October 25, 2014, 03:58:58 AM

Author Topic: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?  (Read 9433 times)

Bob Howland

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 266
    • View Profile
Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« 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?
« Last Edit: September 18, 2012, 11:45:49 AM by Bob Howland »

canon rumors FORUM

Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« on: September 18, 2012, 11:24:39 AM »

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2601
    • View Profile
Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #1 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.
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14751
    • View Profile
Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #2 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.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2601
    • View Profile
Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #3 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 :)
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1373
    • View Profile
Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #4 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.

Bob Howland

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 266
    • View Profile
Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #5 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
« Last Edit: September 18, 2012, 02:45:42 PM by Bob Howland »

mws

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 182
    • View Profile
Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #6 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.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #6 on: September 18, 2012, 01:29:50 PM »

willis

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #7 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.
EOS 7D

Chuck Alaimo

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 986
    • View Profile
    • Chuck Alaimo Photography
Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #8 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...

Owns 5Dmkiii, 6D, 16-35mm, 24mm 1.4, 70-200mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 85 mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8 macro, 1-600RT, 2 430 EX's, 1 video light

preppyak

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 788
    • View Profile
Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #9 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

docsmith

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #10 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.

distant.star

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1531
    • View Profile
    • Tracy's Shooting Gallery
Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #11 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!
Walter: Were you listening to The Dude's story? Donny: I was bowling. Walter: So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...

Bob Howland

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 266
    • View Profile
Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #12 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.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #12 on: September 18, 2012, 02:52:40 PM »

Bob Howland

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 266
    • View Profile
Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #13 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.

AprilForever

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 730
    • View Profile
    • AprilForever.com
Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #14 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.
What is truth?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #14 on: September 18, 2012, 03:04:20 PM »