EF-S is for gurls... ??

[datadump]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0810/08100302_canoninterview.asp

Are we likely to see EF-S - and APS-C cameras in general - moving to the entry level, with full frame moving towards the mid-range / EOS 40D/50D sector of the market? Is there any danger that EF-S will be pushed out of the market altogether long term?
'We don't think so; EF-S is perhaps more appealing to the younger market and female market, who appreciate the light weight. So EF-S is not going to be pushed out. At this moment we don't believe the 50D sector of the market will be going to full frame either, and we will continue to provide EF-S cameras and lenses to that segment."
-------------

dunno about you but i like lightweight too heh heh

[silvershot77]

Yeah, I take exception to that statement as well. I am 100% male, and prefer the lighter units. He could re-think that one.

[scorpio_e]

I tihnk full frame will eventually become the standard. Just a matter of time before the cost goes down making it a viable for everyone.

[Vascilli]

I think not. EF-S is for people who don't want to pay for EF lenses.

[BlackJagger]

For the same reason that 4/3 format has a market so will EF-S. Smaller, lighter, and more compact camera lens combos will always have a following for everyday people, travel, remote, and any other form of photography where weight and size can be a determent. I think that all he was trying to say in the article is that when they designed there product they had a very specific target market, nothing more, nothing less. Fortunately for Canon, they underestimated the potential market and more then just young people and girls enjoy the size that comes from EF-S lenses.

Cheers
Josh

[gjl711]

I tihnk full frame will eventually become the standard. Just a matter of time before the cost goes down making it a viable for everyone.
I see it the other way round. There is nothing magical about the 24x36 format. It’s just a standard that’s been around for a long time, has a large embedded equipment base, and a lot of long time photographers are comfortable with it. Until recently it did have a large advantage in image quality but with each newly introduced crop camera, that margin is getting smaller and smaller. When a smaller sized sensor starts to offer image quality and performance equal to that of a FF sensor for all but the fringe shooters, the FF cameras will go the way of medium format. The smaller sensor has too many advantages. The bodies and lenses are smaller, lighter and less expensive and whatever technical improvements are made to bring the cost of a FF sensor down, the crop will benefit from the same technology and will come down as well.
I mean what’s really important to you as a photographer, the quality of the image and the feature set or the physical characteristics of the body and lenses themselves?

[kenwood33]

i guess there will be pink efs lens soon

[milorad]

Taking the market as a whole, there's certainly a higher proportion of female customers in the rebel market than anywhere else... so I'm sure he's right.

besides, silver rebels are for girls. Unfortunately though, the girls (not women, mind you) that I've seen with silver rebels will never own anything other than the kit lens, which makes buying an SLR kind of an odd choice.

[Vascilli]

Taking the market as a whole, there's certainly a higher proportion of female customers in the rebel market than anywhere else... so I'm sure he's right.

besides, silver rebels are for girls. Unfortunately though, the girls (not women, mind you) that I've seen with silver rebels will never own anything other than the kit lens, which makes buying an SLR kind of an odd choice.
Like my mom.. bought an XTi and kit lens and didn't plan on ever buying another lens. :confused:

Thankfully I took over it. :D

PS, the Micro 4/3 format is pretty cool. I briefly tried out a Panasonic G1 and it's pretty nifty. Size of a large P&S but most of the speed of an SLR. It's like a tiny little XTi. (Viewfinder blows though)

[dithiolium]

I don't think the EFS 17-55IS is that portable for the general public.
However I like the APS-C line cos of the cost effectiveness, but do not own any EF-S lenses.

[audai]

thanks for the info !

[gjl711]

I don't think the EFS 17-55IS is that portable for the general public...
It’s a whole lot more portable than the alternative, the 24-70. :)

[thrash_273]

that's not right. at all

[andrew748]

lol

ef-s is for newbs and poor people.
I'm both so ef-s rocks :)

[Village_Idiot]

I see it the other way round. There is nothing magical about the 24x36 format. It’s just a standard that’s been around for a long time, has a large embedded equipment base, and a lot of long time photographers are comfortable with it. Until recently it did have a large advantage in image quality but with each newly introduced crop camera, that margin is getting smaller and smaller. When a smaller sized sensor starts to offer image quality and performance equal to that of a FF sensor for all but the fringe shooters, the FF cameras will go the way of medium format. The smaller sensor has too many advantages. The bodies and lenses are smaller, lighter and less expensive and whatever technical improvements are made to bring the cost of a FF sensor down, the crop will benefit from the same technology and will come down as well.
I mean what’s really important to you as a photographer, the quality of the image and the feature set or the physical characteristics of the body and lenses themselves?

Except that the advancement of crop sensors usually means that FF sensors are one step ahead in IQ and noise control. And if FF was a dying medium, then Nikon, Sony, and Canon wouldn't be spending the money for R&D for these products. Isn't Pentax planning on releasing a FF sensor camera too?

[gjl711]

Except that the advancement of crop sensors usually means that FF sensors are one step ahead in IQ and noise control. And if FF was a dying medium, then Nikon, Sony, and Canon wouldn't be spending the money for R&D for these products. Isn't Pentax planning on releasing a FF sensor camera too?
I never said dying but as the technology gets better and better the difference between the two becomes less and less. At some point the benefit will no longer warrant the cost. I don’t think we are there today, nor in the next few years, but looking at the advances from the first cropper, the 300D to today’s 50D one can imagine that within five years sensor size will become much less relevant.

[DallasPhoto]

Uh, I have both EF and EF-S lenses. Not concerned about the weight AT ALL i.e. the Canon EF 70-200mm 2.8 IS. I just go with what gives me the best image quality i.e. the Canon EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 IS. Didn't want the Canon EF 24-70mm 2.8 because it had no IS and I wanted the wider angle.

That just wasn't a well thought out comment - happens to everyone.

[gregpphoto]

It’s just a standard that’s been around for a long time, has a large embedded equipment base, and a lot of long time photographers are comfortable with it.

You basically proved the point of why the 35mm format is so good, especially with the equipment base.

My two cents: EF-S lenses are garbage, pure and simple. Optically some of them are really good, but mechanically theyre lacking, and they are not built tough like L series or even some EF lenses. They aren't cheap, at least the 10-22 or the 17-55 isnt, and above all, they won't work on a full frame. I would never invest in anything photographical without it having maximum compatibility within it's system. And that's just me. Some folks like these lenses and I've definitely seen good work come out of them, but you won't catch me with one is all.

[dithiolium]

IMO the most value for $$ EFS is the 55-250 - budget 88-400mm IS. Not refering to IQ, but range and IS.
I might just get one. You get what you pay for..

[MattMoore]

EF-S lenses ARE for girls <tactfully covers 10-22 with rugged manhands>

[Concorde Rules]

Or it could be for people who can't quite put the funds together for EF, or want that extra *debatable* free range of the crop factor, or that when you have a 430EX, grip, 17-55 and hood loaded up is too bloody heavy as it is.

I'd like a 5D Mark II, but then again, I'd like a 1Ds Mark III :p

[milorad]

efs lenses aren't necessarily cheaper than their regular non-L EF cousins.

with EF-S, the S stands for Girl.

[gjl711]

efs lenses aren't necessarily cheaper than their regular non-L EF cousins.

with EF-S, the S stands for Girl.
Sure they are. Maybe their not cheap, but they are quite a bit less. For instance, the 60mm EF-S macro on a crop maps closely to the EF100mm macro on a FF and is over $125 less. The EF-S 10-22 maps to the 16-35 and is way less, well ok , the 16-35 does have f/2.8 going for it but optically they are close. And the 17-55 maps to the 24-70 and is several hundred less and has IS to boot. So though the lenses aren’t cheap, they are a bit less.

[milorad]

I'm noting that most of those lenses you mentioned are actually Ls... despite me saying non-L, and EF-S lenses not being Ls.

If you're saying EF-S is like L for girls, I agree :)

[gjl711]

I'm noting that most of those lenses you mentioned are actually Ls... despite me saying non-L, and EF-S lenses not being Ls.

If you're saying EF-S is like L for girls, I agree :)So maybe the 10-22 and the 17-55 should have a pink ring you saying. ;)

[milorad]

LOL, I'd go for that!! I use the 10-22 myself, and I only wear makeup on very special occasions...

It's not that the lenses are only any good for girls.... or that girls expect lower optical quality... it's that the rebel series are smaller, lighter and come in girl-friendly varieties like silver.

EF-S lenses are typically better suited to rebels, than their L-friends. They don't make such a front-heavy, unabalanced combination... and lets face it, more girls buy rebels, than buy any other series.

What I'm getting at is... there HAD to be some thought over at Canon about how they could expand into the female enthusiast market, with a bit more focus... I'm sure the rebel and lighter lenses are a big part of that thinking.

[John_B]

datadump,
I don't agree with that!
As I have the Canon 17-40 f/4L and the Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 and in size they are pretty much identical, in weight the 17-40 is a tad heavier.
Here is the 17-40 f/4L & 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 side by side ;)
Side by Side
http://johnbdigital.com/lenses/17_40_10_22.jpg

[gregpphoto]

Sure they are. Maybe their not cheap, but they are quite a bit less. For instance, the 60mm EF-S macro on a crop maps closely to the EF100mm macro on a FF and is over $125 less. The EF-S 10-22 maps to the 16-35 and is way less, well ok , the 16-35 does have f/2.8 going for it but optically they are close. And the 17-55 maps to the 24-70 and is several hundred less and has IS to boot. So though the lenses aren’t cheap, they are a bit less.

The 16-35 is WAY better optically than the 10-22, with a better aperture to boot.

And who was saying that they weigh less? You ever picked up the 17-55 2.8? I had it and returned it simply cuz it was so large and heavy. Who woulda thunk that Canon could make a wide-to-normal zoom that actually needed IS.

[gjl711]

The 16-35 is WAY better optically than the 10-22, with a better aperture to boot.

And who was saying that they weigh less? You ever picked up the 17-55 2.8? ...Yea, the 16-35 wins, but then it's several times the price. As to the weight, the 17-55 is nothing compared to the 24-70. ;)

[gregpphoto]

I agree with both, but the 24-70 is L, I can rationalize the weight because of the IQ and BQ (build quality). The 17-55 performed quite well optically when I had it, but the rest of the package leaves a lot to be desired.

The 16-35 is about twice the cost of a 10-22 (but you do get 2.8 and L, the aperture alone usually doubles the price). The 17-55 is almost a thousand if I remember, so it's not too far off from the 24-70.

[gymell]

' EF-S is perhaps more appealing to the younger market and female market, who appreciate the light weight. '
What a stupid statement! I have a 10-22mm because I like the focal length. And I also have a 500 f/4 for the same reason, so take that, girly man!

[BlackJagger]

What a stupid statement! I have a 10-22mm because I like the focal length. And I also have a 500 f/4 for the same reason, so take that, girly man!

It’s not a stupid statement at all. It’s a targeted market share which they designed a product for. More and more they have most likely moved away from defining their target market as such due to the success of the Crop format and the adoption of it for Pro and Semi-Pro usage. Canon has been a pro at this type of targeted marketing and product placement. There initial offers so many years go were targeted at the price concise buyer, sometimes as a lose leader to establish there market share and then build from there. It was the only way they could compete against the established European makers. Everyone that has a EF-s lens that isn't a girl or a young person is a testament to the success of the product, but you can't ignore its roots, which include why its made and for who.

Cheers,
Josh

[gymell]

It’s not a stupid statement at all. It’s a targeted market share which they designed a product for. More and more they have most likely moved away from defining their target market as such due to the success of the Crop format and the adoption of it for Pro and Semi-Pro usage. Canon has been a pro at this type of targeted marketing and product placement. There initial offers so many years go were targeted at the price concise buyer, sometimes as a lose leader to establish there market share and then build from there. It was the only way they could compete against the established European makers. Everyone that has a EF-s lens that isn't a girl or a young person is a testament to the success of the product, but you can't ignore its roots, which include why its made and for who.

Cheers,
Josh

I still think it's stupid. I don't appreciate being lumped into the "female market," whatever that's supposed to mean. I'd like to know how many women here bought an EF-S lens simply because of the lighter weight! Maybe Canon needs to start marketing pink lenses, since we all know that also appeals to the "female market."

[milorad]

Liz, are you suggesting that weight plays no part in the decision-making process? Are you also suggesting that the younger crowd, and women are not more likely to place greater emphasis on that, than their fully-developed male counterparts?

Seems like maybe this is a sexism issue, or conversely a few blokes getting bent out of shape for being called girls. Fact is, women and younger men /are/ more likely to notice the effects of added weight.

Logic and biology demand it... but you can see the evidence on the street when you check out what people are shooting with. Even in the P&S crowd, the ladies have the smallest lightest cameras.

Fine, if you don't like the correlation between light-weight and female, then lets just call the heavy-weight male thing penis-envy. Whatever makes you happier, but it won't change the statistics.

[BlackJagger]

Diamonds are marketed directly at women too, so were minivans. Macs use to always be targeted at the free spirit artistic demographic. Defining a "Market" is the whole premise of business. You can't be everything for everyone, so you streamline a product to fit a certain group. Canon's logic was simple. Lenses/Bodies are heavy, what demographic of people would be most likely to buy a lighter combo is they had a choice.

If I was asked that questions I'd say first I’m sure everyone wouldn't mind stuff being a little lighter, but people in particular that would appreciated it more would be people that might not be able to hold a heavy camera for as long as others. First instinct elderly, youth, women. That just so happens to be probably ¾’s of the people on the planet, I don't know the ratio of men to women photographers but I sure that’s still a substantial market.

It’s the same logic as people that might not need a truck, how about we build smaller vehicles say cars, because if you are not part of the limited few that need off-road or towing abilities, and you don't want the size of the truck then you have the option of car. I'm a little confused on why you take offence to target marketing it's only to the consumers benefit. More people get a product that works better for you.

Cheers,
Josh

[BlackJagger]

harsh, but good post milorad.

Cheers,
Josh

[gymell]

Liz, are you suggesting that weight plays no part in the decision-making process? Are you also suggesting that the younger crowd, and women are not more likely to place greater emphasis on that, than their fully-developed male counterparts?

Seems like maybe this is a sexism issue, or conversely a few blokes getting bent out of shape for being called girls. Fact is, women and younger men /are/ more likely to notice the effects of added weight.

Logic and biology demand it... but you can see the evidence on the street when you check out what people are shooting with. Even in the P&S crowd, the ladies have the smallest lightest cameras.

Fine, if you don't like the correlation between light-weight and female, then lets just call the heavy-weight male thing penis-envy. Whatever makes you happier, but it won't change the statistics.

Lens weight plays a part in many people's decisions, just look at discussions on the lens forum. It has nothing to do with gender, it goes across demographics. There are plenty of people male and female, young and old, black and white, this and that, or whatever demographic you want to use, for whom weight is a consideration. As for P&S, I don't really care what the they are shooting with because that's a completely different market. But I disagree even with that statement because for that market, smaller is better regardless of who you are. As for the DSLR market, I find it very hard to believe that weight is a primary consideration for the "female market," over things like focal length, aperture, image quality, speed of autofocus, etc. Sure, there are some people for whom that would be their primary concern, but there are also some people who would be more interested in the color of the lens or its stylishness. To take everyone from a single gender and put us all into one big group, and then make a blanket statement about what appeals to us, is just ridiculous.

As for your last paragraph, give me a break.

[Andrushka]

Even in the P&S crowd, the ladies have the smallest lightest cameras.

ladies have the smallest and lightest cameras because they are "cute" - not cause they would actually notice another 2 ounces they saved by not buying a "regular" sized p&s. From my own experience with my wife and SLRs - i have seen that she appreciates the higher quality and capability of the "big, heavy" DSLR and an L lens, but she isn't serious enough about photography to want to carry it all day by herself!

I'm sure the more serious any aspiring photographer gets, man or woman - the less they are concerned by weight, size, complicated gadgetry and the more the become obsessed with image quality.

[BlackJagger]

To take everyone from a single gender and put us all into one big group, and then make a blanket statement about what appeals to us, is just ridiculous.

This will be my last comment because either way we are probably spending to much time and effort on this...lol.

I'm still quite confused on why this is such an issue. It was never said in spite, it was never made as a remark to discriminate or put down any populis. It was simply a marketing perspective. I won't argue with anyone that Pros would use EF lens or EF-s to get what ever they felt was the best result. But the majority of camera users are not Pros, or Semi-Pros or ever Amateurs. Most will go out and buy a camera just to take some pics of there kids. So in the entry market, of course simple things like weight and size will matter. That’s why Canon has the XS and XSI. Heck I'd buy one if I was going to be on a major trip this year, there great. Look I just created a new target market, males who want to travel light.

Read the article and tell me that what he said was meant as anything but a simple explanatory statement in a interview. If you are going to get mad at this comment then give him a chance to explain the target market of EF-s lens in more then a single line. The reason it's so simple is because of the effort to break it down. Why would he have spend 10 mins explaining who they created the EF-s lens for when he is 75% right (random number) at saying women and young people like light equipment?

gymell I don't want to come off mean I am just really curious as to why you are so offended by this other then just not wanting to be put in a box with a label on it.

Cheers
Josh

[milorad]

ladies have the smallest and lightest cameras because they are "cute"

OK, if that's the reason they prefer rebels and ef-s lenses, so be it.... point proven, then I guess.

...

btw, Liz, I understand not wanting to be boxed, but we're all more similar than we are different, and marketing works on this premise. Ever wondered why there are only ever ~5 versions of something that's "individually customised"?

It's all based on averages, and you being outside that average doesn't make the average any less applicable to the majority. Multi-billion dollar companies don't get that way by making ill-considered marketing decisions.

[milorad]

I'm still quite confused on why this is such an issue.

Indeed :) ... vanity I guess. Everyone wants to be an individual, but real individuals are alone, and nobody wants to be alone.

[gymell]

Here's the original press release announcing the first EF-S lens.


Canon's new EF-S lens for EOS 300D

Amstelveen, The Netherlands, August 20, 2003. Canon, a leader in photographic and imaging technology, today releases the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom lens, designed to work exclusively with the new EOS 300D, also released today. The lens will not be sold separately and will only be available when purchased together with the EOS 300D.

The EOS 300D features an APS-C sized sensor, which gives the focal length of the lens a 1.6x magnification effect over 35mm film format. Canon's goal is to furnish EOS 300D customers with the equivalent 28?90mm zoom range so popular with 35mm film EOS users. The new lens was therefore given a focal length of 18-55mm, which is equivalent to 29-88mm in the 35mm film format.

The more compact sensor size of the EOS 300D means the camera's reflex mirror can also be smaller, making it possible to bring the back of the lens closer to the image sensor. The 'S' in the EF-S nomenclature stands for 'short back focus', which describes this new system.

Manufacturing costs associated with such a wide-angle zoom lens would normally be very high. The 'short back focus' system of the EOS 300D, however, has allowed Canon's design engineers to develop a remarkably low-weight, short?length lens that retains all the high-quality hallmarks of the EF range. The result is an opportunity for EOS 300D users to work with a lens that would normally carry a prohibitively expensive price tag.

Perfect for digital photography
By optimising the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens coatings, Canon's engineers have effectively minimised the chance of flare and ghosting which are more prone to occur with digital cameras than with film cameras. The coatings reduce reflections off the rear of the lens to deliver crisp, undistorted digital images.

Fast and close auto-focus
The drive pattern of the lens has been tailored to specifically match that of the EOS 300D, for quiet, precise and fast auto focus. A minimum focusing distance of just 0.28m is available at all focal lengths through the zoom range.

Appealing background blur
The lens incorporates an EMD (electromagnetic diaphragm), which in the widest apertures employs an almost perfectly circular barrel aperture. This provides the best blur effect in situations where the photographer is deliberately working with a small depth of field to isolate the subject.

New mount
While the EOS 300D is compatible with the more than 60 EF lenses, the EF-S 18?55mm f/3.5?5.6 has a new mount in the EF lens series which fits only the EOS 300D. A white lens mount index (in addition to the traditional red marking) differentiates the lens from other EF lenses and a rear rubber ring prevents any damage in the event that an inadvertent attempt is made to mount the EF-S lens on a camera other than the EOS 300D.

In harmony with the environment
In keeping with Canon's stringent environmental policy, only lead free glass is used in the lens' optics.

New accessories
Because of the new mount, two new extension tubes have been developed for Canon's EF lens range, the Extension Tube EF12II and EF25II. These new tubes replace the Extension Tubes EF12 and EF25 and, as with these superceded tubes, work with almost every available Canon EF lens. Their new mount allows them to also work with the new EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6.

Phenomenal magnification
Extension tubes are close-up accessories placed between the camera body and the lens to enable high-magnification photography. Through eight electronic contact points, electronic function is the same as during normal photography for compatible lenses. Magnification differs according to the lens, but for standard zoom lenses it is about 0.3 to 0.5 for the Extension Tube EF12II and 0.7 or over for the Extension Tube EF25II.

Mounting and data transfer
Both extension tubes have a white lens mount index (in addition to the traditional red marking) to indicate compatibility with the new EF-S lens. When mounted between an EOS camera and an EF lens, standard EOS-dedicated information is transferred seamlessly between camera body and lens. This includes lens status, lens type, metering information, focal length and AF drive information.
I don't see anything about appealing to a particular demographic, only considerations relating to cost, compatibility with 1.6x sensors, less lens flare, etc. Things that photographers from every demographic care about. So I disagree with those saying that appealing to female market was a motivation for introducing this line of lenses, as there's no evidence of that (unless someone can point me to a reference.) The OP linked to an interview with Canon exec who says several years after the fact that these lenses may appeal to certain demographics based on weight, and I call BS on that. Lens weight is a consideration for many people, just go read the lens forum.

[Jannie]

Hmmmmm, there seems to be mostly a male point of view here-generally not experts on girls anyway LOL so those concerned don't take heart. It's all about accessorizing anyway and personally I think a IDsMKIII would make the very best accessory, other than having a boy/MAN to carry it LOL ;-)

I've not run into women who talk about or seem to think about such things, neither my daughter who's a photographer and has way more equipment than myself or a woman I know locally who doesn't shoot anything less than FF, if they're photographers then they're photographers and I've never come across this discussion amongst them.

The same goes for point and shoots, I don't think they are gender specific, I might be wrong but it's not something I've noticed.

Personally I'd go for a Rebel if it had a viewfinder as big and clear as my 5D and offered up images just as clean. There doesn't seem to be an advantage with any of this just because it's big!

Now if marketing people have realized the more women are getting into photography then they might come up with more research to confirm some of this. There are various interests in the past which appealed to those more technically oriented and as a general rule assumptions have been made that most women are not interested in the more technical stuff, I think the computer/software industry has pretty much put that notion to rest. Right now I'd have to say I know more women in the computer/software industry than men and I live in a city that's thick with technically minded women and men.

[dmayesjr]

I'd say that the consumer level SLR is favored towards smaller hands. I wouldn't be so bold as to say that they are for women, as there are plenty of men who prefer the smaller grip of the consumer level cams.

As far as the EF-S format goes, it exists solely to sell more lenses and cameras at a lower cost and quality for said consumer. The female thing is a strange statement, and I have to wonder if it's taken out of context, or if there was a question about the female demographic that didn't make the final cut in the interview.

[gregpphoto]

Liz, are you suggesting that weight plays no part in the decision-making process? Are you also suggesting that the younger crowd, and women are not more likely to place greater emphasis on that, than their fully-developed male counterparts?

Would you really have trouble with a 2 lb lens versus a 1 lb lens? It's not professional weightlifting we're talking about here.

[Andrushka]

i don't have the worlds heaviest lenses, but they aren't too light either and i have to say that when shooting the weight never bothers me, with any combo of body lens that i have, but when they are in the bag and i'm walking all over with a couple lenses and a body - every pound starts to count to my shoulder, thats for sure!

[johnny0415]

It's not that the lenses are only any good for girls.... or that girls expect lower optical quality... it's that the rebel series are smaller, lighter and come in girl-friendly varieties like silver.

Hey! I own a silver rebel and I take offence at that! :evil::evil:

But I only bought silver because it came with a nice price tag when I bought it used. :lol:

[cdifoto]

It's not that the lenses are only any good for girls.... or that girls expect lower optical quality... it's that the rebel series are smaller, lighter and come in girl-friendly varieties like silver.
When I think "girl friendly varieties", I think of pink....not silver.

[dithiolium]

Hence the pink 5Dmk2
That will sell. We just need pink EF-S lenses for that FF cam.

[gregpphoto]

.. so take that, girly man!

Ve ah here to pump.. you up!!

[Andrushka]

Ve ah here to pump.. you up!!

:lol: niiiiice... :lol:

[daugirdas]

I can proudly confess I don't own a single EF-S lens with my 30D. I shall be upgrading to 5D soon. Now imagine if I had Tamron 17-55, or Sigma, or Canon for that reason. I would be losing quite a bit of money, that I can now put towards another good EF lens.
Most serious photogs will go through this transition, if they haven't done so.

EF will always work on crop body, but not vice versa.

I don't really care about weight. When I put Canon 100mm macro, Tokina 20-35 f/2.8, 430EX, 30D and 70-210 in my bag I feel it, but I got used to it. The size is important. I could not shoot with 50mm because it was too small for my hands. The "big" ones fit the bill perfectly.

[collierportraits]

I see it the other way round. There is nothing magical about the 24x36 format. It’s just a standard that’s been around for a long time, has a large embedded equipment base, and a lot of long time photographers are comfortable with it. Until recently it did have a large advantage in image quality but with each newly introduced crop camera, that margin is getting smaller and smaller. When a smaller sized sensor starts to offer image quality and performance equal to that of a FF sensor for all but the fringe shooters, the FF cameras will go the way of medium format. The smaller sensor has too many advantages. The bodies and lenses are smaller, lighter and less expensive and whatever technical improvements are made to bring the cost of a FF sensor down, the crop will benefit from the same technology and will come down as well.
I mean what’s really important to you as a photographer, the quality of the image and the feature set or the physical characteristics of the body and lenses themselves?

:confused:You act like no one shoots medium format anymore. There are quite a lot of pros still shooting medium format. In fact, the H series Hasselblads have been pretty successful. Yes, as quality improves, our cameras will get smaller, but we're a LONG way from seeing the dearth of FF cameras, and quite a bit longer til their death.

In point of fact, there are more FF cameras on the market today than ever, so apparently there's quite a bit of a market for them... ;) And for those of us who love quality and can't seem to get enough of it, that's a great thing! :D:D

[40d]

50mm 1.8 has got to be the lightest lens (with any quality) that I've ever held - for girls only?

I'm buying an EF-S 17-55 this week, not for the size or because it's an EF-S but because there's nothing similar at a comparable price point.

[alt4852]

I never said dying but as the technology gets better and better the difference between the two becomes less and less. At some point the benefit will no longer warrant the cost. I don’t think we are there today, nor in the next few years, but looking at the advances from the first cropper, the 300D to today’s 50D one can imagine that within five years sensor size will become much less relevant.

i don't think crop sensors will ever catch up to full frame the same way full frame will never catch up to medium format in terms of image quality. it's a clear fact that 35mm digital sensors have gone a long way, but regardless of this fact, medium format at it's much greater cost still possesses a very strong market. i suppose it all depends on just how much people are willing to spend. keep in mind that in terms of the digital market at least:

crop camera = ~$400-1800
full frame camera = ~$2000-8000
medium format camera = ~$5000-40,000

they all have their place, and they're used for different purposes. on a side note, your estimate on a five year timeline is questionable considering the three years between the 5D and the 40D (both of which i've used extensively) has garnered very little improvement in terms of image quality. the 5Ds i use still trounce my 40D and i don't see that ever changing since full frame cameras are updated with many of the same improvements that you mention crops undergo. will people continue to justify the $500-2000 price jump to purchase full frame if it suits their needs better? i'm pretty confident that it's a resounding 'yes'.

[gjl711]

...considering the three years between the 5D and the 40D (both of which i've used extensively) has garnered very little improvement in terms of image quality. ....
I don’t think it will happen with today’s technology. I believe that the manufacturers have pushed CMOS to the limits and there is little room to go. However, there are several new technologies being developed which has the potential of a quantum leap in IQ offering performance we today see as impossible. Kodak, Foveon, and now the new black silicon guys are all competing for a new type of sensor which could be 100~500 times more sensitive to light than CMOS. Imagine a camera with ISO ranges in the millions delivering lower noise than we see today. :)

[gregpphoto]

Kodak, Foveon, and now the new black silicon guys are all competing for a new type of sensor which could be 100~500 times more sensitive to light than CMOS. Imagine a camera with ISO ranges in the millions delivering lower noise than we see today. :)

It's following the same path that video games did. Not a whole lot of leaps and jumps at first, more little gains, but then it just explodes.

I for one am looking forward to the future of photography. The gains made in the past five years have been nothing short of phenomenal, and imagine what the next five will have to offer. I'd like to see more developments on the live view (like if you are doing a very long exposure, why cant the screen "build" the exposure for you so you can stop it when it's precisely how you want it?), as well as lens IQ being able to match the incredible sensor sizes to come. I suppose at the same time, there's only so much quality the human eye can see. I doubt anyone can visually tell the difference between prints at 300 and 600 dpi.

[Mystwalker]

lol

ef-s is for newbs and poor people.
I'm both so ef-s rocks :)

17-55 f/2.8IS

Poor people? Maybe after buying the lens. :)

OUCH!!

[40d]

Just ordered my 17-55 :D - (and feeling poorer for it).

[danskim]

17-55 f/2.8IS

Poor people? Maybe after buying the lens. :)

OUCH!!

There's no doubt that the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is an expensive and well-performing lens, but it is the most expensive at about $1000 give or take depending upon rebates and such.

EF goes to $99,000 for the 1200mm :)

[wcameron]

I remember when a lens was just a lens. I started with a Rebel Xti and among my many lenses added a 60mm Macro. Then I upgraded to a 1D mkIII - not a full frame camera. Who'da thunk my 60mm wouldn't work. Suddenly we have another sensor size in the same system.

I miss the day when ALL lenses worked on ALL Canon cameras - period. I'm not saying that I don't like the conversion factor. I shoot a lot of wildlife so I'm not keen on full frame. I just wish I didn't have to worry about whether a particular lens will work on a particular body.

wcameron

[gjl711]

...I just wish I didn't have to worry about whether a particular lens will work on a particular body.

wcameron
Stick with the crop camera then. All the lenses do work. ;):)

[John_B]

Stick with the crop camera then. All the lenses do work. ;):)gjl711,
Not with my old 10D a crop camera :lol: :lol:

[wcameron]

or a 1D Mark III. It is a crop camera but you can't use any of the lenses designed for crop cameras - just the full frame lenses. I have a 60 mm Macro and it will not mount. Unless your body has a white mounting dot in addition to the standard red mounting dot you can't use these lenses on your body. They are designed for a conversion factor of 1.6 like the Rebels. The mark iii is a 1.3 conversion so they don't mount.

[Nathan]

some people take things too literally or jump too quickly to conclusions. all that he said was that there will perhaps always be a market, consisting of younger people (with lower budgets) and women (and some older people, I might add), that will appreciate the lighter weight. he did not say that there aren't other people or other reasons why there is a current market for ef-s

[timescapes.org]

so is my EF-S 10-22 ghey? :o

[gregpphoto]

so is my EF-S 10-22 ghey? :o

Only if you're not using it right. I think they're a bad investment for the long term, and I personally don't like the build quality of most of the EF-S lenses. But that doesn't mean you can't make incredible images with one.

[patlannon]

I guess, if you look at the Aps-C vs the FF markets, today Aps-C has a hands down lead over FF. My reasoning, though it may be flawed, is that there are just so many nubes coming into the photography playing field just because these DSLR's are sold just about everywhere from high end photo specialty stores to Wall Mart and beyond.
The fact that Aps-C are selling so well has been addressed "Ad nausium" throughout this and many other threads and forums.
Aps-C lenses out sell most other lenses is in part due to the fact that they are cheaper, lighter and maintain good to excellent IQ in the eye of the beholder.
Certinaly there are Many photo enthusists who do not make their primary living off of "commerical" photography but, who will demand the higher standards of the EF line of L lenses and FF Cameras.
So the long and short of it, both the croped cameras and the FF cameras will live a long and prosperous life, as well as the lenses they support.
Just my own $.02 on the subject.

[400dabuser]

I do have an EF-S lens, doesn't mean it is for girls/gurls, it is a shame that it produces barrel distortion, when set to wide angle....though I am considering upgrading it to an IS lens, not of the same type, but mainly zoom

[ozziepuppy]

:pYou say it's for gurls like that was a bad thang. . .:p

[Karl Johnston]

There's so much wrong in this thread I can't even begin to respond to it..ITS JUST A LENS

[gregpphoto]

There's so much wrong in this thread I can't even begin to respond to it..ITS JUST A LENS

NOTHING is just a lens lol.

[Karl Johnston]

eh, it's a lens lineup i should say.

which is really insignficant.

so insignificant i shouldn't have to come back here and tell people how insignificant a fact that is.

[gjl711]

Whoa.. a blast from the past. :)

[Ursie]

Hey now, what's with all the sexism around here. I'm a girl and I got gear, and it's heavy and I don't care as long as my images are what I want them to be. Silly boys, gear is for girls!!!

[AustinRoepke]

If you guys (and gals) want a lens that works on all cameras, the EF lenses still work...

The only EF-S lens I have is a 18-55. I've been eyeing the 10-22 as my next lens, but I'm also seriously considering a Sigma 10-20 because it can be used on FF bodies.

EF-S lenses and compatible bodies will probably be made for some time, but I'm sticking with EF as much as I can ;)

[lungdoc]

If you guys (and gals) want a lens that works on all cameras, the EF lenses still work...

The only EF-S lens I have is a 18-55. I've been eyeing the 10-22 as my next lens, but I'm also seriously considering a Sigma 10-20 because it can be used on FF bodies.

EF-S lenses and compatible bodies will probably be made for some time, but I'm sticking with EF as much as I can ;)

Presume you mean Sigma 12-24 as the 10-20 is a DC lens which is essentially EF-S (if I recall it will mount to EF) and will give extreme vignetting on FF.

[daleftw]

Taking the market as a whole, there's certainly a higher proportion of female customers in the rebel market than anywhere else... so I'm sure he's right.

besides, silver rebels are for girls. Unfortunately though, the girls (not women, mind you) that I've seen with silver rebels will never own anything other than the kit lens, which makes buying an SLR kind of an odd choice.
I disgaree that silver is for girls.. sure it looks less intimidating as a camera. I personally think the silver doesn't look as good. I only got silver because there was none in the black variety in stock and I wanted my camera that day. Got myself a 40D now, boy am I ever feeling manly with my black gripped 40D with 17-55, 60mm Macro, 30mm Sigma (DC so omg EF-S equivalent), and 50mm 1.8 is the only FF compatible lens which is also funnily enough the lightest lens I own! lol Bought mostly EF-S as I can't see myself getting so into photography that I will need a FF camera any time soon, will be more than happy with "prosumer" products. If I need a telephoto zoom though, it's sure as hell gonna be one of them white ones and not one of them black ones ;)

Would you really have trouble with a 2 lb lens versus a 1 lb lens? It's not professional weightlifting we're talking about here.
Uhh yeah, if you're holding it like a camera and not like a dumbbell. 1lb would certainly make a difference to comfort holding it at the ready for extended periods of time. Go ahead and try it... you will tire sooner holding the heavier camera.

[gregpphoto]

I disgaree that silver is for girls.. sure it looks less intimidating as a camera. I personally think the silver doesn't look as good. I only got silver because there was none in the black variety in stock and I wanted my camera that day. Got myself a 40D now, boy am I ever feeling manly with my black gripped 40D with 17-55, 60mm Macro, 30mm Sigma (DC so omg EF-S equivalent), and 50mm 1.8 is the only FF compatible lens which is also funnily enough the lightest lens I own! lol Bought mostly EF-S as I can't see myself getting so into photography that I will need a FF camera any time soon, will be more than happy with "prosumer" products. If I need a telephoto zoom though, it's sure as hell gonna be one of them white ones and not one of them black ones ;)


Uhh yeah, if you're holding it like a camera and not like a dumbbell. 1lb would certainly make a difference to comfort holding it at the ready for extended periods of time. Go ahead and try it... you will tire sooner holding the heavier camera.

Of course you will tire sooner, but "sooner" can mean hours. I'm not trying to put anyone down, but we're not talking about a 600mm lens here, anyone should be able handhold the lenses we are talking about, medical conditions aside.

[daleftw]

Yeah I don't have any problems taking off the nifty fifty and chucking on a 70-200 when I need to. But I know my friend who uses an Olympus E-420 or something, he would whinge using my gripped 40D and 17-55. His camera feels like a toy in comparison, the size is pretty similar to my old Fuji I reckon. (bridge camera)

[Lonnie]

A new market - the EF-S to FF converter! Then I could use my 18-55 kit lens on my 5D2!

[Mike Bell]

My wife's a 'gurl' and she loves the size and weight of my old 350D (XT) and EF-S 17-85.

..... she also loves pinching my 100-400 and pointing out that she can effectively zoom in further than me thanks to the crop factor! :lol:

[yokotas13]

i did regret buying a 10-22

but hten i put the EF back on it, and its EF now at 11-22