Canon says: more EF-S lenses

Started Oct 6, 2004 | Discussions thread
PicOne
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,863
Like?
Re: Not quite correct...
In reply to Eug, Oct 6, 2004

I was comparing to closest available non-EFS lenses. So the 17-40 sprang to mind more readily than the 17-85. The 17-40 is the cheapest non EFS lens offered at around the same FL range.

My reference to lower quality may have been inexact -- I was referring to the fact that they're slower.

Eug wrote:
The 10-22 corresponds to 16-35.

As for the 17-85 being lower quality than the 28-135, that's
nonsense. Most people seem to think the quality is in the same
ballpark, and few think the 17-85 does a little better in some
regards.

PicOne wrote:
EFS 10-22 = same effective FL as a 17-40 on FF, but sells for more
money
($800 vs. $600), with slower aperture and smaller glass.

EFS 17-85 equates to the 28-135. also slower, and less glass -- I
think I've heard it will sell for about $100 more than the 28-135.

Canon is providing lower quality lenses at higher costs. Brilliant
marketing.

mfurman wrote:

In this interview

http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_440.shtml

Canon's representative seems to see a bright future for EF-S
lenses. It does not make me too happy - I use my film camera quite
a bit (intend to buy full frame DSLR as soon as the cost becomes
reasonable) and will buy only "full frame lenses". I am afraid that
there will be fewer new, "normal" lenses available.

-- hide signature --

Michael

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
4/3New
typoNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow