Is investing in a lot of EF-S glass wise?

I have been thinking of how my current setup of T3i/18-155 kit lens/70-300 US ISM (non L) would evolve over time. With time and experience, I could see myself with a something like a 10-22, 15-85, 70-300 L, or something like that. Maybe switch out the T3i for a more advanced crop body down the road..

But with the coming of the 6D, I am wondering if we are approaching a crossroads as FF bodies creep down into the "prosumer" or even "consumer" range. Given that EF-S glass does not work on FF bodies to my knowledge, does this mean that investing in a lot of EF-S lenses may require some careful thinking?

There are two possible ways this would play out in my mind. If a crop body represents the end of the road in my photographic evolution, then there are no issues, assuming that this is viable long term (I am thinking of an analogy with film cameras which are essentially obsolete for the casual photographer, I think). However, if indeed crop bodies go the way of the film camera as FF bodies get more affordable and crowd downwards, would one be stuck with a buch of EF-S glass that essentially would need t be replaced? Or at least, if a person is about to buy EF-S glass, should he carefully think about this given the 6D? As a casual amateur, it seems unlikely that I would ever invest in a top-of-the-line FF camera.

In other words, is the 6D the harbinger of the demise of the crop body? For someone who has not invested in good glass yet (like me), would they be better off investing in glass that is compatible with FF cameras? Am I just talking nonsense?

simple amswer: no.
you can buy kit lens and sell a camera with it later. But investing a money in ef-s lens more doesn't look wise to me.
You will end up with having full frame body. Not because of 6d. You can get 5d2 for 1400-1500 bucks. that's 600 cheaper then 6d.

Well, the only EF-S worth owning long-term for more serious photography IMO is the 10-22 and 17-55. These two lenses also tend to hold their value rather well.

I used to own both - I sold the 10-22 because it's a specialist landscape lens and with the 16-35 II and the 5DII I no longer had need for it. I still have the 17-55 because it's a great portrait/wedding lens on the 7D that I have.

Sometime next year I will probably get a 5D III and a 24-70 II and then sell the 7D and 17-55. I'm on the fence whether I will keep the 24-105 though.

Ef-s lenses have their following and apparently several are really good. However, if you think you will be selling at some point, realize that your market is much smaller to sell to with the EF-s lenses and it may either take longer, or require more of a financial loss from your pruchase price than a comperable EF lens would.

Nobody knows, not even the top people at Canon/ Nikon, because your question involves predicting the future of consumer tastes/ wants. Business school case studies are chalk full of companies that thought they could do it and failed miserably.

So I can only offer my opinion. And to me, the writing seems to be on the wall for APS-C DSLRs. The biggest argument for APS-C DSLRs I see out there are that they are cheaper and that you can also fit smaller/ cheaper/ lighter lenses on them then their FF counterparts. Well that also describes mirrorless cameras like the NEX or the Micro 4/3. I think in about 1-2 years, mirrorless cameras will have evolved to the point where many of the current criticisms - such as lack of lenses, slower AF, etc. - will have been addressed. I also think, much like Betamax vs VHS or Blu Ray vs HD DVD, there will be a winner between those 2 technologies. If I had to bet it would be APS-C equipped mirrorless cameras like the NEX or EOS-M. I think eventually Nikon will jump into this market as well. They are already getting the excellent Sony APS-C sensors, so why not? So once Sony, Canon, and Nikon establish themselves in this market, I think APS-C equipped mirrorless cameras will be the way forward. I actually just picked up a Sony Nex 5N for less than $500 because of their current sale. I do not see how this camera would not satisfy the needs of 95% of casual shooters out there who may own DSLRs but never venture far past the "auto" mode.

To sum up, my opinion is that in the near future that vast majority of consumers will turn to APS-C sensored mirrorless cameras from Sony, Canon, and I'm pretty sure Nikon. Those who are looking for an "upgrade" will look to full-frame DSLRs such as the Nikon D600 and Canon 6D.

I don't know. I do know that I shoot with the lenses I have now for the 40D I have now, not for the possibility that someday down the track I may purchase a camera with an APS sized sensor or that there won't be any new APS-C cameras.

They'll be around for at least the next couple of years I guess (based on the Canon and Nikon releases of new APS-C sensor-ed cameras this year) but probably a lot longer too.

Over the short term, the decision isn't that critical. It's unlikely that you'd ever acquire more than two or three EF-S lenses and it's also unlikely that Canon would suddenly abandon the EF-S format. It's hard to imagine a scenario where you'll wish you had passed on the great value of EF-S lenses.

Over the long term, even full-frame isn't a sure thing. Buy lenses that actually need and that you can start using immediately and you'll be fine. Experienced photographers have repeatedly told me to quit worrying about equipment and concentrate on practice and technique.

Unless you're set on building an expensive lens collection to show off in a display case, your next lens should probably be the $100 50mm f/1.8.

smythie wrote in post #15014444
They'll be around for at least the next couple of years I guess (based on the Canon and Nikon releases of new APS-C sensor-ed cameras this year) but probably a lot longer too.

The new 6D is $2100 and has very entry level specs. That proves that FF is still really expensive to make. We will likely have crop cameras for the foreseeable future. If anything, I see the mirror box dying, not the APS-C sensor. But even that is not happening soon.

Lenses are tools, not investments.

I doubt Canon will abandon APS-C anytime soon, and even when it does the lenses will carry on making great images. The obsession with latest and greatest is totally absurd.

It depends on what you are shooting, how you want to shoot it, etc. I, personally, shoot the 7D and will continue to shoot it until it dies or they come out with a MkII; I have no desire to move to full frame, any time soon. So, if an EF-S lens comes along that fits my needs, I'll buy it.

Buy for the gear you have, not the gear you "might" buy later.

Thanks for all the opinions!

Yeah, I have no pre-set plan to move to a FF either, especially it the camera is bulkier and harder to deal with in general. As it is, there are days where I question my move from my beloved digital elph i960s pocket camera to the T3i, just for the form factor. (If the i960 could take the kind of photos the T3i does, that would be the dream camera for me ). My question was only based on the speculation of whether the APS-C camera is an endangered species. I can easily see me on a 7D for the next 10 years, so I am leaning towards just getting the lenses I need now and focusing, pardon the pun, on learning to use them properly.

And I used the term "investment" just as a synonym for "spending money," not in the literal sense of anticipation of possible returns.

That sounds like a good plan, there. Even if Canon discontinued crop sensors tomorrow, which I just don't see happening, the existing bodies wouldn't stop working all of a sudden. I'd probably go stockpile a couple of spare bodies, if that happened, though

tkbslc wrote in post #15014459
The new 6D is $2100 and has very entry level specs. That proves that FF is still really expensive to make. We will likely have crop cameras for the foreseeable future. If anything, I see the mirror box dying, not the APS-C sensor. But even that is not happening soon.

FF at $2100 doesn't mean it is expensive to make. It means Canon thinks the price point is what people will pay for a basic FF camera. Given the price of the 7D and the specs it has, it would make no sense to market the 6D for $1400. There is a perception that FF costs x much more to produce, so the company is going with it. (even though the software seems a dumbed down version of what already exists in the newest cameras, and the processor is already in production.)

IMHO, the price point at $2100 is more about keeping the 5Diii selling for $3k and 1Dx selling for $6k. If they priced it lower then people would would wonder why the extra features cost an extra $1500. (5D)

Sorry if I came off a bit snarky. My point was that the important thing is to use the equipment you have and find justification for selling off in the use you're making of it, rather than hypotheticals about market shifts.

I''m hoping mirrorless bodies with EF-S mounts are the future. That'll be dreamy.

Crop bodies are more than capable of fulfilling the needs of 90 percent of DSLR photographers. Do you need to shoot full frame? I shoot with a 7D, and love the EF-S 10-22. The Wife has a 5D II and 5D III, and is jealous of my EF-S 10-22. I can use any of her L glass no problem, but she can't use my EF-S.

Granted, that's the only EF-S lens I own. Buy the lens you need for the shots you need to take. If you worry only about getting lenses compatible with FF bodies, and end up never actually buying a FF body, that's a lot of misplaced concern.