 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / September 2006Avoiding EF-S Lenses... Smart or Dumb?
This is a question for Digital Rebel (or 20D/30D) owners who refuse to consider EF-S lenses, for the sake of future-proofing their investment. Many people will often allocate their money buying the cheaper EF-L lenses in the same price range of the proper EF-S they needed. So let's take for example: Ameteur Photographer "A" spends $1720 in 2006 for two EF-S zoom lenses: 10-22mm and 17-55 f/2.8 IS. By 2010, these lenses are only worth $500 on ebay, having lost a staggering 70% of their value to depreciation. Net loss is $1220. Amateur Photographer "B" spends $1720 in 2006 for two low-tier, barebones EF-L zoom lenses that'll retain their value longer than EF-S. By 2010, these low-tier, barebones EF-L lenses no longer satisfy Mr.B --- newer lenses are faster, have less distortion, and have image stabilization. Person "B" sells these two lenses in 2010, after losing only a very mild 30% of their value to depreciation. He is able to sell them on ebay for $1200. Net loss is only $520. The difference between Person "A" and "B" is $700. In the grand scheme of things, is $700 a lot of money after four years? Especially if person "B" spent the better part of those four years "making do" with low-tier EF-L lenses that didn't have the Image Stabilization of EF-S 17-55mm, or the proper wide angle of the EF-S 10-22mm? When I think of EF-S lenses in those terms, I don't see the logic behind the Rebel/20D/30D owners completely shunning EF-S lenses. Unless they plan on going full frame within 12-18 months, avoiding EF-S lenses is just sacrificing too many features to save $700 over four years. Anyway, I just have too much time on my hands calculating all these things... The assumption is that the APS sensor will go the way of the Dodo. It just isn't going to happen. It is still very expensive to make a 35mm sized chip, some estimates are 10X what it costs to make an APS chip. With the quality of the images from the 30D being the same better than what anyone got on 35mm film, there is going to be a market for EF-S lenses for years to come. Since the 10-22 is one of the best wide lenses for an APS camera I don't see it dropping 70% in the used market. After all the full frame equivalent is a $1400 lens (16-35mm f2,8). Off brand lenses may have big price drops but I don't see it happening with brand name lenses. > This is a question for Digital Rebel (or 20D/30D) owners who refuse to > consider EF-S lenses, for the sake of future-proofing their [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > only a very mild 30% of their value to depreciation. He is able to > sell them on ebay for $1200. Net loss is only $520. > The difference between Person "A" and "B" is $700. In the grand scheme > of things, is $700 a lot of money after four years? Especially if [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Anyway, I just have too much time on my hands calculating all these > things... > The assumption is that the APS sensor will go the way of the Dodo. The assumption, no, wait, the fact is that EF-S lenses don't work on fullframe and in general there are better lenses available except for the 10-22mm. I own the 10-22mm and there I still find no reason to own any other EF-S lenses. The rest of my lenses will work on any EOS camera. Greg  Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons > > The assumption is that the APS sensor will go the way of the Dodo. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > own any other EF-S lenses. The rest of my lenses will work on any EOS > camera. Curious, what's your solution for 17-55mm f/2.8 IS ? -- Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/ >>>The assumption is that the APS sensor will go the way of the Dodo. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Curious, what's your solution for 17-55mm f/2.8 IS ? 17-40mm f/4L and 35mm f/2. Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons > The assumption is that the APS sensor will go the way of the Dodo. It > just isn't going to happen. When full frame camera is $2K, 1.6x can still have a healthy market at $1K. When full frame is $1K, 1.6x will be pushed down to about $300. A $300 camera may not be able to include the features you want. You may be forced to buy a full frame camera even though you don't really want full frame, because you want the other features in the $1K camera. > With the quality of the images from the 30D being the same better than > what anyone got on 35mm film, there is going to be a market for EF-S > lenses for years to come. It is not the question of 30D better than film, but the question of future camera better than 30D. If it is significantly better, you'll want the new camera. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr > When full frame is $1K, 1.6x will be pushed down to about $300. A $300 > camera may not be able to include the features you want. You may be > forced to buy a full frame camera even though you don't really want > full frame, because you want the other features in the $1K camera. When Full Frame cameras start appearing in stores at $1,000, that will be the end of new APS-C dSLR cameras. You'll never see new dSLRs priced at $300, or even $400. Quite frankly, the people who are only willing to spend $300 on a camera aren't the kind of people who will spend $500 on a lens. Unless the prices for lenses start dropping significantly, I suspect brand-name dSLRs will not be priced much lower than they are now. Lots of people are saying full frame cameras are a long way from reaching the $1500 treshold. Methinks these people have very short term memories. In 1998, dSLRs were being sold for around $20,000. 30 months later, the D30 was priced at $3000. Another thirty months, the digital rebel at $900. In the past couple of years, the lowest price for a dSLR with full frame sensor has gone from about $6000 to as low as $2600. Based on what we've seen so far, who's to say it won't be $1500 two years from now? > > When full frame is $1K, 1.6x will be pushed down to about $300. A $300 > > camera may not be able to include the features you want. You may be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > be the end of new APS-C dSLR cameras. You'll never see new dSLRs > priced at $300, or even $400. $1K is not a consumer price point for a camera. Only photo enthusiasts or rich people want to pay $1K or above. To get the vast consumer market, they will make entry level dSLR at about $300, as technology advances, and competition heats up. Actually it will be pretty soon now. Entry level dSLR are already below $500 from time to time. When Canon triple digit camera like 400D drops below $500, they will make new ones at about $300, but with less features. Meanwhile, double digit EF-S like 30D will be below $1K, and single digit full frame like 5D will be below $2K. > Quite frankly, the people who are only > willing to spend $300 on a camera aren't the kind of people who will > spend $500 on a lens. That's my point. When the only EF-S cameras in production are about $300, they will stop making expensive EF-S lenses. > Unless the prices for lenses start dropping > significantly, I suspect brand-name dSLRs will not be priced much lower > than they are now. But consumers may buy 2 zooms at $100-$200 each, one normal zoom like 18-55, one tele zoom like 50-200. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr >This is a question for Digital Rebel (or 20D/30D) owners who refuse to >consider EF-S lenses, for the sake of future-proofing their [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >Anyway, I just have too much time on my hands calculating all these >things... Just go out and buy a 5D, you know you want to. I did in April and have not regretted it. David SignatureDavid Littlewood > Just go out and buy a 5D, you know you want to. I think that line of thinking is a real issue when considering EF-S lenses. A 10-22mm EF-S lens would suit my current yearning quite nicely, but they're expensive - £500 here in the UK. Since I have a 17mm lens, I could get a very similar wide angle by not buying the EF-S lens, but by replacing my 20D with a 5D. A 5D is £1,750, so there's still a big difference in the cost of the new camera as opposed to buying a new lens. If I needed that wide angle right now the EF-S lens would be the cost effiective way to get it. The thing is, the 5D has come down from about £2,500 when launched, about a year ago, while the EF-S 10-22mm has gone from about £600 to £500 in 2 full years. Given the way camera prices come down very quickly, and lens prices tend to stay static, in another year or so trading in the 20D for the FF option of the day will make an awful lot of sense. So, since I don't need that ultra wide angle right now, I'm sitting tight until I do. At that point I decide whether a FF camera of an EF-S lens is the answer. I very much doubt if the EF-S lens will make much sense. I'll almost certainly do exactly as you say - go get a 5D. > This is a question for Digital Rebel (or 20D/30D) owners who refuse to > consider EF-S lenses, for the sake of future-proofing their [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Anyway, I just have too much time on my hands calculating all these > things... Photo gear is just about the worst "investment item" you could possibly attempt to buy. If you want something that will hold monetary value above all other factors, you're choosing your equipment for entirely the wrong reasons. Perhaps your analysis is valid, but it is beside the point for me. I have selected lenses that I can still use on my film body and lenses that I won't have to replace when I finally get a fullframe digital. I'll agree with other posters that APS-C chips and EF-S lenses are here to stay. I would never debate that. Less expensive fullframe cameras, however, are just as certainly on their way, and for a multitude of reasons that is my personal goal. That said, the only "loss of investment" I'm protecting myself from is the need to sell my lenses when I suddenly acquire a camera that they won't work with. My APS-C 20d will work just fine with my 16-35 2.8L, and so will my film body. I don't routinely need to go wider than 16mm on the 20d, and when I do get the sub-$2000 fullframe body, that lens will be exactly the glass I'd have wanted for angles wider than 24mm anyway. You're looking at buying lenses that you'll sell because they are outdated. I'm trying to buy lenses that I'll keep for 30 years because they won't be significantly improved upon. Resale is part of your approach, avoiding it is the keystone of mine. I won't say that one is better than the other, but I do know that finally, on my third round of gear and my third make of camera equipment, I'm happy with all of my decisions and can see myself being just as happy in ten years with every lens that I own. So I know that I found the right path for me personally. A camera, as we used to say, is just a dark box that holds film. Lenses are the real investment, because if cared for, they'll become your childrens' lenses. Will > A camera, as we used to say, is just a dark box that holds film. Lenses > are the real investment, because if cared for, they'll become your > childrens' lenses. > > Will So you're saying that a good lens now is something that cannot be improved upon and that it will be good for any photon-receiving technology of the future (immediate or otherwise). I bet you love your abacus or slide rule, and keep them in "as new" condition................. (for the kids, of course) > > A camera, as we used to say, is just a dark box that holds film. Lenses > > are the real investment, because if cared for, they'll become your [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I bet you love your abacus or slide rule, and keep them in "as new" > condition................. (for the kids, of course) I'm saying that lenses that are great now will remain great lenses for years to come if you take care of them. Improvements will be made, certainly. But I've got a great 50mm 1.4, and I'm sure it will be great in twenty years, even by those standards. Incremental improvements to the lenses that I currently use will surely come, but I've already got lenses that outperform the print sizes that I go for. If I need to print larger than 12x18, then we've reached a point where 35mm as a format size, regardless of sensor resolution, is a questionable choice. And for my money, I'd rather spend money in the future buying a new 24mm prime or 100-400mm zoom than replacing lenses that I've had and grown to love and cared for enough that they're still just as good as what's new for the work that I do. Some people have the means and desire to update every lens in their kit with every new peice of glass that comes around. I have neither. I also inherit most of my ideals from the fact that I'm a cinematographer first and a photographer second, and in cinematography it is neither uncommon nor detrimental to use cameras and lenses that are 30 years old. Add to that the amazing pictures friends of mine have taken with old, inherited lenses (my family has never really owned cameras, so I had nothing to inherit), and I know that good optics, if maintained, are good optics for much longer than the 10-year timeframe the OP indicated. Will >are 30 years old. Add to that the amazing pictures friends of mine have >taken with old, inherited lenses (my family has never really owned >cameras, so I had nothing to inherit), and I know that good optics, if >maintained, are good optics for much longer than the 10-year timeframe >the OP indicated. Actually it was only a 4 year time frame, 2006 to 2010. I don't think we'll have sub-space holographic cameras by then. :-) >> A camera, as we used to say, is just a dark box that holds film. Lenses >> are the real investment, because if cared for, they'll become your [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >upon and that it will be good for any photon-receiving technology of the >future (immediate or otherwise). There will always be slight improvements, but yes he's right, a good lense today should be usable for decades to come. A lense made 30 years ago can still be quite usable today, and in many cases can match current lense image quality. Lenses have a singular purpose - to form an image circle for a recording device such as a digital camera. The recording device may change or improve, but the need to accurately form an image for the device remains the same. Unless we discover a fundamentally new way of capturing light (think sci-fi movies here), the lense that forms the image will remain essentially unchanged. > So you're saying that a good lens now is something that cannot be improved > upon and that it will be good for any photon-receiving technology of the > future (immediate or otherwise). Well, that actually **IS** true for the best lenses such as some ED glass telephotos, which are limited by the laws of physics. Doug McDonald >This is a question for Digital Rebel (or 20D/30D) owners who refuse to >consider EF-S lenses, for the sake of future-proofing their >investment. Many people will often allocate their money buying the >cheaper EF-L lenses in the same price range of the proper EF-S they >needed. So let's take for example: 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. We won't know if your examples are accurate until close to 2010. >When I think of EF-S lenses in those terms, I don't see the logic >behind the Rebel/20D/30D owners completely shunning EF-S lenses. 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. There are not a lot of EF-S choices. As it stands, the only EF-S lense I would consider is the 10-22, but as yet I don't have a need for such a wide angle, so it's not on my list. I think lenses like the 17-55 f/2.8 IS and 17-85 IS are way overpriced for what you get, so I don't consider them to be good choices. The others do not offer anything of value to me, so I'll keep using my 17-40 f/4 L and 70-200 f/4 L which covers most of what I need and have excellent optical quality. YMMV. >Unless they plan on going full frame within 12-18 months, avoiding EF-S >lenses is just sacrificing too many features to save $700 over four >years. I don't plan on upgrading for several years, unless my camera dies. Hopefully by then full frame will be more affordable. If not, I'll get another cropped sensor camera and continue on. > 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. > 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. Addendum: To be fair, the closest EF-L lens would probably be the 24-70L f/2.8 lens. I completely overlooked that one. Priced 10% more than the EF-S lens, but it can't do wide angle and has no Image Stabilization. This would probably be a more realistic comparison to the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS than either of the two examples I used. > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > would probably be a more realistic comparison to the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 > IS than either of the two examples I used. The 24-70L f/2.8 was the contender I was looking at but with a field of view approx equivalent to 38mm, I recalled from my pentax days that that often wasn't as wide as I'd have liked. And from my 75-300 IS experience, I also knew that IS was a feature I really wanted to have. So, I went EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. And have been pretty darned happy with the lens. -- Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/ >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >will only retain 30% of its value after 4 years is a worst case >scenario. So you take a worst case scenario and compare it against the FF lense best case scenario where the 17-40 retains 70% of its value? If I can sell my 17-40 for $600 CDN in four years, I'll be laughing all the way to the bank...but I doubt it. > The reality is that APS-sensor cameras have been (and will >remain) the most popular dSLR cameras in the world for several years. I agree, but only because they're the ONLY digital SLR cameras that are reasonably priced. Some can argue the Canon 5D is reasonably priced, but not me and not the buying public in general. The $1000 price point is very important to the average consumer. >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. Except that history has already shown that NOT to be the case. What happened to entry and mid-range film cameras? The demand and sales plummeted once digital made its mark with the Nikon D70 and Canon Rebel. Trying to sell a film body today for a good price isn't easy because nobody in the general public wants them. Heck, they're hard to GIVE away. If the cropped sensor dies off due to low cost FF cameras, then logic dictates the same is likely to happen to the cropped sensor models. >But there are really only 2 great EF-S lenses --- the 10-22mm and the >17-55mm f/2.8 IS. I'd argue that the 10-22 is great, but the 17-55 is way overpriced for what you get. If they had made it without IS and dropped the price $500 CDN, then it would be more palatable. But at its current price, I'm not interested...I'd rather spend the money on a 24-70 or 24-105. > And neither one has an appropriate EF-L counterpart. I agree, in the sense that Canon has dropped the ball in the walk around lense category. >The other alternative is the EF 17-40L. It's a bit cheaper, but all >the other issues still apply. No Image stabilization, Really, how important is the IS feature in a wide angle zoom? I have no use for it at all. I know some people rave about it, and there are uses for it, but it's not essential. I don't mind IS in a telephoto for handholding but I could care less about it in a short lense. > and much less >versatile (17-40mm instead of 17-55mm). I used to worry that the 40-70 gap with my two lenses would be an issue. But since I tend to use the extremes of both lenses, that little gap is not a big deal and I've learned to adapt. The 17-40 is like a 28-64 on FF, so it covers most of the walk around range, presuming 28-80 is the standard. For those few times I need a bit more reach, I either take a few steps forward or switch lenses to one that covers what I need - that's why I have several lenses. I think Canon needs to wake up and smell the coffee. We need to see Canon make a 17-70 f/2.8 L without IS that performs very well and sell at a decent price. Or at least a very good 17-70 f/3.5-4.5 or similar. But that might never happen. And Nikon has upped the ante with the new 18-135 which looks like it may perform very well. If so, it'll certainly be a good seller as it covers the equivalent FF of 28-200 in a single lense, and Canon will be even further behind in the entry level market. > 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? The problem is we can't have it both ways. If I had a FF digital, I'd have a 24-70 or 24-105 on it. But I don't, so I use a different lense. Canon hasn't made the lense I really want, so I've had to improvise a bit. >>The other alternative is the EF 17-40L. It's a bit cheaper, but all >>the other issues still apply. No Image stabilization, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > are uses for it, but it's not essential. I don't mind IS in a telephoto > for handholding but I could care less about it in a short lense. Oh, for indoors photo, in a museum for example, when you didn't bring/cannot use a tripod. You need wide angle due to lack of space, and I have found that two-three stops' worth of IS would have helped a LOT on a 2.8 lens in those circumstances. Something like a 24mm f/1.4 or 20 f/1.8 prime would have been bright enough and perhaps wide enough, but are inflexible and leave you without any DOF to speak of at all. So yeah, I'd like an IS wide-angle zoom for that use. >>> The other alternative is the EF 17-40L. It's a bit cheaper, but all >>> the other issues still apply. No Image stabilization, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > wide enough, but are inflexible and leave you without any DOF to > speak of at all. So yeah, I'd like an IS wide-angle zoom for that use. Here's a good example of that: Shot at 24mm on a full frame 5D, hand-held at 1/10th second. This was a VERY dimly lit room... -darker than what I was able to brightly expose for here: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/66057618/original This shot would be a real mess without IS. BTW--This is where I'm sitting as I type this... :) -Mark² SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>>> The other alternative is the EF 17-40L. It's a bit cheaper, but all >>>> the other issues still apply. No Image stabilization, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > BTW--This is where I'm sitting as I type this... :) Nice looking room except for the Windows box and screen. Replace the windows box with a cappucino maker, and put a Mac box under the desk, and you'll really have something. SignatureJohn McWilliams >>>>> The other alternative is the EF 17-40L. It's a bit cheaper, but >>>>> all the other issues still apply. No Image stabilization, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > windows box with a cappucino maker, and put a Mac box under the desk, > and you'll really have something. Actually there are two windows boxes there. One to the left of the screen (black) and another next to my automated CD/DVD burning/printing "machine." :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>> BTW--This is where I'm sitting as I type this... :) >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Actually there are two windows boxes there. One to the left of the screen > (black) and another next to my automated CD/DVD burning/printing "machine." Can the burner fry up some coffee, too? Is the DVD or CD production part of a vocation, or avocation? Signaturejohn mcwilliams Everything old is new again in the latest film about the beloved pooch with the I.Q. of a grad student and the instincts of a boomerang. [NY Times; Review of "Lassie".] >>>> BTW--This is where I'm sitting as I type this... :) >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Is the DVD or CD production part of a vocation, or avocation? Well...since BOTH those words can can actually be used to refer to one's occupation... I'll leave it up to you to decide. Man, some people are so nosey... ;) The coffee part reminds me of a technical support recording (actual) that was going around the net some time back, where some lady calls the tech to get help with her broken "cup holder" on her computer. Seems she's been using the CDROM tray under the assumption that it was some sort of techno-nerd's coffee holder. :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>>>> BTW--This is where I'm sitting as I type this... :) >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >using the CDROM tray under the assumption that it was some sort of >techno-nerd's coffee holder. :) A variant on an extremely old joke/urban myth: An elderly lady takes her car to the mechanic. Mechanic finds car coked up, repairs it. A couple of weeks later the same thing happens again, then a few weeks later a third time. Bewildered, he asks the old lady to drive him round to see what she is doing. She says "I was going to the shops anyway", grabs her shopping bag, gets in, pulls out the choke lever and hangs her bag on it..... May not quite have the same meaning now that automatic chokes are almost universal. David SignatureDavid Littlewood >> Man, some people are so nosey... >> ;) [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > May not quite have the same meaning now that automatic chokes are almost > universal. I'd almost forgotten about manual chokes. I haven't even run a lawn mover in 25 years; do they now have auto chokes? Nowadays if you say a car is coked up, it conjures a different set of curiosities. Signaturejohn mcwilliams >>> Man, some people are so nosey... >>> ;) [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Nowadays if you say a car is coked up, it conjures a different set of > curiosities. All right, all ready, you ask, "What's a lawn mover, and where can I get one??" Did mean mower, but a lawn mover suggests a sodding machine, or better put, a machine for lifting and replacing sod..... Signaturejohn mcwilliams >> I'd almost forgotten about manual chokes. I haven't even run a lawn >> mover in 25 years; do they now have auto chokes? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >one??" Did mean mower, but a lawn mover suggests a sodding machine, or >better put, a machine for lifting and replacing sod..... Green side up! > >>> The other alternative is the EF 17-40L. It's a bit cheaper, but all > >>> the other issues still apply. No Image stabilization, [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > -Mark² No offense, but why? It's about 2x the standard lowest suggested hand-held speed for that focal length which isn't that difficult to accomplish. If you'd said 1/4 of a second, that would be different. >>>>> The other alternative is the EF 17-40L. It's a bit cheaper, but >>>>> all the other issues still apply. No Image stabilization, [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > that focal length which isn't that difficult to accomplish. > If you'd said 1/4 of a second, that would be different. OK. Here's the same scene at 1/4th: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/66174559/original The white balance is a bit off, because I forgot to change it... My original thought (with the 1/10th shot) was more about the type of scene IS becomes useful for...not so much that it was a perfect or extreme example. Interior shots without flash need DOF that only is achieved with smallish apertures. Many folks seem to think a fast lens is the cure for low-light, but sometimes they forget that "fast lenses" mean tiny DOF. This is where IS does help. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > >>>>> The other alternative is the EF 17-40L. It's a bit cheaper, but > >>>>> all the other issues still apply. No Image stabilization, [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > low-light, but sometimes they forget that "fast lenses" mean tiny DOF. This > is where IS does help. Good point. >>>The other alternative is the EF 17-40L. It's a bit cheaper, but all >>>the other issues still apply. No Image stabilization, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Oh, for indoors photo, in a museum for example, when you didn't bring/cannot >use a tripod. Like I said in my post, there are uses. I just don't have any need for it... > 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? Just to clarify that, you're asking how long a photographer would keep his 17-40mm f/4 L before getting frustrated with it's limitations? Um, well, I've had one for 18 months and have never once been frustrated with it. It might not do what *you* want, but it fits my needs absolutely perfectly. I'll be keeping it for many years I suspect. > This is a question for Digital Rebel (or 20D/30D) owners who refuse to > consider EF-S lenses, for the sake of future-proofing their [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > worth $500 on ebay, having lost a staggering 70% of their value to > depreciation. Net loss is $1220. <snip> My strategy of avoiding EF-S lenses and putting my money into L glass worked...because I DID end up with a full frame camera...and I am VERY glad for it. A 5D with L lenses is a pretty tough combo to beat. No regrets, here. On the other hand...most people will get everything they need from a 30D and EF-S. I like to do VERY big enlargements, and I appreciate the difference... But unless you want that (among some other benefits, like amazing high ISO, wide angles with high-res, etc.), you'll likely remain very very happy with 1.6x factor sensors and EF-S. I've printed some truly stunning images from my 10D...though I must admist they would have benefitted from being capture on a 5D... Eventually, the sensors will out-perform the lenses to a point where you can't go much further. At that point, I figure I'll be pleased enough with the results that it won't bother me much. When we get there (and we're getting close already), the tweaks the manufacturers can make will likely be more along the lines of higher ISOs with processing that supresses noise...shadow detail and highlight handling--perhaps even with differing ISO within the same shot, but applied automatically to different portions of sensor (???). Who knows. I just know that I don't need a heck of a lot more than what I've got. You probably won't either. -Mark² SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > This is a question for Digital Rebel (or 20D/30D) owners who refuse to > consider EF-S lenses, for the sake of future-proofing their > investment. People who invest in new camera gear thinking "investment" are dreaming.. You buy what you need to get the shots you want to take TODAY at a price point you can afford. SignatureStacey >> This is a question for Digital Rebel (or 20D/30D) owners who refuse to >> consider EF-S lenses, for the sake of future-proofing their [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You buy what you need to get the shots you want to take TODAY at a price > point you can afford. Right. But "wise purchase" in place of "investment" makes sense, and whether or not one buys or doesn't buy EFS glass, it's good to think it through. I've come to decide I will not be buying cropped lenses, but that's my decision, and I have my reasons which are right for me. A FF body is in my future. SignatureJohn McWilliams > Right. But "wise purchase" in place of "investment" makes sense, and > whether or not one buys or doesn't buy EFS glass, it's good to think it > through. I've come to decide I will not be buying cropped lenses, but > that's my decision, and I have my reasons which are right for me. A FF > body is in my future. Indeed. I own only one DX lens for my Nikon D70. I often shoot with slide film on my F100 and would love if both cameras could use the same lenses. I don't want separate wide angle lenses for each camera, but that is where things stand today. I also look forward to the day that Nikon creates a 35mm sensor DSLR. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >> Right. But "wise purchase" in place of "investment" makes sense, and >> whether or not one buys or doesn't buy EFS glass, it's good to think it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Indeed. I own only one DX lens for my Nikon D70. Which is all anyone should need. If you're shooting with a APS sensor sized camera, you need their 10-X zoom or else you're limiting yourself now in how wide you can shoot in hopes of later owning a FF sensor camera. If I was buying say a canon 30D, the ONLY EFS glass I'd get is the superwide one and plan on selling it with the camera if I ever got a FF model. SignatureStacey >>> Right. But "wise purchase" in place of "investment" makes sense, and >>> whether or not one buys or doesn't buy EFS glass, it's good to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > say a canon 30D, the ONLY EFS glass I'd get is the superwide one and > plan on selling it with the camera if I ever got a FF model. Ya... Except some folks would simply rather have additional EF-S lenses because they are smaller than their FF counterparts. I've never been interested in EF-S, but I can see the thinking for some folks... SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > Anyway, I just have too much time on my hands calculating all these > things... If you're this obsessed by money you've got the wrong hobby. I notice there's nothing in your post about the pictures you can take with the equipment you buy. >> Anyway, I just have too much time on my hands calculating all these >> things... > >If you're this obsessed by money you've got the wrong hobby. I notice >there's nothing in your post about the pictures you can take with the >equipment you buy. Too true, I buy the lenses I can afford to take the photographs I want. I am not concerned with the "value" when it is worn-out; if my interests change then whatever I buy now could be unsuitable. SignatureIan G8ILZ Fun to play with but would not want to pay as much as they charge for some of those EF-S models because they do not have the build quality of the L lenses for similar price. EF-S may produce photos that look very nice and as good as an L in many circumstances but I need tools with better build qualty. > Fun to play with but would not want to pay as much as they charge for some > of those EF-S models because they do not have the build quality of the L > lenses for similar price. I am not sure what you mean by similar price. When they add IS to 24-70/2.8, it would be priced close to $2K. The 17-55/2.8 IS is close to $1K. The price difference is significant. The EF-S shows a better value and performance ratio. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.