Canon says: more EF-S lenses

Started Oct 6, 2004 | Discussions
mfurman Veteran Member • Posts: 4,281
Canon says: more EF-S lenses

In this interview

http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_440.shtml

Canon's representative seems to see a bright future for EF-S lenses. It does not make me too happy - I use my film camera quite a bit (intend to buy full frame DSLR as soon as the cost becomes reasonable) and will buy only "full frame lenses". I am afraid that there will be fewer new, "normal" lenses available.

-- hide signature --

Michael

Johan Wahlström Regular Member • Posts: 137
Re: Not so strange...

After all Canon and Kodak are the only ones that make fullframe DSLRs. With Nikon, Pentax and Konica-Minolta at 1.5x and Olympus at 2x my guess is that Canon will stay at 1.6x on their lower end DSLR (e.g. x0D and x00D). And that will give us cheaper cameras, better telephotolenses and a new line of EF-S lenses for wieangle.

The only sad thing about this is that i'm not going to be able to use these lenses on my 10D, but then there are the new Tokin/Tamron wideangles to look at...

mfurman wrote:

In this interview

http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_440.shtml

Canon's representative seems to see a bright future for EF-S
lenses. It does not make me too happy - I use my film camera quite
a bit (intend to buy full frame DSLR as soon as the cost becomes
reasonable) and will buy only "full frame lenses". I am afraid that
there will be fewer new, "normal" lenses available.

dominouk Contributing Member • Posts: 586
Re: Canon says: more EF-S lenses

You're making the assumption that full frame 35mm (format) is the future? Then why have we had developments like APS and more recently digital standards like 4/3 with smaller formats? The general trend for technology is to get smaller - look at mobile phones. In a few years your full frame 35mm DSLRs may be looked at as medium format is today, i.e. niche. and be priced accordingly.

mfurman wrote:

In this interview

http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_440.shtml

Canon's representative seems to see a bright future for EF-S
lenses. It does not make me too happy - I use my film camera quite
a bit (intend to buy full frame DSLR as soon as the cost becomes
reasonable) and will buy only "full frame lenses". I am afraid that
there will be fewer new, "normal" lenses available.

 dominouk's gear list:dominouk's gear list
Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF-S 10-22mm F3.5-4.5 USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM +3 more
remi Regular Member • Posts: 166
Re: Canon says: more EF-S lenses

Nikon is reconsidering the idea of full frame lenses, according to what they said at Photokina we will be able so see a nikon FF in the not-so-distant future.

dominouk wrote:
You're making the assumption that full frame 35mm (format) is the
future? Then why have we had developments like APS and more
recently digital standards like 4/3 with smaller formats? The
general trend for technology is to get smaller - look at mobile
phones. In a few years your full frame 35mm DSLRs may be looked at
as medium format is today, i.e. niche. and be priced accordingly.

mfurman wrote:

In this interview

http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_440.shtml

Canon's representative seems to see a bright future for EF-S
lenses. It does not make me too happy - I use my film camera quite
a bit (intend to buy full frame DSLR as soon as the cost becomes
reasonable) and will buy only "full frame lenses". I am afraid that
there will be fewer new, "normal" lenses available.

bka1 Contributing Member • Posts: 837
Re: Canon says: more EF-S lenses

i agree with you...people keep making the assumption that full frame is coming to the masses andd yet lens development and camera development keep suggesting otherwise. perhaps people need to re-orient their thinking. i've never heard a medium format person complaining about not being able to use a 50mm lens for a normal perspective, they understand that for them (6 x4.5 that is) the 35mm camera equivalent to a 50mm lens for thier camera is an 80mm lens. when i talk about a normal perspective lens with my 10d/20d i think interms of a 35mm lens as oppose to the 50mm lens that is regarded as the normal lens for film slr.

in a sense we who have made the switch from film to digital have been blessed in that our canon eos lenses work with both film and digital and we haven't had to go out and immediately purchase a whole new set of lenses. on the other hand, the ability to use these lense has been problematic because it's been difficult to get some people to accept/embrace the different performance characteristic of the lenses with the two systems.

the development of ef-s lens is natural and should provide consumers/prosumers and pros who choose to use the smaller sensor format a selection of lighter, digitally optimized lenses, hopefully of varing performance grades, from basic to near L quality.

for now with canon, the cost of entry to the full frame digital world remains above 7grand!

dominouk wrote:
You're making the assumption that full frame 35mm (format) is the
future? Then why have we had developments like APS and more
recently digital standards like 4/3 with smaller formats? The
general trend for technology is to get smaller - look at mobile
phones. In a few years your full frame 35mm DSLRs may be looked at
as medium format is today, i.e. niche. and be priced accordingly.

mfurman wrote:

In this interview

http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_440.shtml

Canon's representative seems to see a bright future for EF-S
lenses. It does not make me too happy - I use my film camera quite
a bit (intend to buy full frame DSLR as soon as the cost becomes
reasonable) and will buy only "full frame lenses". I am afraid that
there will be fewer new, "normal" lenses available.

coastalphoto Regular Member • Posts: 157
Re: Canon says: more EF-S lenses

Here's hoping they'll make some constant-aperture wide zooms in EF-S..I'm so sick of f/4-5.6.

bka1 wrote:
i agree with you...people keep making the assumption that full
frame is coming to the masses andd yet lens development and camera
development keep suggesting otherwise. perhaps people need to
re-orient their thinking. i've never heard a medium format person
complaining about not being able to use a 50mm lens for a normal
perspective, they understand that for them (6 x4.5 that is) the
35mm camera equivalent to a 50mm lens for thier camera is an 80mm
lens. when i talk about a normal perspective lens with my 10d/20d i
think interms of a 35mm lens as oppose to the 50mm lens that is
regarded as the normal lens for film slr.

in a sense we who have made the switch from film to digital have
been blessed in that our canon eos lenses work with both film and
digital and we haven't had to go out and immediately purchase a
whole new set of lenses. on the other hand, the ability to use
these lense has been problematic because it's been difficult to get
some people to accept/embrace the different performance
characteristic of the lenses with the two systems.

the development of ef-s lens is natural and should provide
consumers/prosumers and pros who choose to use the smaller sensor
format a selection of lighter, digitally optimized lenses,
hopefully of varing performance grades, from basic to near L
quality.

for now with canon, the cost of entry to the full frame digital
world remains above 7grand!

dominouk wrote:
You're making the assumption that full frame 35mm (format) is the
future? Then why have we had developments like APS and more
recently digital standards like 4/3 with smaller formats? The
general trend for technology is to get smaller - look at mobile
phones. In a few years your full frame 35mm DSLRs may be looked at
as medium format is today, i.e. niche. and be priced accordingly.

mfurman wrote:

In this interview

http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_440.shtml

Canon's representative seems to see a bright future for EF-S
lenses. It does not make me too happy - I use my film camera quite
a bit (intend to buy full frame DSLR as soon as the cost becomes
reasonable) and will buy only "full frame lenses". I am afraid that
there will be fewer new, "normal" lenses available.

MartinM2 Senior Member • Posts: 2,430
How about an EFS 17-70 F4L..?

That will get me excited about EFS lenses. Until then, the 10-22 is the only one I'd be interested in having.

MitchAlsup Veteran Member • Posts: 4,930
Re: Canon says: more EF-S lenses

mfurman wrote:

In this interview

http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_440.shtml

Canon's representative seems to see a bright future for EF-S
lenses. It does not make me too happy - I use my film camera quite
a bit (intend to buy full frame DSLR as soon as the cost becomes
reasonable)

Be prepaired to wait at least 5 years and more likely over 10 years
before a FF dSLR gets down to the cost of a 20D. In the mean time,
the selection of 35mm films will continue to diminish.

and will buy only "full frame lenses".

Good, keeps the demand for EF-S lenses down.....

I am afraid that
there will be fewer new, "normal" lenses available.

-- hide signature --

Michael

-- hide signature --

Mitch

Eug Senior Member • Posts: 2,779
I'd buy EF-S L lenses...

...if they were lighter, smaller, and cheaper than the full frame equivalents.

In fact, I'd consider buying them anyway if they were identically priced, but smaller and lighter.

MartinM2 wrote:

That will get me excited about EFS lenses. Until then, the 10-22
is the only one I'd be interested in having.

-- hide signature --
The Big Bad Veteran Member • Posts: 4,108
I suppose if you can afford FF DSLR, you can afford normal EF lens

The EFS mount seems nice for providing some smaller and cheaper lens options for consumers.

Anyone that can afford a full frame DSLR, or that has the need for a FF dslr, probably is at the level where either they demand image quality beyound what consumer glass can provide, and/or is shooting professionally and the cost of admission to the high end glass isnt a big factor.

I doubt many people will complain that they just bought a $8000 camera and now canon isnt offering them low cost consumer lens in the EFS mount.

Thats like buying a ferrari and then complaining that they dont make those $30 press on wheel covers that will fit
--
http://www.pbase.com/bigbad

PWu Regular Member • Posts: 110
Re: Canon says: more EF-S lenses

I'll bite when I see some decently sized 2.8 aperature EF-S lenses...

I prefer having the possibily of using a 700-900 dollar lens on at least a 1.3x camera in the future...

mfurman wrote:

In this interview

http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_440.shtml

Canon's representative seems to see a bright future for EF-S
lenses. It does not make me too happy - I use my film camera quite
a bit (intend to buy full frame DSLR as soon as the cost becomes
reasonable) and will buy only "full frame lenses". I am afraid that
there will be fewer new, "normal" lenses available.

PicOne
PicOne Veteran Member • Posts: 6,931
Big moneymaker, not a surprise

EFS 10-22 = same effective FL as a 17-40 on FF, but sells for more money
($800 vs. $600), with slower aperture and smaller glass.

EFS 17-85 equates to the 28-135. also slower, and less glass -- I think I've heard it will sell for about $100 more than the 28-135.

Canon is providing lower quality lenses at higher costs. Brilliant marketing.

mfurman wrote:

In this interview

http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_440.shtml

Canon's representative seems to see a bright future for EF-S
lenses. It does not make me too happy - I use my film camera quite
a bit (intend to buy full frame DSLR as soon as the cost becomes
reasonable) and will buy only "full frame lenses". I am afraid that
there will be fewer new, "normal" lenses available.

Eug Senior Member • Posts: 2,779
Not quite correct...

The 10-22 corresponds to 16-35.

As for the 17-85 being lower quality than the 28-135, that's nonsense. Most people seem to think the quality is in the same ballpark, and few think the 17-85 does a little better in some regards.

PicOne wrote:
EFS 10-22 = same effective FL as a 17-40 on FF, but sells for more
money
($800 vs. $600), with slower aperture and smaller glass.

EFS 17-85 equates to the 28-135. also slower, and less glass -- I
think I've heard it will sell for about $100 more than the 28-135.

Canon is providing lower quality lenses at higher costs. Brilliant
marketing.

mfurman wrote:

In this interview

http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_440.shtml

Canon's representative seems to see a bright future for EF-S
lenses. It does not make me too happy - I use my film camera quite
a bit (intend to buy full frame DSLR as soon as the cost becomes
reasonable) and will buy only "full frame lenses". I am afraid that
there will be fewer new, "normal" lenses available.

-- hide signature --
Roy van der Woning Senior Member • Posts: 2,472
Interpretation

I doubt many people will complain that they just bought a $8000
camera and now canon isnt offering them low cost consumer lens in
the EFS mount.

I don't think that was his complaint. The way I read it is that he's afraid that the shifted attention to EF-S lenses will potentially throttle down the production of current EF lenses c.q. the development of new EF lenses.

Roy.

AdamT
AdamT Forum Pro • Posts: 58,597
Re: Canon says: more EF-S lenses

I don't think for one minute that Canon will cease design of Full frame lenses, for instance they've just launched a new 1DS and a new version of the EOS30 (Elan-7E) and 300V (can't remember what that's called), I don't see them ditching the 1V anytime soon either.

canon aren't known for updating lens designs often, they've still got glass which was launched in the original days of EOS in the 80s (28mm F2.8, 24mm F2.8, 85mm F1.2 etc) so just because they've not released any new stuff doesn't mean that they've given up, just that they don't feel the need to - the 28-135IS doesn't need revamping now as there is an EF-S lens to effectively replace it (albeit a softer, more CA prone, more expensive slower one) and there was nothing wrong with it anyway - the 16-35L could do with replacing with something which is as good as the Nikon equivalent and give canon users a good UWA F2.8 Zoom but with the 1D-II and 1DS-II, just get the 17-40 and crank the ISO up as it's low noise. there's nothing wrong with the 100-400L IS either that good QC wouldn't sort out and the only thing they could do with it is put in a 2nd gen IS which is only marginally better anyway, they've replaced the 35-350 with the 28-300IS (a NEW full frame lens) so that's sorted..

The Future IS Fullframe and canon are there, right on the touchline with a brand new Fullframer

-- hide signature --

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

 AdamT's gear list:AdamT's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85
Eug Senior Member • Posts: 2,779
The future of PRO is FF, but not for entry level

Canon itself already has said that it is forging ahead with EF-S, for the entry level/prosumer, and has no intent to change this focus.

Thus, it seems to me that the future is BOTH FF and cropped sensors.

Adam-T wrote:

I don't think for one minute that Canon will cease design of Full
frame lenses, for instance they've just launched a new 1DS and a
new version of the EOS30 (Elan-7E) and 300V (can't remember what
that's called), I don't see them ditching the 1V anytime soon
either.

canon aren't known for updating lens designs often, they've still
got glass which was launched in the original days of EOS in the 80s
(28mm F2.8, 24mm F2.8, 85mm F1.2 etc) so just because they've not
released any new stuff doesn't mean that they've given up, just
that they don't feel the need to - the 28-135IS doesn't need
revamping now as there is an EF-S lens to effectively replace it
(albeit a softer, more CA prone, more expensive slower one) and
there was nothing wrong with it anyway - the 16-35L could do with
replacing with something which is as good as the Nikon equivalent
and give canon users a good UWA F2.8 Zoom but with the 1D-II and
1DS-II, just get the 17-40 and crank the ISO up as it's low noise.
there's nothing wrong with the 100-400L IS either that good QC
wouldn't sort out and the only thing they could do with it is put
in a 2nd gen IS which is only marginally better anyway, they've
replaced the 35-350 with the 28-300IS (a NEW full frame lens) so
that's sorted..

The Future IS Fullframe and canon are there, right on the touchline
with a brand new Fullframer

-- hide signature --
PicOne
PicOne Veteran Member • Posts: 6,931
Re: Not quite correct...

I was comparing to closest available non-EFS lenses. So the 17-40 sprang to mind more readily than the 17-85. The 17-40 is the cheapest non EFS lens offered at around the same FL range.

My reference to lower quality may have been inexact -- I was referring to the fact that they're slower.

Eug wrote:
The 10-22 corresponds to 16-35.

As for the 17-85 being lower quality than the 28-135, that's
nonsense. Most people seem to think the quality is in the same
ballpark, and few think the 17-85 does a little better in some
regards.

PicOne wrote:
EFS 10-22 = same effective FL as a 17-40 on FF, but sells for more
money
($800 vs. $600), with slower aperture and smaller glass.

EFS 17-85 equates to the 28-135. also slower, and less glass -- I
think I've heard it will sell for about $100 more than the 28-135.

Canon is providing lower quality lenses at higher costs. Brilliant
marketing.

mfurman wrote:

In this interview

http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_440.shtml

Canon's representative seems to see a bright future for EF-S
lenses. It does not make me too happy - I use my film camera quite
a bit (intend to buy full frame DSLR as soon as the cost becomes
reasonable) and will buy only "full frame lenses". I am afraid that
there will be fewer new, "normal" lenses available.

thingything Regular Member • Posts: 148
Re: Canon says: more EF-S lenses

there's nothing wrong with the 100-400L IS either that good QC
wouldn't sort out and the only thing they could do with it is put

I'm sure this goes for all lenses, EF or EF-S. Including the so-called "softer" 17-85, which by the way is not significantly slower than the 28-135, only, what 1/3 of a stop at one end and no difference at the other. Both are slow, really.

I agree that when it comes to FF there are many great lenses available. If Canon really want to improve things, the best way IMO is better QC.

As for EF-S I think it's great to have the options and hopefully we will see a good range of lenses, but I agree that at first glance, the 10-22 comes off worse when comparing to 17-40 on FF, especially when cost is factored in.

ChuckH Contributing Member • Posts: 994
Re: Canon says: more EF-S lenses

bka1 wrote:

i agree with you...people keep making the assumption that full
frame is coming to the masses andd yet lens development and camera
development keep suggesting otherwise. perhaps people need to
re-orient their thinking. i've never heard a medium format person
complaining about not being able to use a 50mm lens for a normal
perspective, they understand that for them (6 x4.5 that is) the
35mm camera equivalent to a 50mm lens for thier camera is an 80mm
lens. when i talk about a normal perspective lens with my 10d/20d i
think interms of a 35mm lens as oppose to the 50mm lens that is
regarded as the normal lens for film slr.

The problem is that wide angle lenses introduce a fair bit of perspective distortion. So, in order to duplicate the perspective of a normal lens with the 1.6 crop factor, one has to settle for a fair bit of distortion. Such is not the case for a medium format photographer using an 80mm lens to achieve the same perspective.

That, in my opinion, is the biggest drawback to an increased emphasis on smaller sensors and EF-S lenses. Wide angle lenses are the most difficult to design and still end up producing the most distortion. As a result, in our attempts to achieve a normal perspective, we find ourselves paying more for lenses that don't perform nearly as well. Consider the fact that Canon's 50mm f/1.8 lens is by far the cheapest in the lineup and yet is optically excellent whereas the 28mm lens that produces a roughly equivalent perspective on a 1.6X crop factor camera costs many times the price and yields a far more distorted image.
--
Chuck

Doug Kerr Forum Pro • Posts: 20,898
I would certainly think so (nt)

Doug

 Doug Kerr's gear list:Doug Kerr's gear list
Leica V-Lux 4
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads