Is the EF-S line ended now?

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

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.

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).

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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

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)

internationalmanofmyst​ery wrote:
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

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.

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)

internationalmanofmyst​ery wrote:
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

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

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).

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.

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.