has EF-S's shorter depth been a benefit to anyone?

[ElFenix]

EF-S lenses cannot be mounted onto 35 mm cameras. because EF-S lenses extend deeper into the camera body than a standard EF lens, a 35 mm camera's mirror would swing into the lens, destroying the mirror. this serves as a barrier for moving from canon's APS bodies to their 35 mm bodies. if you move to a canon 35 mm body, your EF-S lenses become useless to you, assuming you sell the old body to help finance the new one (and most of us don't have the money not to). then you're more likely to move to a different system than you would be, as you would sell most of your current system anyway. considering the many predictions surrounding the impending explosion of 35 mm bodies later this year (from nikon and sony, canon will have to play along), there could be somewhat of an exodus from canon.

but has that extension into the camera benefited consumers? nikon seems to have no problem making DX lenses that fit onto it's 35 mm bodies. some of them even has an imaging circle that can be used with the 35 mm body. it's speculated that when nikon's 35 mm digital bodies come out later this year, they will offer a high-speed crop mode to work with the smaller imaging circle that the DX lenses throw.

so, if EF-S offers no real benefit for consumers, and is actually more of a barrier to moving from canon's crop bodies up to their pro bodies, is EF-S good for anyone?

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
EF-S lenses cannot be mounted onto 35 mm cameras. because EF-S lenses extend deeper into the camera body than a standard EF lens, a 35 mm camera's mirror would swing into the lens, destroying the mirror. this serves as a barrier for moving from canon's APS bodies to their 35 mm bodies. if you move to a canon 35 mm body, your EF-S lenses become useless to you, assuming you sell the old body to help finance the new one (and most of us don't have the money not to). then you're more likely to move to a different system than you would be, as you would sell most of your current system anyway. considering the many predictions surrounding the impending explosion of 35 mm bodies later this year (from nikon and sony, canon will have to play along), there could be somewhat of an exodus from canon.

but has that extension into the camera benefited consumers? nikon seems to have no problem making DX lenses that fit onto it's 35 mm bodies. some of them even has an imaging circle that can be used with the 35 mm body. it's speculated that when nikon's 35 mm digital bodies come out later this year, they will offer a high-speed crop mode to work with the smaller imaging circle that the DX lenses throw.

so, if EF-S offers no real benefit for consumers, and is actually more of a barrier to moving from canon's crop bodies up to their pro bodies, is EF-S good for anyone?

You have to remember that the EOS mount is a very different mount. Let me re-phrase, all mounts are different. The EOS mount is no exception. Technically it's one of the best. It has a generous diameter, and many contacts for voltage and data. It's actually a great mount for adaptors. Ironically only the FD system is the limit there.
What other makers have done to accommodate autofocus and and other improvements is kind of screwy (no pun intended).
When Canon adopted the APS-C format, they saw an opportunity to make specialized lenses. Maybe it's a marketing scheme. But it works. The recent trio release of the 10-22, 60 macro, and the 17-55 IS has been impressive. Among the best crop format lenses out there. The 60 macro is probably the sharpest lens I have ever shot with. There is a definite benefit to the shorter depth.
Canon is committed to the three formats (APS-C, APS-H, and FF)
The conundrum of a crop camera and future upgrades is hardly any different than other format or compatibility issues out there.
The true problem is that people look at lenses too much as investments. They are not a commodity. Yes, most mid-range to high end lenses retain there value if maintained well. But the way people fret over it is silly.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Without EFS, there would be no 10-22 (UWA for the APS-C) nor no 17-55 F2.8 IS. I mean, compare the 17-55 to the non-IS EF 24-70 F2.8. So yes, in that sense, EFS has been a benefit to me...providing lenses for crop bodies that otherwise would not exist.

Edit: I recently sold my lenses and bought new ones. Of course, I considered moving from a EOS-20D to a EOS-5D. But I did the math and found that getting three new lenses for my 20D would be $1000 cheaper than getting just one (24-105 F4L IS) for the 5D, and this one lens would not have offered the same versatility as the three for the 20D. So full-frame for me is still cost-prohibitive and I needed new lenses NOW, not three or four years from now.

As many have said, Canon is the only player offering FF bodies while competitors like Nikon offer APS-C on their high-end bodies. If you take that into consideration, I doubt Canon is going to drop the price on their FF bodies to the $1000 level any time soon.

 

[ElFenix]

not having the short depth hasn't prevented sigma from making a 10-20. i guess it's a 3rd stop slower on the short end.

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
As many have said, Canon is the only player offering FF bodies while competitors like Nikon offer APS-C on their high-end bodies. If you take that into consideration, I doubt Canon is going to drop the price on their FF bodies to the $1000 level any time soon.

i bet nikon and sony have 35 mm SLRs out by the end of the year. 35 mm bodies won't be that cheap, but canon is going to have a big gap in their lineup between a 40D and a 5D Mk. II if the $1000 and $2500 price points are sticky. a $2000 35 mm body isn't out of the question.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
not having the short depth hasn't prevented sigma from making a 10-20. i guess it's a 3rd stop slower on the short end.

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
As many have said, Canon is the only player offering FF bodies while competitors like Nikon offer APS-C on their high-end bodies. If you take that into consideration, I doubt Canon is going to drop the price on their FF bodies to the $1000 level any time soon.

i bet nikon and sony have 35 mm SLRs out by the end of the year. 35 mm bodies won't be that cheap, but canon is going to have a big gap in their lineup between a 40D and a 5D Mk. II if the $1000 and $2500 price points are sticky. a $2000 35 mm body isn't out of the question.

Well, I would welcome that...and a EF 24-70 F2.8L IS that doesn't weigh a ton.