Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?

[Bob Howland]

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?

 

[bdunbar79]

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.

 

[Loswr]

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.

 

[bdunbar79]

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

 

[Random Orbits]

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 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

 

[mws]

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.

 

[willis]

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.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

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...

 

[preppyak]

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]

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]

.
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!

 

[Bob Howland]

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.

 

[Bob Howland]

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]

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.

 

[ishdakuteb]

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.

 

[pharp]

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]

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

 

[robbymack]

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]

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.