July 26, 2014, 03:23:47 PM

Author Topic: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?  (Read 8989 times)

ishdakuteb

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 342
    • View Profile
Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #15 on: September 18, 2012, 03:29:36 PM »
read this:

   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.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #15 on: September 18, 2012, 03:29:36 PM »

pharp

  • Guest
Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #16 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.

Chuck Alaimo

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 908
    • View Profile
    • Chuck Alaimo Photography
Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #17 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
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

robbymack

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 410
    • View Profile
Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #18 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.

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1281
    • View Profile
Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #19 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.

distant.star

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1426
    • View Profile
    • Tracy's Shooting Gallery
Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #20 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!
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...

unfocused

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1916
    • View Profile
    • Unfocused: A photo website
Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #21 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?
pictures sharp. life not so much. www.unfocusedmg.com

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #21 on: September 18, 2012, 04:10:42 PM »

jthomson

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #22 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.

insanitybeard

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 288
    • View Profile
Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #23 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!
7D / EF-S 10-22 / 17-40L / 70-200 f4L IS / EF-S 60 macro

ryanjennings

  • Guest
Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #24 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?

nicku

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #25 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

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2666
    • View Profile
Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #26 on: September 19, 2012, 07:53:42 AM »
...
Do suppose Canon regrets introducing the entire EF-S lens concept?

Nope.

They've made you buy your lenses twice.

That's got to help the company bottom line.

tomscott

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 528
  • Graphic Designer & Photographer
    • View Profile
    • Tom Scott | Photography
Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #27 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.
5D MKIII, 16-35mm F2.8 II L, 24-70mm F2.8 L, 24-105mm F4 IS L, 100mm F2.8 IS L, 70-200mm F2.8 IS II L, 50mm F1.8, 2x Ex, 580EX
BU: 40D,17-55mm F2.8 IS
www.tomscottphotography.co.uk

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #27 on: September 19, 2012, 07:55:30 AM »

pwp

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1455
    • View Profile
Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #28 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

aj1575

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 163
    • View Profile
Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #29 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?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?
« Reply #29 on: September 19, 2012, 08:48:24 AM »