prediction: new EF-S & L lenses coexist, Canon dominates pro 1.6x AND MF DSLR markets

Mike Fried said in "The Truth about EFS lenses" thread:

Member said:

And if you have the 10D like I do, you are limited to EF lenses.
Sigma and other 3rd party brands offer full frame and APS-C image
circle sized lenses for the EF mount that don't require a new
mount. Just like the Nikon digital lenses, these lenses simply
vignette on full frame.

Click to expand...

1) not neccessarily . . .

... both the EF-S 17-85 and EF-S 17-55 have been successfully converted to work on a 10D

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=14834647

It may only be a matter of time before someone has the cojones to do so for the EF-S 10-22, the only EF-S lens that I own for exactly the reasons JAP pointed out in the same thread:

Member said:

There's only a small focal range which needs to be covered by a wider lens,
and the lens with which that's done need not be EF-S at all.

Click to expand...

I am fortunate to have a very sweet 17-40L, OK 28-105, and great 50 and longer lenses, so (perhaps like many here with an existing collection of glass before getting a 1.6x Canon) I only needed to 'fill that gap' at the wide end.

2) but then again . . .

If I had to do it again, I would seriously consider looking more closely at the Sigma 12-24 before making a final choice at the superwide end, and decide whether the astounding FF field of view outweighed limiting the 1.6x camera to a 19mm EFOV rather than the EF-S's nice 16mm EFOV.

3) perhaps even more interestingly . . .

Note that all the EF-S lenses that Canon are 17mm (ie. 1.6x EFL=27mm) or wider

at the wide end . . . that they haven't made an equivalent of a 70-200 or a 75-300
(EF-S 40-120mm f2.5-3.5 IS USM and EF-S 45-180 f3.5-4.5 IS USM, repectively),
. . . yet.

As Olympus has shown with their 4/3 system, lenses can be made smaller, lighter, and less expensive and/or brighter (150mm f2) to suit a smaller image circle.

My conclusion and perhaps even predictions?

Canon have been very smart in giving users of their consumer and prosumer (read: 1.6x) cameras wide-angle capability as the compelling reason to get EF-S lenses.

As the market matures, and faced with new lens offerings from all the other firms who make only 1.6x DSLRs, Canon may well offer maximum aperture, size, weight and/or price incentives to buy EF-S lenses such as the tele zooms I hypothesized above.

The ideal time to introduce such glass?

Just as with the EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM (yeah, I'm drooling) announced with the 5D...

...imagine an 11 megapixel Canon 30D being introduced with the above tele zooms and/or juicy primes like an EF-S 180mm f2 IS USM.

Would that be Canon shooting themselves in the foot when a number of us dream of the return of the 200 f1.8L in a new IS form?

I suggest not, as all that Nikon can offer users (of their exclusively 1.6x cameras) is their FF 200mm f2 VR, a very_expensive piece of glass.

If a sports or glamour shooter can outfit herself with a 30D and 180mm f2 at half the price of a (high-ISO noise-challenged) 12.4 MP D2X, any remaining market presence that Nikon has in such fields will be severely challenged to have any significance.

Canon will rightly be able to point out that when it comes to image quality (and they may go for frame rate too), Canon's midrange cameras beat the best that Nikon makes, and that Canon's pro series of DSLRs are clearly superior in many ways.

Then of course the 1D MkIII is bumped right up against the not-too-aged D2X to cream it in the 12 MP category, and the 1Ds MkIII rockets past 24 megapixels to give Hassleblad, Mamiya and medium format backs all a real kick in the cojones . . .

As Elan Remford says in
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=14757284 :

Member said:

I tell ya Shel, each and every EF-S lens made so far is an absolute Gem.
Not always the cheapest, but ALWAYS a performer, like the mount or not.

Click to expand...

Maybe EF-S will become "the new L-series" that prosumers can stretch just a bit to afford, while the 'real' L-series offers the sharpness, lens speed and more for FF users.

?

Hal

--
- - - -
Interests:

non-traditional portraiture, panoramic photography, advanced techniques, QuickTime,
QuickTime VR

I do not think that EF-S mount can allow any telephoto lens to become smaller. Anyway, the past and the future is FF and EF lenses.
--
Michael

haven't we already seen enough evidence that EF-S has effectively reduced the size and weight (not price ) of popular zoom lenses?

It's only a logical extension that if Canon chooses to make telephoto EF-S, they WILL be shorter.

Imagine: EF-S 400mm DO IS drool
--
--cheers!

I used to not care about the EF-S, sure it was cool that I had a $100 kit lens that was decent and provided focal lengths that could only be had at a significantly more expensive EF lens. When 17-85, 10-22 and 60 macro were released I said, HOW MUCH?

Then I got the 10-22 off Dell for a good price and now I am happy, I don't need to go to a FF camera soon (and much cheaper than the premium of the 5D over the 20D).

The 10-22 is great, I love it despite any EF-S reservations

there will not be any small tele lenses because of an use of EF-S mount. EF-S only "helps" a design of wide lenses. There is no need to miniturize SLR anyway. For those who do not like the size, there is always a P&S camera
--
Michael

mfurman said:

there will not be any small tele lenses because of an use of EF-S
mount. EF-S only "helps" a design of wide lenses...

Click to expand...

With the greatest respect Michael, methinks you'll find that one needs a lot less glass and associated support structures to fill an image circle 60% smaller than that of a FF piece of film or sensor.

It also makes exotic designs much more practical, that aren't even economically possible for larger sensors - witness the sharp, fast, long ratio zooms available for professional video cameras, on DV camcorders, any yes, even on your least favourite P&S cameras.

: )

- - - -

The sharing of joy, whether physical, emotional, psychic, or intellectual, forms a bridge between the sharers which can be the basis for understanding much of what is not shared between them, and lessens the threat of their difference.

~ Audre Lord

I'm serious - go for ff all you want. Why does it bother you that so many people find EFS to be a good format for them?

The format is the best compromise for me - I really like the lens choices (performance and price) I get. I like the size and price of the camera body I have. That does not preclude you to get, use and enjoy an ff camera all you want - knock yourself out; have a blast! It's no skin off my back.

--
http://lucs.lu.se/people/jan.moren/log/current.html

- -
When posting a follow-up in a thread please try to change the
message subject to reflect the summary of your posting.

mfurman said:

there will not be any small tele lenses because of an use of EF-S
mount. EF-S only "helps" a design of wide lenses.

Click to expand...

Yes and not.

I agree with you that a 300mm lens is the sime size and the same price with FF or APS design.

But... with APS system you don't need a 300mm lens.

You need a 200mm lens (200 x 1.6 = 320) that is cheaper, lighter and, if you want or you need it, you have an 1.8 version.

mfurman said:

There is no need
to miniturize SLR anyway. For those who do not like the size, there
is always a P&S camera

Click to expand...

The camera size is ok. But I prefer lighter lenses. Don't you?

silverarcher said:

haven't we already seen enough evidence that EF-S has effectively
reduced the size and weight (not price ) of popular zoom lenses?
It's only a logical extension that if Canon chooses to make
telephoto EF-S, they WILL be shorter.

Imagine: EF-S 400mm DO IS drool

Click to expand...

Q. What meant by f-stop?

A. The focal length of the lens divided by the diameter of the aperture (as seen from the front). It is also called an f-number.

Thus the proposed 180mm f2 EF-S lens would have a front element of at least 90mm. A 180mm f2 EF lens (by contrast) would have at least a 90mm front element.

Not saying anything else (size, weight, whatever!) but an f-stop is an f-stop - the size of the sensor will determine what that means (DOF on a 85mm @ 1.8 on a 5D is similar to a 85mm @ 1.2 on a 20D)

--
-CW

Hello Chez,

Chez Wimpy said:

Q. What meant by f-stop?

A. The focal length of the lens divided by the diameter of the
aperture (as seen from the front). It is also called an f-number.

Thus the proposed 180mm f2 EF-S lens would have a front element of
at least 90mm. A 180mm f2 EF lens (by contrast) would have at
least a 90mm front element.

Click to expand...

Normally, thelephoto lenses have rear gelatine filters.

For example, Canon EF 300/f2.8 lens have a 52 mm Rear Drop-in gelatine filter... and 107mm front element.

A 180mm/f2 lens is the same size and weith with APS or FF design.

But with APS, 180mm works like a 288mm FF lens. Then, with APS format, you have a lighter and cheaper 300mm lens. Furthermore, it doesn't exist a 300/f2 in FF.

Because this, if image quality is enough for you or your job, with APS you have the equivalent of a lighter, cheaper and... no-existent 300mm/f2 full-frame lens

I would be pretty embarrased if I had "imaging" in my profile and made such a statement.

Guys - just stop. Learn about optics before posting. You're doing nothing more than spreading misinformation - something that has the potential to do a lot of damage.

Erik Gordon said:

Guys - just stop. Learn about optics before posting. You're doing
nothing more than spreading misinformation - something that has the
potential to do a lot of damage.

Click to expand...

Since I would like to learn about optics, perhaps you could clear up the mistakes? I personally am curious how big the front element on a 180mm f2 ef-s lens would be - smaller than an EF version (if the FAQs are incorrect about the equation)?

--
-CW

Hello Erik,

Please, could you tell us what do you consider incorrect in our posts?
I am not sure about what part of message do you consider misformation.

Best regards

Erik Gordon said:

Guys - just stop. Learn about optics before posting. You're doing
nothing more than spreading misinformation - something that has the
potential to do a lot of damage.

Click to expand...

I specialize in Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Does it mean that I cannot ask why people would try to buy "crippled" EF-S lenses. Imaging means Digital Signal Processing and image reconstruction. Do you really want into details of that?
--
Michael

mfurman said:

I specialize in Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Does it mean that I
cannot ask why people would try to buy "crippled" EF-S lenses.
Imaging means Digital Signal Processing and image reconstruction.
Do you really want into details of that?

Click to expand...

It's your attitude. Calling perfectly good lenses "crippled" because they don't work on a camera body you want will not contribute to a meaningful discussion. By the exact criteris you could call the 5D "crippled" since a lot of available Canon-mount lenses won't work on it, and it'd be just as accurate.

--
http://lucs.lu.se/people/jan.moren/log/current.html

Compare these specs, courtesy of B/H

Olympus 300mm f/2.8 ED Lens for Olympus Digital Cameras (Four Thirds System)
Length 11.1" (281mm)
Maximum Diameter 5.1" (129mm)
Weight 7.2 lbs. (3.3kg) with tripod adapter

Canon Telephoto EF 300mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens
Length 9.9"
Maximum Diameter 5.0"
Weight 6.00 lb (with collar)

Why isn't the Oly lens smaller? After all, the image circle they're covering is equivalent to a crop factor of 2x!

--
JCDoss

no free lunch here.
--
Eugene

Canon is the best when it is working. Sigma is the same way now.

Hello Eugene,

I agree with you that a 200mm is physically the same on any camera, but you have to agree with me that a 200mm is cheaper and lighter than a 300mm.

My point was that if we needed a 300mm with FF then we need a 200mm with APS systems.

Member said:

no free lunch here.

Click to expand...

There's no free launch.

With APS systems we have less image quality than with FF.

But if APS image quality is enough for us, then we can save a lot of money and weight in lenses.

Best regards