Canon says: more EF-S lenses

Started Oct 6, 2004 | Discussions
bds231
Regular MemberPosts: 404
Like?
Re: Canon says: more EF-S lenses
In reply to Daniel, Oct 9, 2004

Sorry ZiPA, it's a matter of physics, not beliefs.

Assuming the lens in question is well-designed and made, distortion is directly dependent on field of view. As I wrote above, there's nothing inherenly "wide angle" about a 28mm lens -- it's only "wide angle" if it's designed to cast an image circle with a diameter longer than its focal length (as a 28mm designed for use on a FF sensor is).

Therefore, if all you know about a lens is that the focal length is 28mm (eg., you don't know the size of the image cirlce), you can't say anything about the amount of distortion that lens displays.

Daniel wrote:
No, I don't know believe this is correct. The digicam example is
not comparing apples to apples. 1.6x crop in DSLR is just a crop
which give you the sample results as FF DSLR but with crop so you
will still see the distortion from WA lens. You can take a picture
with a FF DSLR at 28mm and crop it in photoshop which will look
like 1.6x DSLR at 28mm. The digicam with very small sensor, but
have their lens (say 7mm) is design to shed light to just on its
sensor (no crop).

I agree with ChuckH's assessment and disagrees with ZiPA.

ZiPA wrote:

ChuckH wrote:

But, it seems to me that the tendency of
a wide-angle lens to make closer objects appear much larger than
distant objects and thus result in long noses, large heads, small
torsos and the like would be just as pronounced when used with a
1.6X body as with a FF body. My understanding is that a 28mm lens
would, therefore, give roughly equivalent perspective to a 50mm
lens on a FF body, but would distort the perspective in the way we
normally associate with WA images. Am I incorrect in that
assumption?

Short answer: Yes, you are incorrect. Just take a look at a
portrait shot with a digicam with, say, a 15-20 mm lens, and you'll
see why. Perspective distortions have nothing to do with focal
length, and everything to do with subject distance.

-JP

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mogwyth
Contributing MemberPosts: 557
Like?
Re: Maybe it competes with Nikon DX format and G lens
In reply to jkirkerx, Oct 9, 2004

I read some where tha Canon have no plans to introduce a full range of EF-S lens rather they only see an advantage in producing the shorter/wideangles in the EF-S format.

If I can find the article agian I'll post it.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Doug Kerr
Forum ProPosts: 20,898
Like?
What older cameras?
In reply to danh, Oct 9, 2004

Hi, DAn,

danh wrote:

What I don't get is why they didn't make the lenses for a 1.6 crop
but in a standard EF mount. At least it would work with older
cameras.

I'm not sure I follow. If they put an EF mount on these lenses (and actually the mount isn't really different in any signficant way), it wouldn't work on any camera with a sensor bigger than the so-called "1.6 factor" size. The EF-S lenses don;t develop a large enough image for a larher sensor.

Thus if they did what you said, the only camera that would be accommodated that isn't presently would be the EOS-10D.

In any case, it isn't cleae that they could all work with the 10D from the standpoint of mirror clearance (although in fact the EF-S 18-55 will work on a 10D if the rubber interference ring is relieved).

Best regards,

Doug

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
baruth
Senior MemberPosts: 2,056
Like?
Re: Maybe it competes with Nikon DX format and G lens
In reply to jkirkerx, Oct 9, 2004

We now see clearly that Nikon has a well defined plan and strategy: 1.5x and they are sticking with it. As the number of pix and quality iincrease, there is no need for 'ff' as we are seeing now. The D2x can easily compete and surpass film 35mm.

Canon seems to chase the future in more than one fronts, but soon or later (I think it will be soon) it will have to choose. 1.3x, 1.5, "FF". It is annoying(and financially not sound) to have more than one cameras from Canon and can't use them interchangeably with its lenses.

jkirkerx wrote:

I see the same questions over and over on the 20D forum " which
lens will work best on my 20D", it must get asked 20 times a day.
I think Canon just added a ton of newbies with the 20D, like the
D70, and is adding a complete new line of lenses based on the 1.6
crop. I wouldn't be surprised if they had an L series of EFS
mounts.

Nikon has standardized on the 1.5 crop called the DX format, and
made a new line of lenses called G lenses that are pretty nice and
affordable. Nikon seems to have the bases covered on the consumer
end. But I think this will hurt Nikon in the future, as their pro
market continues to shrink because many pro's have switched to
Canon Gear.

Both Companies stand to make a ton of money off the consumers and
prosumers in this new digital revolution that we live in today.
This reveloution will rival bw to color tv's, and the home pc boom.

-- hide signature --

http://www.lightmagical.fotopic.net/
Winds my breaths, Sun my eyes, Sky my open mind.
Baruth

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
danh
Contributing MemberPosts: 669
Like?
10D d30 d60
In reply to Doug Kerr, Oct 9, 2004

There are still quite a few of these in service

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Doug Kerr
Forum ProPosts: 20,898
Like?
Oh, of course! (nt)
In reply to danh, Oct 9, 2004

Doug

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
excal
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,089
Like?
Re: The Four-Thirds standard
In reply to Doug Kerr, Oct 9, 2004

Long live EBCDIC!

So, with Unicode here now, ASCII is dead perhaps? Do we apply the same to EF? I think 4/3's has it's work cut out, just like Unicode.

Excal

Doug Kerr wrote:
Hi, Hej,

Hej wrote:

dominouk wrote:

...developments like APS and more
recently digital standards like 4/3 with smaller formats?

It's a pretty big stretch to call 4/3 a "standard".

I believe that the Four-Thirds standard meets most of the accepted
definitions of a standard - certainly as much as the VHS tape
standard did when it was first established. It has been generated
by consensus of a group of organizations, is well documented, and
revolves around concepts of compatibility and interchangeability.

A standard does not need to wait for widespread implementation to
be considered a standard.

Best regards,

Doug
Co-author and principle editor
ASCII standard, 1967 version

-- hide signature --

Excal

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
excal
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,089
Like?
Re: Canon says: more EF-S lenses
In reply to mfurman, Oct 9, 2004

If they're good, that's great.

The new Sigma 18-125 (28-200 effective on a 1.6x), is stunningly good in comparison to my Tamron 28-300 (I know the Tamron is more of a hyperzoom, but 200 vs. 300 is a bit of a mute point). And they kept that in a standard EF mount for Canon (thankfully).

The new 17-85 IS EFS is from everything I have seen and read and heard, is very soft.

Excal

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 --

Excal

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mfurman
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,281
Like?
Velvia - everyone here should shoot a roll today
In reply to Jason Milliron, Oct 10, 2004

Yes, low ISO is a problem (you practically need f2.8 to do anything. It costs a bit as well. BUT... it LOOKS NICER: dynamic range is much broader, colours are more saturated (sky is actually blue), the exposure is right and it does not take any postprocessing to get all of these.

Of course, I would not scan it on any cheap scanner but if you view it using a projector or even print on good paper, it is better. I showed my digital pictures and the ones printed from Velvia (the same subject) to the number of people and everyone pointed to Velvia ones as better. The difference is shocking.

Michael

Jason Milliron wrote:

mfurman wrote:

I recently shot a couple of rolls of Velvia 50 and was shocked how
much better the colours were (I had not done that for a year). I
have to spend quite a bit of time using C1 or PS to get colours
right when shooting digital. I was also surprised that the exposure
was right in every picture.

Yes, but how does film compare to the 20D at ISO 1600? How much
does it cost to get a roll of slides developed and mounted?

Both 35mm and APS sized DSLR have their place in my camera bag.

-jason m

-- hide signature --

Nikon FA and Canon 20D
http://milliron.org/photo

-- hide signature --

Michael

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
baruth
Senior MemberPosts: 2,056
Like?
Re: Velvia - everyone here should shoot a roll today
In reply to mfurman, Oct 10, 2004

What you see in slides is "unprocessed." In order to get a decent print, you will have jump over many more huddles than a digital file would require.

mfurman wrote:
Yes, low ISO is a problem (you practically need f2.8 to do
anything. It costs a bit as well. BUT... it LOOKS NICER: dynamic
range is much broader, colours are more saturated (sky is actually
blue), the exposure is right and it does not take any
postprocessing to get all of these.

Of course, I would not scan it on any cheap scanner but if you view
it using a projector or even print on good paper, it is better. I
showed my digital pictures and the ones printed from Velvia (the
same subject) to the number of people and everyone pointed to
Velvia ones as better. The difference is shocking.

Michael

Jason Milliron wrote:

mfurman wrote:

I recently shot a couple of rolls of Velvia 50 and was shocked how
much better the colours were (I had not done that for a year). I
have to spend quite a bit of time using C1 or PS to get colours
right when shooting digital. I was also surprised that the exposure
was right in every picture.

Yes, but how does film compare to the 20D at ISO 1600? How much
does it cost to get a roll of slides developed and mounted?

Both 35mm and APS sized DSLR have their place in my camera bag.

-jason m

-- hide signature --

Nikon FA and Canon 20D
http://milliron.org/photo

-- hide signature --

Michael

-- hide signature --

http://www.lightmagical.fotopic.net/
Winds my breaths, Sun my eyes, Sky my open mind.
Baruth

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mfurman
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,281
Like?
Not really...
In reply to baruth, Oct 10, 2004

I do not have to do much. I just ask to have the prints done and pay. It is still less time than what I spend postprocessing my digital. The results are better. My biggest problem with digital is a limited dynamic range.

Michael

baruth wrote:
What you see in slides is "unprocessed." In order to get a decent
print, you will have jump over many more huddles than a digital
file would require.

mfurman wrote:
Yes, low ISO is a problem (you practically need f2.8 to do
anything. It costs a bit as well. BUT... it LOOKS NICER: dynamic
range is much broader, colours are more saturated (sky is actually
blue), the exposure is right and it does not take any
postprocessing to get all of these.

Of course, I would not scan it on any cheap scanner but if you view
it using a projector or even print on good paper, it is better. I
showed my digital pictures and the ones printed from Velvia (the
same subject) to the number of people and everyone pointed to
Velvia ones as better. The difference is shocking.

Michael

Jason Milliron wrote:

mfurman wrote:

I recently shot a couple of rolls of Velvia 50 and was shocked how
much better the colours were (I had not done that for a year). I
have to spend quite a bit of time using C1 or PS to get colours
right when shooting digital. I was also surprised that the exposure
was right in every picture.

Yes, but how does film compare to the 20D at ISO 1600? How much
does it cost to get a roll of slides developed and mounted?

Both 35mm and APS sized DSLR have their place in my camera bag.

-jason m

-- hide signature --

Nikon FA and Canon 20D
http://milliron.org/photo

-- hide signature --

Michael

-- hide signature --

http://www.lightmagical.fotopic.net/
Winds my breaths, Sun my eyes, Sky my open mind.
Baruth

-- hide signature --

Michael

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
James Fry
Regular MemberPosts: 418
Like?
Re: The Four-Thirds standard
In reply to excal, Oct 10, 2004

excal wrote:

Long live EBCDIC!
So, with Unicode here now, ASCII is dead perhaps? Do we apply the
same to EF? I think 4/3's has it's work cut out, just like Unicode.

Unicode is in far more places than most people realise. Windows has been Unicode internally for a long time, and Java has used it from the beginning. It is the standard character set for XML files.

People want to be able to communicate with anyone in the world in any language and script - ASCII is somewhat broken for that. Pure ASCII is pretty much dead anyway; almost everything my PC sees is now in a superset of ASCII, typically iso-8859-1 or Unicode UTF-8.

I agree with you on 4/3 though - I don't see the system going anywhere fast. So many people have an investment in other mounts that it is difficult to see it catching on. I really love the fact I can use my lenses on any Canon EF body - whether that is my 50E, the 20D, or my 1Ds MkII (I only get to use them on that body in my dreams though).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Hej
Hej
Senior MemberPosts: 2,294
Like?
Re: The Four-Thirds standard
In reply to Doug Kerr, Oct 10, 2004

Doug Kerr wrote:
Hi, Hej,

Hej wrote:

dominouk wrote:

...developments like APS and more
recently digital standards like 4/3 with smaller formats?

It's a pretty big stretch to call 4/3 a "standard".

I believe that the Four-Thirds standard meets most of the accepted
definitions of a standard - certainly as much as the VHS tape
standard did when it was first established. It has been generated
by consensus of a group of organizations, is well documented, and
revolves around concepts of compatibility and interchangeability.

I think the "interchangability" is where 4/3's comes up short. To me, a "standard" means interchangability among brands, but 4/3's so far belongs almost exclusively to Olympus. Nobody else makes 4/3's bodies, and that doesn't seem likely to change.

-- hide signature --

I see your schwartz is as big as mine.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads