EF-S Lenses and Future

[Malok]

My understanding of the EF-S lens system is limited so perhaps someone can help me here. Do I understand correctly that these put the inner part of the lens closer to the sensor to compensate for the small sensor size? So far they fit on only a small number of cameras (Rebel and D20). Are these lenses designed just to compensate for the small sensor size we have today or are they a format that we can expect to be around for quite some time.

In short, I am trying to figure out if I purchase the new EF-S 10-22 mm will it be of any use 3 years from now when I have upgraded to a full sensor camera or will I have an incompatible piece of glass?

[PacAce]

If you're future plan includes the purchase of a full-frame DSLR camera, then I would not suggest gettng an EF-S lens as a long term investment since the EF-S lenses won't work with a full-frame DSLR. The EF-S lenses are designed specifically for the 1.6x sensors.

[wibbly]

I guess it depends if you believe the current sensor size is here to stay. I've certainly read that there's little point (at the moment?) in moving to physically bigger (say 35mm) sensors.

Canon (and others like Nikon) would certainly upset their customers if they obsolete some of their glass that quickly...

W

[Malok]

I realize that they won't fit with the present full-frame cameras, but I guess I am expecting that in a few years full frame sensors will be the standard on most cameras including the future decendents of the D10.

[Longwatcher]

based on trend analysis of Canon releases, I would expect at least one more camera at a minimum with a 1.6x crop factor compatable with the EF-s lens and possibly up to 5 or 6 at the rate of one per year. The 1.6x factor sensor size still has some room for more pixels while still maintaining quality of noise levels (until it reaches around 4.0um in pixel size/pitch (it is at 6.4um w/20D)) so I suspect the EF-s lenses will still be in production for at least 5-6 years.

I would like to point out that the lens will continue to work for well beyond that and you will be able to get support for the lens for probably at least 10 years from now.

After 5-6 years (possibly up to 10 years) if consumers are still wanting more MP, the only way to get them will be bigger sensors. So my advice boils down to:
- If you replace your cameras every new one or at least once per 2-3 years, get the 10-22mm lens it is worth it.
- If you replace your cameras on the 3-6 year plan then getting a 10-22mm lens may or may not be worth it depending on budger, but if you can live without it for 2-3 years until cheaper FF cameras come out (or you have more money) then probably not a good investment.
- If you buy a camera and don't plan on replacing the camera for more then 6 years, then the 10-22mm lens becomes a good investment again, because the whole system may change after 6-10 years and your are likely to want to replace the lens at that time anyway due to new technologies.
-- So short form 0-3 years get 10-22; 4-6 years, hold off if can; 6+ get 10-22.

Just my opinion, there may be no bearing on reality here.

[Belmondo]

Just my opinion, there may be no bearing on reality here.

Tim:
You really must spend more time taking pictures and less time thinking. You have me very confused now. :lol: BTW. It's cooling off a little here. Within a month, it should be safe for another visit.

[hmhm]

The EF-S lenses currently only mount on the 20D and the 300D, but these are also the two most recently released 1.6x sensor cameras, so it seems reasonable to assume that future 1.6x Canon DSLRs will accept these lenses as well.

I think that 1.6x sensors will have a long future. It's clear that full-frame sensors have the potential for superior image quality, but there are cost issues inherent to a larger chip that aren't going to disappear any time soon. The economics that lead to _denser_ chips, like memory chips and processors, don't apply to making physically _larger_ chips, so don't think that chips are going to double in size every 6 months, or that costs are going to halve every 6 months, etc.

If your next DSLR is a 1.3x or 1.0x camera, then you should assume that you've decided to take a major step up the cost ladder. At that time, you're going to need to sell your old DSLR, and presumably your EF-S lenses with it. In other words, your EF-S lenses won't become obsolete "to you" any sooner than your 1.6x DSLR does, and when that happens, you'll put them all on ebay (or sell them to a used gear dealer, like B&H, Adorama, or KEH). In other other words, your long-term commitment to your EF-S lenses isn't any different than the long-term commitment you've already decided to make on a 1.6x camera. When the time comes, there will likely be a larger market for your old EF-S lenses than for your dust old DSLR.
-harry

[wibbly]

At that time, you're going to need to sell your old DSLR, and presumably your EF-S lenses with it.

Hmm. That would be my worry. An ever increasing investment in glass that won't migrate to newer/better bodies - I thought this was one of the SLR benefits :-(

W

[JZaun]

Here is my humble thought. I just asked a similar question " Why would I want a EF-S lens?) After reading the answers and all I could find about these NEW lens I decided that if I am going to spend my hard earned money on any lens its gonna fit all canon cameras not just a few. I have no idea what camera I may decide to get next :? heck it could be the replacement for the EOS-1 Ds :lol: :lol:

JZ

[EXA1a]

CANON tries to push the 1.6x sensor format to become a consumer dSLR standard. If the market accepts this, CANON will continue this direction. Only if potential customers would resist and go for alternatives (e.g. an affordable FF camera from Sigma, Nikon, Kodak, ...), then CANON would think again and change their route.
From whatever I see so far, the acceptance for 1.6x is great and EF-S lenses which REALLY match the camera's geometry will be bought a lot. So we have a new standard for a fact.

--Jens--

[evilenglishman]

CANON tries to push the 1.6x sensor format to become a consumer dSLR standard. If the market accepts this, CANON will continue this direction. Only if potential customers would resist and go for alternatives (e.g. an affordable FF camera from Sigma, Nikon, Kodak, ...), then CANON would think again and change their route.
From whatever I see so far, the acceptance for 1.6x is great and EF-S lenses which REALLY match the camera's geometry will be bought a lot. So we have a new standard for a fact.

--Jens--

sony probably said that about betamax :D

[grafixstop]

Stacie, I think the long term answer to your concerns of ef-s viability can only come from the Canon designers. Hopefully they will take a clue from
Nikon where the aps-c type lenses (dx) work exceptionally well with the
small sensor cameras and may also be physically attached to the full (35mm) size sensors in the professional series (nikon dx3). In this case the camera
not only accepts the mount, but the software has been tweeked to allow
them to perform (in dx mode) and be used on the full frame sensor. You can hope that the designers at Canon have looked at this solution for the 5D follow-on and for future full frame cameras. Or, you can buy a Nikon - several are very competitive with the rebel line from Canon - and have your problem already solved. By the way, Sony (Minolta) just announced a full frame camera and it will be interesting to see how, and if, they approached the
migration, customer protection issue.

[manutd101]

Stacie, I think the long term answer to your concerns of ef-s viability can only come from the Canon designers. Hopefully they will take a clue from
Nikon where the aps-c type lenses (dx) work exceptionally well with the
small sensor cameras and may also be physically attached to the full (35mm) size sensors in the professional series (nikon dx3). In this case the camera
not only accepts the mount, but the software has been tweeked to allow
them to perform (in dx mode) and be used on the full frame sensor. You can hope that the designers at Canon have looked at this solution for the 5D follow-on and for future full frame cameras. Or, you can buy a Nikon - several are very competitive with the rebel line from Canon - and have your problem already solved. By the way, Sony (Minolta) just announced a full frame camera and it will be interesting to see how, and if, they approached the
migration, customer protection issue.
You do realize the last post in this thread was in 2004? ;)

[neumanns]

I love these theories...I'm not gonna buy a car because most of the current models run on fossil fuel and this is not the way of the future!

I'm gonna continue to use my horse and buggy...I'm so glad I didn't jump on that gasoline craze.

[kevEOS]

My advice would be to buy the lenses you want and currently will use. If you ever go FF you can sell the EF-S lenses. Don't allow those future FF plans to get in the way of shooting.

[jsboutin]

You do realize the last post in this thread was in 2004? ;)

Now, it'd be so funny if the OP did reply. The question might still have discussion value though.

[neumanns]

I already own the 17-55 and just bought a ef-s 60, Lets suppose I shoot these for a conservative two more years that at my currant pace would be 20,000 shot's (in this focal range)

That breaks down to 1/2 cent per shot provided there resale is 0$ at the end of two years....Reasonable enoufgh in my book, I can live with that. However if my 17-55 is worth $470 in two years time now my cost of ownership is 1/4 cent per shot.

But all this is irrelevant...I didn't buy it based on cost per shot, I bought it for what it can do for me.......2.8 IS with great IQ !

[pocket sheep]

I already own the 17-55 and just bought a ef-s 60, Lets suppose I shoot these for a conservative two more years that at my currant pace would be 20,000 shot's (in this focal range)

That breaks down to 1/2 cent per shot provided there resale is 0$ at the end of two years....Reasonable enoufgh in my book, I can live with that. However if my 17-55 is worth $470 in two years time now my cost of ownership is 1/4 cent per shot.

But all this is irrelevant...I didn't buy it based on cost per shot, I bought it for what it can do for me.......2.8 IS with great IQ !

Thats a really interesting way to think about it. I had a hangup about the efs lenses because I was always thinking i would eventually wind up moving to full frame. A couple of days ago i bought the 10-22 because i finally realized that planning for a body that i may or may not have in three years time doesn't really help me much now. Why blow good shots because i was to tight to buy a UWA.

Anyways, i am using you logic on my wife every time i buy a new lense. "Don't worry honey, it only costs a 1/4 of a cent per pic"

[Persephone]

You do realize the last post in this thread was in 2004? ;)

I didn't realize that until you pointed it out, but I had been wondering, "What do you mean, the 30D and 40D also takes the EF-S..." It makes sense now.