Reading mode: Light Dark

Very mixed feelings on the 17-50mm 2.8

Go to last post
D

DigiEOS-MAN

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
353
Reaction score
0
Location
US
I am a very pro 1.6x guy... and feel that EF-S will be around for 5 years MAX

i feel that by 2010 or so, FF will be much more affortable, fuggesting that 10D (lol, the current replacement of 5D in year 2010 or so, HEY IT COULD HAPPEN!) will prob be around $1,500+1,700 and have all the bells and whistles along with FF.

I look at lenses an long term and at Cams as temp means...

I have bought 17-40 when it first came out, because i knew it's and L with 17-40 f4 stats, i knew would suit me, same with 70-200 same with 135L same with 35L. Using mostly 1.6 cams, 17-40 was just not wide enough!

10-22 came out at the time, reviews were great, and i said, "you know what? I want an Ultra-Wide, and canon have nothing besides 10-22mm" so i bought it.....
but this new 17-55 2.8 IS just does not click with me...

I am all pro EF-S but reality is, i give it a mox of 5-6 years before it's history, just like CD-based Navigations in Cars.....

and although people will argue, well right NOW 17-50 fits on my cam and have 2.8.... well the 16-35 is even wider and also 2.8 (does one really need an IS on 17mm?)

I donno, i wish they spend the time on FF lenses instead....
Like a nice 12mm or 18mm L with f/ 1.4 or 50mm F1.2L
or even EF-s that is truely needed like 10mm Fisheye or something
 
DigiEOS-MAN said:
I am a very pro 1.6x guy... and feel that EF-S will be around for 5
years MAX
Click to expand...
Yeah but how much does a typical SUV owner p-iss away on extra fuel costs over 6 years by driving a morbidly obese car over a smaller one that could have served their same utility needs and been more fuel efficient. I wouldn't sweat it..this amounts to less than what many spend on Starbucks coffee over the same time period.
 
U Sererra said:
This lens has certainly triggered a lot of cognitive dissonance
amongst the dpreview fraternity.
Click to expand...
Yes. Because every EF-S lens that Canon introduces is evidence against the theory that "we will switch to FF Real Soon Now" and EF-S will be history. And expensive EF-S lenses are even worse, because this is evidence against the theory that Canon considers EF-S only for the low end. I'd hate to see the reaction if Canon ever did release an EF-S "L" lens. I think DPreview would need to set up suicide hot lines.

I remember, when the 300D was introduced, how many people were sure that the 18-55mm "kit" lens would be the only EF-S lens that would ever be produced.

I think it will be a long time before we see $250 (USD) FF DRebel kits. This is the price that 35mm Rebel kits sell for now, so this is the price point that FF needs to get to, before EF-S can die. But I doubt that EF-S will ever die, because by the time we get to the point of $250 FF DRebels, 99.5% of all DSLRs will be EF-S (or DX, etc.) (Actually, what is the percentage right now?)

EF-S == 35mm quality == "good enough for most everybody"
FF == medium format quality == "only for pros and rich amateurs"

(With this said, I am getting ready to pull the trigger on a new lens and FF capability is one thing I am considering. Just in case.)

Wayne Larmon
 
Here's the thing--APS-C sensors have a real and serious advantage with respect to telephoto photography, and that's probably not going to change in 5 years, 10 years, and maybe not ever. Sure you can argue that the advantage will disappear when FF sensors gain sufficient resolution and come down enough in price, but don't forget that APS-C development isn't going to stand still while that happens. APS-C sensors will improve and become cheaper at the same time. It's possible that they'll hit a wall before FF, but that's theoretical at present.

APS-C cameras also have an advantage with respect to wides, because reduced image circle lenses can be made smaller and lighter, which may appeal to some users.

So, both formats have their own set of advantages and I see them proceeding in parallel for the foreseeable future. Given that, it makes sense for Canon to support both formats with a full line of lenses. As discussed elsewhere, there's no need for duplication of lenses except with respect to the wides.
 
I was planning on buying the 16-35 for the same reason, but I've read that on a FF camera the 17-40 is sharper. I want a great lens for low light and groups of people, this new 17-55 sounds wonderful.

Now, I don't really care going FF, I'm happy with my XT, but I'm just scared that one day I'll be stuck with an expensive lens. The release of this lens makes me believe that won't happen. It's a pretty good match for my 70-300IS. If I went on a trip, I would only take those two lenses.

Gloria
 
amtberg said:
Here's the thing--APS-C sensors have a real and serious advantage
with respect to telephoto photography, and that's probably not
going to change in 5 years, 10 years, and maybe not ever. Sure you
can argue that the advantage will disappear when FF sensors gain
sufficient resolution and come down enough in price, but don't
forget that APS-C development isn't going to stand still while that
happens. APS-C sensors will improve and become cheaper at the same
time. It's possible that they'll hit a wall before FF, but that's
theoretical at present.

APS-C cameras also have an advantage with respect to wides, because
reduced image circle lenses can be made smaller and lighter, which
may appeal to some users.

So, both formats have their own set of advantages and I see them
proceeding in parallel for the foreseeable future. Given that, it
makes sense for Canon to support both formats with a full line of
lenses. As discussed elsewhere, there's no need for duplication of
lenses except with respect to the wides.
Click to expand...
I'll take this one step further. As sensor technology gets better, I would not be surprised to see Cannon offer a 4/3s sized sensor, to give 2x magnification. Imagine getting (the equivolent) of a 600 f/4 IS for only $1150 and 2.6 lbs vs. $7200 and 11.8 lbs!

Once the ultra wide lenses came out, the biggest disadvantage of APS or smaller sensors went away. As the previous poster said, I'm sure there will be a place for FF sensors, but I'd be very suprised to see the smaller ones go away. Very surprised!
 
There are several majopr flaws in your argument.

1. Laptop should not be even invented, according to your theory. Desktop can alwasy be made better and cheaper. Desktop can always provide better performance, and are already cheaper, why people still need laptop.

Same thing come here (actually not quite the same as FF is more expensive than cropped sensor), 1.6X camera can be made smaller and lighter, and does not need a big chunk of glass.

When people had Medium format, why did 35mm prevail?

2. 1.6X offers the longer reach. I know it is about pixel density. My point is, for the same pixel density, 1.6x is always cheaper than FF, even in the future. And for the same PIXEL COUNT, 1.6X sensor always has 1.6X longer reach.

I chose laptop over desktop even laptop is more expensive. And the same, I would pay extra to get 1.6X sensor. If 5D was selling at $1500 and 30D was selling at $3300, I'd get 30D.

Kai
 
The smaller size sensor will be around for years.
When you put a lens on one, you don't "increase" the focal, just cropping
what you will see in the output. Many want to argue the basics here.
The facts are the facts.
I buy lens that go either FF or less, I like the flexibility to go either way.
One important point many are not looking at:
You can always rent a FF body, and really have some fun.
Compare the results on a large print.....you might like the results.
Good luck !!
 
Kai Hui said:
1. Laptop should not be even invented, according to your theory.
Click to expand...
Except that laptops are portable and desktops are not. Last I checked, both my EF-S and EF lenses can be carried to wherever I want them quite easily, thanks.
Kai Hui said:
1.6X camera can be made smaller
and lighter, and does not need a big chunk of glass.
Click to expand...
Seeing as the 5D and the 30D have virtually the same body, I suspect that as long as the lens mount (and mirror box) remains as large as it is, the crop and FF bodies will not differ in size significantly.

But the lenses! We heard many times how lenses made to throw a smaller image could be smaller and cheaper. Maybe they can be, but I don't believe we've seen any differences of significance yet.
Kai Hui said:
When people had Medium format, why did 35mm prevail?
Click to expand...
Because medium format cameras and lenses really are significantly larger. Also film improved so a 35mm frame delivered an acceptible image with a far more portable and inexpensive camera.
Kai Hui said:
My point is, for the same pixel density, 1.6x is always cheaper
than FF
Click to expand...
It is...but you really do get something if you pay more for a full frame camera with an identical pixel density. You get more pixels, and an incredible flexibility. The only downside is the extra cost...and I suspect economies of scale will narrow the margin over time.
 
hard to read and hard to follow.

have you been drinking eos-man?
DigiEOS-MAN said:
I am a very pro 1.6x guy... and feel that EF-S will be around for 5
years MAX
i feel that by 2010 or so, FF will be much more affortable,
fuggesting that 10D (lol, the current replacement of 5D in year
2010 or so, HEY IT COULD HAPPEN!) will prob be around $1,500+1,700
and have all the bells and whistles along with FF.

I look at lenses an long term and at Cams as temp means...
I have bought 17-40 when it first came out, because i knew it's and
L with 17-40 f4 stats, i knew would suit me, same with 70-200 same
with 135L same with 35L. Using mostly 1.6 cams, 17-40 was just not
wide enough!
10-22 came out at the time, reviews were great, and i said, "you
know what? I want an Ultra-Wide, and canon have nothing besides
10-22mm" so i bought it.....
but this new 17-55 2.8 IS just does not click with me...
I am all pro EF-S but reality is, i give it a mox of 5-6 years
before it's history, just like CD-based Navigations in Cars.....
and although people will argue, well right NOW 17-50 fits on my cam
and have 2.8.... well the 16-35 is even wider and also 2.8 (does
one really need an IS on 17mm?)

I donno, i wish they spend the time on FF lenses instead....
Like a nice 12mm or 18mm L with f/ 1.4 or 50mm F1.2L
or even EF-s that is truely needed like 10mm Fisheye or something
Click to expand...
 
Rick Pali said:
Seeing as the 5D and the 30D have virtually the same body, I
suspect that as long as the lens mount (and mirror box) remains as
large as it is, the crop and FF bodies will not differ in size
significantly.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and good point.
Rick Pali said:
But the lenses! We heard many times how lenses made to throw a
smaller image could be smaller and cheaper. Maybe they can be, but
I don't believe we've seen any differences of significance yet.
Click to expand...
Sure they are, if what is relevant is field of view. A 200/2.8 (FF equivalent field of view 320mm) on a crop sensor is much smaller and ligher than a 300/2.8 on a FF body. This applies to telephoto, and not just the long stuff. A 50 1.8 is much smaller than an 85/1.8.

One might nonetheless prefer the FF body and larger/heavier lens, because the FF sensor will have some combination of more pixels and less noise, or the DoF is preferable.

But the smaller/lighter lenses for the same field of view is a huge benefit of crop sensors. For my needs, since the image quality from crop sensors is more than adequate, the choice of APS-C over FF is a no-brainer.
 
Rick Pali said:
But the lenses! We heard many times how lenses made to throw a
smaller image could be smaller and cheaper. Maybe they can be, but
I don't believe we've seen any differences of significance yet.
Click to expand...
There's no exact correspondence to compare, but there are a few that support the notion that Crop lenses can be smaller and lighter. Look at the relative size and weight of the 28-70/2.8 vs. the 17-55/2.8--which has both longer reach and IS.
 
whether you personally think FF is the way to go, I don't see EF-S going anywhere.

Look at how often Canon release new lenses - not that often. I doubt they'd spend the investment to produce these new lenses if they planned on obsoleting them in a few years - they'd just move people towards EF lenses.

crop is 95% of the DSLR bodies out there. I see no reason that will change.

and if Canon are shrewd marketing, maybe they'll simply position FF as the 'L' of bodies, and sell only to professionals (or wannabes)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top