canon rumors FORUM

Gear Talk => Lenses => Topic started by: Bob Howland on September 18, 2012, 11:24:39 AM

Title: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: Bob Howland on September 18, 2012, 11:24:39 AM
A Canon APS-C user who want to upgrade to a 6D cannot use his APS-C lenses on his new camera. In contrast, a Nikon APS-C user who wants to upgrade to a D600 can use his DX lenses on his new camera and the camera uses some sort of sensor cropping to emulate DX, at about 10.7MP. Interestingly, third party lenses (i.e., Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc.) can be mounted on Canon FF bodies but those bodies have no way or recognizing them as not being FF lenses.

Do suppose Canon regrets introducing the entire EF-S lens concept?
Title: Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: bdunbar79 on September 18, 2012, 11:39:25 AM
A Canon APS-C user who want to upgrade to a 6D cannot use his APS-C lenses on his new camera. In contrast, A Nikon APS-C user who wants to upgrade to a D600 can use his DX lenses on his new camera and the camera uses some sort of sensor cropping to emulate DX, at about 10.7MP. Interestingly, third party lenses (i.e., Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc.) can be mounted on FF bodies but those bodies have no way or recognizing them as not being FF lenses.

Do suppose Canon regrets introducing the entire EF-S lens comment?

Excellent post.  And this is exactly why I never purchased an EF-S lens.  Even when I had the 7D, I considered three of them but glad I never bought them, because all 3 of my cameras are FF, rendering those lenses useless.
Title: Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: neuroanatomist on September 18, 2012, 12:08:29 PM
A Canon APS-C user who want to upgrade to a 6D cannot use his APS-C lenses on his new camera.

Do suppose Canon regrets introducing the entire EF-S lens concept?

So...said APS-C user upgrades to 6D and must also buy new lens(es).  Why on earth would Canon regret making more profit?

Yes, I know the obvious counter argument is that said APS-C user would not upgrade or would switch to another brand instead.  But...since there's only one (cheap) APS-C tele lens, many users who are upgrading a Canon dSLR (as opposed to a de novo purchase) will likely have an EF lens or two.  Also, don't discount marketing, brand recognition (the guy who thought of white lens paint was a genius), and brand loyalty.  If all the Interverse pundits are right and Nikon has had better cameras for years, why has Canon's market share continued to grow at the expense (mainly) of Nikon?

No, I don't think Canon has any regrets at all about the EF-S lens mount.
Title: Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: bdunbar79 on September 18, 2012, 12:11:31 PM
I think his post is really reflecting the idea that a consumer who purchased a lens, and then went all FF, would be regretting it.  Of course Canon isn't!  Most people would just bite the bullet and accept that they need new lenses and purchase those.  Good thing they didn't have lenses for APS-H that couldn't work on FF :)
Title: Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: Random Orbits on September 18, 2012, 12:25:22 PM
I don't think Canon regrets introducing the EF-S lineup.  Just like I don't think Canon regrets introducing the EF-M mount either.  I actually like it that Canon makes it harder to use cross mount the equipment, for which they were not designed to do.  Some of the EF-S lens' rear elements would hit the FF mirror, which is why they came up with another mount in the first place.  The EF-S line was designed for amateurs and hobbiests.  The lenses are smaller, cheaper and less regged than their L counterparts.  There is nothing wrong with that.  In fact, I prefer Canon's EF/EF-S designation to Nikon's alphabet soup code.  Which lenses/bodies have focus motors?  Wait, the cheapest crop bodies can't use which lenses?  Which ones have a manual aperture control?

I bought into the EF-S system seven years ago, before FF became affordable.  I moved to FF this year.  I sold the non-kit EF-S lenses for 85% of the price that I bought them.  I had the 10-22 and the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.  There is no rectilinear FF lens that would work on FF with a focal length range of 10 to 22mm, and the 24-70 f/2.8s cost more than the 17-55.  Even now, there are still many FF users who complain that the 24-70L II doesn't have IS, which is something that crop users have been able to take advantage of for years.  In a couple years, the 6D price will drop, which will decrease the price premium required to use FF systems.  Consumers ultimately win with the more choices that are available.

I don't understand why Nikon users would cripple their more expensive FF cameras with crop lenses.  If the crop feature gets its down to 10.7 MP, then you're better off with a crop camera with a higher pixel density, which will improve resolution.  There is nothing magical about their crop feature -- it throws out the sections of the image that are physically blocked because of the smaller image circle.
Title: Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: Bob Howland on September 18, 2012, 12:47:36 PM
Canon might regret introducing the EF-S concept only if/when they lose large numbers of 60D sales because consumers realize that can upgrade to a Nikon D600 for about the same cost as upgrading to a 60D and they buy the Nikon instead. In contrast, a Nikon D200 user, like a nephew of mine, can purchase a D600 body only for now, can use his current lenses and can buy more lenses as finances allow. As for why he would want to "cripple" his new camera with old lenses, consider that his wife is 7 months pregnant with their first child. A D600 body alone will be financial stretch.

Then again, maybe a lot of bottom end DSLR buyers don't care about upgrade paths. From what I've seen, most of them don't even buy a second lens.

As for the M-mount, it is backward compatible with EF and EF-S lenses using the adapter. It'll be interesting to see if many current Rebel owners opt for an M when their current body breaks or becomes inadequate, but still use their old lenses.

Update: Correction - 6D, not 60D, Thanks
Title: Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: mws on September 18, 2012, 01:29:50 PM
If you have several of them and are moving to a FF camera, then maybe. I would have to  guess that for the vas majority of users it's a non issue.

I have a 50D right now and plan on getting the 5Diii this fall, I have one EF-S lenses that I bought used just because it was a cheap way to get wide on a crop body. I was pleasantly surprised by it's sharpness.
Title: Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: willis on September 18, 2012, 01:33:32 PM
Only EF-S lens that I'm going to own with 7D is 17-55 F2.8 just Superb on APS-C rest of my lenses are then L.
Title: Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: Chuck Alaimo on September 18, 2012, 01:59:22 PM
interesting...the way I see it...  I get why EF-S is there, what I don't get is are theEF-S lenses that cross the $500 border.  It's all about focal length really ---to match the focal length of the 24-70 on a crop sensor - the only lens that can do it is the 17-55 2.8.  And that lens costs more than some L lenses.  So I think that Ef-s makes sense if they were cheap.  Where Canon might have made a mistake is not making more EF mount lenses that match FF focal lengths on a crop (hell, even make them L series even!)...  But that would end up really crowding the lens lineup.

It's a hard one --- canon's best lenses are only truly appreciated on an FF body (I am a fairly recent onvert from crop to FF, 2.5 months!).  Where i found my 70-200 sitting in the bag 90% of the time, now it is mounted about 50% of the time.  And the 24-70 is so much more versatile on FF.  And on the wide end...the 16-35 is kind of a waste of money for a crop, and the only other canon option is the 10-22mm 3.5-4.5 --- and that's EF-S. 

I know it isn't on canon to make life easy, but determining what to buy gets really hard if your a crop user reaching the limits of crop bodies...

Title: Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: preppyak on September 18, 2012, 02:15:02 PM
Canon might regret introducing the EF-S concept only if/when they lose large numbers of 60D sales because consumers realize that can upgrade to a Nikon D600 for about the same cost as upgrading to a 60D and they buy the Nikon instead.
Huh? Did you mean 6D instead of 60D?

Cause otherwise comparing a camera body that goes for <$800 (and the loss in selling lenses to convert) to a $2100 camera body is crazy talk
Title: Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: docsmith on September 18, 2012, 02:21:34 PM
EFS lenses was and still is, a brilliant idea!  I hope they make more of them (I really want a high IQ EFS 40-120mm f/2.8 lens).  I shot a 7D and own two EFS lenses.  I also own 2 "L" EF lenses and 1 EF prime.  I would not hesitate to sell my two EFS lenses and upgrade to FF if that is what I decided to do. 

But the real reason EFS lenses was so brilliant was necessity.  It served the consumer of APS-C sensors.  In the EF family, what lens would be your general purpose zoom?  The EF 24-105 L or the 28-135?  Not wide enough.  The EF 16-35 II?  Expensive and not long enough.  EFS lenses have and will continue to serve their purpose very well. 

There seems to be this prevalent concern that Canon will lose all these customers because the D600 specs are more appealing than the D6.  But, but the time someone has shot APS-C for awhile, they may either, like myself, have a mixture of EF ad EFS lenses, or two, at least gained an appreciation for canon's superior (and typically more affordable) glass.  I just don't think the argument holds much merit.
Title: Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: distant.star on September 18, 2012, 02:22:32 PM
.
The OP's underlying assumption is wrong. And as for Canon regretting or not regretting, I don't give a damn, my dear.

I believe it is wrong to presume the APS-C is some sort of transitional stage sensor -- either for Canon or for photographers. There are folks who live happily in the APS-C world and are never going to FF. Many, many others use both FF and APS-C and find both useful. Currently, the 7D is the flagship of the APS-C world, and it's serving Canon and photographers very well. This is why I've forecasted that a 7D2 will be a stunner when it's released -- and it will firmly cement the APS-C in the Canon lineup.

With the possible exception of the 135L, I'll put my EF-S 15-85 up against most any lens. I have a 70-200L and a 100-400L and neither can outdo the EF-S 15-85.

Oh, and the APS-H is never coming back!
Title: Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: Bob Howland on September 18, 2012, 02:52:40 PM
Many, many others use both FF and APS-C and find both useful.

And I'm one of them, owning both a 5D3 and 7D. However, I'm considerably less certain than you that a 7D2 will ever be introduced.
Title: Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: Bob Howland on September 18, 2012, 02:56:57 PM
But the real reason EFS lenses was so brilliant was necessity.  It served the consumer of APS-C sensors.  In the EF family, what lens would be your general purpose zoom?  The EF 24-105 L or the 28-135?  Not wide enough.  The EF 16-35 II?  Expensive and not long enough.  EFS lenses have and will continue to serve their purpose very well. 

Necessity?? We'll have to agree to disagree about that. Considering what Nikon, Tamron, Tokina and Sigma all did, I don't see EF-S as being necessary at all.
Title: Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: AprilForever on September 18, 2012, 03:04:20 PM
A Canon APS-C user who want to upgrade to a 6D cannot use his APS-C lenses on his new camera. In contrast, a Nikon APS-C user who wants to upgrade to a D600 can use his DX lenses on his new camera and the camera uses some sort of sensor cropping to emulate DX, at about 10.7MP. Interestingly, third party lenses (i.e., Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc.) can be mounted on Canon FF bodies but those bodies have no way or recognizing them as not being FF lenses.

Do suppose Canon regrets introducing the entire EF-S lens concept?

No.
Title: Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: ishdakuteb on September 18, 2012, 03:29:36 PM
read this:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_lens_mount (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_lens_mount)

"related technologies" part.  obviously, ef-s offers some benefits right :)  at least it is cheaper comparing to ef lens.
Title: Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: pharp on September 18, 2012, 03:31:38 PM
If anything, I wish they'd make at least a couple EFS L  build lenses; 10-22, 15-85, 60macro to go with the smaller form factor 7DII. They have the tele's covered.
Title: Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: Chuck Alaimo on September 18, 2012, 03:35:39 PM
If anything, I wish they'd make at least a couple EFS L  build lenses; 10-22, 15-85, 60macro to go with the smaller form factor 7DII. They have the tele's covered.

better yet, make those EF L, not EFS L ---  (I guess the 8-15 fisheye covers that wide side)

Less barriers and more function as opposed to adding more lenses which makes things harder to migrate to FF
Title: Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: robbymack on September 18, 2012, 03:37:23 PM
In a word , no. It was a great boon for the consumer who wanted something more than their kit lens on aps c. Do I regret my 17-55 f2.8, not one bit. I should be able to sell that piece of kit for 80-90% of what I paid for it, or keep it and let the wife use it on a rebel or mirror less offering in the future. Either way it was worth the use I got out of it.

As a side note I picked up the 5d mark iii in the adorama eBay sale this weekend, delivered today, super pumped, got it charging in my office and may duck out a few hours early this afternoon.
Title: Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: Random Orbits on September 18, 2012, 03:38:13 PM
Canon might regret introducing the EF-S concept only if/when they lose large numbers of 60D sales because consumers realize that can upgrade to a Nikon D600 for about the same cost as upgrading to a 60D and they buy the Nikon instead. In contrast, a Nikon D200 user, like a nephew of mine, can purchase a D600 body only for now, can use his current lenses and can buy more lenses as finances allow. As for why he would want to "cripple" his new camera with old lenses, consider that his wife is 7 months pregnant with their first child. A D600 body alone will be financial stretch.

And that is my point.  If he spends $2100, he gets a camera that downsizes all his photos to the same 10-11MP range as his current D200.  What has he gained for $2100 with his crop lenses?  Not much -- he's effectively throwing out half his sensor that he paid so much for.  He might be better off spending the $2100 on good glass, which would affect IQ a lot more, or combination of glass and a more capable crop body that he can take advantage NOW.  If he can't get FF-compatible glass for a few years, then it really doesn't make sense to get a FF body now.  Bodies are updated a lot more frequently than lenses.

That is not to say that if one buys a crop camera that you should ONLY buy crop lenses.  The 17-55 has IS advantage over Canon's FF options and the 10-22 is much less expensive and nearly as capable as the 16-35.  Focal length limited shooters also gain from the crop cameras' higher sensor density.  I think it is also a reason why there are relatively few non-kit EF-S lenses.  Most of them are kit lenses except for the 10-22, 15-85, 17-55 and the 60 macro.  One is a ultrawide that is needed for the smaller sensor, and two of them are mid-range zooms which is what most people use (not sure why Canon developed the 60 macro).  If you want a Canon high speed prime or longer focal lengths, you'd be getting EF lenses anyway, which can be used on FF.  With 1 to 2 to sell/trade, the cost of moving FF is not that high.
Title: Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: distant.star on September 18, 2012, 04:09:22 PM
As a side note I picked up the 5d mark iii in the adorama eBay sale this weekend, delivered today, super pumped, got it charging in my office and may duck out a few hours early this afternoon.

If you duck out early, are you required to show a picture of a duck?

Congratulations of the new equipment!
Title: Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: unfocused on September 18, 2012, 04:10:42 PM
At some level the marketing department at Canon may regret that they let the engineers tell them they couldn't design certain lenses that would mount on all their cameras. I'm sure the marketing people never liked the idea of a two-tiered system. That's what happens when you let engineers dictate products.

But, really distant.star's post below is spot on:

.
The OP's underlying assumption is wrong. And as for Canon regretting or not regretting, I don't give a damn, my dear.

I believe it is wrong to presume the APS-C is some sort of transitional stage sensor -- either for Canon or for photographers. There are folks who live happily in the APS-C world and are never going to FF. Many, many others use both FF and APS-C and find both useful. Currently, the 7D is the flagship of the APS-C world, and it's serving Canon and photographers very well. This is why I've forecasted that a 7D2 will be a stunner when it's released -- and it will firmly cement the APS-C in the Canon lineup.

With the possible exception of the 135L, I'll put my EF-S 15-85 up against most any lens. I have a 70-200L and a 100-400L and neither can outdo the EF-S 15-85.

Oh, and the APS-H is never coming back!

What I do wonder is if there isn't some regret that the APS-H sensor cameras were not designed to accept EF-S lenses. APS-H is dead, as distant.star says. But, it might have stayed alive longer if you could mount your EF-S lens on the body and gain a wider focal length, just as you can gain longer length mounting EF lenses on the APS-C bodies.

Just imagine what it would be like to be able to use the 15-85 on an APS-H camera as a 9-50 mm zoom. Now, that might have kept some life in the APS-H format.

Still, what is done is done. Whether they regret it or not, it doesn't matter.

Canon and Nikon let a genie out of the bottle when they developed the crop format. APS-C now dominates the DLSR market and there is no way of putting it back into the bottle even if they wanted to. As long as there are DSLRs for sale, they will be available in two formats.

I never get the fixation with reducing consumer choices on this forum. People complain about the cost of the 5DIII, but do you have any idea how much it would cost if Canon wasn't selling all those Rebels, 60Ds and 7Ds?
Title: Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: jthomson on September 18, 2012, 04:30:35 PM
Most crop shooters who would be looking to upgrade will have a mix of EF and EF-s lenses.

I'd only need to replace my sigma 10-20 and my 15-85mm.  The rest of my lenses are EF.

I'm actually waitng for the upgrade to the 7D, as I mainly use my camera for birding and want a top of the line crop.
Title: Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: insanitybeard on September 19, 2012, 06:54:44 AM
As has already been said by other posters, Canon had to design a crop lens to cater for the ultrawide focal lengths on APS-C, as none of the EF lenses fulfil this role with the exception of the fisheyes. Canon would have had a hard job of designing a corrected 10mm full format lens! And even if they could you can bet it would cost a s*@t load more than the EF-S 10-22 does- look at the cost of the EF 14mm L for proof! And it doesn't accept filters. Plus it makes sense to have a few crop zooms to cover a good 'standard range' from 28-70mm (full frame equivalent) for example, which no single EF lens does for a crop sensor. The EF-S 60 macro is a bit of an oddity but a welcome one nonetheless!
Title: Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: ryanjennings on September 19, 2012, 07:48:11 AM
I bought into the EF-S system seven years ago, before FF became affordable.  I moved to FF this year.  I sold the non-kit EF-S lenses for 85% of the price that I bought them.  I had the 10-22 and the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.  There is no rectilinear FF lens that would work on FF with a focal length range of 10 to 22mm, and the 24-70 f/2.8s cost more than the 17-55.  Even now, there are still many FF users who complain that the 24-70L II doesn't have IS, which is something that crop users have been able to take advantage of for years.

This is why I have never understood the problem with switching from ef-s to ef.  You can sell the ef-s for 85%.  It just isn't that big of a deal is it?
Title: Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: nicku on September 19, 2012, 07:51:18 AM
A Canon APS-C user who want to upgrade to a 6D cannot use his APS-C lenses on his new camera. In contrast, A Nikon APS-C user who wants to upgrade to a D600 can use his DX lenses on his new camera and the camera uses some sort of sensor cropping to emulate DX, at about 10.7MP. Interestingly, third party lenses (i.e., Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc.) can be mounted on FF bodies but those bodies have no way or recognizing them as not being FF lenses.

Do suppose Canon regrets introducing the entire EF-S lens comment?



Excellent post.  And this is exactly why I never purchased an EF-S lens.  Even when I had the 7D, I considered three of them but glad I never bought them, because all 3 of my cameras are FF, rendering those lenses useless.

I use a 7D for my work, bu only EF lenses. Especially for the possibility to upgrade to FF
Title: Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: tomscott on September 19, 2012, 07:55:30 AM
As a pro I get a lot of friends family and random acquaintances asking me what I use bla bla bla...

Then they ask wow thats a nice camera, nothing about the glass.

Amateurs who are not obsessive about photography generally think the better the camera the better their images/kit will be but in reality the camera is crippled by the glass you use.

I was buying a camera for my dad yesterday in a local superstore. The guy selling it asked what I use so I told him and he said 'wow, Im really starting to get into my photography and doing a lot of product shots for my portfolio.' I was impressed and asked a few more questions and it turned out he was using a 1100d and the standard kit lens and two flashes and was looking into buying a 60D and asked what I thought. He was surprised to hear that buying the 18mp 60D with a standard lens 18-55mm would probably turn out worse images than his 12mp 1100d with the same lens.

I then went onto tell him buying some high end EF-s glass or EF L lenses will aid him more than buying a new body. The 1100d isnt great but its not bad. Shooting product photography and not selling the results the 60D will not aid.

I explained that good glass is needed to resolve the sensor, and you get better results from better glass. He was puzzled at first and then appalled that the 17-55mm would run him nearly as much as a new camera. I said well cameras come and go, but buy good glass and it will do you well for longer and not only give crisp, sharp results but will give his camera more life as it will feel so new with the quality the lens was giving him.

Anyway point being we as canonrumour-ists we probably fit into 25% of the key demographic of Canon photographic products. We seek the best and go as far as being upset or personally insulted if canon doesn't deliver what we want.

Whereas the rest of the demographic wants a camera which on paper has great features and think because the camera comes with the kit lens that it is good enough for the camera. So will go and buy a camera over glass unless they need something specific so like a telephoto for 'further away' or wide angle for 'wider shots' or macro to 'get closer' what ever it may be. But also will probably try to find the cheapest not realising that they are slower, noisy, slow to focus and will cripple them in quite a few situations.

So will Canon regret making the EF-s system well no, because they offer cheaper alternatives to the key demographic and will outsell L lenses at least 3 or even 4:1 also the APC cameras will outsell the FF variants in the same respect. I would say the average person wont want to spend over £300 on a new lens, which is where quite a lot of EF-s lenses sit.

As for the user. Well L lenses in my opinion aren't as suitable on the standard/wide end. If you want a wide angle lens or a standard zoom, L lenses are too much on the tele side, 24 on crop is 38.4. So buy buying L only glass I feel I would miss the shot opportunities. I would rather buy the high end EF-s lenses than miss shots I would have otherwise. Especially when the 17-55 and 10-22mm are such fantastic lenses, if anything as good as their full frame alternatives, apart from weather sealing. Lets be honest those are the only two lenses to have in the EF-s range and wont cost more than £1200 for the pair which is a simple lens in L glass for a lot of lenses. Plus are so popular selling them is not a problem I see them selling privately for 80% of their value and even closer in shops so you wont loose a great deal on them.

For everything else the L lenses are perfect, 100mm macro giving 160mm 70-200mm giving 112-320mm. So when I bought my EF-s lenses this is how I thought and it has worked great for me. Now trading up to FF I only have to replace two lenses with full frame alternatives, but like them so much and keeping my ACP as a back up I may just keep them.
Title: Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: pwp on September 19, 2012, 08:23:00 AM
Was it lower manufacturing costs that triggered the EF-S line? Far and away the highest number of Canon DSLR's that exist on the planet are APS-C bodies owned and enjoyed by photographers many of whom may barely be aware of the difference between an EF-S lens and an EF lens but enjoy the relatively low price of entry to decent EF-S glass.

I'd bet the farm that APS-C DSLR bodies or future mirrorless bodies that may take EF-S lenses will be around for a many years and will ensure a long and useful life for these lenses.

-PW
Title: Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: aj1575 on September 19, 2012, 08:48:24 AM
First, how did the EF-S story beginn?
An APS-C sensor needs other lenses at the wide angle side. You can build them smaller, lighter an cheaper. So every maker of lenses (Canon, Nikon, Zeiss (Sony), Sigma, Tamron, Tokina) started to make those lenses. All of them stuck to the same dimensions at the back of the lens, as they had on a FF body, except Canon.
I think the most logic reason about why they did that was, that it gave them more flexibility in the lens design. A few milimeters more are welcome there. And why not do this? Which pro with a FF-Camera would ever mount those cheap APS-C lenses on their bodies?
Times are changing; some APS-C lenses cost over 1000$ and offer very good quality, while FF-Bodies are below 2000$ now. So many people are moving up from APS-C to FF. This causes the APS-C-Lens on a FF body (only for EF-S-lenses). But how big of a problem is this?
Sure, there are some photographers, who need to sell their expensive EF-S 17-55 f2.8 and EF-S 10-22mm (mine will be up for sale soon), in order to go to FF, and buy new wide angles and standard zooms. But be honest, when you move up to FF, you don't like to use your 17-55 f2.8 anymore. The APS-C lenses would only be there as long as you need to buy an all FF set. Then why would you buy a FF body, if you only use the APS-C area?
Title: Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: meli on September 19, 2012, 08:52:06 AM
going back to my days on Aps-c i dont regret buying ef-s lenses and that even though i had a stash of ef lenses from the film days. Shooting with the 10-22 & 17-55 was much more enjoyable and productive than any ef combo and if i had to do it again i would also add the new 50-150 from sigma and feel complete. Resale value was also good on this lenses, i think i lost something like 100e when i sold the 10-22, thats 100$ for 4yrs of usage, not bad at all.
Title: Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on September 19, 2012, 09:07:12 AM
No they were not a bad idea.

The 300D has been out what, 12 years?  And we now have an 'affordable' full frame camera.  A bit more costly than the 300D entry price in real terms.  And what you can buy a 1100D with EF-s lens for a sixth of the price.

Folk who wanted better glass initially bought off brand (UWA's, macros etc), or bought EF.

I never bought an expensive EF-s lens mainly because there were better third party alternatives.

The whole DX crop thing is dead handy, but in this megapixel obsessed age do you really want to downgrade your nice 36MP to a 15MP? 24MP to a 10MP?, or your 12MP to a 5MP?

I'm happy with APS-C and will continue to be happy with it.  My cameras are working well enough and giving me the same results they always have, which I was happy with at the time, and am happy with now.

The next EOS I'll be buying will be 2x EOS c, probably the C100 or equivalent.   Which is... super 35!  Which will work fine with my APS-C format Sigma DC and Tokina D lenses in EF mount.  I'm a bit different, I use my DSLRs for work (video) and frankly if they are working then I don't mess with them.  If I change one camera I need to change them both (my t3i and 7D are matched iso for iso, same processor, so intercutting cameras is not an issue, would the same be true of a digic V and digic IV?)

But the cameras will work, may even be hired out, they'll pay for their keep.  I'll use my DSLRs for stills, as that is my hobby.  But I would never have bought a 7D if it wasn't going to work.  I would never have bought a f2.8L telezoom if it wasn't going to work.  I don't have the need for full frame, and thanks to the c cameras I don't think I ever now will.

Canon more than any other company has opened up DSLRs to the masses.  Canon more than any other company has pushed expectations at the lower end of the market, giving people better cameras for less money.  The folk who want better will always buy better, upgrade, or enter the market at a higher point.

EF-s let Canon sell shed loads of cameras, let folk use EF lenses on them, and give them an upgrade path.
And still do.

If the next rebel is FF and cost less than $1000, then yeah, long term EF-s might be on the wane, but that won't write off the successes of the EF-s mount.  And who knows, future FF EOS cameras may not even have mirrors to strike, if EOS DSLRs can tell a flashgun that a lens is cropped, then the camera already knows...

If my T3i can put on stupid square crops then a future mirrorless 5D or 1D series can put on APS-C crops when and if required.

I remember the olden days when folk were more obsessed with photography and getting the right shot than gear.  It seems to me that the immediacy and speed of learning on a DSLR has put a lot of folks noses out of joint.   So they have to diss the cheaper gear.  Have to have only L lenses.  Have to have the latest most expensive camera.  Yet newbies with an eye, or dedicated learners on a budget are doing more interesting work.  Must be infuriating.

EF-s lenses have a bit to run yet, so long as students, beginners, occasional photographers want a good camera for less than a months wages, lang may their lum reek! 
Title: Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
Post by: NJK on October 05, 2012, 04:13:59 PM
I don't think the EF-S lens line-up was a BAD idea...  Canon needed to do SOMETHING to give users of crop-sensor bodies good wide-angle performance at a reasonable price. 

Can you imagine how expensive and complex the optics would be to create an EF lens that matches the wide-angle performance of the EF-S 10-22mm on a crop-sensor body?!?  It would need to be the FF equiv. of roughly 6-14mm.  That's well into fisheye territory.  Trying to correct for the distortion in that focal length range (if it is even possible) would result in one heavy (lots of glass), costly lens!  So the EF-S lens line-up does serve a purpose. 

With a couple of exceptions, the EF-S line-up is filled with moderately priced, consumer-grade lenses.  These lenses tend to be "good enough" for people with crop-sensor Rebels, who just want something better than compact / point & shoot digial cameras. 

A consumer-grade crop-sensor body and an EF-S lens or two is also often the "starting point" for many beginners, who might later aspire to take their photography to the next level.  If/when they're ready to move up to a professional-grade (FF) body, this is usually the time they upgrade their lens(es) too.  A professional-grade body deserves professional-grade glass to really get the best performance out of it; your rig is only as good as its weakest link.  Very few beginners purchase lenses that are of high enough quality to later be used with a professional-grade body anyway.  So, even if you COULD use your EF-S lenses on a 5D III or 1DX body, would you really want to??  I see the EF-S lenses as the first step in (Canon) DSLR photography.         

I have a 60D.  The day I bought it, I knew that I would eventually upgrade to FF, so I was careful not to invest too much in EF-S lenses.

My 60D came with the EF-S 18-135mm IS lens.  Right away, I found that 18mm wasn't wide enough on my crop-sensor body, so I bought an EF-S 10-22mm lens a few months later.  BRAND NEW, the 10-22 is nearly L-series money, and I refused to invest that kind of dough in something that wouldn't work on FF later.  I found a great price on a used one, which was in mint condition.  When I move up to FF, I will be able to resell my 10-22 and get every penny back out of it, or maybe even make a few bucks on it. 

A couple of months ago, I finally got rid of my EF-S 18-135, and replaced it with the 24-105 L.  I really LOVE the 24-105, but with my crop-sensor body, I'm glad I have the EF-S 10-22.  When I move up to a FF body, I'll sell off the 10-22 and replace it with the 16-35mm L. 

Without EF-S lenses, I simply wouldn't have a viable option for wide / ultra-wide angle shooting.