Re: Avoiding EF-S Lenses... Smart or Dumb?

Bill wrote:

Your examples are making various assumptions that have no validity or
facts to back them up, and assumes future changes that may or may not
occur.


I think I have been more than fair. My assumption that an EF-S lens
will only retain 30% of its value after 4 years is a worst case
scenario. The reality is that APS-sensor cameras have been (and will
remain) the most popular dSLR cameras in the world for several years.
Even if Canon were to discontinue the lineup in 4 short years
(extremely unlikely), the lens themselves would still be worth
something because there will already be hundreds of thousands of these
cameras in use. And they'll still need lenses. All those cameras
aren't going to disappear overnight just because cheap full frame dSLRs
make an apperance in the market.




People may not be shunning EF-S lenses. Instead they're buying the
appropriate lenses for the tasks at hand. In some cases this means
buying higher quality lenses that are not EF-S.


But there are really only 2 great EF-S lenses --- the 10-22mm and the
17-55mm f/2.8 IS. And neither one has an appropriate EF-L counterpart.
It's self explanatory for the 10-22mm. Meanwhile, the closest thing
to the EF-S 17-55mm is the EF-L 17-35mm. But the EF-L 17-35mm costs
nearly $350 more, does not have Image Stabilization, AND it loses 50%
of its range compared to the EF-S (ie 17-35mm instead of 17-55mm).

The other alternative is the EF 17-40L. It's a bit cheaper, but all
the other issues still apply. No Image stabilization, and much less
versatile (17-40mm instead of 17-55mm). And it's slower too, at f/4
instead of f/2.8. And how long will a full-frame photographer actually
keep this particular lens before wishing he had one that's faster and
has image stabilization?

Most importantly, the EF 17-35L and EF 17-40L aren't nearly as
versatile as the EF-S 17-55mm to serve as an all-purpose walkaround
lens in a 1.6x crop camera. Not when you lose 40%-50% of your range.
Is it so smart for Digital Rebel owners to sacrifice so much for so
long, just to save a few hundred bucks several years down the road? I
would think that spending the extra $$$ would've been worthwhile if it
meant having the best lenses available for all those years.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: DSLR vs. P&S Smackdown -- the Answer
    ... adding conversion lenses onto the front of a lens won't change the ... only adding teleconverters between the lens mount and the ... more dynamic range than larger sensor dSLR cameras. ... I tried the highest quality conversion lens available on m Canon G ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Canon kit lens review critiques show a pattern
    ... >>>disadvantage ALL cameras, even your beloved Olys, because they are, by ... >You didn't actually mean to say that all lenses are of poor quality, ... with the admonition that the kit lens is what ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: Nikon ED Lenses versus G Lenses
    ... > Except that the only cameras that do program mode with Ais lenses (the FA, ... > simply use the light meter to determine what happened with an Ai lens. ... matrix chip is present, the current method, which is AI-S, is used. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: DSLR options - your opinions welcomed
    ... If you have Pentax kit and you like Pentax then stay with Pentax. ... The D40works with older lenses, ... lenses, so the HSM lens with the motor in the lens is ... A number of cameras have mechanisms intended to minimise ...
    (uk.rec.photo.misc)
  • Re: Today, at the local camera store....
    ... >>cameras, quality wise, and may even be a step up, optically. ... >>to put a cheap lens, in all senses of that word, on the bottom of the line ... If you eliminate all but lenses that "exceed the ... > sensor of either camera. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)