ef-s lenses and the 7D

I don't think EF-S will be phased out any time in the near future.

Obviously, canon has figured out how to make sensors cheaply. (i.e. Rebel XS)

But do you see them putting them into their G-series compacts? No.

Different formats exists for different reasons. If bigger was always better, there would be no such thing as 35mm format. We'd all be shooting large format because 35mm would be 'phased out' because it's too small.

KenjiS wrote in post #8570781
it may not have been a price thing, it could have been a practical decision, going to f/3.5-4.5 or f/4 fixed aperture may have made the lens bigger heavier or optically compromised

I doubt the jump from variable f/3.5-5.6 to f/3.5-4.5 is significant with respect to weight.

Wouldnt it be worse if they did make it an f/4 fixed aperture but it wasnt good unless you shot it at f/5.6?

No, because there's the option of f/4. Now there is no option, and if it disappoints wide-open at the telephoto end, it fails as a midrange lens since it'll have to be used at f/8.

gasrocks wrote in post #8570110
Has the announcement of the 7D changed anyone's mind about ef-s lenses? I get tired of reading comments here about how ef-s lenses are no good, shouldn't buy one, about to be phased out, etc.

nope .

ed rader

toxic wrote in post #8571969
I doubt the jump from variable f/3.5-5.6 to f/3.5-4.5 is significant with respect to weight.

No, because there's the option of f/4. Now there is no option, and if it disappoints wide-open at the telephoto end, it fails as a midrange lens since it'll have to be used at f/8.

good point, i forgot the Sony 16-80 is actually a 3.5-4.5 design..and it actually weighs LESS than the Canon 15-85 [0.97lbs vs 1.26lbs] and its smaller to boot...

But then again, The Sony does not have a stabilizer group or USM in it, So thats where the weight savings comes in...

That said, The Nikkor is also smaller and lighter at 1.06lbs despite incorporating AF-S and VR, Both the Sony and Nikkor also use 67mm filters vs the 72mm filters on the Canon

Wow from those specs [I've handled that Nikkor, its small but pretty substantial feeling] I'm guessing the 15-85 is fairly well built..

It still weighs less than the 17-55 f/2.8 IS [which is 1.42lbs]

In fact im comparing weight now..the old 17-85 was 1.04lbs, Tammy's 28-75 is 1.12lbs, the 17-50 is 0.95lbs....The 10-22 is 0.84lbs...a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 prime is 1.11lbs...the closest i found is the 28-135 IS, which is 1.21lbs...

Sure theres more to build quality than weight...but it looks like its built a step or two above the old EF-S designs...

I wonder if they'll upgrade the 17-55 f/2.8 IS now with the new build

I thought the same thing - I think it foreshadows Canon's direction.

I'm stoked that the 7D is EF-s compatible. It's my favorite 7D feature.

I won't buy that body until Fall 2011, if at all, but I am really glad to know that I can upgrade from a 40D without having to sell my EF-s lenses.

I have two EF-S lenses, the 10-22 and 60 macro. I'd been planning on moving up to the 1D MkIII (MkIV) and would really, really miss the WA. Now the 7D may be enough for me, so I can keep my wonderful 10-22.