Future proof lenses for 40D?

[anuragagnihotri]

<p>Here i come again.<br>

I had posted a query about buying a used 40D a week back.<br>

Well, after a lot of indecision, i have bought it finally. (I paid $400 for it, shutter count on astrojargon#8865)<br>

For my 40D, i am looking at: 10-22 and a 70-200 F4 IS.<br>

Another option could be just a 15-85 with a 50 1.8...but the above lenses are what i WANT to buy.<br>

Going ahead, i will buy another cheap body perhaps (550D).<br>

Now 2-3 years down the line, when and if i go full frame, my EF-S (10-22 or 15-85) lenses will be redundant....that's something i want to avoid...<br>

<strong>Is there a way to buy lenses that are future proof?</strong></p>

[james_jenner]

<p>I've asked the same question around the place and got conflicting advice. Some said go with the EF-S lenses and save money, who knows what the future holds. Others said to only by EF and if possible by pro as they will last your life time and you can always go full frame in the future. One "professional" tried to tell me to buy a real expensive body, which I've come to the conclusion is the wrong advice. Looks to me the best advice I've heard is buy cheap body, buy nice glass. Which is what I'm trying to follow.</p>

<p>Personally I've taken the attitude of buying EF, and L when possible. L mainly because of the life you will get out of it. I do admit that I did buy a kit zoom lens only because I knew it would be a while before I could get a nice zoom (even second hand over in Australia they sell just shy of the retail price). but I brought the 50mm 1.8 which isn't expensive, if EF and is sooo much fun!</p>

<p>And all that said and done I've been fascinated with some macro work done via second hand lenses cobbled together in weird and wonderful ways and the results are amazing! So that is always another option.<br>

Please note, I'm just new to this too, so weigh my comments carefully because I may be misinformed.<br>

Good luck,<br>

James.</p>

[ejchem101]

<p>I personally went the route of going all EF lenses when I had a crop body. In the back of my mind I always knew that I would be upgrading to FF some day, I guess just because I understood the science of it a little, and also grew up on film. Having to change the focal lengths in my head drove me nuts.</p>

<p>Remember that even an L lens will not last a lifetime if it is not taken care of properly. On the opposite end, a non-L lens will also last a lifetime if it is cared for properly.</p>

[JohnMWright]

<p>The people I know who switched to FF and sold their EF-S lenses all made back a reasonable amount of money, and 1.6 crops show no sign of going away... shouldn't be a worry. Just buy what you need.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Frankly, it is quite simple. You shoot APS-C now. Get what you need for APS. Most certainly if you want wide-angle lenses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>when and if i go full frame</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If, that's the key word. Full frame is <strong>not</strong> the next logical step for everybody, and maybe it's not for you either. Too many people tend to believe it's where you inevitably end up, but it's not. Both full frame and APS-C have their pros and cons, and in time, you just need to decide for yourself which pros and which cons are most applicable to you. If you just got the 40D, I'd stop looking ahead to something full frame and start enjoying your current gear. It makes no sense to plan ahead based on "if" and "maybe".</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Buy the lenses that meet your <strong>current </strong>needs. There is no gurantee that you will use Canon cameras forever either. If you switch to another format or another brand in the future, sell the lenses that you no longer use. The most unwise thing to do is to get some lenses that do not quite meet your current needs for some future situation that you are not even sure about.</p>

<p>There is some recent discussion that Sony may stop making full-35mm-frame sensors and concentrate their effort on APS-C-format sensors. There is no absolute guarantee that the so called "full frame" will be around forever either. Today, by far the majority of DSLR sold have APS-C sensors.</p>

[ilya_e]

<p>If you buy used EF-S lenses you will not be loosing much (if anything) when you decide to sell them. But of course selling process itself can be annoying (to say the least). Depending on your budget you can get 16-35mm f/2.8 or 17-40mm /f4 + 50mm f/1.8 + 70-200mm f/4. That setup should cover most of your needs unless you will need something longer (for wildlife, etc) and you will be able to use all of the lenses on a FF camera.</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>who knows?<br>

What would be worse for you a few years from now?<br>

1. Get rid of your EF-S and replace them by EF lenses<br>

2. Get rid of your slower EF lenses for faster and sharper EF lenses<br>

3. Get rid of all your Canon gears and replace them by Nikon or Sony gears?<br>

4. Carry the big and heavy EF lenses for the rest of your life but never have a FF body to use them fully</p>

[bueh]

<p>Buy the lenses you need now instead of making false compromises. If you want super-wide on APS-C, you need a lens that will not work on full-frame.</p>

<p>Choosing lenses is not marriage ("till death do us part")... you can buy and sell whatever you want, whenever you need.</p>

[s._prior]

<p>It all depends on how long it will be before you get a FF camera. If you plan on going FF within the next year or so then it makes sense to get EF lenses from now. On the other hand, if you plan on moving to FF in 2 or 3 years then I would just get the best lens for your aps-c camera. In 2 or 3 years there might be better EF lenses than the ones available now so you can take advantage of that then.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>If you like L glass or top primes then EF is the ONLY way to go.<br>

That is my "future-proof" recipe for a sure win.</p>

[DickArnold]

Just my experience. Several years ago I decided to buy EF lenses only save one 18-55 for exclusive use on a 1.6 body I have. Two years ago I went full frame. I have an EF L complemint that goes from 17 to 400 mm inclusive. I don't regret collecting L lenses over a twelve year period. I still use a 70-200 2.8L that I bought in 1996 that works and looks new. I have had at least 8 Canon bodies. The L lenses work fine on crop bodies and I usually use FF for shorter lenses and 1.6 for longer lenses as I like to occasionally work with two bodies. The 17-40 f4 L is a great walkaround lens on a crop body and is absolutely great on my 5D. I don't really think that it makes much difference long term because I believe Canon will be making 1.6 crops for a long time to come: however staying with EF lenses has been much easier for me now working with both FF and 1.6 crop. I don't think my pictures, a lot of which I blow up, have suffered. But, I think EF-s lenses are fine if you go that route. So, at least I have some actual experience to share with you.

[JDMvW]

<p>On the one hand, any lens you buy now, will be (barring actually getting broken or worn out) just as good in the future as it is now. On the other hand, eventually <em>every</em> lens will be an old design, replaced by some new super, faster, better lens. Someday, even the EF 50mm f/1.8 will be replaced.<br>

I think it's a mistake to avoid getting digital-only lenses <em>now</em> because someday, maybe, you will change your camera body. You might as well avoid Canon lenses because someday you might go to (gasp) Nikon. Who knows what the future will bring? After the initial cost, you have to figure what use you will get from a lens in the years before you do, if ever, change.</p>

<p>I have a 5D, but have kept and still shoot with my APS-C cameras as well. Different formats, different utility.</p>

 

[john_tran14]

<blockquote>

<p>Choosing lenses is not marriage ("till death do us part")...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would like to enforce this ... too bad (or good) you can still change your partners when you feel like it</p>

[tudor_apmadoc]

<p>To future proof your purchase...</p>

<ul>

<li>Unless you NEVER plan on upgrading the a full frame sensor - avoid the EF-S lenses</li>

<li>There are some lenses that have a II designation - </li>

</ul>

<ol>

<li>16-35 f2.8/L USM II</li>

<li>70-200 f2.8/L IS USM II</li>

</ol>

<ul>

<li>So the obvious question is - if you buy a 24-105 f4/L IS USM, will there be a II version out soon? Not sure, but the Canon fest thing is next month, I would wait if you're thinking about the 24-105</li>

<li>Upgrading. I had both the 16-35 f2.8/L USM I and the 70-200 f2.8/L IS USM I, the moment I saw the reviews on the new II versions, I put them both on ebay, sold them for a very good price and then purchased the new versions.</li>

</ul>

 

[PuppyDigs]

<p>Buy what you need/want now. Sell it if you change your mind later. Works well for me. It's really easy to sell most recent Canon lenses for a reasonable price.</p>

<p>Some lenses I've kept for 20 years and still use them. Some were up for sale after a few months (hated the feel or AF). You never know for sure until your actually use the damn thang.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

 

<p >My personal experience: Since getting the 40D I replaced my EF lenses (17-40/4 L, 24-105/4 IS L, 100/2.8 macro) with EF-S ones (10-22/3.5-4.5, 17-55/2.8 IS, 60/2.8 macro respectively). IQ is the same (in most aspects) or better (in few) and FL and/or aperture are much better. Like many I wondered about FF and wondered what will be with my next cam. Well, apparently it was Canon that took care of this issue for me. The 5D and 5D2 did not attract me at all and the 1D3 and 1Ds3 were too expensive for me – as an amateur – to justify. So, I bought a 7D and low and behold, all the lenses fit perfectly. The funny things is that I don't feel limited at all. On the contrary. I have features which I find very useful (electronic level and spot focus) that no other cam have.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Case in point is just what Shun and Wouter said. How can you be so sure what you will want in 2-3 years? Before getting the 40D about 3 years ago I never thought about EF-S lenses and now I love them dearly. In fact, they were part of my decision to get the 7D. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Happy shooting,</p>

<p >Yakim. </p>

<p > </p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>You have a 70-200 and you want a 10-22.<br>

I presume you want the 10-22 for ultra-wide angle? if you do not get it, what else will you use? If you refuse to get it because it will not fit FF, then you will not be able to take the pictures that you clearly want to - no sense in that as far as I can see. But it holds its price well so you will not lose much money in however many years it is when you change to FF (if ever) and in the meantime you have taken many picturesw with it.<br>

What about the gap in focal ranges ? You could get the 17-55 EF-S. This also holds its price second hand really well. But if that really bothers you, then there is the 24-70 or 24-105 and if you go down that route you have a grand total of 1 (one) EF-S lens. Is that really a problem?</p>

[matthias_meixner2]

<p>With very few exceptions high end lenses come as EF lenses. And these are future proof, both in case of image quality and camera mount ....</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>I think in this case it's safe to say buy what you need now, and worry about the future if/when it comes. Good glass holds its value pretty well.</p>

<p>A lot of people say they want FF someday, but that's only because FF had a noticeable IQ advantage and was used by pros for the beginning years of DSLR development. That gap has been narrowing for some time and, at this stage of sensor development, is essentially gone for common ISOs in some comparisons (Canon 18 MP vs 21 MP sensors), or actually favors the crop camera in others (18 MP vs any of the 12 MP sensors). Over time the gap will come back (i.e. >30 MP FF sensors) but it will never be what it once was. We're past the time where you could look at a 24" print from a crop and a FF body and easily tell the difference.</p>

<p>Both APS and 35mm sensors will continue to improve. But anyone who thinks they'll obtain some huge, clearly visible advantage by choosing FF is kidding themselves. The next big leap in IQ, for those who need it, is not in 35mm but in MF digital.</p>

<p>I'm not saying there's no reason to want FF, or that you personally never will. But a lot of people who think that way will eventually come to the conclusion that they don't need to. It's silly to avoid crop lenses when one advantage to crop is that it's easier and cheaper to make fast, corner to corner sharp glass. There are some great crop lenses and there's no reason to avoid them.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>I would say though it costs more, I would get the full frame lenses because they will always work with APC cameras but the inverse isn't true. Yes you will pay more, but you will always have the functionality available. If you change systems you will be stuck with trading/selling these lenses whether they are full frame or not. Of course you finances will dictate, but generally, I believe you should get the best you can afford now because you will be using them now especially if you know what ranges you want. If you get APC sized lenses now, you will definitely have to upgrade when full frame comes around whereas you can always use the FF lenses on either type of camera and often the quality is better on an APC camera because you are getting more of the sweet spot of the lens, which is roughly speaking the center as opposed to the edges of the frame.</p>

[ds_meador]

<p>Well, for all we know Canon will roll out a whole new mount in 7 years, or 2 years. Do you think the folks who had Canon before the EF mount thought their lenses weren't future proof? It isn't likely that such a thing will happen, but it has happened before. So, what is future proof?<br>

DS Meador</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>what is future proof?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Real future proof is to buy equipment that has high demand in the used market so that when you no longer need it, it is easy to sell and you won't take a major loss from selling.</p>

<p>There is no EF zoom lens that will give you true wide to super-wide for the 1.6x APS-C sensor. There is also no single EF lens that can give you 17-55mm @ constant f2.8 for event/party photography. If you buy f2.8 EF lenses to cover that range, you'll need at least two lenses, which means you will have to keep changing lenses every time you cross the boundary or carry two bodies with the two lenses simultaneously.</p>

<p>A few years ago, someone over on the Nikon Forum tried that. They bought a Nikon 28-70mm/f2.8 lens for their 1.5x body. A few months later, Nikon introduced their first "full frame" D3 as well as a new 24-70mm/f2.8 lens. All of a sudden their "future proof" lens became the old model.</p>

<p>As I wrote earlier, it is unwise to sacrifice the present for some unknown "future proof."</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Yeah, if the mount changes the prices will drop for the current lenses. But then I've always used Nikon for SLR's haven't really had a problem that way. Sure, there's no such thing as future proof, that's obvious, but a newer "better" lens doesn't mean you current good lenses become bad or can't be sold. Good case in point, Nikon 17-35. Still a great lens for both 1.5 and FF. There are many other examples.</p>

[pavel_kupcik]

<p>Just one more vote for "buy what you need now". I had a 20D with EF-S lenses 10-22, 17-55 and 60mm macro. I sold all of it within two weeks for 80-90% of the original cost (the lenses, not the body). My father wanted to future proof himself with his 30D and bought 24-70 L and 70-200L because "one day he'd go full frame". Guess what, he still doesn't have full frame body and hates the fact that 24-70 is not really wide on a crop and now that Canon came out with 70-200/2.8 Mark II he feels like his Mark I lens is already old. Therefore buy what you want now and sell it later when it's no longer good enough for you or your camera body. At least you're buying Canon which has a large second hand market. Imagine owning Olympus or Sony - virtually no second hand market. How do I know, my brother invested into Olympus and is unable to sell any of it.</p>