min_wong1 Posted February 17, 2005 Author Share Posted February 17, 2005 I think Canon is now debating internally that if they should announce EF-s L lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_goldman Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 According to this source: http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/050217/175178_1.html The suggested selling price of the new EF-S 60mm macro lens is $449. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_swanson Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 I want this lens. My Sigma 50mm macro is great on a 1.6 crop camera but it is so slow to focus. Smaller and lighter and almost certainly faster focusing. Time to put my 50 up for sale. The new Sigma DC 30mm f1.4 is more interesting to me but not by much. I have heard it remarked that the 1.3x is the odd man out. Expect pro level full frame cameras and everything else at 1.6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbert Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Whether 1.3 dies out really depends on the profitability of that segment of the market. I assume 1.3 might appeal to pro-sports shooters and maybe photojournailsts that probably don't want 16 megapixels anyway and like a bit of extra reach with their zooms. Alternatively canon might introduce a pro-featured 1.6 camera in this segment of the market. I guess it all depends on how many sales they can make, of which I have no idea. Nikon with its 4 megapixel d2h clearly things there is a buck to make in this part of the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eos 10 fan Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Because the Measurbators were ignoring the MP-E65mm f/2.8 1-5X Macro ;) -- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Gah. $450. Is it just me, or is this lens HUGELY overpriced? Why are all the cheaper-to-produce-reduced-image-circle-lenses more expensive that top-notch-full-size lenses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbert Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Jim there is at least two of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin_jones4 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 I have a 50mm 2.5 macro and absolutely love it. I bought it brand new and it was relatively cheap. Yes it does focus slow at close distances, but when I have been close to the 1:2 range it is preferable to go manual anyway. I love the idea of haveing a similar lens with a USM motor and 1:1 ratio. If I didn't already have the 50 2.5 I would be all over this new lens. I hope they don't discontinue the 50 2.5. It is a wonderful value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 NOW THAT THIS LENS IS ANNOUNCED, I AM RUNNING OUT TO MY LOCAL CAMERA STORE.. . . . . .and I am going to get a 85/1.8 EF while I still can. Before they replace it with a slow, expensive EF-S lens that won't fit my film body. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimstrutz Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 It certainly does appear that Canon is milking the EF-S mount for what it can. Jim Larson's right, these lenses should be LESS money, not more. Personally, I'd rather have a 100mm macro for that price. It's not like I don't still have a full frame camera. I does seem that ths lens answers a question that no one is asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbert Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 I actually had a vision of the future. It is most probably wrong but... Given consumer and prosumer DSLRs outsell the promodels about 10 or more to one, and 1.6 looks like it is here to stay, it may not be long before EF-S lens sales take over from EF sales. Think about it. Film slrs must be dying out amongst consumers, killed by digicams and consumer DSLRs. Pros requiring 1 series bodies, either digital or film, are only a small part of the market. 1.6 DSLRs is where the growth segment of the market is and canon will be looking at what they can sell in the future not what they have sold in the past. Maybe EF line development is dead, and most of the new stuff from now will be EF-S. Otherwise I just can reconcile why they would make this one EF-S and not EF. It makes about as much sense as producing a 30mm f1.8 EF-S as a normal lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_austin Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Gentlemen: There are at least *three* of us! My lens inventory comprises a 17-40 f/4L, a 24-85 USM, a 70-200 f/4L, a 1.4x TC for the 70-200, a 50 f/2.5 CM and an 85 f/1.8. I'm currently shooting with a 20D. I have no need for the ultra-wide angles of the EF-S 10-22. I have no desire to support the limited compatibility, slower glass and rip-off prices of the EF-S initiative. If Canon ever produces an EF 28-80 (or thereabouts) f/4L, an IS version of the 70-200 f/4L, or an *EF* 50 or 60mm f/2.8 (or faster) USM macro, I'll most likely buy one of each. If not, I'll no doubt upgrade my dSLR body from time to time, but I have enough quality lenses *now* covering all the focal lengths I need for the rest of my life. I realize that Canon is in business to make a buck, and that "digital lenses" are probably getting as much attention from the mass market as "digital speakers" did 20 years ago, but it's just a shame that they feel compelled to unnecessarily hobble an otherwise excellent-looking 60mm USM macro lens with an EF-S mount (and the jacked-up price needed to recover their R&D costs from the much smaller market opportunity available from dRebel and 20D owners). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Not being a Macro shooter. . I am coming up a learning curve. Minimum focus distance on this new gem is about 4", vs 6" on the 100/2.8 Macro and 9+ inches on the 50/2.5 macro. I could see a real use for this lens. . .but not at $450. The 100/2.8 would be more than adequate at that price. I admit that I am an obsolete 10D shooter, but I do predict an EF-S mount camera in my future. Even so. . I shoot two different EOS EF mount film bodies from time to time. Swapping lenses amongst the three is a *good* thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbert Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 I am sure that when Canon released the first EF lens, which I think was a crappy 35-80 consumer zoom, all those FD users were saying it will never last. When is Canon going to make AF lenses for FD bodies? Maybe this is the signal that EF lens development is dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
min_wong1 Posted February 17, 2005 Author Share Posted February 17, 2005 It's good to get a cheap EF-s and play around but definetly not for the price which over $400. Why not a 70-200mm F4 L then? Can you imagine the situateion that you have many EF-s Lens and you may want to upgrade to 1D mark 2 next year. You are now facing the trouble of EF-s because it won't fit for 1D serious. You have to know once you go for EF-s means you won't be able to upgrade your camera easily. It's similar to a Nikon lens system. Your new $2000 1D mark2 body sometime in the future won't fit EF-s and Nikon lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_ho Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 I own both 50/1.4 & 100Macro and will buy the 60 if $ similar to 50/1.4... and of course will not buy if $ similar to 100Macro! If memory works, the $ of a normal macro would be similar to a 1.4 normal (Search for the $ of Leica R, Contax, Nikon...) As Bob said "Someone at Canon may be listening...", I do hope that it's truth. Pls, Canon, I like my 100 (indeed, I also own the 100/2) but feel a bit long on my 1.6x body, so I will buy the 60, with reasonable $. If the $ of 60 is set high, I would rather use the 100Macro as the "never affordable" 180. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
min_wong1 Posted February 18, 2005 Author Share Posted February 18, 2005 "Maybe this is the signal that EF lens development is dead." I can't find any reason that Canon will give up their EF lens. EF-s is a short lived lens system which only apply to 1.6x factor. The technology is pushing the development of sensor. Full frame sensors will be cheap to develop in the coming future. Canon know how, but Nikon and Olympus don't know. That's why Canon try to make their last gold on EF-s before Nikon and Olympus or Minolta make their own full frame sensors. Olympus is now corporate with Panasonic and develop their new DSLRs. A good glass company(Olympus) + a good eletronic company (Panasonic) may = another Canon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimstrutz Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 I don't buy it. Canon is certainly not giving up on EF mount lenses. Why should they? These lenses fit everybody's EOS cameras. But there is not going to be an inexpensive full frame DSLR any time in the next decade, and probably not after that. I'll tell you what's short lived in this business, full frame thinking will be short lived. It was just a few years ago that most of us thought any camera body over $500 was too expensive for anyone but pro's & rich consumers. Now we think $1700 is a reasonable, mid price for a consumer DSLR. But that kind of thnking will be short lived. Within the next 10 years, or less, DSLRs will get down to the price of film cameras, or close to it, and people will again be saying, "$500 is too much for a camera. What were we thinking?" That's what is going to keep full frame sensors from going main stream. And that's why EF-S lenses are not a short term investment. They are (part of) the future. But that doesn't excuse the current high prices of EF-S lenses. Makes you want to go out & buy Sigma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 I remember paying $400 for a 200mb hard drive and thinking it was a good deal. More to the point: Look, unless Nikon gets their rear in gear, we ain't seein' no cheap dSLRs, full frame or not. If Nikon puts out a full frame 10mp camera at $3000 bucks, Canon will put one out at $2700 three days later. But until they do. . the 1Ds-II at $8,000 is what you will get. If it was not for the D70, the 350XT would be software crippled just like the 300D was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbert Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 I didn't mean to imply the Canon will abandon the EF mount but.....All the growth area of the market is in 1.6 DSLRs. These probably outsell the pro level models by a factor of 20 or more. It makes economic sense for Canon to develop new lenses for this market as many of their existing EF lenses are not going to be quite the right choice for a 1.6 camera. I agree that it is comeptition from Nikon and others that will be the only thing that will drive Canon to give its customers what they want. When you look at the way they deliberately hobbled the first drebel, when the could have hired Wasia for a few days, they show every sign of a company trying hard to segment its market to hold up prices for their higher end products. This is a pretty standard profit maximising strategy for companies in an imperfectly competitive market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Think of it as Capitalism in Action. I just hope that the 350D's new sensor blows away the older sensor in the 20D. That way, 20D sales will drop and the model will be replaced by something better - hopefully in the fall. Maybe they will give the 20D replacement the full 45 pt AF system. . .I might even buy one. And if they released a companion 24-70/4L lens. . .. .I would have to check myself into an Institution, because I would be obviously be having delusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_austin Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Geoff: "When you look at the way they deliberately hobbled the first drebel, when the could have hired Wasia for a few days..." Why on earth would Canon have needed to hire Wasia? To re-enable the features in the dRebel firmware that Canon themselves had intentionally disabled in the first place? Jim: It's difficult to imagine how the dRebel XT's new sensor could "blow away" the quality of the 20D's sensor, coming out so close on the heels of the 20D. More likely, Canon developed an enhanced (faster, less expensive, etc.) sensor fabrication process, the cost of which the expected high volume of dRebel XT sales will enable them to easily recover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbert Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Jon I was meaning to be ironic. The fact that Wasia could hack the camera showed that Canon not too cleverly hobbled their own product. There was even a giveaway, as the info readout displays the amount of FEC yet there was no way to set it with the original firmware. I think this says something about Canon which must be very embarrassing to have out in the open. What kind of company puts in time and effort to make their products worse? Probably a few (Microsft?) but there aren't many that get caught so red-handed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew robertson Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Geoff, maybe you forget about the Nikon SLRs that were quite crippled compared to anything else. They removed features from the 300D on purpose, and I don't think Canon were embarrassed by this move. It was done to give people more of a reason to use the 10D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Jon: I am sure the new sensor is cheaper (for Canon). Image quality is a whole different matter. It could *easily* be superior to the current 20D. I hope it is - because that means the 20D-II won't be far away :) (A pessimist would predict inferior image quality). (A pragmatist would predict that there is actually no real difference in the sensor. It's all in the new Digic chip) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now