Rumors > EOS Bodies
Odds & Ends: 70D, 7D2, New Full Frame, D600 & Photoshop CS6
pknight:
--- Quote from: dlleno on June 22, 2012, 11:30:38 AM ---
--- Quote from: pknight on June 22, 2012, 09:51:12 AM ---
--- Quote from: dlleno on June 21, 2012, 09:00:11 AM ---aside from the three mentioned, what is your total investment in EF-S long glass? what long glass do you reach for when needed?
--- End quote ---
I was wondering, just how much can you invest in EF-S long glass? (Or, perhaps, how do you define long glass? ;)) The 55-250 is the longest EF-S lens offered, following the 18-135. Everything else tops out at 85, I believe. EF-S lenses are designed to give croppers the FOV of wider EF lenses. There is no demand for long EF-S lenses, since people use long lenses to "reach." I mean, who would buy an EF-S lens with the FF FOV of the 100-400 when they can use the 100-400 perfectly well and get 1.6x the "reach"?
--- End quote ---
I know what you mean, so not to pick nits here but to be more precise I would state the objectives of EF-S this way:
1. one of the primary intentions of the UWA EF-S lenses is to give the cropper the FOV of longer EF lenses when used on FF bodies. (10mm on a APS-C gives the equivalent FOV to the longer, 16mm on a FF).
--- End quote ---
This is what I meant when I said EF-S lenses were intended to give crop users the FOV of wider EF lenses, the wider EF lenses being those around 16mm. So we agree.
briansquibb:
--- Quote from: pknight on June 23, 2012, 11:22:59 AM ---
--- Quote from: dlleno on June 22, 2012, 11:30:38 AM ---
--- Quote from: pknight on June 22, 2012, 09:51:12 AM ---
--- Quote from: dlleno on June 21, 2012, 09:00:11 AM ---aside from the three mentioned, what is your total investment in EF-S long glass? what long glass do you reach for when needed?
--- End quote ---
I was wondering, just how much can you invest in EF-S long glass? (Or, perhaps, how do you define long glass? ;)) The 55-250 is the longest EF-S lens offered, following the 18-135. Everything else tops out at 85, I believe. EF-S lenses are designed to give croppers the FOV of wider EF lenses. There is no demand for long EF-S lenses, since people use long lenses to "reach." I mean, who would buy an EF-S lens with the FF FOV of the 100-400 when they can use the 100-400 perfectly well and get 1.6x the "reach"?
--- End quote ---
I know what you mean, so not to pick nits here but to be more precise I would state the objectives of EF-S this way:
1. one of the primary intentions of the UWA EF-S lenses is to give the cropper the FOV of longer EF lenses when used on FF bodies. (10mm on a APS-C gives the equivalent FOV to the longer, 16mm on a FF).
--- End quote ---
This is what I meant when I said EF-S lenses were intended to give crop users the FOV of wider EF lenses, the wider EF lenses being those around 16mm. So we agree.
--- End quote ---
Apart from the 14mm and 8-15 8)
Chuck Alaimo:
--- Quote from: dlleno on June 21, 2012, 10:25:39 AM ---
--- Quote from: Richard8971 on June 21, 2012, 09:53:36 AM ---
--- Quote from: dlleno on June 21, 2012, 09:00:11 AM ---aside from the three mentioned, what is your total investment in EF-S long glass? what long glass do you reach for when needed?
--- End quote ---
Who said my EF-s lenses were long reach? They make other EF-s lenses. If I choose to spend any amount of $$$ on ANY lens, regardless of EF or EF-s, you better believe I thought it out first and will use it until it dies!
D
--- End quote ---
sure, not very many of us invest in glass without thinking it through. For example, I have invested in the 10-22 and the 17-55 and this is not a trivial investment, but necessasy to optimize IQ across all conditions with one camera body. So let me re-frame the background of my question -- I was just calling out that there are three major EF-S lenses which form the biggest case for an investment in EF-S glass that would give one pause in a migration to FF, and that an investment in LONG EF-S glass is not sizable. I did think, initially, that your response implied an investment in long EF-S but I see your comment is a more general statement that one one should account for examples other than what I mentioned.
Not to trivialize anyones choices or investments I was just highlighting the biggest case representing the most likely IQ fanatics that have a sizable EF-S investment that would be most impacted by a move to FF and that Canon would be the most concerned about in their branding and upgrade paths. What are the EF-S lenses you have?
--- End quote ---
Similar here, I debated long and hard with the option of 10-22 or 16-35, and ended up going with the 10-22 because I knew i was still about a year off from migrating to FF, and while it may be a pain, selling the 10-22 for close to the cost paid won't be too hard - and 16mm on a crop just wasn't wide enough for my needs. Other than that though, I went with the 24-70 L v1, and the 70-200 2.8 v1 no IS.... And sorry to be almost snobbish, but I really don't see the need for IS on any lens below 100mm - I know for some there are valid arguments out there for it, but with L glass, to me at least adding IS on the sub 100mm lenses only means the lens will be more expensive and heavier, and from my perspective, I'd just rather have a steady hand while shooting. On the 24-70, i can take it down to about 1/30th and shoot without worry, 1/15th if i am shooting on the wide end, and on the 70-200, I can go down to 1/60th-1/100th (1/60th at 70mm to about 150mm, and 1/80th-1/100th for150mm-200mm). I would really like IS on the 70-200, and yeah I could get that for about $900 more, or, now that I have used it a bit, the f4 70-200 with IS really isn't a bad option. I find the bokeh on the 70-200 to be amazing even up to f8, of course though, the extra light you can at 2.8 is hard to beat too. Either way, at least from my perspective, if you have the 10-22mm i don't see much reason to go with the 17-55 EF-S lens at all - with most EF-S glass the price makes it attractive, but the 17-55 isn't far off from the 24-70 (well, at least the V1, the V2 is much pricier), but the 24-105 is right in the same ball park. If your at that stage and know that EF-S glass won't work on FF, I really have no sympathy for ya.
bdunbar79:
--- Quote from: samirachiko on June 23, 2012, 09:04:26 AM ---
--- Quote from: Richard8971 on June 21, 2012, 10:43:29 PM ---
If there is a 70D, it WILL be APS-C
If there is a 7D2, it WILL be APS-C
If there is a T5i, it WILL be APS-C
If there is a 5D4, it WILL be FF
--- End quote ---
If there is a 70D, it WILL APS-C
If there is a 7D2, it WILL be the TOP of APS-C
If there is a cheap full frame, it WILL be a 6D
;)
--- End quote ---
+1. There will be no 5D Mk IV announced for at least 3 years. That doesn't make sense. But the post I quoted, I can see that for sure. Remember, 50D, then 7D, then 60D :)
dlleno:
--- Quote from: Chuck Alaimo on June 23, 2012, 01:36:27 PM ---...And sorry to be almost snobbish, but I really don't see the need for IS on any lens below 100mm ...
.. if you have the 10-22mm i don't see much reason to go with the 17-55 EF-S lens at all - with most EF-S glass the price makes it attractive, but the 17-55 isn't far off from the 24-70 (well, at least the V1, the V2 is much pricier), but the 24-105 is right in the same ball park. If your at that stage and know that EF-S glass won't work on FF, I really have no sympathy for ya.
--- End quote ---
I seriously doubt very many at "that" stage care about your sympathy. People purchase lenses because the capabilities they offer produce results in the situations that are important.
Not many, with a single APS-C body, will purchase those two lenses in that order, and even if they do, it will be for a good reason. I use my 17-55 a lot, and I use the IS a lot at f/2.8, and highly value both of those capabilities because they increase the keeper rate especially indoors and for handheld HDR. and the lens has great re-sale value as well, with or without your sympathy.
I also use IS very heavily between 70-99mm and value the difference between acceptable and tack sharp.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version