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
Of course you are certainly entitled to that opinion, but I feel that
the EF-S 60mm macro is a wonderful lens, with build quality on the
same level as the very capable 85/1.8 and 100/2. That's a macro that's
probably worth keeping an XTi around for. Beautiful rendering of images,
and nice and compact to carry around. Wonderful glass.
I happen to like the 17-55IS, as well. But the quibble about the build quality
is valid. Great optics, though.
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
Locking users out ot 1 and 5 series cams is no biggie for the vast majority of users. It may shock some people in this great ivory tower but most buyers of the Reble range and to a lesser extent the xxd range have no reason to to go FF and just use their cameras to take pictures.
as for the only halfway decent ones being the 17-55 & 17-85 . dont put the excelent 17-55 in with the 17-85 as its much much better.
10-22 , 17-55 & 60 are great I could see a market for a 50-150 2.8 & an 18-200 but not realy a market for primes
Aug 24, 2008 at 01:24 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
trumpet_guy wrote:
Precisely why Canon should make a couple of EF-S primes, such as
a 10mm f/4 and maybe a 17mm f/2.8
Those lenses would also be expensive. A 5D +20mm would probably be both better and have a lower price. If you are into super-wide shooting like 10mm lenses, why buy a camera that's not good for super-wide
you can hang as many qualifiers on that statement as possible, but you flatly asked:
"Why would anybody buy a 1,6X crop camera if they like to shoot super-wide."
there are super wide solutions for 1.6 crops right now that are much less expensive than a FF solution. petkal already pointed out this rhetorical misstep. no hypothetical lenses. no speculating on production costs and other things which no one here is qualified to answer. now the argument goes into "post your opponent to death" mode, i suppose.
Aug 24, 2008 at 04:24 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Canonizer wrote:
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.
Much more indeed. You have not mentioned the M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank (MBT) with stabilized 120mm main gun, 12.7mm Browning machine gun, two 7.62mm machine guns, thermal viewfinder and depleted uranium case.
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
You blatently have never tried a 17-55. It is simply superb. I tried a 24-70 on my 40D before I bought the 17-55 enough said. As for the 17-85 its alright at what you say might be right. There is no way the 10-22 and the 60mm are not really that good. The 60 is sharper than the FF 100 and the 10-22 is sharper than the 17-40 and possibly the 16-35.
When I get FF I will be getting it for my 70-200 and possibly a wide angle, trading in my 30D.
The 40D and 17-55 will stay put, simply excellent.
I visited my local jessops recently to get a Sigma 18-200 OS for my friend and you know what it embarrassed and disgusted me at the quality of the optics. Having used an L and an almost L EF-S for the last year the margin was huge. It put me off getting it and now my friend is going to get a G9 and its much smaller, the quality is better than the Sigma OS, its cheaper, it still works with flashgun. it fact the manual controls are similar to that of my 40D - I've tried one I know. The only real flaws are the noise, evident in all compacts, and the lack of a true wide angle, but then as a travel option that doesn't really matter.
anglefire wrote:
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.
I agree, it's noticeably sharper than my EF-100 Macro on my 20D. I often use the EF-S 60mm as a walkaround.
Sorry to bump this as the tone got sotra mean, but I love to backpack and would love the low light capability, I am also a carpenter and enjoy shooting my interior work in natural light. I come to this place to learn, hence the question.
