New EF-S lenses in 2013? I'd love to see a fast telephoto

Started Nov 22, 2012 | Discussions thread
EmmanuelStarchild
Forum MemberPosts: 62
Like?
Re: No advantage in telephoto for EF-S vs. EF
In reply to berze, Nov 22, 2012

berze wrote:

But many FF teles are not much larger or expensive. So I doubt that there is a case for longer EF-S lenses.
-- hide signature --

____________________________________________
- -Better a small camera in the pocket than a big one on the shelf --
http://www.pbase.com/ralph46/image/54628549/small.jpg

I disagree. A decent telephoto, say 70-200 in FF realm, is a bit long in Crop country. The same range & aperture values can only be obtained thru third parties.

I for one have the Tokina 50-135 f2.8, which translates into the same 70-200 kind of range for FF's. It's shorter than the 70-200 f4 L, though slightly heavier (150g), while remaining in the same price category.

For the same low-light performance, why should I rack up more than twice the price, carry almost twice the weight, and still find it too long on the short end ? What can I do with a 112-320 lens when I want a 70-200esque one ? You'd call a 100-400 a medium telephoto ?

If you plan to stay in crop country, pentax has much better offerings (it's not by accident that the above-mentioned tokina was co-developed with pentax). Canon & Nikon will make you long for & jump to FF in the end, no matter what (I'm sure I will, I already started buying L-glass )

I wouldn't want to sacrifice quality by buying second rate tokina glass. If i want such a short telephoto length I would just buy the 15-85. That, paired with the 70-200, makes a fine combo, IMO.

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