Is the EF-S line ended now?

[MrChad]

Well given the huge rumors of the new 5D full frame, do you think this will bring the end of EF-S lens developement?

Will the 10-22mm; 17-85mm IS; 60mm macro, and kit lens be it?

Or will we see a few more EF-S lenses in the months-years to come?

I'm sure Canon will still have 1.6x bodies, but will they have a need for any more EF-S glass? I was sure hoping for an 24-70 FOV equiv. f2.8 L-like EF-S zoom.....

[Tom W]

I don't think that the line is ended - Canon's doing a split, or so it appears, with two distinct formats. I don't know how "pro" they will go with the 1.6X lenses, given that the EF lenses do fit. Perhaps they'll gauge demand and create accordingly.

[RikWriter]

The EF/S line is not ending. The 1.3 crop line, ie the 1DMKII, is ending. There will be two lines: pro with FF and prosumer with 1.6.

[internationalmanofmystery]

The EF-S lenses don't make a lot of sense to me. They are a lot larger, heavier and therefore more expensive than they need to be, by making them with the same lens mount as the EF lenses. They could be made with barrels and mounts which are just large enough for the APS-sized image cirle they create.

If Canon is serious about continuing the 1.6x line, they should do it properly and release smaller bodies with a new mount, and a few ultra-compact lenses. That makes a lot more sense, long term, rather than continuing to pretend that the 1.6x cameras are 35mm equivalents, and making them more expensive than necessary.

[MrChad]

The EF/S line is not ending. The 1.3 crop line, ie the 1DMKII, is ending. There will be two lines: pro with FF and prosumer with 1.6.

Well, I don't think the ones currently out will just go away. We stil have a Drebel's and 20D's and there replacements for some time. But will Canon even bother making more then what's been launched? Or will EF-S be stuck at 4 lenses?

I presonally don't have a problem with 1.6x bodies, the resolution has been fine for my needs....I think 1.6x will be here for some time, but will another EF-S lens debut again? hmmm....

[Curtis N]

Well given the huge rumors of the new 5D full frame, do you think this will bring the end of EF-S lens developement?We can only hope.

[RikWriter]

Well, I don't think the ones currently out will just go away. We stil have a Drebel's and 20D's and there replacements for some time. But will Canon even bother making more then what's been launched? Or will EF-S be stuck at 4 lenses?


No, there will be more EF/S lenses. Count on it.

[martook]

The EF-S lenses don't make a lot of sense to me. They are a lot larger, heavier and therefore more expensive than they need to be, by making them with the same lens mount as the EF lenses. They could be made with barrels and mounts which are just large enough for the APS-sized image cirle they create.

If Canon is serious about continuing the 1.6x line, they should do it properly and release smaller bodies with a new mount, and a few ultra-compact lenses. That makes a lot more sense, long term, rather than continuing to pretend that the 1.6x cameras are 35mm equivalents, and making them more expensive than necessary.

Are you crazy? That makes no sense at all actually.

What is it Canon want to do? They want to sell cameras and lenses.

What's best, creating a new camera that is not compatible with the others, which means people can buy only 5-10 EF-X lenses from Canon and nothing else... who would buy something that is so limited?

Or, keeping it the way it is, so people with 1.6x crop cameras can use the whole EF lens lineup, which means selling a lot more lenses, also making sure they are "stuck" in the Canon brand if/when they upgrade to a larger format camera, by already having lenses for it. If I wouldn't have a single lens I could use with a FF camera, I might just as well go with Noink or whatever the day I upgrade, no? Since I basically have to sell the whole kit anyway.

No, they should keep doing what they are doing, and release a few more EF-S lenses instead. A fast wide angle prime would be nice for example...

[sdommin]

If Canon is serious about continuing the 1.6x line, they should do it properly and release smaller bodies with a new mount, and a few ultra-compact lenses. That makes a lot more sense, long term, rather than continuing to pretend that the 1.6x cameras are 35mm equivalents, and making them more expensive than necessary.

I don't think it's crazy at all. There's a good market out there for small, interchangeable lens cameras (after all, there's a good market for small NON-interchangeable lens cameras). Not everyone likes to lug around a full-size DSLR and a bunch of lenses.

[Layston]

Well, since we seem to be in the realm of opinion here and not fact, I'll throw in my 0.02 and since I'm Canadian that's worth about 0.015US....

I started in photography with a Canon fTb about 15 years ago. I then bought a small P&S for travelling, not satisfied I bought a better P&S, and then a better one but finally went back to my fTb.... Then digital came out. I got a small digital camera and then a better one and then finally my XT. What's my point? I think anyone who is happy with a P&S will stick with it, anyone serious about there pictures will go SLR. There are already non-interchangeable lens SLRs out there that are smaller and lighter than the 300D, 350D, 10D etc etc.... I think a new product line somewhere smaller than the 350D but with specialized interchangeable lenses would not find a market. This would be a product that has no distinct advantage and instead would corner a user into a specialized product line.

Just think about it this way - people are already asking if there will be any more EF-S lenses because they are concerned that the product line is dying off. At least we know with our EF-S compatible cameras that we can always buy EF lenses. Now if they would just make a decent 10-70 EF IS for under $400 I'd be all set :D

[BrianEE93]

I have always thought it was kind of strange Canon would make EF-S lenses that would only work on 1.6x crop cameras. The third party lens will at least work on FF sensors you just can't zoom out all the way.

[sdommin]

I think anyone who is happy with a P&S will stick with it, anyone serious about there pictures will go SLR.

I couldn't let THAT one slide by. Are you saying that only serious photographers use a DSLR and non-serious photographers use a P&S?

[Layston]

Are you saying that only serious photographers use a DSLR and non-serious photographers use a P&S?

I think either you mis-read my post, or I wasn't clear enough, either way I apologize. For me, I have tried various P&S cameras, and I still use them. I have a Canon A85 that goes with me whenever I go out and don't have the room to carry my 350D. However, whenever I am being serious about my photography I grab an SLR camera - PERIOD (digital or non-digital doesn't matter). I don't feel I have enough control over my image taking with any P&S that I've tried. I always find that they are aimed at making the photo-taking easy and tend to try to do things for me. I suppose there are higher end P&S cameras with SLR that would give me the control I want, but again now you are talking SLR and not straight P&S.

I am also not saying that only professionals/serious photographers use SLR. I am an amateur through and through - albeit a rather informed one (I do machine vision for a living, hence I need to know about optics for my job). To make my point very clear - I believe if you are serious about getting really nice photos you will eventually find yourself using SLR at some point. Some people may never feel the need to have anything better than what they can get from a P&S (and there are some VERY nice ones out there), but my opinion still stands that SLR is the only way to get full control of your imaging.

[booggerg]

The EF-S lenses don't make a lot of sense to me. They are a lot larger, heavier and therefore more expensive than they need to be, by making them with the same lens mount as the EF lenses. They could be made with barrels and mounts which are just large enough for the APS-sized image cirle they create.

So you're advocating for a camera that has a small lens mounting ring that only EFS will fit so that current EF lenses couldn't even be mounted??? that makes even less sense. Why wouldn't canon tap into their huge EOS line of lenses? It would seem to be the only smart way to go about this.. Otherwise, they'll just end up like Olympus' ill fated DSLR line.

[DavidEB]

why can't canon make a smaller body with a small ring closer to the image plane, and an adaptor to allow that smaller body to use EF lenses as well? Then you could have smaller, cheaper lenses in the short focal lengths and continue to use the standard & longer lenses for EF cameras.

[MrChad]

Why do we have to re-engineer the 1.6x to use the EF line at Full frame?

My understanding for EF-S was two fold.
1. to allow for wide angle FOV, not achieved with current FF EF lenses.
2. less weight and lower price.

My EF-S 10-22mm is definately a light lens, I like that a lot, price well it's iffy.
However, I wouldn't mind a 17-50mm f2.8 EF-S for half the price of a 24-70mm f2.8L.

Now that we have the most valuable EF-S IMO the 10-22mm EF-S, you can construct a kit with EF lenses and cover your FOV's as needed. We never really needed EF-S glass, save for the wide angles.

I just hope Canon still choses to make some as choices for those of us with 1.6x bodies, if you noticed just how many more 1.6x waffers Canon can get from a single sheet I think all the lower end - more consumer DSLR's, will be crop factored for some time. We may even see the $500 DSLR soon.

And 1.6x is not really a bother to my shooting style it doesn't hinder my ability to shoot a scene, especially now that I have some wider angle EF-S, and DC glass.

I don't really see 1.6x as a negative, I don't require the resolution of the FF sensor. I think my Drebel at higher ISO does a better job then my Elan did with high speed film. And it's not like I can't purchase FF EF lenses, I have some now? I've used plenty, I don't assume owning a Drebel forces me to EF-S, it's just one more choice.

And as for Sigma and third party crop factor lenses working on FF cameras, they don't either. I had my DC on my Elan before I sold it, you get a nice black ring around all your photos. The only downside I see for the EF-S mount is that it won't fit the D30/60 and 10D bodies. Else I see no issues with EF-S glass. I'm just afraid development will stop now that the 5D is coming to market. I'm sure we will see several more years of 1.6x DSLR's from Canon, but will they assume serious ameturs will abondon 1.6x gear and move up to the new line of Canon FF DSLR's assuming they come down to $2000.

Even if the price would drop to $2000 for the body, I'm not sure I could afford a line of FF L-glass to go with it. I've been very happy with the EF-S line optically and I can actually afford them vs. some L's I'd hate to sell my crop factor glass just because all serious novice DSLR gear went FF.

I would actually be more excited to see a 1.6x DSLR from Canon: 5Dx? that could perform like the Nionk D2x and sell for 20D pricing. I miss the speed of film bodies, not the resolution or a FF negative. I was hoping to use my Drebel until the debut of the Elan 7DE :D

[internationalmanofmystery]

So you're advocating for a camera that has a small lens mounting ring that only EFS will fit so that current EF lenses couldn't even be mounted??? that makes even less sense. Why wouldn't canon tap into their huge EOS line of lenses? It would seem to be the only smart way to go about this.. Otherwise, they'll just end up like Olympus' ill fated DSLR line.

That makes no sense to me. If Canon wants people to use their existing EF lenses, then why bother with the EF-S range at all?? Canon should work on a decent wide angle lens which everyone can use rather than bringing out a lens like the EF-S 10-22

Imho, they should either drop EF-S, or take advantage of the benefits of miniaturisation. At the moment, they have achieved nothing and just create confusion and doubt.

[Tom W]

There are many design constraints that prevent building a full-frame 10-22 mm lens in EF mount. Plus, it wouldn't be very useful on a full-frame camera.

The EF-s mount has made this lens possible with its shorter backfocus distance (at the cost of a smaller mirror box) and smaller diameter front lens element (full-frame 10 mm would be enormous).

[su719]

You have to look at EFS using a marketing perspective. With the creation of the APS sized cameras, you always had a 1.6 crop. Therefore all of your lenses were longer than they were designed to be. Sometimes this worked out for the photographer since they did not use all the glass on some bad lenses which made them good. However it tended to hurt the photographer since they could not go as wide ad they used to be able to.

Now comes EFS. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, and the lot make lenses for the major manufacturers, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, etc. Therefore their optics must work with the different mounts to be attractive to the consumer. If the EFS mount was completely different from the EF mount those manufacturers would need to maintain to sets of lenses for Canon photogs. The stores would need to stock 2 and so forth. So when the third party manufacturers create and APS lens, they need to maintain the mount.

Canon who only makes lenses for their cameras can do what ever they want. I would imagine that by creating the EFS mount it allows them to make the lenses cheaper that only work on APS cameras. But if they only had APS cameras that used EFS lenses a consumer would not buy the 20D or Rebels, since they don't work with a system. So Canon now has the best of both worlds.

It is important to remember that a photography not only buys the Camera, they buy the Camera and Lens system. If the system is not competitive the manufacturer can have the most advanced Camera in the world but it will not sell as limited pictures can be taken.

[Sprout Crumble]

Canons current strategy is fine and makes perfect sense to me. Basically all Canons cameras can mount EF lenses, yet where 1.6x cameras have differing technical or consumer needs, there exists the EFS range to make fulfilling those needs possible. Canons whole DSLR range continues to exhibit common handling and technical characteristics allowing easy interchangeability between bodies.
Sorry, but introducing a whole new incompatible mount and range from scratch is plain dumb. I bought Canon for the lens and accessory range. Am I supposed to wait years for a new range to reach the same level or, as more likely, limit myself to some dumbed-down 'mini-EOS' that will be a dead-end if I want a more capable body at some point?

Of course not. There's a hell of a lot to be said for standardisation even if there are the occassional compromises.

Besides, isn't every other camera maker doing the same thing with digital only lenses?

[Citizensmith]

I don't think it's crazy at all. There's a good market out there for small, interchangeable lens cameras (after all, there's a good market for small NON-interchangeable lens cameras). Not everyone likes to lug around a full-size DSLR and a bunch of lenses.

Yeah and that Olympus range with its dedicated lenses is selling like. I dunno, something that gathers dust on the shelf. If people want small and compact they'll get a P&S, if they want interchangeable they'll get an SLR. As olympus are proving for us there really isn't a market for mini SLRs.

[Hellashot]

Well given the huge rumors of the new 5D full frame, do you think this will bring the end of EF-S lens developement?

Will the 10-22mm; 17-85mm IS; 60mm macro, and kit lens be it?

Or will we see a few more EF-S lenses in the months-years to come?

I'm sure Canon will still have 1.6x bodies, but will they have a need for any more EF-S glass? I was sure hoping for an 24-70 FOV equiv. f2.8 L-like EF-S zoom.....

Absolutely not. They are going to keep 1.6x sensors for low end dSLRs for probably many years to come.

[internationalmanofmystery]

If the EFS mount was completely different from the EF mount those manufacturers would need to maintain to sets of lenses for Canon photogs.

As opposed to having to stock EF and EF-S lenses? I fail to see a difference.


Sorry, but introducing a whole new incompatible mount and range from scratch is plain dumb.

It was never my preferred option. Personally I think 1.6 crop sensors are 'dumb', so I hope they and their EF-S lenses die a quick death :evil:

[su719]

As opposed to having to stock EF and EF-S lenses? I fail to see a difference.

50 1.8 EF
50 1.8 EF-S

Tamron 28-75 EF
Tamron 28-75 EF-S

Both of these lenses will fit my XT as they are now. They also fit my D60. However if Tamron had to choose which mount to make for the consumer. It would be EF and I wouldn't be able to mount it on my camera. (If they were completely different mounts)

[HJMinard]

It was never my preferred option. Personally I think 1.6 crop sensors are 'dumb', so I hope they and their EF-S lenses die a quick death :evil:

I really don't understand this type of attitude. Why is it "dumb"? What is inherently wrong with a 1.6 factor sensor? Is 1.3 okay? 1.1? 0.9? Why is 35mm size the holy grail? Such an arbitrary number ... If bigger is better, why stop there? (Lens compatibility is the obvious answer ... but these lenses are also compatible with APS-C, and many of us quite enjoy the "crop factor" effect on our telephoto lenses.)

The bottom line is (obviously) the image quality ... and in my opinion the APS-C DSLR's deliver. Good enough for professionals? Perhaps not, but they're more limited by their features and build quality than by image quality.

[internationalmanofmystery]

I really don't understand this type of attitude. Why is it "dumb"? What is inherently wrong with a 1.6 factor sensor? Is 1.3 okay? 1.1? 0.9? Why is 35mm size the holy grail? Such an arbitrary number ... If bigger is better, why stop there?

HJMinard, it may be that we will never see eye on this, and that's ok, but to answer your question, I have several objections.

1) The erosion of the focal length standards. By using a small sensor to save money, Canon at one stroke transformed existing lens collections into lenses with different FOVs. If you are using both a film body and a digital body, then you will have to think about the crop factor and use different lenses on either body for the same shot. (Which could mean more equipment to buy and carry around). At the same time, you can't just list the focal length in EXIF any more. You need to specify the crop factor too or the 'standardised' focal length is unknown. Standards make life easy. Breaking standards makes for confusion.

2) Wide angle shots have become more difficult to achieve. The EF-S 10-22 lens might get you there technically but it isn't a great lens and it won't work on film bodies or FF digital bodies. I find that unacceptable.

3) The 1.6 crop factor results in a much smaller viewfinder which more or less forces you to rely on autofocus. Trouble is, Canon's autofocus system is just not reliable on these bodies.

4) To match the resolution of a FF sensor in a 1.6 crop sensor, the photosites must necessarily be a lot smaller resulting in more noise.

Is that enough?

(and yes, bigger is better which is why i will be switching to medium format digital as soon as the prices become sane)

[Hellashot]

It was never my preferred option. Personally I think 1.6 crop sensors are 'dumb', so I hope they and their EF-S lenses die a quick death :evil:

Nope. As Canon has done away with 1.3x that means that 1.6x is here to stay for their low end dSLRs!

[HJMinard]

If you don't like it ... or don't want to use it ... that's fine, but that doesn't make it "dumb". No camera or system is going to be perfect for everyone.

1) The focal length hasn't changed ... it's just cropping. Besides, any focal length "standard" is somewhat artificial, and I don't think the conversion is all that confusing ... pretty simple math, really, and only important if you're primarily a wide-angle shooter. If you're still a dedicated film user, I understand your plight. Most buyers of DSLR's - I'd guess - are not going to continue with film. Did Canon go with smaller sensors to "save" money or to make the cameras more affordable? I don't think it's artificial ... if Canon or Nikon could sell FF-sensor cameras at pro-sumer prices they would do it without question for competitive advantage. You're making sub-FF sound like some kind of Canon conspiracy ... if so, they're all (Nikon, Olympus, et al.) in on it.

2) Actually, the EF-S 10-22 has been getting some pretty good reviews, with regard to both image and build quality. I haven't handled one - so I can't confirm - but some members here have reported that it's an "L" lens in all but name (because Canon didn't want to anger professionals by putting an "L" label on a lens that can't be used on 1-series cameras). Again - with regard to those who still use film - I understand your objections, but I think you're in the minority. Canon doesn't cater to the minority.

3) All I can say is the autofocus on my 20D works pretty darn well, but otherwise I have no argument (although I might object to the word "much" instead of just "smaller").

4) Smaller sites = more potential for noise. Agreed. I don't know what camera you're using, but the 20D by most accounts has set the pro-sumer standard for lack of noise at higher ISO's. Technology has improved, and will continue to improve.

Hey ... obviously APS-C and EF-S isn't for you ... and that's okay. But that's not a good reason to disparage the format and wish for it's death. Don't like it ... don't buy it. Many of us are very satisfied, and some of us even prefer the format. I saw your comment (in another thread) that insinuates that most users want FF ... I contend that it's about 50-50 (or maybe 60-40 in favor of FF), based on the commentary and polls I've seen on this forum (and locally).

[internationalmanofmystery]

Hi Jay,

re point number 1, I never said that the focal length changes. The FOV changes.

I accept that it's not a conspiracy ;)

I believe that your 20D autofocuses well, but I've come across several Canon bodies with autofocus problems. It might come down to the individual sample. Either way, being forced to rely on it is highly undesirable.

Lack of noise might be achieved through the use of noise reduction software in the camera but that is undesirable in other ways.

[MrChad]

I don't think the 1.6x sensor is as horrid as some may think. At higher iso's I find it superior to many negative films I've used.

I even know quite a few pros shooting crop factor DSLR's. My entire wedding was shot with a then new D60 and D30 combo. Hey if you are Ni*** crop factor is life right now.

Not that full frame isn't better, it's amazing but it borders on surpasing 35mm film in resolution. At which point you have to ask how much resolution do you need? I've done 100% crops and blown them up to 11x14 with my Drebel. I couldn't always do that with film, at which point for my needs I must conclude that even a 1.6x DSLR's is fantastic. And heck it saves me money vs. film, and I'm not sure FF DSLR's are even in my budget yet.

As for AF systems and having to Manual focus? Nothing can compare to a classic manual focus camera focus screen, but with that said. I'm still amazed at the AF systems even on consurmer SLR's. Maybe I'm just that old school, but after manual focusing for so long any Canon AF seems amazing to me.

With that said, for me I still don't have any issues with the EF-S mount, I think it adds yet another wonderful set of lenses for us crop factor folks. I hope more EF-S lenses come to be, but if they don't I'm glad I own a 10-22mm EF-S...

For me I think the crop factor specific lenses suprass what I could afford in FF film gear back in the day, making my shots even better IMO. And at a significantly reduced or as the same price. If Canon further progresses the EF-S line, and it produces a bunch of mini-L type lenses that only crop factor bodies could use, I wouldn't mind. Hey I don't see a 1-series or 5-series in my future, nor do I see the L glass to go with it.

[Tom W]

Nope. As Canon has done away with 1.3x that means that 1.6x is here to stay for their low end dSLRs!

That may be a premature assumption WRT the 1.3. Or it might not. But they're still selling 1D Mk II cameras at this point in time.

[Tom W]

I don't think the 1.6x sensor is as horrid as some may think. At higher iso's I find it superior to many negative films I've used.

Indeed - my XT is a pretty amazing little camera. And it is quite noise-free.

I even know quite a few pros shooting crop factor DSLR's. My entire wedding was shot with a then new D60 and D30 combo. Hey if you are Ni*** crop factor is life right now.

There's a lot of 20D's out there shooting weddings. There's also a lot of film out there - still. My niece's wedding 2 weeks ago was shot entirely with film - the photog had 4 manual Nikon bodies and he knew his equipment very well.

Not that full frame isn't better, it's amazing but it borders on surpasing 35mm film in resolution. At which point you have to ask how much resolution do you need? I've done 100% crops and blown them up to 11x14 with my Drebel. I couldn't always do that with film, at which point for my needs I must conclude that even a 1.6x DSLR's is fantastic. And heck it saves me money vs. film, and I'm not sure FF DSLR's are even in my budget yet.

I'd say IMHO that full-frame has more advantages than disadvantages when compared to 1.6X, but that doesn't make 1.6 bad - it's loads beyond the micro-sensors in most P&S cameras in terms of noise & DOF control.

As for AF systems and having to Manual focus? Nothing can compare to a classic manual focus camera focus screen, but with that said. I'm still amazed at the AF systems even on consurmer SLR's. Maybe I'm just that old school, but after manual focusing for so long any Canon AF seems amazing to me.

When I first went with AF about 3 years ago, I was amazed at how quickly and accurately the camera could focus. That was with a used Elan II film camera. It's still a marval that it works so well, but it isn't perfect (darn close though, IMHO). Once in a while, MF is needed. Unfortunately, I have about a snowball's chance in a very hot place of manually focusing the XT without the Angle finder. The 1D2 is much better, plus it has easily interechangeable focus screens for use with MF lenses (like that 20 mm Zeiss/Jena I have coming soon). And the viewfinder is much bigger and easier to see than is that of the 1.6 cameras. FF is even better in that respect.

With that said, for me I still don't have any issues with the EF-S mount, I think it adds yet another wonderful set of lenses for us crop factor folks. I hope more EF-S lenses come to be, but if they don't I'm glad I own a 10-22mm EF-S...

For me I think the crop factor specific lenses suprass what I could afford in FF film gear back in the day, making my shots even better IMO. And at a significantly reduced or as the same price. If Canon further progresses the EF-S line, and it produces a bunch of mini-L type lenses that only crop factor bodies could use, I wouldn't mind. Hey I don't see a 1-series or 5-series in my future, nor do I see the L glass to go with it.

EF-S is here to stay for a good while, and perhaps for a very long time. Canon might still be feeling the markets a bit, but I suspect that there'll be a couple more good EF-S lenses coming out, including something in the f/2.8 variety. Canon won't put out a large quantity of EF-S lenses, since there is compatibility, but there will be a couple where it makes sense. At the long end, it's not worthwhile to build an EF-S lens as the size & cost difference would be negligable.

[Belmondo]

I was quite committed to the crusade for an affordable full-frame DSLR. I also promised myself I'd never buy an EF-S lens if I couldn't use it on my 1Dm2.

forget all that.....I now have both the 17-85 and the 10-22. I probably would have the 60mm macro if I had found one on my last shoppoing trip.

The fact is, if Canon brought out a pro body (1-series) in the APS-C format, I wouldn't hesitate to buy and use it.

I've been in enough situations recently where I was shooting the 1Dm2, the 20D, and the XT, and can't see any difference in image quality. As sensor technogoly improves, the differences, which are now trivial, will become all but non-existent.

Canon appears committed to the EF-S format, and I expect will remain so for the foreseeable future. It's unclear if they will migrate it to pro-level (i.e. L lenses), or if they will ever make a pro body with a 1.6X crop factor.

I suspect they will, and probably in the not-too-distant future.

[Tom W]

Tom - change in subject....

....I could not reply to your e-mail for some reason. Tried 3 times. I did get your message and thanks.

Back to the subject, I still don't have any EF-S lenses, but I've thought about it a bit. The 17-85 is a formidable contender given its useful focal range.

[Belmondo]

Tom - change in subject....

The 17-85 is a formidable contender given its useful focal range.


.....and the IS helps make up for it not being all that fast.

[Citizensmith]

The fact is, if Canon brought out a pro body (1-series) in the APS-C format, I wouldn't hesitate to buy and use it.


I for one would love to see a pro version of the XT. Or rather a full featured small but solid camera rather than the large bodies the pros normally are.

[MrChad]

Just to make a point, FF is the way to go. No doubt, everyone knows how to read full frame focal lengths, the sensors are huge, what's not to like?

My only point is, at this time a 1.6x sensor is alot cheaper to purchase then a FF, and as long as I can't afford a 1D, I hope I can still get EF-S glass since I want to be able to shoot the same wide angle and normals I had with film. No need for a tele EF-S, it would be silly--unless you could give me an EF-S 100-400 f4-5.6 IS for $500 (and less wieght) and about the size of a 75-300mm, then I may change my mind :) Or if I could have an EF-S 300mm IS prime for $500 :D

In anycase I hope Canon doesn't assume all advance amatures will dump their 1.6x DSLR's for the 5D, I'd go broke trying to buy new glass and a new bodies. And I'm happy with the 1.6x resolution. And the files size I have now, a 5D at 12MP---yikes, I'd need to invest in HDD for my PC too :D

I hope we keep the EF-S lenses, and I hope we get a 20D replacement that feature for feature and speed for speed matches my old Elan 7, then I may finally want to dump my Drebel.

I sometimes wish the MP would stay the same but the speed would increase, I shoot alot of sports, I'd rather have some speed for my dollar not really more MP most days.

A 20Dx (let's say) with the speed of my old Elan 7 and a huge buffer would be really nice, and I'd gladly give up FF for that.... :D

[MadMesh]

the 10-22 will prolly be my first and last EF-S lens. The only reason i bought that lens was to cover the REAL Wide angle... I would say the rest of my lenses will prolly be EF Mount.

Even tho im still intrested in some of the EF-S glass like 17-85 and 60mm Macro,.. Im still going to be getting a Tamron 28-75 and 100mm macro instead.

[MadMesh]

Not to mention my soon to be splurge on primes.... 25mm 50mm 1.4, and the 85mm Primes.

[Belmondo]

Just to make a point, FF is the way to go. No doubt, everyone knows how to read full frame focal lengths, the sensors are huge, what's not to like?

Bear in mind that there is a new generation of SLR photographers coming along who never shot 35mm. They don't have to do the math becasue they don't have any preconceived notions about where the dividing line between wide angle and telephoto resides.

[MadMesh]

Bear in mind that there is a new generation of SLR photographers coming along who never shot 35mm. They don't have to do the math becasue they don't have any preconceived notions about where the dividing line between wide angle and telephoto resides.


True, but the same time i like to buy NON EF-S for compatibility with future cameras.

[MrChad]

Bear in mind that there is a new generation of SLR photographers coming along who never shot 35mm. They don't have to do the math becasue they don't have any preconceived notions about where the dividing line between wide angle and telephoto resides.

I shot film before digital and I really think I could shoot a 1.6x body for along time and never care to go FF. I'm so happy with how the Drebel's pictures look. I love it's resolution, sure it's not pro by any standard. But for my size of prints I love the thing. And I would assume 1.6x bodies are only going to get way better over time.

[Salleke]

... I started in photography with a Canon fTb about 15 years ago...

Layston - Just like you I started with a Canon Ftb and untill today I'm verry sorry to have sold my first SLR ... :cry:
But you are saying you started 15 years ago with the Canon Ftb. Is'nt this model much older?
If I'm recalling good it was out in the mid seventies, did it last or be sold until 15 years ago?
Do you have and or still use your Canon Ftb?

[icsDave]

Check this out for History for Canon cemera's.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/

FTb 1971, FD lens mount

Dave

[Layston]

Salleke,

Actually it was my father's fTb. He bought it when I was just born (in the early seventies). He still has it and still uses it, it is in FANTASTIC shape. For Christmas last year my wife bought me a used fTb and I'm loving shooting with it. My father had always promised to give me his fTb and he and I were reminiscing about him teaching me how to use it about a year ago. My wife overheard and decided to buy me one for Christmas.

The used one I have works beautifully and the only problem with it is some fungus on the mirror. This does not affect image quality and some of the pictures I'm taking of my 7 month old daughter still astound me.

I actually still have my very first camera that I ever bought for myself, it is a Vivitar PS:30 35mm P&S (P.O.S. actually :) - but hey I was 10) . Snagged this pic from a web search. I even have the original manual!

http://images.superpawn.com/production/images/SuperPawn/ITEMS/00/13/00/03/2B/3B1320.jpg

This was probably my first "big" purchase after getting my first job (a paper route). So as you can imagine, photography has been a hobby of mine for most of my life.:D

Sorry for jumping so off topic - please forgive me!!!

[RDKirk]

Well given the huge rumors of the new 5D full frame, do you think this will bring the end of EF-S lens developement?...

This is what a Canon rep had to say about that:

http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman...ticle_440.shtml

TAKAYA: Definitely. We are always planing 5 year spans so within the next 5 years we will develop high and mid end or even some completely unique EF-S lenses. But those are based on requests of professional photographers, however at the same time DSLRS are getting more popular with non professionals, therefore we have to develop lenses for both markets. It is not a question of timing, but as a leader of professional photography industry we are always thinking of high end products and new technology.

[RDKirk]

I have always thought it was kind of strange Canon would make EF-S lenses that would only work on 1.6x crop cameras. The third party lens will at least work on FF sensors you just can't zoom out all the way.

No, the Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina lenses that are designed to cover only a 28mm image circle will not cover the full 24x36mm format at all, ever, period.

[Salleke]

This was probably my first "big" purchase after getting my first job (a paper route). So as you can imagine, photography has been a hobby of mine for most of my life.:D

Sorry for jumping so off topic - please forgive me!!!

Layston - Yes time goes by ... Thank you for the answer and good luck ... :)

[MrChad]

This is what a Canon rep had to say about that:

http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman...ticle_440.shtml

I'm still confused?
So are we getting more high end EF-S lenses only if the pros want them? Because I'm not sure the general population would ever own much past the kit lens if we leave it up to consumers choice.

To be honest I want only one more EF-S lens, a normal zoom FOV f2.8 model. However, if Canon never makes that lens, at least Sigma did....so as long as I have a Drebel I should be able to fill my void.

[DocFrankenstein]

50 1.8 EF
50 1.8 EF-S

Tamron 28-75 EF
Tamron 28-75 EF-S

Both of these lenses will fit my XT as they are now. They also fit my D60. However if Tamron had to choose which mount to make for the consumer. It would be EF and I wouldn't be able to mount it on my camera. (If they were completely different mounts)
Yeah, but the actual lens itself would be lighter and smaller, right?

You don't mount the 180mm hasselblad on your Elan . Why would you put a full frame on EOS... that's supposedly the whole point of EF-S lenses. Smaller, cheaper... :rolleyes: But it's only cheaper for canon right now, not for you.

I've with the mystery man all the way. EF-S must die!

(That used to be my previous sig BTW)

[DocFrankenstein]

Meh... if Canon doesn't come up with a reasonable full frame I'll get myself a kodak :D