Why buy EF-S or DC type Lenses???

[Mr. Pickles]

Are you all buying any of the so called lighter, designed for digital cameras, lenses? Why?

I'm talking about the EF-S ones from Nikon or Canon, or the DC ones from Sigma, etc. Maybe I'm not understanding, but don't they take a "regular" lens they have (or one close to it), and make it smaller in diameter, to make it lighter for your new DSLR? When you buy one, aren't you then locked in?

With all the advancement in technology, and the desire for every human around to have a DSLR, and then a Full-Frame one, aren't we all gonna "have" to buy a Full Frame DSLR soon? If so, will the new smaller diameter lenses just be junk at that point? I mean, they squeezed the diameter down to seel them to us, knowing that they will come out with more full frame cameras?

[mikaelwardhana]

somehow I doubt that small sensored DSLRs will be gone from our world pretty soon. Do you notice that even Nikon top level DSLR uses small sensors? (D2X)

But personally , I would prefer if all DSLRs were full frame.

[Mr. Pickles]

I know small-sized sensor DSLR aren't gonna disappear soon, but there seems to be a huge number of folks upgrading from their 20D's. If the trend continues, they must not have these "small" lenses. I'm not wanting to get any, just in case the ship comes in.

[mikaelwardhana]

the number of people upgrading from 20D to 1Ds/1DMkII/1DsMkII is not as many as the number of people buying 350D/300D for the first time

so i guess there will be room for those EFs , DC , and DX lenses.

[badpickev]

its not that you are locked in. look at it the other direction. a lot of use have one body, so why not buy one. I have the 18-125 DC sigma. its is effective at 27-182. If I didnt have the crop factor I would not have bought it. now that i did, I tend tyo use it a lot, weight is a major factor as to why.

[Wilt]

<<Are you all buying any of the so called lighter, designed for digital cameras, lenses? Why?>>

Simply, if you want widest fields of view on smaller APS, you need to buy the EF-S or DC simply because the FF lenses in the same focal length are too darned expensive...*if* you could buy one!

For example to get FF fields of view equivalent to 20mm and 24mm , you need 12.5mm and 15mm lenses for the APS-C format cameras (like 350XT and 20D) Very difficult to find one that has an image circle large enough to cover FF, because few FF photographers needed to go to 12mm wide! So now the manufacturers are making the EF-S and DC and similar lenses 'for dDSLR' with the smaller image circle of APS-C. Since image circle is smaller, the lens elements need not be as large, so everything about the lens can be scaled down, and less materials translates into improved affordability for the buyer.

[badpickev]

yet another view or take on this. i am not a full frame junkie. i do think people will follow the full frame because they believe that unless its full frame its not a 35mm slr. I think sensors are going to really take of in abilities, not just pixel count. here are the few non standard sensors. that is they can do more than just a pic.

nikon D2x - can change from a 12+ mp 1.5 crop to a 6+ mp 2.0 crop sensor
Fuji SR II sensor - 12+mp senssor devided in half for increase DR
Foven X3 sensor - in simple terms a 3 layer, 3 color sensor designed to mimic film.

now lets see if we can expand on this. lets say we make a combo sensor of the D2x and fuji, i want a 3 way crop for ff, 1.5 and 2.0 crops with the DR of the fuji. We also can have the same with the foven as well.

I have a feeling that todays "single plane" sensors will become a thing of the past. i also think they may go before APS-C sized sensors will go.

[JohnC]

I won't get into the EF-s/DC vs regular debate because I've never used one of these lenses and can't talk about them directly.

But I can talk about the design. They aren't just small and lighter. There are a few differences in these lenses. First, they project a smaller circle. And the exit aperture on these lenses may be larger than those on "regular" lenses to help project the light rays more perpendicular to the sensor. The smaller size/wider dispersion from a regular lens hits the sensore more obliquely and some people think this is a problem with the mirror like sensors and microlenses over the sensors. And these lenses may have better internal coatings and darker internal surfaces because the sensors are more shiny than film.

As for FF vs APSc, I see value in both. But for me the FF is better because I like to use selective focus and work with large apertures and I like super wide angle lenses. On the other side, landscape, wildlife, and sports photographers may like the extended reach of their telephoto lenses and the extra depth of field on an APSc than they are used to on FF cameras. And the APS cameras can be smaller and lighter. I think that the quality between APS and FF is pretty much the same.

John

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

I'm talking about the EF-S ones from Nikon or Canon, or the DC ones from Sigma, etc. Maybe I'm not understanding, but don't they take a "regular" lens they have (or one close to it), and make it smaller in diameter, to make it lighter for your new DSLR? When you buy one, aren't you then locked in?

[sean_buerger]

As mentioned before, the lenses designed for DSLR might (or might not) have anti reflective coating on the lens inner side (to the image sensor). Apparantly image sensor do reflect more light back into the lens than film. This cause the light to bounce back to sensor and so forth. The contrast of the picture would be reduced.

I do have a mix of full frame lenses from earlier days and some, designed for my DSLR (crop factor 1,6 or so). I have so far not have major contrast differences between my DSLR and non DSLR lenses.

In terms of being 'locked in', I think this is a general problem of this industry. Every single camera manufacturer has his/hers own lens mount. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to interchange? When you buy a new camera, simply continue using your old lenses?

Some manufacturers allow you to this, as they have good continuity in their lens mount. Sometimes you'll be able to hunt for adaptors on the web to mount different lenses onto your camera.

When I judge my new lenses against my old ones, I do slightly question advances made in the optical performance of camera lenses. It would appear that quality of the 'oldern' days can still prevail. I do have to say, that it comes mostly with a limitation of camera functionality in some way or another (no AF, no auto aperture...).

Cheers. Sean.

[Alice Morrison]

I think these lenses are a bad idea in the case of Canon, for the owners may be left with lenses that are of limited use if Canon indeed phases out the 1.6x sensors, as it appears to be doing. Even if Canon continues with some 1.6x cameras, if you buy an EF-S lens and then move to a full-frame camera, you've lost use of one of your investments on all of your badies. Very bad idea.

In the case of Nikon, well, it seems as though the company has chosen to stick with the 1.5x sensor. This is too bad, in my opinion, as some of Nikon's very fine lenses cannot be used as they were intended to be used on these cropped sensor lenses.

I do not own any EF-S lenses and would not purchase one. They are not exactly cheap, either, I might add.

[dc2]

And as I and probably othesr have found out expensive does not always mean good and cheap dose not always mean bad especially where lenes are concerned

[Kevin Barrett]

Originally Posted by Alice Morrison

I think these lenses are a bad idea in the case of Canon, for the owners may be left with lenses that are of limited use if Canon indeed phases out the 1.6x sensors, as it appears to be doing. Even if Canon continues with some 1.6x cameras, if you buy an EF-S lens and then move to a full-frame camera, you've lost use of one of your investments on all of your badies. Very bad idea.

In the case of Nikon, well, it seems as though the company has chosen to stick with the 1.5x sensor. This is too bad, in my opinion, as some of Nikon's very fine lenses cannot be used as they were intended to be used on these cropped sensor lenses.

I do not own any EF-S lenses and would not purchase one. They are not exactly cheap, either, I might add.

In the grand scheme of things, the whole reason for EF-S/DC lenses is pure economics. APS-C sized sensors are less expensive to produce. However, sensor manufacturing is getting better and FF will eventually be viable for the masses in the not so distant future. With that said, an EF-S lens purchase today is not necessarily a "bad" idea in my opinion.

Lenses depreciate less than bodies, but they're far from being considered an investment. Return on investment (ROI), isn't always purely economic either. I'm quite pleased with the "return" of fine photographic opportunities that a Canon 10-22 EF-S presents me with when I go out and about.

If I'm dilligent enough, I may even be able to recoup some of the costs associated with the 10-22 in print sales etc.

[mawz]

Unless you have a specific need (like the 10-22) I wouldn't buy the Canon version of these (Or a 3rd party equivalent in EF mount). Canon's committed to Full-Frame as their eventual destination and will not be producing any professional-quality EF-S lenses, although 3 of the 4 current EF-S lenses are excellent semi-pro/amateur lenses. nikon's another story, they've bought into the DX format bigtime and are committed to it for the long-run. I'd expect Pentax to be the same as Nikon, considering their current DA lens lineup. No idea on KM, they seem to be unsure of their direction. Olympus is of course committed to their 4/3rds system.

[JDArt]

Originally Posted by mawz

Unless you have a specific need (like the 10-22) I wouldn't buy the Canon version of these (Or a 3rd party equivalent in EF mount). Canon's committed to Full-Frame as their eventual destination and will not be producing any professional-quality EF-S lenses, although 3 of the 4 current EF-S lenses are excellent semi-pro/amateur lenses. nikon's another story, they've bought into the DX format bigtime and are committed to it for the long-run. I'd expect Pentax to be the same as Nikon, considering their current DA lens lineup. No idea on KM, they seem to be unsure of their direction. Olympus is of course committed to their 4/3rds system.

This will be an interesting story to watch. I was personally surprised that Nikon did not move to a full frame solution, or at least option, as Canon did. I know that I would've liked to have used my collection of Nikon glass in the way it was meant to be used.

[mawz]

Nikon seems to have chosen to provide continuity instead of Canon's schizophrenic system. This has resulted in nikon users having the option of a true professional mid-range zoom (17-55 f2.8DX) and a better ultra-wide zoom option (12-24 f4 vs the variable-aperture 10-22). As it is, 20d users either have to go for reduced range (16-35) or 3rd party (Sigma 18-50 f2. to get a professional mid-range zoom for their bodies. Nikon's complicated things for its film users, while Canon's made their DSLR upgrade path non-obvious. And considering the problems with wide-angle lens performance on the 1Ds mkII, I think Nikon may have made the right technical choice, even if it costs them marketing-wise. Whatever it is, Canon has certainly driven up the value of 21mm Biogon's.

[sean_buerger]

A small note on the Sigma lens here.

It seems to be that the 18..50mm is 2,8 and not 2. I would like to remark that the lens is quite soft as you open the aperture. The lens is quite heavy to carry too and suffers from CA under difficult lighting conditions.

Cheers, Sean.

[Wilt]

I have a hard time understanding why so many will question Canon's 'commitment to 1.6 crop'. Does someone question Sony's commitment to CD players when they build DVD players that play music CDs? Does someone question Pentax' commitment to 35mm because it is offering the Pentax 67 and the Pentax 645? Or do they question Pentax' commitment to its dSLR because it has the Pentax 645 Digital?

So if Canon wants to offer FF for pro market and for those enthusiasts who insist that they "want larger format", yet also continue to offer 1.6 crop format for the amateur who wants dSLR at a lower price, why is that so hard to swallow? Just as some photography enthusiasts have wanted 6x7 Mamiyas for its film size, and other photo enthusiasts wanted Mamiya 645 for its lower cost and weight, there is a place in the market for both 1.6 crop sensors and FF sensors with the Canon name.

After all, most brands have NOTHING BUT the 1.6 crop! So why should Canon hobble themselves in the ability to market to this consumer group by forcing themselves to put HIGHER COST MATERIALS (larger sensors, larger pentaprisms, larger mirrors, beefier gear trains to move the larger mirrors, more plastic and metal to house it all in, more optical glass for the larger lenses to cover the larger frame, etc. etc.) into their cameras, cutting their own margins and making their profit margins slimmer in competing in this market

[JDArt]

I guess my feeling right now is that Canon's lens lineup is in a state that might confuse newcomers, to put it politically.

I know that as an owner of bodies that are both older 1.6, newer 1.6, and full frame, I will not consider purchasing an EF-S lens for obvious reasons. Probably for most new 1.6 owners, however, there is no conflict whatsoever.

[Wilt]

>>I guess my feeling right now is that Canon's lens lineup is in a state that might confuse newcomers, to put it politically.<<

I can understand newcomer confusion a bit...but newcomers have no expectation of mounting a Pentax 67 lens on a 35mm Pentax body, although admittedly the EF mount vs. EF-S mount is more more similar!
On the other hand, there are those who proclaim that 1.6 format is dead, and the 1.6 format lenses are going to plummet in value....if you follow their logic, the Sony CD players are going to plummet in value because the DVD players can play CDs, too.

[badpickev]

Well living in the Nikon world, I have a DC lens. It was bought for various reasons. Focal range was the main one. I still think in film for lens choice so I still get caught out by the crop factor. I like the range, the lens build, but if the same lens was made full frame, I would change in a heartbeat. I am looking at a 12-24 and the Sigma seems to be the best and its full frame. I do not know if I will go to film for the fun of it, but I would like the option of using all my lenses if I do.