Is Canon *really* supporting the 1.6x?

Yes, Canon is supporting 1.6x but they are paying a price for supporting multiple sensor sizes: 1.6, 1.3, FF

Nikon and the rest have essentially stopped making FF lenses - and thus focusing on 1.5x or 2x - but Canon is caught in a bit of a bind: they have most of the high-end market, especially sports photography, and need to cater to that. They have chosen to position FF and 1.3x for that niche, thus they are committed to EF for the moment (e.g. new 16-35/2.8 MK2). However, this conflicts with new lens developments for EF-S - which is the high-volume market (by far): no 50-150/2.8, or 18-200, 17-135, etc. which would all be hot selling lenses. Canon is a large company but even a big firm needs to prioritize their resources.... and all prioritization is a compromise at the end of the day. EF-S is here to stay at least as long as the other formats, but expect Canon to continue to be behind the pace here, or at least until they decide that the EF selection is good enough - then most if not all new lenses will be EF-S. For the time being we may need to rely on the 3rd parties for some lenses (e.g. lenses mentioned above). Or switch to Nikon.

Canon will not drop 1.6x because then almost anyone who has bought an EF-S lens besides the kit dog toy will never buy from Canon again. If they make our lenses incompatible, what is our incentive to stick with them? They would never knowingly risk losing the currently captive customers who bought EF-S glass. Besides - 1.6x is much better suited for the mass market due to smaller bodies and lenses.

4thnebula said:

When Canon upgrades the 20D/30D within the next 5 months we should
be able to tell where Canon is with the 1.6X crop.

If it is a major upgrade it will tell us they are behind the APS-C
sensor.

If it is only a minor upgrade we still won't know.

If there is not upgrade this year and they stick with the XTi as
the only 10MP+ APS-C camera then they will be telling us they are
not behind the 1.6X other than as an entry level camera.

Click to expand...

Third party lenses are potentially fine if Canon is willing to work with those companies. I noticed on the Sony site comments regarding Sony working closely with Tamron and Sigma. Olympus and Sigma are clearly working together. I understand the new Tokina 50-135 is part of a Pentax/Tokina relationship and they expect to see the Pentax 50-135 being basically the same lens (I understand there will be other lenses out of that partnership). If Canon works with other makers for their cameras (something I understand they have not done to date) they and we consumers will both benifit.

They also know size and weight - and FF bodies and glass are heavy - see any f/2.8 EF zoom. You also seem to disregard that even APS-C sensors are very expensive devices, and FF sensors are by definition many times more expensive. The price of a silicon die given a certain size and given the latest manufacturing process does not necessarily fall over time. In fact, as technology improves the same size die may get more expensive over time. You're forgetting that sensors are unlike other semiconductor devices which shrink over time, and thus get cheaper due to process advances. But enjoy your FF theories

ed rader said:

remember all these guys know is price and megapixel count and the
1.6 crop is about maxed for mp.

Click to expand...

Well, they don't work with them for now. But nevertheless the Sigma lenses I own (18-50/2.8 & 30/1.4) help to lock me into Canon for now... Canon is not oblivious to this. If not for Sigma and Tamron, Canon would be behind Nikon for sure, perhaps even behind Pentax and Olympus in DSLR volume, IMHO.

4thnebula said:

Third party lenses are potentially fine if Canon is willing to work
with those companies. I noticed on the Sony site comments
regarding Sony working closely with Tamron and Sigma. Olympus and
Sigma are clearly working together. I understand the new Tokina
50-135 is part of a Pentax/Tokina relationship and they expect to
see the Pentax 50-135 being basically the same lens (I understand
there will be other lenses out of that partnership). If Canon
works with other makers for their cameras (something I understand
they have not done to date) they and we consumers will both benifit.

Click to expand...

I think many of these guys will buy ff camera only because it is more expensive and "higher end" camera.

ed rader said:

i saw tons of people using DSLRs the other day and a couple of guys
had nice equipment like mine and were complaining that they
couldn't get a clean shot because of people in the way.

i made the comment that you could always crop the people out as
they were at the very top of the framing or clone them out because
they were standing in front of a hedge.

both guys gave me that blank bovine gaze and one said: "yeah
sometimes you have to do it that way".

i could tell that neither knew what the hell i was talking about.

so i think crop cameras stay but i also think the price of 1.3 and
FF come down to where even these guys will buy them.

remember all these guys know is price and megapixel count and the
1.6 crop is about maxed for mp.

ed rader

--



'One often has mixed feelings about relatives, but few people could
identify serious problems in their relationships with dogs.'

-- Anonymous

Click to expand...

i trade semiconductor stocks and have some very good sources in the business.

have you ever heard of market share and loss leader?

google those and get back to me .

ed rader

--



'One often has mixed feelings about relatives, but few people could identify serious problems in their relationships with dogs.'

-- Anonymous

Not all APS-C sensor camera buyers are going to be cheapskates on buying glass. The glass holds its value, not to mention makes a bigger difference on image quality, than the camera body to which it is attached. Digital camera bodies come and go. They also quickly depreciate in value.

In getting into the D-SLR thing a few months ago I chose to save a few bucks. I also had to acknowledge the age and imminent obsolescence of the 30D. So I bought a Digital Rebel XTi.

And then I promptly spent $2300 on two L-lenses to go with it (24-70L f/2.8 and 70-200L f/2.8). Now I'm trying to make up my mind between getting the 100-400 IS L push-pull zoom or the EF-S 10-22 ultra wide angle lens (it's great for architectural stuff and landscapes). By the time I'm happy I'll probably have a good $5000 sunk into EF and EF-S lenses.

In the long run I do hope to buy a full frame sensor body, something along the lines of whatever succeeds the EOS 5D. But I'm going to get the lenses and other gear I need first.

in a few years you'll have a 22mp FF camera for probably $1500 or less. these guys are not going to buy $500 plastic rebel w/ 12mp for $500.

by that time FF cameras will be smaller. hell for all practical purposes my 5d is the same size as my 20d.

these will be great times for DSLR users and i cannot understand why the luddites get so upset at improvements that improve quality and drive prices down.

maybe they are socialists. i just dunno .

ed rader

--



'One often has mixed feelings about relatives, but few people could identify serious problems in their relationships with dogs.'

-- Anonymous

if canon makes that baby a 1.3 crop hooooo boy !

ed rader

--



'One often has mixed feelings about relatives, but few people could identify serious problems in their relationships with dogs.'

-- Anonymous

Montana500 said:

I'm not so sure. What are the choices we have for EFS?

Click to expand...

Is Nikon really supporting their 1.5x. They don't even have a FF.

Dietmar

Although you can say every EF lens can work on 1.6x camera, that is not his point.

For instantce, theer is a 400mm f5.6. However, if Canon can make a EF-S 400mm F5.6, It shoud make it cheaper because a EF-S 400mm needs less glass, and also it should be lighter.

Montana500 said:

I'm not so sure. What are the choices we have for EFS?

An overpriced 10-22 with no hood, although it's an excellent lens.

Click to expand...

Nikon 12-24 DX, $909
Canon 10-22 EF-S, $689
at B&H.

As you can see, the "overpriced" Canon 10-22 is a lot cheaper than Nikon's version, and you can get a clone third-party hood on Ebay for $8:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Lens-Hood-for-Canon-EF-17-40-16-35-10-22-EW-83E-replace_W0QQitemZ140080565128QQcmdZViewItem

The 10-22 EF-S and 17-40/4L use the exact same hood. I have both lenses. Recently, I lost the hood for my 17-40/4L, so I bought two of these ebay hoods (one for the 10-22 and one for the 17-40/4L). These hoods are practically identical to the Canon OEM hood. Same shape, same fit, same felt flocking on the inside of the hood. Total cost of the Canon 10-22 EF-S plus this third-party hood is under $700, compared to $909 for the Nikon (which includes the hood).

Montana500 said:

A 17-85IS with poor build quality and poor optical quality.

Click to expand...

Oh, give me a break. It's a consumer lens, and it has pretty darn decent optical quality. I don't have one, but I have a friend who does, and he gets excellent results from his.

Montana500 said:

A really sharp 17-55IS f2.8 with just ok build quality for thbe
price that sucks in dust.

Click to expand...

Nikon 17-55/2.8 DX, $1,199
Canon 17-55/2.8 EF-S IS, $999
at B&H

As you can see, the Canon is not only less expensive but it also has IS (the Nikon doesn't). So which would you rather have?

Montana500 said:

The excellent EFS 60MM Macro 2.8

That's it. That's not "support" for a body size. That's putting a
few things out there and hoping it's enough because you are afraid.

Why no EFS 400mm? Where are the inexpensive, but nice quality wide
primes like the EF 24 2.8 and EF 20 2.8? Where is the 24-70
equivalent on the 5D(15-45)? Why no midrange quality 17 or 18-70?

Click to expand...

There wouldn't be much advantage to making EF-S versions of many of these lenses. For example, a 400mm EF-S would still be able the same size and weight as a FF version. As for short EF-S primes, Nikon has heavily lacking in those, too. As for a 15-45 EF-S, that's pretty darn close to a 17-55 EF-S.

You also have to keep in mind that Canon only started producing EF-S fairly recently. Time will bring more EF-S lenses.

Montana500 said:

Montana500 said:

lenses are designed for particular usage scenarios. i don't see
anyone complaining about the 17-55 or 10-22 falling apart in normal
use. if the 50L is intended for average consumers, then its
overengineered for that purpose. of course, its not because its not.

Click to expand...

I think people just want solid build when they pay $700+ for a
lens. I don't think that's really too much to ask. I think Canon is
going on the cheap on this one (like their ridiculous hood policy).

Click to expand...

I don't have the 17-55, but I do have the 10-22, and I can perfectly happy with it. It's very sharp, and plenty durable. I've traveled with this lens extensively, and I am confident it'll last many, many, many more years of hard use. As for the price, it's a lot less expensive than the Nikon equivalent (Nikon 12-24 DX is $909.95 at B&H, while the Canon 10-22 EF-S is $689.95) and it gets you wider (the Nikon gives you an 18mm equivalent on a 1.5x body, while the Canon gives you a 16mm equivalent on a 1.6x body). As for the hood, just buy the Canon clone hood on ebay for $8. It is virtually identical to the Canon OEM hood:

http://cgi.ebay.com/For-Canon-16-35-17-40-10-22-17-35-EW-83E-Lens-Hood-New_W0QQitemZ200097028464QQihZ010QQcategoryZ78999QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Kai Hui said:

Although you can say every EF lens can work on 1.6x camera, that is
not his point.

For instantce, theer is a 400mm f5.6. However, if Canon can make a
EF-S 400mm F5.6, It shoud make it cheaper because a EF-S 400mm
needs less glass, and also it should be lighter.

Click to expand...

No, the advantage of EF-S is primarily with short focal lengths. There is practically no advantage at longer focal lengths. For example, consider the Olympus 300/2.8 for the 4/3 system. Its dimensions are: 127mm in diameter and 285mm in length, and its weight is 3,290g. The Canon 300/2.8L IS, which is a full frame lens with IS, is 128mm in diameter and 252mm in length, and its weight is 2,550g. So the full frame Canon lens is not only shorter, but it's also lighter than the Oly 4/3 lens!!! On top of that, the Canon 300/2.8L IS is $ 3,899.95 (at B&H) while the Oly is $5,699.95 (with no IS)!!! So the Oly 4/3 does not gives you a size, weight, or price advantage. And that's for a lens that only needs to cover a 2x sensor, compared to a lens that covers a FF sensor! As you can see, there really is no advantage to EF-S at longer focal lengths.

ed rader said:

if canon makes that baby a 1.3 crop hooooo boy !

ed rader

Click to expand...

The funny thing is, people were saying the same thing about Canon's 1D MKIII before it came out. People were wondering if Canon would continue to support 1.3x. Many thought it would go to FF, others thought it would go to 1.6x. But as we can all see from the 1D MKIII now, Canon is definitely still going with 1.3x for that series of bodies. The same will apply to the XXD series of bodies: they'll stick with 1.6x and continue to improve it. Stop the hand-wringing already.

Mokes said:

Well, they don't work with them for now. But nevertheless the Sigma
lenses I own (18-50/2.8 & 30/1.4) help to lock me into Canon for
now... Canon is not oblivious to this. If not for Sigma and Tamron,
Canon would be behind Nikon for sure, perhaps even behind Pentax
and Olympus in DSLR volume, IMHO.

Click to expand...

You seem to assume that Canon will not offer any additional EF-S lenses. You are definitely wrong. As for the Sigma 18-50/2.8, you could have have a Canon 17-55/2.8 with IS. Yes, it's more expensive, but it's the same price as Nikon's 17-55/2.8 without IS (actually, I think the Canon might even be a bit cheaper than the Nikon). As for the Sigma 30/1.4, Canon offers the full frame 30/1.4L, which is not limited to 1.6x bodies. Yes, it's more expensive than the Sigma, but Nikon offers no such lens in FF or DX.

As for Pentax and Olympus, they have a long, long way to go before the come anywhere near to Canon's sales volume. And Canon isn't going to be standing still.

Bobby H said:

Not all APS-C sensor camera buyers are going to be cheapskates on
buying glass. The glass holds its value, not to mention makes a
bigger difference on image quality, than the camera body to which
it is attached. Digital camera bodies come and go. They also
quickly depreciate in value.

Click to expand...

Bobby H said:

Bobby H said:

I'm not saying ALL XXD and XXXD users won't buy any L glass. I'm
willing to bet that the XXD user is "more" likely to get a L glass,
compared to xxxD users, but they even have a limit to about $1500
mark. Even then.. most xxD users I know will tend to get the older
L glass or the lower end L glass. For example, they would take the
70-200 f4L IS instead of the 70-200 f2.8L IS.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I understand what your saying but again, if your going to line up
100 users with xxD cameras and ask them which glass they own, your
not going to see too many with L glass. Same thing with xxxD users
such as yourself. What kind of ratio are you getting with
xxD & xxxD owners that own L glass compared xD users with L glass?

Bobby H said:

In getting into the D-SLR thing a few months ago I chose to save a
few bucks. I also had to acknowledge the age and imminent
obsolescence of the 30D. So I bought a Digital Rebel XTi.

Click to expand...

I think it's a matter of what you value in a camera. I personally take
the spot meter, ISO 3200, 1/8000ths shutter speed and 5 frames per
second over 1.9mp and anti-dust. But that's probally because I do
alot of sports and dusk dawn photography.

Bobby H said:

And then I promptly spent $2300 on two L-lenses to go with it
(24-70L f/2.8 and 70-200L f/2.8). Now I'm trying to make up my mind
between getting the 100-400 IS L push-pull zoom or the EF-S 10-22
ultra wide angle lens (it's great for architectural stuff and
landscapes). By the time I'm happy I'll probably have a good $5000
sunk into EF and EF-S lenses.

Click to expand...

And that tells me right there you did not opt for the 70-200 f2.8L IS.
again, not quite the top of the line, but close. Your choosing
the EF 2 10-22 while I'm getting ready to drop the $$$ on
the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM. It's tick for tack and it's because our
priorities are different. I was a person that owned a 20D. I just
and I've gone thru alot of the lower end glass.

I've have the following my old box of stuff, which I'm passing down to another person who is now getting into the hobby. This is not including the other dozen or so lenses that I've already tossed in the trash or given away or even the FD mount stuff.
Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS
Canon 75-300 f 4-5.6 USM
Canon 24-85 f 3.5-4.5 USM
Tamron 28-105 4-5.6
Canon 1.4 TC
Canon 2.0x TC
Canon EOS Elan
Canon EOS A2E
Canon Rebel
Canon 10D
Canon 20D

Now I'm using
Kenko 1.4x
Kenko 2.0x
Kenko 3.0x
Canon 70-200L f4
Canon 70-200L f2.8 IS USM
Canon 24-70 f2.8 USM
and soon the Canon 16-35 f2.8L II
Canon 1D Mark II

If someone told me back then to get the best glass, I probally would have not spent so much money buying four for five differnt 75-300's and a couple of 70-300's. I was one of those people I described on my earlier post.

Bobby H said:

In the long run I do hope to buy a full frame sensor body,
something along the lines of whatever succeeds the EOS 5D. But I'm
going to get the lenses and other gear I need first.

Click to expand...

If your plans include a FF body, the don't get a EF-S lens unless your going to use a Crop camera as a backup. I don't know if I will ever own a FF camera, I think the 1D Mark II and hopefully soon the Mark III will be as close as I will get at a 1.3 Crop factor. But then again, I'm after frame rates and stop action, not studio and fashion.

If you're this hung up on equivalent 35mm focal lengths, you really should get a 5D. I don't think you understand how many choices you really have here.

Montana500 said:

I'm not so sure. What are the choices we have for EFS?

An overpriced 10-22 with no hood, although it's an excellent lens.
A 17-85IS with poor build quality and poor optical quality.
A really sharp 17-55IS f2.8 with just ok build quality for thbe
price that sucks in dust.
The excellent EFS 60MM Macro 2.8

That's it. That's not "support" for a body size. That's putting a
few things out there and hoping it's enough because you are afraid.

Why no EFS 400mm? Where are the inexpensive, but nice quality wide
primes like the EF 24 2.8 and EF 20 2.8? Where is the 24-70
equivalent on the 5D(15-45)? Why no midrange quality 17 or 18-70?

Sure, you could just get a 5D and get it over with. But I don't
think that's the point. As a wildlife shooter, I love the 1.6x
crop, and I think they will always have a palce for people into
wildlife. I'd just like to see some realllens support for the
format. Because honestly, this just isn't cutting it.

Click to expand...

Montana500 said:

Who knows, maybe it will die a fast death like some suggest.

Click to expand...

--
Thanks for looking

doug detert said:

A 17-85IS with poor build quality and poor optical quality

really? mine seems to be very good in quality both optically and
in build...have you owned one or relying on anecdotal reports?

Click to expand...

I guess it all depends on what you are cmparing to, compare to the kit lens, I think the 17-85 is pretty good, compare to any L ( and even the cheap one like the 17-40 F4.0L), I say the 17-85 is pretty bad.