EF-S Lenses - worthwhile investment?

Jernej: Are you planing to introduce some high end EF-S lenses in the near future?

TAKAYA: Definitely. We are always planing 5 year spans so within the next 5 years we will develop high and mid end or even some completely unique EF-S lenses. But those are based on requests of professional photographers, however at the same time DSLRS are getting more popular with non professionals, therefore we have to develop lenses for both markets. It is not a question of timing, but as a leader of professional photography industry we are always thinking of high end products and new technology.

Jernej: Right now EF-S lenses are about 30% more expensive than EF counterparts. Will it stay the same or are prices going to fall?

TAKAYA: It is a matter of cost reduction and keeping the quality level. Our first priority was to achieve best possible quality. The next step will be to keep the quality and reduce the cost and achieve a more affordable price.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

Misha

You have taken a purely financial view on their "investment".

The lenses still work and can still be used to produce great pictures. Is that not another way to look at their investment? As someone else said before, if you want a financial return on your camera gear, buy Leica M's.

When EOS came out it was a totally new direction, so obviously things had to change. Doesn't mean that the FD stuff can't still produce.

misha said:

vk2109 said:

So you have the answer...everyone's opinion is different but IMO, it's
not worth investing is EFS lenses..!

Click to expand...

Canon obviously thinks that it's worth investing in R&D for EFS
lenses. And who knows what will happen a few years down the road -
owners of FD lenses also expected their investment to last
--
Misha

Click to expand...

--

I don't mean to offend, but if you are offended, then either I've overdone it, or, maybe you're too sensitive.

RDKirk said:

Wayne Larmon said:

I believe that our discussion can be reduced to the point that you
believe that it isn't desirable to make DSLRs any smaller than they
currently are.

Click to expand...

You are then in error. I said there was an ergonomic limit to how
small they can be made.

Click to expand...

OK, then not ergonomic. And I believe that the current DSLRs haven't reached the point of being too small ergonomically and that a fair amount of people do desire DSLRs that are smaller than current designs are.

Do you agree that this is a difference of opinion and there is no point in continuing this line of discussion, beyond stating that our opinions differ?

Wayne Larmon

Seems strange how hard you guys argue this point. Hands are different sizes. Some hands have thick gloves on them. Different aspects of a camera matter in different scenarios.

In my naked hands the 10D feels perfect, the 20D too small, the 1D too large. Another person will feel differently. With a large sports or wildlife tele I want a big sturdy grip for some leverage, and I want to operate all buttons with gloves on. The 1D is the right size for me in this scenario. For a vacation camera I want something that slides down the pocket of my Hawaii shirt (if I had one). A P&S does this better but I can hardly press one button without hitting another at the same time, so it's always in P mode.

There's room for and a need for a whole range of sizes of cameras...

• Anders @ http://www.andersostberg.com * http://www.pbase.com/andersostberg *

FretNoMore said:

Seems strange how hard you guys argue this point. Hands are
different sizes. Some hands have thick gloves on them. Different
aspects of a camera matter in different scenarios.

In my naked hands the 10D feels perfect, the 20D too small, the 1D
too large. Another person will feel differently. With a large
sports or wildlife tele I want a big sturdy grip for some leverage,
and I want to operate all buttons with gloves on. The 1D is the
right size for me in this scenario. For a vacation camera I want
something that slides down the pocket of my Hawaii shirt (if I had
one). A P&S does this better but I can hardly press one button
without hitting another at the same time, so it's always in P mode.

There's room for and a need for a whole range of sizes of cameras...

Click to expand...

Yes, and that is what I thought I was saying. Some people, for some activities, would like a DSLR system that is as compact as possible. Even if isn't suited for the most stringent professional use.

I also mention that if lenses were properly scaled down for 1.6x sensors (so that they aren't using excess glass to illuminate the area outside the sensor), that this reduces the need to have a real he-man grip on the body of the camera. Which reduces the ergonomic need for a larger body.

While we're on the subject of getting small, I'd like to see more composites used in lens construction. Composites==light==good. Metal==heavy==bad. I'd prefer this approach to lightness than using wacky exotic kinds of glass that cause weird bokeh.

For me (note that I restricted this to myself), I prefer a mostly plastic body, like the DRebel, to one that is constructed with more metal. Because the DRebel's body is strong enough for anything I plan to do to a DSLR.

Wayne Larmon

Yes, I guess there is hope for those who want to follow the EF-S pathway.

Out of curiosity, what does TANSTAAFL mean please ?

--
Cedric


'Let me tell you the secret that has led me to my goal: my strength lies solely in my tenacity' Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)

Cedric L said:

Out of curiosity, what does TANSTAAFL mean please ?

Click to expand...

Back in the 1930s in the US (during the Great Depression), restaurants would advertise "Free Lunch with Purchase of Two Mixed Drinks." Of course, they had merely raised the price of the drinks to cover the cost of the meal. Thus: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

Every benefit has a cost that is paid somehow, by someone, at some time. We run into this with every choice in photography. There is always a tradeoff. You never get something for nothing.

Even in this thread, we see how a benefit in one area demands a cost in another.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'