Reading mode: Light Dark

Gauge for "taking seriously" a mount

Go to last post
Jonathan Brady said:
sportyaccordy said:
No, it wouldn't. Case in point:

https://www.dpreview.com/products/c...ma_50-150_2p8_os&products=sigma_70-200_2p8_os
Click to expand...
Those are different lenses.

OF COURSE lenses for different size sensors are different in size. The easy way to make that point is to look for extreme differences.

What's the ACTUAL lens specs on a camera phone? It's like a 6mm f/1.8 or something like that. And the lenses are TINY. What would a 6mm f/1.8 look like for a FF camera? It would be enormous.
Click to expand...
Here's a 6mm F/2.8:

nikkor-6mm-fisheye-rare-300x249.jpg


I believe this one went for $160,000 :)
 
Jonathan Brady said:
sportyaccordy said:
No, it wouldn't. Case in point:

https://www.dpreview.com/products/c...ma_50-150_2p8_os&products=sigma_70-200_2p8_os
Click to expand...
Those are different lenses.

OF COURSE lenses for different size sensors are different in size. The easy way to make that point is to look for extreme differences.

What's the ACTUAL lens specs on a camera phone? It's like a 6mm f/1.8 or something like that. And the lenses are TINY. What would a 6mm f/1.8 look like for a FF camera? It would be enormous.
Click to expand...
Again, it depends how you look at it. A 6mm f/1.8 is like a 5x crop, so that camera phone is a 30 F/9. I don't know of any FF cap lenses but here's what a 15mm F/8 for MFT looks like:



Not much different from that phone lens.... most of the material here is just to cover the mount

Not much different from that phone lens.... most of the material here is just to cover the mount

Plus comparing lenses of the same focal length across formats is dumb because they cover such vastly different angles of view. When you normalize for angles of view, as those Sigmas did, the differences are much much smaller, and sometimes work in favor of the larger format (case in point, 50 1.8 AF-S vs 35 1.8 AF-S DX).

You're spewing a lot of fallacies and misinformation in a pretty authoritative tone... I'm gonna tell you straight up now this thread is probably not gonna go well for you :-D

It's a waste of time to cry about manufacturers not taking your lens mount "seriously". If EF-S doesn't have the lenses you want, change systems. Judging by your gear list it seems you have no problem paying for and carrying 2.5x more lens, so what exactly is your objective here?

--
Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/
 
dwalby said:
Don Lacy said:
dwalby said:
There is no such thing as an EF-S mount
Click to expand...
Which is why Canon does not take it seriously
Click to expand...
What is your information source that provided you with this valuable insight?
Click to expand...
We are talking about a mount that does not exist there is no EF-S mount only EF-S lenses and I made no comment on the lenses.
dwalby said:
Canon makes enough different EF-S lenses that it would seem they are committed to that line of products.
Click to expand...
I never claimed they were not I only claimed they were not committed to the EF-S mount because yet again it does not exist as far as they are concern.
 
Jonathan Brady said:
Chris R-UK said:
Jonathan Brady said:
LooseLatitude said:
What are the numbers when you factor in ef mount lenses?
Click to expand...
That is a very different question. An important question, but still different. It's certainly not within the scope of my original post and I omitted it purposely. When you include that question the two inevitable questions that follow are
  1. why should I pay for two and a half times the glass as well as carry it when I don't want to?
Click to expand...
I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that, say, an EF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 would be smaller than an EF 70-200mm f/2.8?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
sportyaccordy said:
Again, it depends how you look at it. A 6mm f/1.8 is like a 5x crop, so that camera phone is a 30 F/9. I don't know of any FF cap lenses but here's what a 15mm F/8 for MFT looks like:

Not much different from that phone lens.... most of the material here is just to cover the mount

Not much different from that phone lens.... most of the material here is just to cover the mount
Click to expand...
But we're not talking about equivalence, we're talking about using a lens which has an image circle larger than necessary (like using FF glass on an APSC sensor). So I think the comparison is valid. We could (theoretically) mount a 6mm FF lens to a cell phone sized sensor or we could stick with the 6mm lens designed for the sensor size.
sportyaccordy said:
Plus comparing lenses of the same focal length across formats is dumb because they cover such vastly different angles of view. When you normalize for angles of view, as those Sigmas did, the differences are much much smaller, and sometimes work in favor of the larger format (case in point, 50 1.8 AF-S vs 35 1.8 AF-S DX).

You're spewing a lot of fallacies and misinformation in a pretty authoritative tone... I'm gonna tell you straight up now this thread is probably not gonna go well for you :-D
Click to expand...
Eh... so be it. I'm a big boy. If it turns out I'm wrong, I'll treat it as a learning opportunity. I honestly don't have much of an ego. To me, if you're never wrong, never fail, etc., you're not trying hard enough. I fail more than I succeed and I'm not ashamed to admit it. Rather proud of it, actually.
sportyaccordy said:
It's a waste of time to cry about manufacturers not taking your lens mount "seriously".
Click to expand...
Agreed.
sportyaccordy said:
If EF-S doesn't have the lenses you want, change systems. Judging by your gear list it seems you have no problem paying for and carrying 2.5x more lens, so what exactly is your objective here?
Click to expand...
To poke a hole in the notion that seems to have picked up steam that if there are more camera bodies than lenses, then the manufacturer isn't taking a mount seriously. People are crying about it when they obviously don't have a good grasp on "business" in general.
 
Jonathan Brady said:
Bookmarking your post for the future!
Click to expand...
If you need a good visual example of other factors weighing in more than the size of the imaging sensor, look at 35mm compact film cameras with reasonably fast lenses. There are oodles of 28,30,35,38mm f/2 & f/2.8 compacts that have teeny tiny lenses compared to a FF slr lens of equal focal length and aperture. The ricoh gr21 even had a 21mm f/3.5 , which would be a huge beast (yes, even at that aperture - look at the canon 20mm f/2.8) on an SLR, but same imaging format regardless.

They could save some size on wide angle lenses because of being able to use the slightly shorter registration distance with EF-S (since it can protrude into the mirror box ) - but still not a ton. The systems that have really tiny wide angle lenses mount them very close to the sensor/film, so they don't have to be big complicated retrofocal designs. On longer lenses, the size difference would be absolutely minuscule.
 
Jonathan Brady said:
I've seen quite a few posts over the last few months about whether a particular manufacturer takes their "mount" seriously. One of the recurring talking points is the number of lenses vs the number of bodies. My curiosity got the best of me with regards to Canon's EF-S mount so I did some digging...

Canon APS-C bodies with the EF-S mount:
  • Canon EOS 7D Mark II
  • Canon EOS 7D
  • Canon EOS 80D
  • Canon EOS 70D
  • Canon EOS 60D
  • Canon EOS 50D
  • Canon EOS 40D
  • Canon EOS 30D
  • Canon EOS 20D
  • Canon EOS 10D
  • Canon EOS 760D/Rebel T6s
  • Canon EOS 750D/Rebel T6i
  • Canon EOS 700D/Rebel T5i
  • Canon EOS 650D/Rebel T4i
  • Canon EOS 600D/Rebel T3i
  • Canon EOS 550D/Rebel T2i
  • Canon EOS 500D/Rebel T1i
  • Canon EOS 450D/Rebel XSi
  • Canon EOS 400D/Rebel XTi
  • Canon EOS 350D/Rebel XT
  • Canon EOS 300D/Rebel
  • Canon EOS 100D/Rebel SL1
  • Canon EOS 1300D/Rebel T6
  • Canon EOS 1200D/Rebel T5
  • Canon EOS 1100D/Rebel T3
  • Canon EOS 1000D/Rebel XS
  • Canon EOS D60
  • Canon EOS D30
Total: 28 (source: http://www.smashingcamera.com/canon-aps-c-models/)

Canon EF-S lenses: (to save time, I won't list apertures or motors and I'll group lenses with several versions together with a total number)
  • 10-18
  • 10-22
  • 15-85
  • 17-55
  • 17-85
  • 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 (8)
  • 18-55 f/4-5.6
  • 18-135 (3)
  • 18-200
  • 55-250 (3)
  • 24
  • 60
Total: 23 (source: http://global.canon/en/c-museum/series_search.html?t=lens&s=ef&s2=efs - note: the 18-55 f/4-5.6 isn't on there for some reason)

So, there are 5 more APS-C EF-S mount bodies than there are EF-S lenses. The ratio is 5.75:7.

So... do we conclude Canon is NOT serious about the best selling mount of all time? Or that they are? Or that lenses vs bodies isn't necessarily a good gauge of "seriousness"?
Click to expand...
When a mount only has 1 non-macro prime, it's safe to say that the company either doesn't care, or is trying to manipulate the consumer into upgrading to full frame indirectly. Nikon is pretty much guilty of the same thing, although to their credit they at least sell a decent dx normal lens.
 
Last edited:
Jonathan Brady said:
But we're not talking about equivalence, we're talking about using a lens which has an image circle larger than necessary (like using FF glass on an APSC sensor). So I think the comparison is valid. We could (theoretically) mount a 6mm FF lens to a cell phone sized sensor or we could stick with the 6mm lens designed for the sensor size.
Click to expand...
As someone else said, at a certain field of view the image circle becomes irrelevant WRT lens size. Like dude said the 300/4s on MFT and FF are exactly the same size. And I know you don't want to drag equivalence into this but that's a factor too... for the same field of view and aperture diameter lenses on smaller formats will always be bigger + heavier + more expensive. So there are tradeoffs in both directions in the context of meaningful practical applications.

In the context of EF-S comparisons like that 300/4 scenario are way more relevant than your phone vs FF scenario.
Jonathan Brady said:
To poke a hole in the notion that seems to have picked up steam that if there are more camera bodies than lenses, then the manufacturer isn't taking a mount seriously. People are crying about it when they obviously don't have a good grasp on "business" in general.
Click to expand...
I agree that that's a silly metric for folks to hang their hat on, but I don't think it's unfair to say Canikon don't take their crop mounts seriously. To be fair the smaller format on a shared mount always gets the short end of the stick. For example I'm pretty sure Canikon made crop 2.8 zooms back before they had digital FF bodies available. As soon as the 1DS3 & D3 came out crop lens development at Canikon was pretty much "cropped" to budget offerings.

It's a shame because crop systems today surpass FF systems of the past in sensor IQ, but at the same time with FF bodies getting cheaper and cheaper, and my hunch that crop primes would cost/weigh/occupy space no less than their FF equivalents, I can't blame them. Anyone who uses a D7200 or 80D can't cry about much when they can make a straight across trade for something like a 6D or D610 and have access to all the lenses they want.
 
Chris R-UK said:
Jonathan Brady said:
Chris R-UK said:
Jonathan Brady said:
LooseLatitude said:
What are the numbers when you factor in ef mount lenses?
Click to expand...
That is a very different question. An important question, but still different. It's certainly not within the scope of my original post and I omitted it purposely. When you include that question the two inevitable questions that follow are
  1. why should I pay for two and a half times the glass as well as carry it when I don't want to?
Click to expand...
I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that, say, an EF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 would be smaller than an EF 70-200mm f/2.8?

--
Chris R
Click to expand...
yes. it would.
Click to expand...
No!

I am afraid that this is a common fallacy. The size of a lens is determined by its focal length and maximum aperture, not the size of the sensor it is designed for.
Click to expand...
This is so obviously wrong, I'm shocked no one has commented in opposition yet.

So my RX100m3 (1" sensor) is 25.7mm f/2.8 at the long end of its zoom (in real terms, not equivalent). I have previously owned a Canon EF 20mm f/2.8, EF 28mm f/1.8, and a Zeiss 25mm f/2.8. Each one is larger and heavier than the entire RX100 camera and lens put together.

I think you're drawing an erroneous conclusion from only looking at two similar larger sensor formats.
 
Last edited:
Kung Fu said:
Chris R-UK said:
Jonathan Brady said:
Chris R-UK said:
Jonathan Brady said:
LooseLatitude said:
What are the numbers when you factor in ef mount lenses?
Click to expand...
That is a very different question. An important question, but still different. It's certainly not within the scope of my original post and I omitted it purposely. When you include that question the two inevitable questions that follow are
  1. why should I pay for two and a half times the glass as well as carry it when I don't want to?
Click to expand...
I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that, say, an EF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 would be smaller than an EF 70-200mm f/2.8?

--
Chris R
Click to expand...
yes. it would.
Click to expand...
No!

I am afraid that this is a common fallacy. The size of a lens is determined by its focal length and maximum aperture, not the size of the sensor it is designed for.
Click to expand...
This is so obviously wrong, I'm shocked no one has commented in opposition yet.

So my RX100m3 (1" sensor) is 25.7mm f/2.8 at the long end of its zoom (in real terms, not equivalent). I have previously owned a Canon EF 20mm f/2.8, EF 28mm f/1.8, and a Zeiss 25mm f/2.8. Each one is larger and heavier than the entire RX100 camera and lens put together.

I think you're drawing an erroneous conclusion from only looking at two similar larger sensor formats.
Click to expand...


97edbed60d014ad881698368090656e1.jpg
 
Kung Fu said:
When a mount only has 1 non-macro prime, it's safe to say that the company either doesn't care, or
Click to expand...
as is pointed out here after a certain focal length there is no weight or size advantage to making a lens for the smaller imaging circle of APS-C sensor https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59281868
Kung Fu said:
is trying to manipulate the consumer into upgrading to full frame indirectly. Nikon is pretty much guilty of the same thing, although to their credit they at least sell a decent dx normal lens.
Click to expand...
 
tr573 said:
Kung Fu said:
Chris R-UK said:
Jonathan Brady said:
Chris R-UK said:
Jonathan Brady said:
LooseLatitude said:
What are the numbers when you factor in ef mount lenses?
Click to expand...
That is a very different question. An important question, but still different. It's certainly not within the scope of my original post and I omitted it purposely. When you include that question the two inevitable questions that follow are
  1. why should I pay for two and a half times the glass as well as carry it when I don't want to?
Click to expand...
I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that, say, an EF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 would be smaller than an EF 70-200mm f/2.8?

--
Chris R
Click to expand...
yes. it would.
Click to expand...
No!

I am afraid that this is a common fallacy. The size of a lens is determined by its focal length and maximum aperture, not the size of the sensor it is designed for.
Click to expand...
This is so obviously wrong, I'm shocked no one has commented in opposition yet.

So my RX100m3 (1" sensor) is 25.7mm f/2.8 at the long end of its zoom (in real terms, not equivalent). I have previously owned a Canon EF 20mm f/2.8, EF 28mm f/1.8, and a Zeiss 25mm f/2.8. Each one is larger and heavier than the entire RX100 camera and lens put together.

I think you're drawing an erroneous conclusion from only looking at two similar larger sensor formats.
Click to expand...
97edbed60d014ad881698368090656e1.jpg
Click to expand...
What am I looking at? I have to go research this camera, and then make a coherent argument for you?
 
Kung Fu said:
Chris R-UK said:
Jonathan Brady said:
Chris R-UK said:
Jonathan Brady said:
LooseLatitude said:
What are the numbers when you factor in ef mount lenses?
Click to expand...
That is a very different question. An important question, but still different. It's certainly not within the scope of my original post and I omitted it purposely. When you include that question the two inevitable questions that follow are
  1. why should I pay for two and a half times the glass as well as carry it when I don't want to?
Click to expand...
I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that, say, an EF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 would be smaller than an EF 70-200mm f/2.8?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Kung Fu said:
tr573 said:
Kung Fu said:
Chris R-UK said:
Jonathan Brady said:
Chris R-UK said:
Jonathan Brady said:
LooseLatitude said:
What are the numbers when you factor in ef mount lenses?
Click to expand...
That is a very different question. An important question, but still different. It's certainly not within the scope of my original post and I omitted it purposely. When you include that question the two inevitable questions that follow are
  1. why should I pay for two and a half times the glass as well as carry it when I don't want to?
Click to expand...
I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that, say, an EF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 would be smaller than an EF 70-200mm f/2.8?

--
Chris R
Click to expand...
yes. it would.
Click to expand...
No!

I am afraid that this is a common fallacy. The size of a lens is determined by its focal length and maximum aperture, not the size of the sensor it is designed for.
Click to expand...
This is so obviously wrong, I'm shocked no one has commented in opposition yet.

So my RX100m3 (1" sensor) is 25.7mm f/2.8 at the long end of its zoom (in real terms, not equivalent). I have previously owned a Canon EF 20mm f/2.8, EF 28mm f/1.8, and a Zeiss 25mm f/2.8. Each one is larger and heavier than the entire RX100 camera and lens put together.

I think you're drawing an erroneous conclusion from only looking at two similar larger sensor formats.
Click to expand...
97edbed60d014ad881698368090656e1.jpg
Click to expand...
What am I looking at? I have to go research this camera, and then make a coherent argument for you?
Click to expand...
It's a ricoh GR1 with a 28mm f/2.8 lens that covers 35mm film. And it's a teeny tiny lens. Because it's not a matter of 'sensor' size.
 
tr573 said:
Kung Fu said:
tr573 said:
Kung Fu said:
Chris R-UK said:
Jonathan Brady said:
Chris R-UK said:
Jonathan Brady said:
LooseLatitude said:
What are the numbers when you factor in ef mount lenses?
Click to expand...
That is a very different question. An important question, but still different. It's certainly not within the scope of my original post and I omitted it purposely. When you include that question the two inevitable questions that follow are
  1. why should I pay for two and a half times the glass as well as carry it when I don't want to?
Click to expand...
I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that, say, an EF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 would be smaller than an EF 70-200mm f/2.8?

--
Chris R
Click to expand...
yes. it would.
Click to expand...
No!

I am afraid that this is a common fallacy. The size of a lens is determined by its focal length and maximum aperture, not the size of the sensor it is designed for.
Click to expand...
This is so obviously wrong, I'm shocked no one has commented in opposition yet.

So my RX100m3 (1" sensor) is 25.7mm f/2.8 at the long end of its zoom (in real terms, not equivalent). I have previously owned a Canon EF 20mm f/2.8, EF 28mm f/1.8, and a Zeiss 25mm f/2.8. Each one is larger and heavier than the entire RX100 camera and lens put together.

I think you're drawing an erroneous conclusion from only looking at two similar larger sensor formats.
Click to expand...
97edbed60d014ad881698368090656e1.jpg
Click to expand...
What am I looking at? I have to go research this camera, and then make a coherent argument for you?
Click to expand...
It's a ricoh GR1 with a 28mm f/2.8 lens that covers 35mm film. And it's a teeny tiny lens. Because it's not a matter of 'sensor' size.
Click to expand...
It's smaller than dslr lenses sure, because the camera has a leaf shutter and no mirror assembly. Plus film can accept a much wider angle of image hitting it off the back element than digital sensors can. That's why Leica M lenses will often vignette badly when used on even much smaller sensor digital cameras.
 
sportyaccordy said:
sportyaccordy wrote: IMO- think of how many millions of dollars they've given away to third party manufacturers all to easy to swoop in over the last 15+ years.
Click to expand...
Incompetent Canon and Nikon, the former has only managed to sell 120+ million lenses, and the latter has only managed to sell 100+ million lenses. :-)
 
sportyaccordy said:
Kung Fu said:
Chris R-UK said:
Jonathan Brady said:
Chris R-UK said:
Jonathan Brady said:
LooseLatitude said:
What are the numbers when you factor in ef mount lenses?
Click to expand...
That is a very different question. An important question, but still different. It's certainly not within the scope of my original post and I omitted it purposely. When you include that question the two inevitable questions that follow are
  1. why should I pay for two and a half times the glass as well as carry it when I don't want to?
Click to expand...
I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that, say, an EF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 would be smaller than an EF 70-200mm f/2.8?

--
Chris R
Click to expand...
yes. it would.
Click to expand...
No!

I am afraid that this is a common fallacy. The size of a lens is determined by its focal length and maximum aperture, not the size of the sensor it is designed for.
Click to expand...
This is so obviously wrong, I'm shocked no one has commented in opposition yet.

So my RX100m3 (1" sensor) is 25.7mm f/2.8 at the long end of its zoom (in real terms, not equivalent). I have previously owned a Canon EF 20mm f/2.8, EF 28mm f/1.8, and a Zeiss 25mm f/2.8. Each one is larger and heavier than the entire RX100 camera and lens put together.

I think you're drawing an erroneous conclusion from only looking at two similar larger sensor formats.
Click to expand...
Yea, lens size is determined entirely by aperture diameter, field of view and flange depth.
Click to expand...
Field of view is dependent on sensor size, isn't it?
sportyaccordy said:
So to a degree comparing your RX100's lens to those EF lenses are pointless... that 20mm is capturing 4x the angle of view of your RX100 at the long end, on a body that puts the lens way further from the sensor.
Click to expand...
You're talking about sensors again. Obviously there are other considerations in lens design than just aperture and focal length.
 
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