PDA

View Full Version : think EF-S lens is a safe investment?



ReF
01-09-2005, 06:25 PM
I am really considering the new 17-85mm EF-S for the canons, but i'm a bit worried about whether or not the EF-S system will even be around in 2 or 3 years. 2 or 3 years may not sound that long, but it really is when you are talking about technology (remember when the Canon 1D had a 4mp CCD sensor?). if the sensor size of affordable canon D-slrs changes, well then there goes my $500-$600 lens too, right? that's almost the price of the 17-40 L.

So what do you guy/gals think about the EF-S system? think it'll stick around?

My original plan was to get the rebel body with the 17-40 L and the 28-135 IS, but i REALLY like the idea of having just one lens on the camera 90%(or more) of the time and not having to wait 2+ months for $420 in rebates. how long do SLR lenses usually "last" before they are replaced, obsolete, or incompatible with AF anyways? and by that, I am talking about the commonplace lenses of today, like the 17-40 L, 50mm f1.8, etc.

D70FAN
01-09-2005, 07:21 PM
I am really considering the new 17-85mm EF-S for the canons, but i'm a bit worried about whether or not the EF-S system will even be around in 2 or 3 years. 2 or 3 years may not sound that long, but it really is when you are talking about technology (remember when the Canon 1D had a 4mp CCD sensor?). if the sensor size of affordable canon D-slrs changes, well then there goes my $500-$600 lens too, right? that's almost the price of the 17-40 L.

So what do you guy/gals think about the EF-S system? think it'll stick around?

My original plan was to get the rebel body with the 17-40 L and the 28-135 IS, but i REALLY like the idea of having just one lens on the camera 90%(or more) of the time and not having to wait 2+ months for $420 in rebates. how long do SLR lenses usually "last" before they are replaced, obsolete, or incompatible with AF anyways? and by that, I am talking about the commonplace lenses of today, like the 17-40 L, 50mm f1.8, etc.

To start you might want to think outside the box and consider the Sigma 18-125 DC as a starter lens.

I think your lens fears are unfounded, as all but one of the cameras released last year use an APS-C sized sensor, and that one costs $8000. The 2/3 sensor on the E-1 and E-300 from Olympus doesn't count. Whole other problem...

Beside the lower cost of APS-C sensors, the lenses are cheaper and smaller as well. Nikon has poven that a 12MP APS-C sensor is not only practical, but with their unique 6MP crop, can also extend a lenses focal distance to 2X and increase the frame rate to 8fps for under $4000 (D2X estimated).

I think that Canon may rethink their full frame strategy in the future, as only a handfull of professionals require 16MP imagers (the theoretical equality point with standard 35mm film).

As for buying EF-S, DX, or DC lenses, I doubt that you will regret the choice, and your bank account will thank you as well.

Bon Foto

eagle17
01-09-2005, 08:27 PM
I have looked at that lens and compared it directly to the 18-55 kit lens and it has some pretty bad CA in it. to see this just take a picture of the cieling in the store and then look at the borders around the lights and you will see a nice purple tinge. After playing with it for about an hour I qiuckly decided that it was not that great of a lens for the money. you would be much better served with the sigma 18-125 or one of the 17-40 L lenses.

ReF
01-13-2005, 07:53 PM
To start you might want to think outside the box and consider the Sigma 18-125 DC as a starter lens.

I think your lens fears are unfounded, as all but one of the cameras released last year use an APS-C sized sensor, and that one costs $8000. The 2/3 sensor on the E-1 and E-300 from Olympus doesn't count. Whole other problem...

Beside the lower cost of APS-C sensors, the lenses are cheaper and smaller as well. Nikon has poven that a 12MP APS-C sensor is not only practical, but with their unique 6MP crop, can also extend a lenses focal distance to 2X and increase the frame rate to 8fps for under $4000 (D2X estimated).

I think that Canon may rethink their full frame strategy in the future, as only a handfull of professionals require 16MP imagers (the theoretical equality point with standard 35mm film).

As for buying EF-S, DX, or DC lenses, I doubt that you will regret the choice, and your bank account will thank you as well.

Bon Foto


you made a good point about a majority of the dSLR's having the APS sized sensor - i didn't realized this. so far it seems like this size sensor has no problems with 8mp as the 20D actually has equal or less noise than the 6mp 10D (if i recall correctly from reviews). seems manufacturers could cram increasing mp's into that size sensor for a while, especially if they continue to work on improving it's overall quality. now if i could only find some comparisons (main concern is sharpness) between the sigma 18-125 and the 17-85 IS....

D70FAN
01-14-2005, 04:06 PM
you made a good point about a majority of the dSLR's having the APS sized sensor - i didn't realized this. so far it seems like this size sensor has no problems with 8mp as the 20D actually has equal or less noise than the 6mp 10D (if i recall correctly from reviews). seems manufacturers could cram increasing mp's into that size sensor for a while, especially if they continue to work on improving it's overall quality. now if i could only find some comparisons (main concern is sharpness) between the sigma 18-125 and the 17-85 IS....

The jury is still out on wheather smashing 12 million photosites into an APS-C sized sensor is a breakthrough. The proof will be in the pictures. But being the flagship of the Nikon Professional dSLR line, I would have to believe that it is a stellar performer.

I don't think you will find much difference in the sharpness between the Canon and Sigma lenses you mentioned. As always this is more a compromise between having an Image Stabilized lens, in the 17-85 IS, or a longer reach in the 18-125 Sigma. I can't speak for the Canon lens, but the few reviews I have read are mainly positive. The Sigma works as well (or better) than the 18-70 DX Nikkor, if that helps.

There are several of us here (both Canon 20D and Nikon D70 owners) who are very happy with the Sigma 18-125 over the "kit" lenses. Beyond that you will have to try them both to decide what works for you.

cemtex
01-16-2005, 08:48 AM
Kit lens with 300D and 20D have plastic mounts if thats any indication.

For EF-S only get the 10-22, the best wide zoom for the current APS-C canons (sans 10D and below).

Other then that avoid EF-S. EF, while flawed will always be around for a long time, and the lens conversion 1.6 thing is only a problem on the wide angle, so cover that base and you will be fine.

ReF
01-16-2005, 10:32 PM
of course, if there were lenses with regular mounts that covered the same range as the "digital lenses," i'd choose the regular mounts anyday. i don't see why the manufacturers didn't just make an EF 17-85mm IS instead of an EF-S version (for example), just in case an owner of that lens ends up with a full frame cam someday. well, i really hope the camera manufacturers will still support these lenses 3 or 4 years down the road because i will end up with one of those sigma DC or canon ef-s lenses. I really prefer to have the luxury of carrying just one lens/not switching lenses 95% or more of the time.

eagle17
01-17-2005, 01:39 PM
I have used both the 17-85 and I own the 18-125. As I mentioned before the CA on the 17-85 is VERY noticeable when shooting indoors in low lights when you would need the IS. If you are very much against shooting with a flash then your best bet would be a fast lens like the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF, or for even more money you can get the canon 16-35 f28L

all depends on what you want to shoot and how good it is.