Should I hold onto my EF lenses?

[Superbaldguy]

The whole prospect of getting a DSLR is important to me, being a loyal Canon user for over 20 years, starting with manual focus gear and FD optics, then the EOS system with a bunch of great EF lenses. My recent experience with the G6 shows me that digital imaging is a very satisfying endeavour and that film use is getting more limited in my life.

Although my current line-up will work fine with any EOS DSLR, there's that cropping factor which I find to be a bit of an issue, plus vexing DOF concerns. For example, my very nice EF 20mm f/2.8 becomes a so-so 32mm f/2.8 on the 20D or DRebel. On the other end, my 200mm f/2.8 L becomes a wonderful 320mm f/2.8 L.

My longing for a "full-frame" sensor is justifiable, but I can't convince my accountant nor my banker that the EOS 1Ds Mark II is a good buy.

Do you realistically think the 24x36mm sensor will ever become some sort of standard in due time? Maybe it's time for me to change my way of thinking after shooting over 200,000 film images.

[Rokkorfan]

I felt the same way, and settled for a 1D MkII to go with my 1VHS. The 1.3x crop is very different to a 1.6x crop - much more film like in the lens selection etc. Your 20mm is a still quite wide 26mm, and you lose the poorest performing area of the frame (corners etc).

I worried that the 24-70mm would be not as useful with the 1.3x crop, but that's not the case at all, and overall I am thrilled with the camera. It's currently at $3999 from most retailers, and at that price it is VERY good value.

Cheers,

Antony

[alan sh]

For the money you would save over a 1DS Mk II (vs a 20D), you could buy a decent wide angle lens to match the 20mm one you currently have. All the other lenses would move up a bit (and as Rokkorfan said, you lose the corners - so better quality).

So, whats the real issue ?

Alan

[Superbaldguy]

That seems to be the issue. We have 1.3x and 1.6x, and I can't see both staying on as a "standard." You can invest in a few EF-S lenses (like the 10-22mm, 17-85 IS) but will they made obsolete by yet another new standard? I simply find the whole issue of Canon's DSLR system a bit unsettling.

Yes, every new generation (which is about 6 months it seems!) makes the last camera a bit outdtated, so I'd have to accept the fact whatever DSLR I do get will have to keep me happy for a few years.

The beauty of film cams is that they don't really go out of date in many senses. I own two EOS A2 bodies and, despite the fact they are 1992 technology, their AF is every bit as good as most or all new DSLR's. Go figure. Of course, film technology is almost dead and there's not anything significantly new in that arena, and how long will it be until I can't get certain film stock?

Tough questions. For now, I'll be happy with my G6 and accept its few shortcomings.

[griff2]

Superbaldguy wrote:Yes, every new generation (which is about 6 months it seems!) makes the last camera a bit outdtated, so I'd have to accept the fact whatever DSLR I do get will have to keep me happy for a few years.
Agreed. I'd rather invest in the glass, and since future sensore size is an unknown, I'd rather have a lens that will fit all sensors - an EF - than one which may become obsolete. (Un)fortunately:rolleyes: I've got the L bug, and in doing so am selling off the EF-S kit lens that came with the 300D.

[Superbaldguy]

That would be a challenge with a full-frame sensor - you'd really need the L-series glass to make the most of it. So, my desire to own such a camera would really need to come with a built-in mortgage.

[Andy_T]

Well,

if you need any good 32 mm lens, then you should hold on to your 20/2.8. Granted, it's not ultrawide, but it will be a decent wide/normal lens.

Best regards,
Andy

[Jesper]

If you absolutely want a full frame sensor and the 1Ds Mark II is too expensive, then what about a second hand 1Ds?

[Superbaldguy]

Perhaps. They should be had for a *reasonable* price.

I often feel life was much simpler with film cameras. But, I think we all got tired of scratched negs and slow turn-around times, so we welcomed the digital darkroom.

[Tom W]

Although my current line-up will work fine with any EOS DSLR, there's that cropping factor which I find to be a bit of an issue, plus vexing DOF concerns. For example, my very nice EF 20mm f/2.8 becomes a so-so 32mm f/2.8 on the 20D or DRebel. On the other end, my 200mm f/2.8 L becomes a wonderful 320mm f/2.8 L.

Actually, your 20 f/2.8 will be a wonderful lens on the 1.6X sensor camera as well. Granted, it won't give you as wide a view, but it is a good lens nevertheless.

You aren't alone in wanting something wider and reasonably fast, though. You may consider the 15 mm f/2.8 fisheye, or the 10-22 mm EF-S zoom for those ultra-wide moments as well.

Do you realistically think the 24x36mm sensor will ever become some sort of standard in due time? Maybe it's time for me to change my way of thinking after shooting over 200,000 film images.

There's also the 1.3X 1D Mk II to consider. But yes, full-frame will become cheaper than it is now. How much cheaper is very debatable. In the meantime, the so-called APS-C cameras will be even less expensive, and they have been shown to hold their own in terms of image quality for most purposes.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Don't worry about future changes in format etc.. your camera should be an investment in your photography,.. here and now,.. not a financial investment with hopes of resale.

[oddball]

Don't worry about future changes in format etc.. your camera should be an investment in your photography,.. here and now,.. not a financial investment with hopes of resale.

Remember that your photo equipment is just that, equipment. Tools. Yes, expensive "hammers" and "drills", but tools regardless.

Look at your cars; their ratio of money spent vs. quality of time of enjoyment is far, far worse that digital cameras...

[ScottE]

I am not convinced that the 1.6x digital is not going to become a standard. It is very difficult the quality of enlargments you can get from a 20D with a 35 mm camera. The next generation is going to easily surpass 35 mm quality. If you have been satisfied with 35 mm film cameras in the past, there is no reason you are not going to be satisfied with a 1.6x factor digital camera with 8 or more (12 mp next generation?) megapixels. The full frame sensor on the 1DsMk2 is more comparable to the quality of a medium format 4.5x6 camera.

As for lenses, yes, you are going to need a wider lens than 20mm. If you get a 20D or Rebel 350 XT there is no reason an EF-S lens such as the 10-22 would not meet all your needs. The other alternative would be a 14/2.8 EF lens that is rectilinear corrected, not a distorted fish eye.

I see no merit in being a Canon loyalist unless they are paying your expenses. Sigma, Tamron and Tokina all make good 12-24, 14/2.8 or 10-20 lenses that should meet your wide angle requirements at a somewhat lower cost. If you are careful with your purchase you will find there is not noticeable difference in image quality.

Scott

[CyberDyneSystems]

There's allways the 17-40mm...

No it's not as wide as some of these new super wides,. but I've never wanted wider.

[Superbaldguy]

This has been a good discussion.

Has the problem of a dirty sensor been fully rectified? I know people who carry two DSLR's with them and never change lenses, choosing to change bodies for whatever situation arises..........

[adas]

There are some ultrasonic "shaking" mechanisms that induce some sort of vibrations into the sensor cip that shakes off the dust. As far as I know Canon haven't it yet.
Back to the lens issue, at the same view angle of two different focal lens the bigger focal lens will be the cleaner, due to glass difraction.

[Jon]

Back to the lens issue, at the same view angle of two different focal lens the bigger focal lens will be the cleaner, due to glass difraction.

Glasses "refract". Edges (such as your lens diaphragm) "diffract". A smaller aperture will exhibit more diffraction effect. A longer focal length lens will demonstrate more chromatic abberation due to the glass refracting different wave lengths of light by different amounts. In theory, for the above to be true, you'd need to be comparing identical lens designs with different focal lengths. In practice, and using Canon equipment (that's where we are, after all), the degree of magnification of the captured image, the different lens designs, and the differing capabilities of the sensors would all overwhelm any difference between, say, the (closest examples in Canon's stable) 17-85 EF-S and the 28-135 EF. In addition, lens designers use a mix of glass (and fluorite) elements of different refractive indices to cancel out chromatic aberration.

Note: Canon's DO, diffractive optics, are using engraved grooves/edges (in rings) on the surfaces of certain lens elements to alter light paths; the diffractive action is not dependent on the refraction of the glass. These lenses also take advantage of the need for the edges to create "stepped" or "fresnel" lens elements, which are able to present a high degree of curvature (for a shorter focal length) in a thinner element than would otherwise be required.

[rdenney]

Do you realistically think the 24x36mm sensor will ever become some sort of standard in due time? Maybe it's time for me to change my way of thinking after shooting over 200,000 film images.

I keep hoping Canon will introduce a full-frame prosumer, and I think that is still part of their plan.

Until then, though, I have found that I did fine just by adding to the wide end of my lens collection. I added a Sigma EX 12-24, and a funky Russian Zenitar 16mm fisheye (VERY useful on the small sensor). The focal lengths I already had were fine, except that I use them for different purposes on the 10D.

If your current lenses are top-line, you'll still use them. I use the 70-200 routinely, though not zoomed out as far. I use a 50 as a portraint lens instead of a normal lens, and the 28 as a normal instead of a moderate wide.

I don't use the 24 as much as I used to, but the 21 is useful as a moderate wide. So, you restore your extreme wide by getting something really wide. If you want to use the lens on full-frame eventually as an ultra-wide, consider adding the Sigma EX12-24, or, if you want better quality, a good 14. Or, if your new wide lens will just be used with the small sensor, consider the EF-S 10-22. All your other lenses will still be useful.

Where I found my lenses lacking was in quality, not focal length. Being able to see images at the pixel level exposes cheap lenses in a hurry. But when I bought new lenses, most of them were lenses I would find useful in both formats, though for different purposes.

Rick "who would not get rid of great lenses, ever" Denney

[Superbaldguy]

Hmmm...........I'm thinking maybe I should sell off the A2's in the near future and keep the five EF lenses. I suppose there is little value in a couple of "old" EOS bodies that have proven to be as reliable as a Seiko watch, as the current generation of shooters want digital SLR's. Pooh, pooh. Looks like I'm stuck with them unless I give them away.

The EOS A2 is/was the quietest 35mm AF SLR ever made.

Maybe I should get the 550EX Speedlite so I can use it with my A2's and G6. I already have the external battery pack that fits my aging 540 EZ and it would work with the 550EX.

[Jon]

This has been a good discussion.

Has the problem of a dirty sensor been fully rectified? I know people who carry two DSLR's with them and never change lenses, choosing to change bodies for whatever situation arises..........

I think you'd find, if you surveyed, that photographers using multiple bodies generally work that way because it's faster to grab a second camera than to change lenses, rather than because they're concerned about getting dust inside the camera. I know I do, and did back in the film days as well.

[Superbaldguy]

Yeah, the two-body system does work well for PJ type of shooting where you don't have time nor is it practical to change cameras. If I could find a DSLR that makes me happy, I'd get two just as I did for my T90's and the A2's.

Are we asking to much for an afforable full-frame EOS camera? I guess this should be posed on this forum in 2010 and see what kind of response I'd get.

[rdenney]

Are we asking to much for an afforable full-frame EOS camera? I guess this should be posed on this forum in 2010 and see what kind of response I'd get.

Apparently, we are. It seems apparent to me that Canon's strategy was to go full-frame across their line, eventually. All their lenses up until the EF-S lenses were aimed in that direction, and their top-line camera usually has features that work their way down the line in subsequent generations.

But I think the cost of the full-frame sensors is a manufacturing issue rather than a digital issue, and that has stymied that strategy, at least for now. It's easier to go to higher pixel density than it is to add square inches. Their introduction of high-quality EF-S lenses may be Canon hedging their bets. But I still think the large sensor is their edge on Nikon, and I think they see it that way.

And, I happen to agree with them. Format is king. So, maybe my read of their strategy is my own wishful thinking.

Rick "who would pay serious money for a workable 6x4.5 digital back for his Pentax 645" Denney

[Superbaldguy]

I've always been a patient man, and this situation appears to be no different.

[mbze430]

definately the 1.3x is a bridge over "standard" if you can call it that. I don't think we'll be seeing any more 1.3x anytime soon. I think the 1Ds is still a valid option for FF. Being $4000, or you can get the Kodak SLR/c for a bit less, but this beast is not very ergonomical. I went to go look at one of these a Calumet, and it really turned me off. however if you can get over the built, it is a very excellent camera.

[Superbaldguy]

I once played with that Kodak and its AF was crappy, as well as build quality.