troy12n wrote:
Not that there are really any GOOD EF-S lenses anyway. The only halfway decent ones are the 17-85 and 17-55 and even those are cheaply made
I disagree - the EF-s60mm macro lens is exceptionally good. It has everything you expect to see on a L lens, FTM focusing, well built, sharp, colour and contrast is very very similar to my other L's.
Its the only EFs lens I have bought - I do in some ways regret it as I now have both a 5D and MkIII which I can't use it on, but I wouldn't sell it as it is very useful on the 350D for both macros and my youngest uses it and as most kids do, goes what would be too close for most cameras - with this she gets a picture!
I think that EF-S bodies offer a portability and price, in a package that a FF body hasn't reached yet (will it ever?)
As such, Canon should work on lenses that most crop body owners are likely to purchase, both for the good of their system and as a competitive hedge against what's available from other manufacturers.
I think the days of the standard fast prime from a general "consumer" standpoint, have ended. It's zooms now for most step-up shooters. Again, just my opinion based on observation.
Canon didn't flesh out their EF system by 1991 either. It took them years to get around to filling up the range. Who's to say they won't get around to some fast EF-S primes (mmmm, 35 mm 1.4 pancake!!!) at some point? You never know....
Olympus put out a Zuiko pancake recently...
Edited by sirimiri on Aug 23, 2008 at 11:32 AM GMT
Edited on Aug 23, 2008 at 02:32 PM
Aug 23, 2008 at 02:31 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Gochugogi wrote:
Makes sense but I suspect they buy 1.6x because they can't afford FF.
Not really. A 1,6X crop camera with an 14mm lens cost as much or more than a FF with a 20mm lens. The price will not be lower when using a 1,6x canera than a FF if you like to shoot super-wide. Actually it will cost you more
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Not really. A 1,6X crop camera with an 14mm lens cost as much or more than a FF with a 20mm lens. The price will not be lower when using a 1,6x canera than a FF if you like to shoot super-wide. Actually it will cost you more
Any 1.6 crop camera + EF-S 10-22 lens combined cost less than either the 14L alone or any FF camera alone.
Edited on Aug 23, 2008 at 03:09 PM
Aug 23, 2008 at 03:08 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
PetKal wrote:
He also asked for f/1.8.
Therefore, we offer relevant solutions which are not only available but also economical.
Not a relevant solution And if you ask for a 14/1,8 lens, you are not after a economical solution
A 14f/2,8 is of course a lot closer to what he asked for than a 10-22f/3,5-4,5
troy12n wrote:
I dont know what the point would be.
Honestly, the entire point of EF-S escapes me. They are effectively locking out any 1 or 5 series owners plus all film camers owners.
Not that there are really any GOOD EF-S lenses anyway. The only halfway decent ones are the 17-85 and 17-55 and even those are cheaply made
I have always thought exactly the opposite, and have wondered why the efs lenses were so good. 10-22 (9), 17-55 (9.1), 60 (9.6) macro all get really good reviews, FM review scores beside the lenses. From what I have heard the kit lenses are even greatly improved, garnering a 7.9 for the 18-55 and 8.9 for the 55-250. Seems like there are a much higher percentage of ef duds then efs dudes. I know internet ratings are not the end all be all, but I mean it does mean happy customers right?
Edited by gregoryfo on Aug 23, 2008 at 03:47 PM GMT
Chris Beaumont wrote:
Troy, the point of EF-s is that, because the image circle doesn't need need to cover a 35mm wide frame, they can be made smaller, lighter, and cheaper.
I dont buy that one bit.
I find it VERY hard to believe that using a couple MM less glass on the rear element really drives the price that much.
They ARE cheaper because they all pretty much have similiar build quality to the 50/1.8 II plastic piece of crap (I am not dissing the 50's optical performance). They all seem to be dust magnets too which is unfortunate.
Seriously, I am no expert on lens design, but could someone explain to me how this rumor of it being cheaper to design and build an EF-S lens is getting propagated?
It seems to be to me that they are shooting themselves in the foot by locking out all these new lenses from the entire 1 series and any future full frame camera body (5d et al)
Honestly I forgot about the 10-22 in my previous post or I would have put it in there too.
Chris Beaumont wrote:
Troy, the point of EF-s is that, because the image circle doesn't need need to cover a 35mm wide frame, they can be made smaller, lighter, and cheaper.
troy12n wrote:
I dont buy that one bit.
I find it VERY hard to believe that using a couple MM less glass on the rear element really drives the price that much.
They ARE cheaper because they all pretty much have similiar build quality to the 50/1.8 II plastic piece of crap (I am not dissing the 50's optical performance). They all seem to be dust magnets too which is unfortunate.
Have you used any of them, or are you just making this up? Having used both non-kit EF-S lenses and the 50/1.8, I would much prefer the build quality of the EF-S lenses.
troy12n wrote:
Not that there are really any GOOD EF-S lenses anyway. The only halfway decent ones are the 17-85 and 17-55 and even those are cheaply made
That's both ignorant and laughable.
The EF-S 17-55/2.8 is one of my very favorite lenses. What I wouldn't give for an equivalent spec'd and performing lens to mount on my 5D. The EF-S 10-22 is another awesome lens that I own and use a whole lot. The build quality for both is, in fact, quite solid. This was proven to me in a most dramatic fashion, as I dropped the 10-22 onto a concrete parking deck from waist height. The barrel was scratched, indeed, but no other harm was done. Amazingly, without any service or adjustment, that same lens soon went with me to Scotland and Ireland, capturing about 700 wonderful images. It still works perfectly. Cheaply made, eh?
I don't own it, but also love the images I have seen from the EF-S 60 macro.
And this comes from a shooter that owns 7 L lenses, 2 EF lenses (the most cheaply made lenses I own), 1 DO lens, 3 Leica lenses, 3 Zeiss lenses, and more.
it's time to man up and retract your original comments. The 17-55, 60mm, and 10-22 can compete with anything out there using any reasonable criteria. Throw in the Sigma 30 1.4, and you can have a very decent line-up suitable for a vast majority of the Canon buying community - for a fraction of the cost of getting those focal lengths out of canon FF lenses.
I'm not sure if you know the percentage of Canon buyers who own FF. But it's not enough for Canon to pass up the opportunity to sell high quality lenses at half the price to the non-FFers. Don't you think that their huge team of marketing experts have considered this?
And for those that "go FF" later, selling EF-s lenses used is a very easy thing to do. Try finding a used 10-22 for less than $500, or a 17-55 for less than $800.
troy12n wrote:
1 ... Honestly, the entire point of EF-S escapes me. They are effectively locking out any 1 or 5 series owners plus all film camers owners.
2... Not that there are really any GOOD EF-S lenses anyway. The only halfway decent ones are the 17-85 and 17-55 and even those are cheaply made
3... They ARE cheaper because they all pretty much have similiar build quality to the 50/1.8 II plastic piece of crap (I am not dissing the 50's optical performance). They all seem to be dust magnets too which is unfortunate.
Troy.
1.
You have a point here. I believe EF-S is mostly a marketing tactic and I'd prefer not to buy any of them, however read below.
2.
Now you're setting yourself up as an authority; have you actually tried every EF-S lens? I haven't ... only the 18-55 MkI, 10-22 & 60 macro. When I bought a 5D back in '05 I fully intended to sell all my EF-S gear. Tested the 10-22 & 20D against a borrowed 16-35L (MkI) on my new 5D. Decided to keep the 20D just so I could continue to use to 10-22 gem. I love it. Same goes for the 60 macro.
3.
Some of the EF-S lenses are cheap (and "cheap"). However the "premium" ones certainly are not! I can attest to the quality of the 10-22 & 60 macro, both optically and in build. The 10-22 feels light in weight but that shouldn't be mistaken for poor build. It feels very satisfying to use and produces great results. The 60 macro has similar buid but being a bit heavier feels more like a "baby L". Both of them are much, much nicer in build than a lot of EF lenses I've tried.
As for all of them being dust magnets. Where did you get that from? I've read some reports about the 17-55 but thats all. My pair of EF-S's are fine afer years of use. I have a noticable spec in my 24-105L though.
I have a 17-85 and am less than pleased with the sharpness at the wide end at any aperature, and at at any focal length below F8
I have not owned the 10-22 or 17-55, so I cant comment on their sharpness. I do know 2 people that have or had them, and am going by their comments plus my own experience with the 17-85 as far as dust goes.
The only other EF-S lenses I have used is the 18-55, so I am hardly an authority, but every one I have used felt cheap, including a borrowed 17-55is
I am saving up for a 16-35 to fit my wide needs, at which point i am gonna sell the 17-85.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Why would anybody buy a 1,6X crop camera if they like to shoot super-wide
Because there are a fair amount of very good wide angle lenses for 1.6x. My Tokina 12-24 is fantastic, as is my 10-17 fisheye. That and I couldn't afford a new 5D. Now that they have dropped so much in price, if I were buying now, I may have chosen to pick up a 5D, but honestly, my 30D and my current lenses give me pretty much all the coverage I need. I'm sure I'll eventually go full frame, say 5 years or so down the line, when the bodies have come down in price, but until then, my 30D serves me very well.
