EF-S lenses doomed to obsolescence?

[kevinconnery]

<i>If F4-F5.6 is the "best" that EF-S will ever go, then one of the key attributes of SLR's (shallow DOF) will go with the same way.</i><p>

We're talking about a 10-22mm lens. How much depth of field do you get at f/2.8 anyhow? (More importantly; how quickly does the 'unsharp' areas become sufficiently blurred?)<p>

I doubt DoF is a <i>serious</i> issue for the ultrawide lens, which is where "most" of the EF-S lenses are. (17-85 being the longest, and for that, yes, it would make a difference.)

[bobatkins]

Canon have said that there's no advantage to EF-S below maybe 35mm, so we're not ever likely to see a 300mm EFS lens, or even a 50mm EF-S lens. All we'll see are short focal length primes, or zooms with a short focal length at wide end.

 

From the two latest EF-S lenses, which appear to be high quality lenses, with aspherics, UD glass etc., EF-S lenses seem no cheaper than EF lenses. The 17-85IS, which is equivalent to the 28-135IS on full frame, is more expensive ($600 vs. $400), and the 10-22 (equiv to 16-35) is $800, more expensive than the EF17-40/4L.

 

When people predict there will or there won't be full frame sensors anytime soon I think they're projecting their own internal feelings much of the time. Objectively speaking, I'd say that within 5 years the price of full frame sensors may be where the price of APS-C size sensors are now. The fabrication technology is here, it's just a matter of getting the yield up, and that comes with experience.

 

Will they be used? The answer is yes. The reason the camera makers and the magazines tell you that APS-C sensors are just as good as full frame sensors for consumer and even some pro applications isn't because it's true (which it probably is), it's that APS-C sensors are all they have at the sub $1500 DSLR price point. When they have full size sensors, we'll see ads about how much better they are than the old APS-C sensors. Just as consumers flock top higher MP digicams, they'll flock to full frame sensors. People want "the best", and if the camera companies and magazines tell them a $1500 full frame sensor camara is "the best", people will buy it, and they'll sneer at the poor people stuck with APS-C sensor cameras, the same way that a Canon EOS user looks with pity on someone still shooting with an AE-1 and FD lenses - even though 30 years ago they were state of the art!

[rob_landry]

<i>When people predict there will or there won't be full frame sensors anytime soon I think they're projecting their own internal feelings much of the time.</i>

<p>

Not my feelings that's for sure. I don't particularly care either way; I still shoot film exclusively, mostly 4x5.

<p>

I do agree that trying to predict future developments is rather silly but is somehow entertaining. Whether we see full frame mainstream 35mm sensors remains to be seen, I just don't see the point of them really. With semiconductor technology the way it is, I imagine that even small sensors can be made to perform well. Heck, the new 20D is touted to have better noise characteristics than previous Canon DSLRs and it has a higher pixel density. Sure there may be a limit, but I don't think they've reached it yet.

<p>

As for sneering, well as a lowly film shooter people can sneer all they want but they better be prepared to see some 4x5 chromes and rather large prints ;-)

[kelly_flanigan1]

How about a beginners longer starter EF-S zoom; for shooting outdoor sports; sold at Walmart; at a bargain price ? Maybe a 60 to 200mm zoom; say of F4 aperture..

[kelly_flanigan1]

Walmart here has always had some consumer grade zooms; of Canon; Nikon; or Minolta; for the 35mm slr film camera market. Here these zooms disappeared; along with all film cameras; except for one Canon rebel; last June. Since the dRebel is starting to be sold in Walmarts in other areas; I wonder if when the dRebel hit the Walmarts here; if a low cost longer zoom will be available too as an accessory. The soccer moms who jump to the dRebel need zooms too. :)

[jbq]

"With semiconductor technology the way it is, I imagine that even small sensors can be made to perform well."

 

There are limits in physics that can't be broken, and as sensors introduce less and less noise the inherent noise in light is going to become a bigger and bigger factor, which means that smaller sensors will be at a bigger and bigger disadvantage.

[jbq]

Kelly: I don't believe that the size of the image circle is a serious limit for telephotos, so there's probably little reason to design lenses starting at 50mm or longer that would be designed for small sensors.

 

Rob: forgot to add, yeah, 4x5 chromes are about as good as it gets... until you see 11x14... (now I gotta go play with that new Nikkor 240/5.6W that I just got).

[frank_dzambic]

I'm hoping that 1.6x sensors stay around, AND that full frame sensors become cheap quickly.

 

Ideally, I'd like to have a body with a 1.6x sensor able to shoot a high number of fps with 40 point Eye Controlled Focus for bird and wildlife photography. There's no denying the advantage of a 1.6x sensor for those applications. The "nature/sports photography model".

 

There's also no denying the advantage of a full frame sensor for landscape photography, and the price of the body could perhaps be brought down a little by omitting the high speed fps capability. The "landscape photography" model.

 

Of course, let's keep the Megapixel counts going up and up.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Jean-Baptiste ; I was just thinking IF a lower cost EF-S longer zoom could be made; there is a huge "Walmart" market out there. The lower tier Nikon and Minolta offerings of the E and Celtic had lower cost mounts; and more illumination falloff; that regular tier lenses. They were very sharp. With less angular coverage required; a EF-S longer zoom might ; just might be made simpler; lower cost. In the lower tier starter market; pricing is very critical.<BR><BR>How about an extra "mystery EF-S" pin or contacts; that keys the camera body; to back out the lower thrift version EF-S zooms illumination falloff in the cameras software? Probably never happen.<BR><BR>

[jim_larson1]

<i>From the two latest EF-S lenses, which appear to be high quality lenses, with aspherics, UD glass etc., EF-S lenses seem no cheaper than EF lenses. The 17-85IS, which is equivalent to the 28-135IS on full frame, is more expensive ($600 vs. $400), and the 10-22 (equiv to 16-35) is $800, more expensive than the EF17-40/4L.</i>

<p>

Canon's latest non EF-S offerings were significantly higher in cost than what would have been expected. Likewise, these EF-S offerings also seem high in price.<p>So my question is simple: Given that the 10-22, released today, is $800; What do you think the 17-40/4L would cost if it was released today? My bet is higher than we all would think :)

[mark u]

Remember the APS film SLRs? I could certainly imagine an APS digital SLR with EF-S mount only as a bottom feeder - sold in a kit with say a 17-55 and 55-200, or a 17-125. In fact, a regular rangefinder p&s with an APS sensor would slay the current digicam offerings.

 

I think there are a couple of reasons why the market won't gravitate to APS only - and why full frame (or something close) will percolate through the market. Reason #1 is the tiny viewfinders that APS cameras offer. It took me 2 seconds to decide I'd find it almost impossible to live with one of those. Maybe in another 10 years I'll want a nice big MF image to judge focus and composition adequately - and for that I'd expect to be back to film. Reason #2 is having greater DOF control. Having to have lenses more than one stop wider to achieve this leads to expense, weight and risk of poorer quality. Finally, as sensor technology matures, sensor size will become the chief differentiator.

[kelly_flanigan1]

APS in film was a failure because many processors charged 30 to 60 percent more for 4x6 prints. The masses voted; and went back to standard 35mm film; without a bastard expensive to process film.

[steve_dunn2]

<cite>Maybe a 60 to 200mm zoom; say of F4 aperture</cite>

 

<p>Backing out the 1.6x crop factor, that's a 37-125. Aren't there already plenty of lenses covering that focal range (and at least a bit more), of around that speed? Not constant f/4, of course - a bit faster at the wide end, a stop slower at the long end - but there don't seem to be a lot of constant f/4 lenses around in either the consumer 35mm-oriented market or the digital-only market so it would be unusual to expect a consumer-oriented digital-only medium telephoto zoom to have a constant aperture.</p>

[basscheffers]

Bob: "Canon have said that there's no advantage to EF-S below maybe 35mm"

 

Of course they will say that, they have big, expensive lenses to sell! But what do you say? You have shown a good understanding of optics and why lenses are the size they are. Although Olympus's sensor is even smaller, they seem to have be able to come up with a high quality 50-200 (4x zoom factor) in a small and fast (2.8-3.5) package for a very good price. I would imagine that in a full frame world, this should be somewhere in between the 70-200/2.8 and f4 version in size, and those don't even have a 3x zoom, let alone 4x! (From what I have seen, it can certainly compete with those when it comes to image quality)

 

Smaller = less material = cheaper and lighter, shouldn't it?

[ShunCheung]

Bas, Olympus' 300mm/f2.8 for the E1 is actually heavier than Nikon's 300mm/f2.8 for its film (and digital) bodies. For telephotos, there isn't much advantage to have small-image-circle lenses.

[basscheffers]

Shun, that's missing the point! It's comperable to a 600mm on a 35mm.

 

Compare it to the Nikon 600/4 and the Olympus weighs 2.5Kg less. Even compared to the 400/2.8 (600mm on a D70/D100), it is 1.5Kg lighter. That probably proves that there is an advantage, even on long telephoto lenses!

 

Compare the Olympus 150/2.0 to the Nikon 300/2.8 and the Oly wins by almost a kilo again. Unfortunately, this lens isn't available yet so a price comparison can't be made.

 

Many argue that $7K for a 300mm lens is a bit excessive, but you aren't actualy buying a "300mm" lens, are you? Olympus, like any other manufacturer set their prices based on market value and it is now priced at close to the Canon and Nikon equivalents. If Those were to set their 400 and 600mm lenses at, say, $4500, Olympus will probably follow as I suspect there is a _very_ high markup on this lens.

[ShunCheung]

Bas, a 300mm on the E1 is like a 600mm on film bodies is solely due to the E1's smaller sensor size; it has nothing to do with whether the lens has a smaller image circle as in Nikon DX or Canon EF-S.

[basscheffers]

Hmmm, I guess that's right. My bad. But that makes me think, it is really a moot discussion. Here's why: smaller-circle lenses make wide angle lenses smaller, lighter and cheaper. But you can only do this with a smaller senor. And as a smaller sensor means a crop factor that makes your long lenses "longer", effectively, those become cheaper and lighter as well. (ie: no need to buy a 600mm anymore, just buy a 400 or 300)

 

Which brings us back to "what is the point of a full frame sensor?" With a smaller circle we can make standard and wide angle zooms as affordable or cheaper than their 35mm optimized equivalents and you can buy cheaper, lighter long lenses that have the same effective focal length. The 10D and most likely 20D even more so prove that the APS-C size sensor has all the quality you will ever need (except for those that already shoot on larger than 35mm anyway) and that too is cheaper than full frame and that will remain the case untill the sensors becomes so cheap they are a fraction of the actual manufacturing cost of the package.

 

So to get back to Neal's original question wether or not to buy an EF-S lens, shouldn't that be reversed? Everyone should be running out and buying them to show Canon and other manufacturers what they really want, spend less money without a quality compromise.

 

Too bad it's a chicken and egg problem, who's going to run out and buy an f4-5.6 piece of plastic?

[jbq]

Bas: "Here's why: smaller-circle lenses make wide angle lenses smaller, lighter and cheaper."

 

That's true if you work at a given focal length. For a given angle of view (which is what ultimately matters) that's not true at all. compare the price of a 35/2, 28/2.8 or 24/2.8 to their 1.6x equivalents to be convinced.

 

My guess is that, in the case of primes at least, a smaller circle of coverage only really matters with retrofocus lenses (front groups with a negative focal lengts) as it allows for smaller front elements, which are the limiting factor in wide angles. For telephotos (rear groups with a negative focal length) a smaller circle of coverage would only allow to reduce the rear groups, which are not a limiting factor at all. This is strictly intuition, though, and I don't know enough about lens design to be sure about that.

[jon_austin]

I won't comment on the possible eventual obsolescence of EF-S, other than to say that with the recent announcements, Canon has certainly bolstered its importance to -- and staying power in -- the EOS product line.

 

I have a 10D and a 17-40, and I don't need wider, so for me it's a moot point in both respects. I'm one of those "purists" who longs for a full-frame dSLR in the sub $2,500 range; maybe it will happen, maybe it won't. Canon for one is clearly demonstrating that, as technology advances, sensor size ain't the driving factor in image quality.

 

But I'd give pause before buying any EF-S lens (if I had a body that could accept it), commensurate to how dear its purchase price would be to my personal set of economics.

 

As for the comparison between the 17-40 f/4L and the 17-85 EF-S, there's more to consider than just optical quality and price. Build quality apparently isn't up to par in the 17-85, since it didn't earn an L, and speed is probably also a factor. It may be the purist in me again, but I'm dubious of any zoom with more than a 3x range.

[jon_austin]

"From the two latest EF-S lenses, which appear to be high quality lenses, with aspherics, UD glass etc., EF-S lenses seem no cheaper than EF lenses. The 17-85IS, which is equivalent to the 28-135IS on full frame, is more expensive ($600 vs. $400), and the 10-22 (equiv to 16-35) is $800, more expensive than the EF17-40/4L."

 

I think one reason for the higher pricing on these two new EF-S lenses is because -- when released -- they'll only mount on two bodies out of the entire current (and prior) EOS line: the dRebel and the 20D.

 

I agree that more EF-S-mount bodies will probably be released, over the next year or two, anyway; in the mean time, the R&D costs of these new lenses will have to be spread over a relatively limited number of sales, due to the small universe of compatible bodies.

[jay dougherty]

Canon should not leave its customers conjecturing about such important matters and questions as those put forth here.

 

This is ludicrous and irresponsible.

 

That's my opinion. Canon is pulling here something tantamount to a mount upgrade, possibly rendering investments worthless one way or another.

[basscheffers]

Huh? Canon has made the decission to use EF-S already. All people that do see it's value ask is a few wide and standard zooms of L quality that use it. Having three different "standards", as they have now, is the ludicrous bit...

[anthony_thornborough1]

Umm, it's going back to the emotional issue, just like when Air Arms stopped flying recce jets with the likes of the super KS-87 camera etc etc and packed digi sensors into select stock fighter aircraft, losing the "film reconnaissance tradition" - it was an "emotional break", a great paradigm shift.

 

Okay, so it's disconnected, but not entirely...

Yuk, I'm as sad as anybody (having three film-based SLRs, 2 Canons and a Mamiya medium format, like some fatiguing old RF-4 powered by protein) but the writing's on the wall. My attitude is "wait and see" re EF-S and enjoy EF-L while you can! Life isn't a rehearsal!

[kelly_flanigan1]

The WSJ a couple of days ago said that WALMART's sales were 10 percent of ALL sales; in the United States. If Walmart wants an starter zoom" ; that is not currently in Canons offering; Canon just might listen to the old dollar. No everyone lives next door to B&H; or has access to a local photo store.