said:
Just as a follow-up: are there any full frame equivalents to the Sigma 10-20 and 18-250 (not necessarily Sigma)?
Click to expand...

Yes and no.

Nothing with those focal lengths to fit full-frame, but there is similar with equivalent field of view (adjusted by 1.6x crop factor). Eg 16-32mm (10-20), and 29-400mm (18-250).
 
The absolute widest full frame rect. AF lens i know of is the Sigma 12-24, which becomes 19.2mm - 38.4mm on 1.6 Crop

To go wider on FX without resorting to old 60's MF lenses ( this might just be Nikon though ) you'll have to go Fisheye
 
Thanks, all.

In addition to the Sigma 12-24 I've also found the Canon 17-40 but am not sure which is the better yet.

I've not found anything to match the range of the Sigma 18-250 though.
 
digital said:
Thanks, all.

In addition to the Sigma 12-24 I've also found the Canon 17-40 but am not sure which is the better yet.

I've not found anything to match the range of the Sigma 18-250 though.
Click to expand...

There are a couple of full frame super zooms about. I used to have a Sigma 28-300mm and it was ok, and Canon make a 28-300mm (I think they still make it but it costs £££££) but really, I'd be looking at primes and shorter range zooms myself rather than a one lens super zoom solution.
 
digital said:
Thanks, all.

In addition to the Sigma 12-24 I've also found the Canon 17-40 but am not sure which is the better yet.

I've not found anything to match the range of the Sigma 18-250 though.
Click to expand...

Tamron 28-300mm is prolly closest as sensible money.

Canon 17-40L easily beats Sigma 12-24 as you would expect, but 12mm on full frame is incredibly wide.
 
woof woof said:
...I'd be looking at primes and shorter range zooms myself rather than a one lens super zoom solution.
Click to expand...

The way I use the camera: travel, cityscapes, safaris and so on, a super zoom is pretty much the only solution as I often need to change focal lengths pretty quickly and at short notice.
 
woof woof said:
There are a couple of full frame super zooms about. I used to have a Sigma 28-300mm and it was ok, and Canon make a 28-300mm (I think they still make it but it costs £££££) but really, I'd be looking at primes and shorter range zooms myself rather than a one lens super zoom solution.
Click to expand...

All superzooms have terrible IQ, including the L version, which is barely acceptable due to expensive flourite elements. Don't waste the money and get separate better lenses.
 
If it simply has to be a superzoom would APS-C or even MFT be a better option than a FF DSLR? At least the package as a whole will be a little more compact and lighter.

I really wouldn't fancy wondering round a city with a 5D and Canon 28-300mm attached.

Found a review here... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-28-300.shtml

I used tp use a Sigma 28-300mm on APS-C. It's quite a humble lens and IMVHO not as bad as many would believe and as a holiday lens it was ok and got me some good shots when used to its strengths. A more modern superzoom like the 18-250mm you have may be better though.
 
Last edited:
It would probably make sense if I was to explain the whole background to my questions (and it might have made sense to have done so sooner!).

I currently have a 60D along with the Sigma 10-20, 18-250 and 150-500. This little lot went to Antarctica and Iguazu Falls earlier this year and I'm pretty pleased with the results. However, we're off to India later this year then, next year, New Zealand, Spitsbergen and Antarctica again plus a few side trips to cities and locally, so I'm considering a second body to alleviate some of the quick lens changing that I've been having to go through up to now.

A 5DIII would seem to be just about as good as I could get for a second body(!) but I would want to retain the focal length flexibility that I have at the moment. I usually have the 18-250 on the 60D with the 10-20 in reserve. The 150-500 is on when I know I'm going to need it (it was rarely off in Antarctica), with the 18-250 in reserve.

I was thinking, therefore of replacing the 10-20 and 18-250 and carrying the two bodies, the 150-500 and the two new lenses. Apart from finding new lenses, preferably without rotating front elements when they're zoomed, my only other uncertainty was how the full frame lenses would work with the 60D.

Alternatively, I could keep my current lenses and look for a Canon body which would be 'better' than the 60D. Suggestions?

Any (constructive!) thoughts on the whole scenario?
 
Last edited:
daugirdas said:
Don't waste the money and get separate better lenses.
Click to expand...

As I explained above, I'm trying to reduce the amount of lens changing I have to do so I'm pretty much locked into a super zoom at the expense of some IQ.
 
HoppyUK said:
Canon 17-40L easily beats Sigma 12-24 as you would expect, but 12mm on full frame is incredibly wide.
Click to expand...

The difference in width between 12 and 17 is huge though, so the lenses are hardly comparable in terms of length. The red ring obviously indicates that the build and optical quality of the L will be higher than that of the Sigma but it can't go anywhere near as wide. What's the barelling like from the Canon? (Nikon man myself since my entry level film body fitted best all those years ago!) The Sigma is incredibly well controlled, even at that incredibly wide 12mm. I love mine but then again, I like wide angles even using a fisheye fairly often (Siggy 8mm).
 
Nod said:
The difference in width between 12 and 17 is huge though, so the lenses are hardly comparable in terms of length. The red ring obviously indicates that the build and optical quality of the L will be higher than that of the Sigma but it can't go anywhere near as wide. What's the barelling like from the Canon? (Nikon man myself since my entry level film body fitted best all those years ago!) The Sigma is incredibly well controlled, even at that incredibly wide 12mm. I love mine but then again, I like wide angles even using a fisheye fairly often (Siggy 8mm).
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, comparing the two is hardly fair. 12mm is crazy wide on full-frame, especially for a zoom :eek:

Canon 17-40L is pretty good for distortion. It has some barrel distortion as you'd expect, but not much and I always correct that in post processing anyway so not an issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top