Investing in EF-S Lenses - Wise or Not?

Up until this point, whenever somebody asked for a lens suggestion, the general consensus had been that if you’re serious about photography, sooner or later you’ll end up moving to a full frame camera. So might as well consider that and invest “wisely” into lenses that can support that idea. Lenses like the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, for example, have been overlooked by many exactly for the above mentioned reason.
Also, if you ask what the reason would be to move from a crop camera to full frame, answers most often will mention better ISO performance, better DR, better DOF control. And for some HD video may be important, an improved/more accurate AF system, maybe better viewfinder …
The 7D came out – not only it shows a strong commitment from CANON to the EF-S line – but at this point, with all the specs on paper and initial tests some have done, it shows that it is almost a match to the fairly new 5DII on important things like ISO performance. This comes with $1000 smaller price tag. Not to mention the other set of improvements, which all are very impressive, and a lot of them don’t even exist on the fairly new 5D II. I see something I never thought I would, and that is people selling their new 5DIIs or committing to purchasing the 7D with the money they had saved for the 5D. And this is crop vs. full frame.
Needless to say, I feel great about investing almost exclusively into EF-S lenses because the performance of the newer crop bodies was comparable and almost on par with its full frame competitor. Now it is EVEN closer. And of course and again, there are features, like the new AF system, that don’t even exist on the new 5D II. Which brings me back to my original point and that is that the common argument that investing a lot of money into EF-S lenses is unwise. Well, at this point, it seems to me it is plenty wise. I for example certainly am glad that I went against the grain on this.

If people stop and think about APS-C, it is a DIFFERENT format which has the luxury of being able to use the lenses from a larger format (FF)! For those of us who are accustomed to working in different formats, we do not stop to think about buying lenses for each format, we merely accept it. The 'I will not buy EFS because one day I may buy larger' is foolishly short sighted because of passing up some superb lenses and because you cannot find some FL ranges for the larger format!...try to get <16mm (in a FF suitable lens), and you have to accept vignetting in much of the range with FF, or you simly accept short FL lenses with the smaller image circle suitable to the APS bodies, and 'buy larger' later. Lenses hold most of their value (unlike bodies which fall out of favor and resale value so rapidly), so buying for now and selling later -- if and when you ever go to the larger format! -- does not carry much cost penalty to the buyer, especially if the initial purchase is a used lens.

Just some thoughts:

• APS-C stands a better chance of being eventually phased out than FF
  
• EF works on both APS-C and FF should you eventually want to switch
  
• If you need pro AF, weather sealing and such, you'll need to go FF
  
• The new features on the 7D will likely also be available on an upcoming FF body
  

With the new 7D, I doubt APS-Cs will go away anytime soon. I want a 7D, so I'll eventually buy some EF-S glass.

pixel_junkie wrote in post #8594128
Up until this point, whenever somebody asked for a lens suggestion, the general consensus had been that if you’re serious about photography, sooner or later you’ll end up moving to a full frame camera. So might as well consider that and invest “wisely” into lenses that can support that idea. Lenses like the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, for example, have been overlooked by many exactly for the above mentioned reason.
Also, if you ask what the reason would be to move from a crop camera to full frame, answers most often will mention better ISO performance, better DR, better DOF control. And for some HD video may be important, an improved/more accurate AF system, maybe better viewfinder …
The 7D came out – not only it shows a strong commitment from CANON to the EF-S line – but at this point, with all the specs on paper and initial tests some have done, it shows that it is almost a match to the fairly new 5DII on important things like ISO performance. This comes with $1000 smaller price tag. Not to mention the other set of improvements, which all are very impressive, and a lot of them don’t even exist on the fairly new 5D II. I see something I never thought I would, and that is people selling their new 5DIIs or committing to purchasing the 7D with the money they had saved for the 5D. And this is crop vs. full frame.
Needless to say, I feel great about investing almost exclusively into EF-S lenses because the performance of the newer crop bodies was comparable and almost on par with its full frame competitor. Now it is EVEN closer. And of course and again, there are features, like the new AF system, that don’t even exist on the new 5D II. Which brings me back to my original point and that is that the common argument that investing a lot of money into EF-S lenses is unwise. Well, at this point, it seems to me it is plenty wise. I for example certainly am glad that I went against the grain on this.

do you really believe the 18mp 7d will "almost" match the 5d II in ISO performance? do you recall just before the 40d was released and it was only in the hands of guys like reichmann and rockwell it was said to outperform the 5d in IQ and ISO?

do you remember that?

if the 7d matches the 5d II in ISO performance i predict nikon will lose major market share in the next year and canon's sales of 1d bodies will be halved.

in other words, ain't gonna happen buddy .

now you've had a personal revelation and you've added canon's second sharpest zoom and i think that's fine and "it's about time" but the only reason i don't own any ef-s lenses because they don't work on my cameras. otherwise i would.


the only grain you went against was your grain....the 17-55IS is a highly recommended and widely owned lens .

ed rader

rvdw98 wrote in post #8594163
Just some thoughts:
[LIST]

APS-C stands a better chance of being eventually phased out than FF.

Just some thoughts from 1950:

• 35mm 'miniature format' stands a better chance of being eventually phased out than medium format

Wilt wrote in post #8594184
Just some thoughts from 1950:

• 35mm 'miniature format' stands a better chance of being eventually phased out than medium format

(did it ever happen?!)

I'm not saying it will, I just think that if one format prevails, it's more likely to be FF.

The reason that 35mm is still around, is a practical one: MF isn't as portable or flexible and still prohibitively expensive while FF bodies are only marginally larger than APS-C and are becoming more affordable each year.

Only time will tell though.

rvdw98 wrote in post #8594163
Just some thoughts:

• APS-C stands a better chance of being eventually phased out than FF

I agree with you on the rest of your points but on this one - if CANON just came out with a camera, that already shows signs that it will grab a share of the 5D sales, seems to be the format is gaining strength.

ed rader wrote in post #8594180
do you really believe the 18mp 7d will "almost" match the 5d II in ISO performance? do you recall just before the 40d was released and it was only in the hands of guys like reichmann and rockwell it was said to outperform the 5d in IQ and ISO?

do you remember that?

if the 7d matches the 5d II in ISO performance i predict nikon will lose major market share in the next year and canon's sales of 1d bodies will be halved.

in other words, ain't gonna happen buddy .

now you've had a personal revelation and you've added canon sharpest zoom and i think that's fine and "it's about time" but the only reason i don't own any ef-s lenses because they don't work on my cameras. otherwise i would.

the only grain you went against was your grain....the 17-55IS is a highly recommended and widely owned lens .

ed rader

Well actually, the 17-55 is my newest lens aquisition, it is the most expensive lens I own, AND from what I can see so far, will be the one I will use the least. It was more of a test for me to see if I'll like it and start using zooms more often. Selling it has already crossed my mind more than once. It is a great lens and it is very convenient. However I'm used to using my primes and like I said, the 17-55 may be on its way out very soon. So this isn't about me having a personal revelation. I gravitate around the format, and lenses I chose are designed for it ... like the 60 Macro which I sold to get the 17-55 ... and I'll most likely own again.

rvdw98 wrote in post #8594215
I'm not saying it will, I just think that if one format prevails, it's more likely to be FF.

The reason that 35mm is still around, is a practical one: MF isn't as portable or flexible and still prohibitively expensive while FF bodies are only marginally larger than APS-C and are becoming more affordable each year.

Only time will tell though.

The key characteristic was "will the smaller format satisfy the majority of users?". 135 format proved its ability to satisfy the majority, and ASP-C has already proved its ability to do so, too. APS film and other small film formats failed the test of sufficient quality, so they disappeared.

Will FF digital continue strongly? Yes, because there is always a group who wants 'just a bit better performance at a still affordable price'. The APS-C vs FF differential has been 2x the price for a very long time...is it worth 2x? Not to the average consumer.

But to the discerning hobbyist or professional, the premium is worth it. Back in the days of film, a similar premium marked the differential between 135 format and medium format.

The additional 3-4x differential from 1D to medium format (to achieve the transition from pro grade FF to medium format digital) isn't 'worth it' to most pros.

pixel_junkie wrote in post #8594248
I agree with you on the rest of your points but on this one - if CANON just came out with a camera, that already shows signs that it will grab a share of the 5D sales, seems to be the format is gaining strength.


Well actually, the 17-55 is my newest lens aquisition, it is the most expensive lens I own, AND from what I can see so far, will be the one I will use the least. It was more of a test for me to see if I'll like it and start using zooms more often. Selling it has already crossed my mind more than once. It is a great lens and it is very convenient. However I'm used to using my primes and like I said, the 17-55 may be on its way out very soon. So this isn't about me having a personal revelation. I gravitate around the format, and lenses I chose are designed for it ... like the 60 Macro which I sold to get the 17-55 ... and I'll most likely own again.

if somene opts for a 7d over a 5d II they were buying the 5d II for the wrong reasons. the 5d II has been backordered since day I. i think you are making one hell of an assumption there ... but you've got plenty of company .

ed rader

I have always found it silly when some buys only FF lenses for their APS-C cameras solely so they can be covered when/if they move to full frame. Don't they realize that when they get a FF camera, suddenly all their lenses will seem 1.6x shorter and so they will have an entirely different kit? Their 17-40L they got as a standard is now an UWA and their 50 moves from a portrait lens to a standard. THat 70-200L is now barely a long lens at all, etc, etc. So in the end most will end up swapping several lenses anyway to get back to lenses with the FOV they wanted.

tkbslc wrote in post #8594381
I have always found it silly when some buys only FF lenses for their APS-C cameras solely so they can be covered when/if they move to full frame. Don't they realize that when they get a FF camera, suddenly all their lenses will seem 1.6x shorter and so they will have an entirely different kit? Their 17-40L they got as a standard is now an UWA and their 50 moves from a portrait lens to a standard. THat 70-200L is now barely a long lens at all, etc, etc. So in the end most will end up swapping several lenses anyway to get back to lenses with the FOV they wanted.

Exactly. Most of the lenses take on new duties with their new width. Some old habits have to be relearned. If you really like crop frame shooting, then it makes sense to get the lenses that you enjoy using most even if they are EF-s. A good deal on a used one won't lose money either so it can be replaced if you change formats.

To those who say full frame is getting cheaper, there have been five full frame bodies from Canon starting in Nov 2002. Which Canon FF body came out cheaper than its predecessor? 1Ds -> 1DsII -> 1DsIII or 5D -> 5DII? FF might be getting more expensive unless your local currency has done well against the yen.

There have been 9 midrange 1.6x cameras and 6 rebels. 12 of these 15 cameras had an EF-S mount. Canon continues to release EF-S lenses and bodies and these have outsold FF bodies by orders of magnitude. I doubt that they will stop selling EF-S lenses anytime soon. If they did, the huge demand for these lenses would hold the price up.

I have owned (and still do )EF-s lenses. I stopped purchasing them when I decided to get the 5D. Based on the release of the 7D, the EF-S lenses will be around for quite some time. The EF-S line certainly has some awesome lenses for the price, so purchasing them will create some great shots and memories. I wouldn't worry about not purchasing them unless you are considering going FF. I'm more concerned that CF cards and my 5D batteries being discontinued so I'll be unable to use my 5D body.

rvdw98 wrote in post #8594163
Just some thoughts:

• APS-C stands a better chance of being eventually phased out than FF
  
  

I would believe that if that were where the high level sales were taking place. Hypothetically, if Canon got put into a large financial crunch, I would see the FF sensors being cut back first due to sales volumes and production costs.

In the world of business, it's not the product that is necessarily better that survives. And I am very willing to bet that the APS-C cameras are selling at a better profit rate than the APS-H or FF cameras for Canon. I would be absolutely amazed if they stopped either format without changing mount systems.
If anything I'm expecting with the path Canon is taking with the APS-C sensors that it won't be too long before we see an L series EF-S lens.

pixel_junkie wrote in post #8594128
Up until this point, whenever somebody asked for a lens suggestion, the general consensus had been that if you’re serious about photography, sooner or later you’ll end up moving to a full frame camera. So might as well consider that and invest “wisely” into lenses that can support that idea. Lenses like the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, for example, have been overlooked by many exactly for the above mentioned reason.

I'm not sure what forum you've been reading Whenever someone suggests avoiding EF-S lenses on POTN, the consensus is generally that it's not a good idea (buy what you need now and sell the lenses when you switch). The canon 17-55 is one of the most often recommended lenses here!