Canon says: more EF-S lenses

Started Oct 6, 2004 | Discussions
bds231 Regular Member • Posts: 404
Re: Canon says: more EF-S lenses

I think you're confusing the physics of photography with the reality we've been forced into with our 1.6x dSLRs.

Remember that originally, the size of the 35mm film frame was arbitrarily chosen.

(As the anecdote goes: "One day Thomas Edison (I think it was him) and Eastman Kodak were sitting around playing with a lightbulb (or doing some other such inane thing...). Edison said, 'So how big do you want that new film stuff to be?' Kodak considered for a moment, held his thumb and forefinger about 35mm apart, and said 'Something like this.' And 35mm film was born).

Therefore, a 28mm lens is not intrinsically a wide angle lens. In fact, if you put such a lens on a tiny sensor, like that found in an ultra-compact digicam, it's a telephoto lens. And a quality wideangle lens on such a sensor, which might have a focal length of around 7mm, wouldn't necessarily have significant distortion.

We only think of 28mm as a wideangle lens because, on the 35mm film frame, it draws a wide angle of light onto the film. It does so because its focal length (28mm) is significantly less than the diagonal of the 35mm film frame ( 43mm). And that relationship is also why it produces distortion.

You're right, a 28mm lens is almost exactly 'normal' on a 1.6x sensor (that is, it provides an angle of view similar to what the human eye sees, etc.). But if you made a 28mm lens that was designed to cast an image circle only as large as the 1.6x sensor itself (22.7mm x 15.1mm), there's no fundamental reason it should show any more distortion than a conventional 43mm lens on a full frame camera.

Ben

ChuckH wrote:

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
Re: Canon says: more EF-S lenses

Hi, Chuck,

ChuckH wrote:

The problem is that wide angle lenses introduce a fair bit of
perspective distortion

What exactly do you mean "perspective distortion"? Are you referring to geometric distortion?

There are many wide-angle lenses with quite modest geometric distortion. It costs, of course.

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.

Of course it is not focal length,. or field of view, that influences perspective, only distance to the subject. Of course, we may need to use an appropriate focal length lens to include the desired materials in the shot once we decide where we must shoot from to get the desired perspective.

Best regards,

Doug

 Doug Kerr's gear list:Doug Kerr's gear list
Leica V-Lux 4
JackRiley Senior Member • Posts: 1,136
Re: Canon says: more EF-S lenses

Well, I hope there better than what I've seen so far. The 17-85 is garbage at 17mm.

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.

bds231 Regular Member • Posts: 404
I still see FF

I understand there are many arguments to the contrary, but personally I still think we'll be seeing consumer-level FF SLRs somewhere in the 3-5 range.
There are two simple reasons I think this:

1) There's clearly a huge number of FF lenses (and more importantly lens designs ) out there, all of which can of course be used with a 1.6x SLR, but all of which are still designed for use with a FF sensor.

2) The megapixel race. We all know that a 1.6x 6MP sensor is far better than a tiny 8MP sensor (as in Pro1, etc.). It's only a matter of time before it's feasible (primarily in terms of cost) to pack pixels onto a 1.6x sensor as tightly as they're packed onto a tiny sensor, and at that point the FF sensor will have the same advantage over the 1.6x the 1.6x has over the tiny sensor today. You might argue that the general public won't pick up on this, and they'll be happy with a 20 MP 1.6x sensor. I think the success of the Rebel over the Pro1, et al., is proof to the contrary.

For those who say that FF will always be too expensive, I remind you that just six years ago, the 2MP Kodak DCS520 cost $7500.

bds231 Regular Member • Posts: 404
typo

Sorry, I meant to write:

...somewhere in the 3-5 YEAR range.

bds231 wrote:

I understand there are many arguments to the contrary, but
personally I still think we'll be seeing consumer-level FF SLRs
somewhere in the 3-5 range.
There are two simple reasons I think this:
1) There's clearly a huge number of FF lenses (and more importantly
lens designs ) out there, all of which can of course be used with
a 1.6x SLR, but all of which are still designed for use with a FF
sensor.
2) The megapixel race. We all know that a 1.6x 6MP sensor is far
better than a tiny 8MP sensor (as in Pro1, etc.). It's only a
matter of time before it's feasible (primarily in terms of cost) to
pack pixels onto a 1.6x sensor as tightly as they're packed onto a
tiny sensor, and at that point the FF sensor will have the same
advantage over the 1.6x the 1.6x has over the tiny sensor today.
You might argue that the general public won't pick up on this, and
they'll be happy with a 20 MP 1.6x sensor. I think the success of
the Rebel over the Pro1, et al., is proof to the contrary.

For those who say that FF will always be too expensive, I remind
you that just six years ago, the 2MP Kodak DCS520 cost $7500.

@PICO@ Forum Member • Posts: 92
Re: Canon says: more EF-S lenses

EF-S for DSLR ...
but EF for DSLR and SLR

I will still purchase EF lens for my DSLR and SLR
Quality of CMOS still far away from film

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.

OP mfurman Veteran Member • Posts: 4,281
Excellent point. This is exactly my problem with "1.6" (NT)

NT

ChuckH wrote:

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

-- hide signature --

Michael

OP mfurman Veteran Member • Posts: 4,281
You are absolutely right (NT)

NT

Roy van der Woning wrote:

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.

-- hide signature --

Michael

weirdrob Contributing Member • Posts: 949
...I bought into the system...

mfurman wrote:
snip.............................

I still own and use an EOS 3 and it doesn't accept EF-S lenses.
My 10D doesn't accept EF-S lenses, either.
I do not plan on buying a 20D or 300D.
If I live long enough I might buy a 1DMKII.

Any lens I buy MUST fit all my EOS bodies.
EF-S isn't part of my system.

I doubt Canon will change the high-end (pro) system.
EF-S = consumer.
--
Rob Wierman
http://www.pbase.com/weirdrob/root

OP mfurman Veteran Member • Posts: 4,281
Velvia

I recently shot a couple of rolls of Velvia 50 and was shocked how much better the colours were (I had not done that for a year). I have to spend quite a bit of time using C1 or PS to get colours right when shooting digital. I was also surprised that the exposure was right in every picture. I also feel that it is so much nicer to use FF camera when composing an image.

Michael

@PICO@ wrote:
EF-S for DSLR ...
but EF for DSLR and SLR

I will still purchase EF lens for my DSLR and SLR
Quality of CMOS still far away from film

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 --

Michael

b.c. Senior Member • Posts: 1,479
fyi: other interview...

in case you didn't already see it, from another Canon executive in Japan earlier this week, translated here:
http://hobday.net/canon/

It seems Canon clearly wants to grow all 3 current DSLR segments, FF, 1.3x, 1.6x as part of their overall plan, to grow total market share, rather than a one-size-fits-all strategy. anyhow, some interesting info - complements the below-mentioned article

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.

 b.c.'s gear list:b.c.'s gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Sony RX100 III Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Epson Stylus Photo R2000
kluken Senior Member • Posts: 1,298
Re: Canon says: more EF-S lenses

The best thing I gained from this interview was that Canon will probably do something about dust (aka Olympus) in the next round of cameras! Seems the cost kept it out of the 20D.

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 --
Eric Sorensen
Eric Sorensen Veteran Member • Posts: 4,641
Interesting...

Thanks for that translation. Interesting to note that there is no plans to create a level of DSLRs between the 1D and 20D. Also intersting is the committment to keeping the 1x, 1.3x, and 1.6x sensor sizes.

And the first article mentioned 16 million EF lenses sold last year. That says a lot about the proliferation of the EOS system in the world.

-- hide signature --

Eric.
N8BTL
http://www.pbase.com/ericsorensen
'Charlie don't surf.'

 Eric Sorensen's gear list:Eric Sorensen's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG Aspherical HSM +3 more
Eric Sorensen
Eric Sorensen Veteran Member • Posts: 4,641
Correction!

26 million EF lenses sold since it's inception.

-- hide signature --

Eric.
N8BTL
http://www.pbase.com/ericsorensen
'Charlie don't surf.'

 Eric Sorensen's gear list:Eric Sorensen's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG Aspherical HSM +3 more
Peter Kwok
Peter Kwok Senior Member • Posts: 2,420
FF will always be costly

bds231 wrote:

I understand there are many arguments to the contrary, but
personally I still think we'll be seeing consumer-level FF SLRs
somewhere in the 3-5 range.

The rapid price drop of digital electronics in the past decades were mainly due to the ability to make transistors SMALLER. I.e. more functions can be packed in less space. FF DSLR will never be inexpensive. It will remain the domain of the professionals, just like medium format 20 years ago.

I think Canon is trying to expand the 1.6x crop market, just like what they did 25 years ago with the A series SLRs. They already own the market of people with a collection of EF lenses. They want to attract new users.

There are two simple reasons I think this:
1) There's clearly a huge number of FF lenses (and more importantly
lens designs ) out there, all of which can of course be used with
a 1.6x SLR, but all of which are still designed for use with a FF
sensor.
2) The megapixel race. We all know that a 1.6x 6MP sensor is far
better than a tiny 8MP sensor (as in Pro1, etc.). It's only a
matter of time before it's feasible (primarily in terms of cost) to
pack pixels onto a 1.6x sensor as tightly as they're packed onto a
tiny sensor, and at that point the FF sensor will have the same
advantage over the 1.6x the 1.6x has over the tiny sensor today.
You might argue that the general public won't pick up on this, and
they'll be happy with a 20 MP 1.6x sensor. I think the success of
the Rebel over the Pro1, et al., is proof to the contrary.

The megapixel war will cease for two reasons. One, the physics of optics puts a limit on lens resolution. Two, consumers will see megapixel as another marketing ploy. They don’t need more pixels for 4x6s. New cameras are sold not as upgrades, but as 2nd or 3rd units.

For those who say that FF will always be too expensive, I remind
you that just six years ago, the 2MP Kodak DCS520 cost $7500.

The high cost of the DCS520 was not just due to its primitive CCD sensor, but also the low-density digital circuits in its huge body. Canon’s ability to shrink the DIGIT chip leaves the sensor as the only remaining costly electronic component.
--
Peter Kwok
http://www.pbase.com/peterkwok

 Peter Kwok's gear list:Peter Kwok's gear list
Canon EOS M Canon EOS 5DS Canon EF 70-200mm F4L IS USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM Canon EOS M6 +5 more
greentank Regular Member • Posts: 472
I doubt that...

No more than the popularity of digital P&S cameras shift attention from Digital SLR innovation.

L glass isn't the best selling glass Canon makes - its for pros, and wealthy/enthusiastic amateurs. But, it Canon still maintains a healthy supply of L glass. I'd love them to produce higher quality wide angle lenses - but owning a 20D, it seems that the EF-S design makes it more likely that improvements in WA lenses will occur in that format, since it is physically easier.

I'm sure over time Canon will bring advances to all of its lenses - more DO longer lenses, higher quality WA. However, EF-S appears to be the new thing, and I'm sure its a priority to test this format out. I know that I'm waiting anxiously for reports on the 10-22.

Mark

Roy van der Woning wrote:

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.

-- hide signature --

http://www.pbase.com/greentank
20D, 18-55, 17-40L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 50 1.4, 28-135 IS

vpera Senior Member • Posts: 1,682
Always?

Peter Kwok wrote:

bds231 wrote:

I understand there are many arguments to the contrary, but
personally I still think we'll be seeing consumer-level FF SLRs
somewhere in the 3-5 range.

The rapid price drop of digital electronics in the past decades
were mainly due to the ability to make transistors SMALLER. I.e.
more functions can be packed in less space. FF DSLR will never be
inexpensive. It will remain the domain of the professionals, just
like medium format 20 years ago.
I think Canon is trying to expand the 1.6x crop market, just like
what they did 25 years ago with the A series SLRs. They already
own the market of people with a collection of EF lenses. They want
to attract new users.

There are two simple reasons I think this:
1) There's clearly a huge number of FF lenses (and more importantly
lens designs ) out there, all of which can of course be used with
a 1.6x SLR, but all of which are still designed for use with a FF
sensor.
2) The megapixel race. We all know that a 1.6x 6MP sensor is far
better than a tiny 8MP sensor (as in Pro1, etc.). It's only a
matter of time before it's feasible (primarily in terms of cost) to
pack pixels onto a 1.6x sensor as tightly as they're packed onto a
tiny sensor, and at that point the FF sensor will have the same
advantage over the 1.6x the 1.6x has over the tiny sensor today.
You might argue that the general public won't pick up on this, and
they'll be happy with a 20 MP 1.6x sensor. I think the success of
the Rebel over the Pro1, et al., is proof to the contrary.

The megapixel war will cease for two reasons. One, the physics of
optics puts a limit on lens resolution. Two, consumers will see
megapixel as another marketing ploy. They don’t need more pixels
for 4x6s. New cameras are sold not as upgrades, but as 2nd or 3rd
units.

For those who say that FF will always be too expensive, I remind
you that just six years ago, the 2MP Kodak DCS520 cost $7500.

The high cost of the DCS520 was not just due to its primitive CCD
sensor, but also the low-density digital circuits in its huge body.
Canon’s ability to shrink the DIGIT chip leaves the sensor as the
only remaining costly electronic component.
--
Peter Kwok
http://www.pbase.com/peterkwok

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

Doug Kerr wrote:
Hi, Chuck,

ChuckH wrote:

The problem is that wide angle lenses introduce a fair bit of
perspective distortion

What exactly do you mean "perspective distortion"? Are you
referring to geometric distortion?

There are many wide-angle lenses with quite modest geometric
distortion. It costs, of course.

Hi, Doug,

I composed that post in a bit of a rush and didn't choose my words as carefully as I should have.

To answer your question, I was thinking of 2 different types of distortion. The geometric (i.e. barrel) distortion that you referred to as well as the tendency of WA lenses to distort certain features of the subject.

The first, geometric distortion, as well as vignetting, is somewhat alleviated by the fact that the sensor captures a smaller portion of the image circle. However, I still think it will always be more pronounced in the case of a "normal-equivalent" 28mm lens (whether EF or EF-S) on a 1.6X crop-factor body than in the case of a "normal" 50mm lens on a FF body.

The second type of distortion is even more of a problem, if I am not mistaken, since it would not be reduced by use of a smaller sensor. I don't know a great deal about optics or lens design, so I could be entirely wrong in my assessment. It wouldn't be the first time, I assure you (grin). But, it seems to me that the tendency of a wide-angle lens to make closer objects appear much larger than distant objects and thus result in long noses, large heads, small torsos and the like would be just as pronounced when used with a 1.6X body as with a FF body. My understanding is that a 28mm lens would, therefore, give roughly equivalent perspective to a 50mm lens on a FF body, but would distort the perspective in the way we normally associate with WA images. Am I incorrect in that assumption? I would be interested in hearing your opinion on the matter.

To go back to geometric distortion for a moment, it just seems to me that they will never be able to produce WA lenses that, when used with 1.6X crop-factor bodies, will equal the performance of normal lenses on FF bodies, much less super-WA lenses to substitute for their WA counterparts.

From all that I have read and from the numerical ratings given the various lenses on the market, it seems that normal to moderate telephoto lenses virtually always rank much higher optically than their WA counterparts, which in turn rank much higher than their super-WA counterparts. I realize that those rankings are generally based upon FF film camera use and that the WA and super-WA ratings would be somewhat higher if restricted to 1.6X digital use, but the discrepancy between the various classes (i.e. moderate tele/normal --> WA --> super-WA) is so great that I don't think the higher ratings would totally eliminate the performance gap.

So, in summary, I find that we have to pay substantially more and still settle for lesser performance at the WA to normal end of the spectrum. This is balanced somewhat, of course, by the ability to save some money at the extreme telephoto end where the crop factor wins us some free added reach. That is useful for sports and nature photographers, no doubt, and shouldn't be discounted. But, I would wager that the vast majority of users take far more photos at the WA to normal side of the equation.
--
Chuck

ZiPA Regular Member • Posts: 318
Re: Canon says: more EF-S lenses

ChuckH wrote:

But, it seems to me that the tendency of
a wide-angle lens to make closer objects appear much larger than
distant objects and thus result in long noses, large heads, small
torsos and the like would be just as pronounced when used with a
1.6X body as with a FF body. My understanding is that a 28mm lens
would, therefore, give roughly equivalent perspective to a 50mm
lens on a FF body, but would distort the perspective in the way we
normally associate with WA images. Am I incorrect in that
assumption?

Short answer: Yes, you are incorrect. Just take a look at a portrait shot with a digicam with, say, a 15-20 mm lens, and you'll see why. Perspective distortions have nothing to do with focal length, and everything to do with subject distance.

-JP

ChuckH Contributing Member • Posts: 994
Thanks, JP.

ZiPA wrote:

ChuckH wrote:

But, it seems to me that the tendency of
a wide-angle lens to make closer objects appear much larger than
distant objects and thus result in long noses, large heads, small
torsos and the like would be just as pronounced when used with a
1.6X body as with a FF body. My understanding is that a 28mm lens
would, therefore, give roughly equivalent perspective to a 50mm
lens on a FF body, but would distort the perspective in the way we
normally associate with WA images. Am I incorrect in that
assumption?

Short answer: Yes, you are incorrect. Just take a look at a
portrait shot with a digicam with, say, a 15-20 mm lens, and you'll
see why. Perspective distortions have nothing to do with focal
length, and everything to do with subject distance.

-JP

That makes sense. I guess I never thought of it like that before. I know that WA lenses tend to give a more 3D perspective and that telephoto lenses tend to flatten things out somewhat. I didn't realize that that was do to subject distance rather than to the intrinsic characteristics of the lens itself. Moderate telephoto lenses are often recommended for portrait work because of that flattening out effect that tends to de-emphasize those physical characteristics that most people like to have de-emphasized (grin) as I understand it. But, with my old film camera, I was quite satisfied taking pictures with my standard 50mm lens. So, if I understand you correctly, I should be quite happy with a 28mm lens on my DRebel for portrait work? i.e. since I will be standing farther away from the subject than I would have been if using the same 28mm lens on my old film camera, the 3-dimensionality (if I can refer to it in such terms) should be about the same as I was previously accustomed to with my 50mm lens? Is that correct?
--
Chuck

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads