Would you buy expensive "Digital Only" lenses

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Siddhartha Jain, Feb 22, 2005.

  1. Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
    and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
    these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
    lenses if the lens is very expensive?

    I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
    in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
    the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
    current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.

    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Feb 22, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Siddhartha Jain

    Mark B. Guest

    "Siddhartha Jain" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
    > and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
    > these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
    > lenses if the lens is very expensive?
    >
    > I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
    > in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
    > the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
    > current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.
    >


    Impossible, as the pro DSLRs use larger sensors (1.3x & full frame). So
    even if the EF-S mount does become the standard on the Rebel & 20D line, the
    EF mount will remain.

    Mark
     
    Mark B., Feb 22, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Siddhartha Jain

    Ken Oaf Guest

    On 22 Feb 2005 02:31:46 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain" <>
    wrote:

    > Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
    > and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
    > these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
    > lenses if the lens is very expensive?
    >
    > I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
    > in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
    > the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
    > current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.


    Film is dead as far as I and most photographers I know are concerned. Only
    dinosaurs insist that film is still better than digital.

    While I still own some film gear, it will be going out with the garbage very
    soon. ;-)
     
    Ken Oaf, Feb 22, 2005
    #3
  4. Siddhartha Jain

    Chris Brown Guest

    In article <>,
    Ken Oaf <> wrote:

    >Film is dead as far as I and most photographers I know are concerned. Only
    >dinosaurs insist that film is still better than digital.


    Dinosaurs and those making large prints, which still can't be done using
    digital at a price that competes with medium format/at all.
     
    Chris Brown, Feb 22, 2005
    #4
  5. Siddhartha Jain

    BG250 Guest

    "Ken Oaf" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 22 Feb 2005 02:31:46 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > > Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
    > > and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
    > > these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
    > > lenses if the lens is very expensive?
    > >
    > > I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
    > > in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
    > > the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
    > > current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.

    >
    > Film is dead as far as I and most photographers I know are concerned.

    Only
    > dinosaurs insist that film is still better than digital.
    >
    > While I still own some film gear, it will be going out with the garbage

    very
    > soon. ;-)
    >
    >

    May I be your garbage man?
     
    BG250, Feb 22, 2005
    #5
  6. Siddhartha Jain

    BG250 Guest

    "Siddhartha Jain" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
    > and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
    > these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
    > lenses if the lens is very expensive?
    >
    > I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
    > in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
    > the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
    > current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.
    >
    > - Siddhartha
    >

    Full frame won't be affordable in two or three years. It takes well over
    twice as much silicon to make compared to a APS sized sensors. I'm not
    saying it will ever be done, just not so soon. I estimate that APS sized
    sensors are good for at least 12 MP before noise becomes an issue. Enjoy the
    digital lenses!
    John
     
    BG250, Feb 22, 2005
    #6
  7. Siddhartha Jain

    Larry Guest

    In article <>,
    _uce_please.com says...
    > In article <>,
    > Ken Oaf <> wrote:
    >
    > >Film is dead as far as I and most photographers I know are concerned. Only
    > >dinosaurs insist that film is still better than digital.

    >
    > Dinosaurs and those making large prints, which still can't be done using
    > digital at a price that competes with medium format/at all.
    >


    Film is NOT dead (not yet anyway).


    Many people who post to the usenet digital camera newsgroups are doing
    digital only, but they only represent a small group and dont amount to even a
    blip on the statistical radar.

    Many pro photographers are using digital, but FEW of them are shooting
    digital only.

    Going digital only before the technology matures would be stupid for a Pro.
    There are still many things that work well on film that either aren't as easy
    with digital or simply dont work well (yet).

    Film wont die until you cant get it at the camera store, or order it from
    your supplier, and that time is a while off.

    Personally, I dont shoot much film myself any more, but I dont consider it
    dead, not by a long shot.

    I wouldn't buy a "digital only" lens, unless there was something REALLY
    SPECIAL and LUCRATIVE about the camera.

    IOW not unless I was going to make some money with it (enough money to cover
    the cost of the lens and then some). OTOH I would no longer buy a lens that
    is for "film only".

    I had considered the OLY E-volt (which uses a lens that ONLY fits digital
    4/3) because it has the ultra-sonic cleaner, and I probably could make up the
    cost of the camera and a good lens in 2 weekends shooting with it. Then I
    tried the camera... NO THANKS... I dont care how clean the sensor stays, it
    doesn't have the capabilities of other, less restrictive hardware.. Like the
    new DRebel (or even the OLD DRebel for that matter).

    Some of the film lenses I have cant be used on Digital cameras that I can
    afford, and some CAN.

    I havent yet bought a good DSLR, but that hasn't stopped me from giving the
    lens issue a LONG HARD THINK...

    I have some very nice fully manual lenses for Yashica cameras circa 1970..
    and I no longer own a working Yashica or Contax body.. That hasn't caused me
    to throw away the lenses.

    Someone that I forgot to thank posted a URL where I could get adapter mounts
    for those lenses, so I may use them digital yet!

    I was given a suitcase of Canon lenses that probably represents 15 to 20
    thousand dollars when they were new (I havent even gone through them yet).

    If I sell those lenses, I'll sell them to someone who is shooting film, and
    there are a lot of those people around.

    Joe sixpack may well have gone "pocket digital" but the whole world hasn't
    done it yet.


    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
     
    Larry, Feb 22, 2005
    #7
  8. I would never buy another slr, even digital, I was bored carrying my Nikon
    FM-2 around with all the equipment, the better of mine photos were made with
    point and shoots,SLRs are too bulky, and you have to have a large zoom lens,
    separate flash unit etc.
    (I have now the Kodak CX 7300 which makes excellent photos, without the fuss
    of adjusting focus, aperture and shutter speed while trying to find the
    right angle to photo the subject.)

    --
    Tzortzakakis Dimitri?s
    major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
    FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
    dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
    ? "Siddhartha Jain" <> ?????? ??? ??????
    news:...
    > Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
    > and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
    > these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
    > lenses if the lens is very expensive?
    >
    > I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
    > in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
    > the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
    > current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.
    >
    > - Siddhartha
    >
     
    Dimitrios Tzortzakakis, Feb 22, 2005
    #8
  9. Siddhartha Jain

    YoYo Guest

    I wont touch ef-s lens, I would rather an ef lens
    You lost your money on a few Canon bodies.
    Your ef-s wont work on full frame sensors :+(

    "Siddhartha Jain" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
    > and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
    > these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
    > lenses if the lens is very expensive?
    >
    > I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
    > in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
    > the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
    > current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.
    >
    > - Siddhartha
    >
     
    YoYo, Feb 22, 2005
    #9
  10. On 22 Feb 2005 02:31:46 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain"
    <> wrote:

    >Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
    >and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
    >these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
    >lenses if the lens is very expensive?
    >
    >I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
    >in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
    >the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
    >current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.


    Apart from the fact that my EOS 10D doesn't support the EF-S mount and
    I'm limited to the small form factor lenses from Sigma and Tamron, no,
    I wouldn't buy a lens designed for a small format sensor. My view is
    that bodies come and go, but lenses are (hopefully) forever. When I
    bought my 10D it was done with the intention of it being replaced with
    either a 1D series body (or a 3D if Canon release one), which is
    almost certainly going to mean a 1.3x crop at the very least. It
    would have to be a *very* interesting small form factor lens to
    pursuade me to by a lens knowing I'd probably be unable to use it on
    my primary camera in a couple of years time.

    Even so, I can see the value in vendors having a range of smaller and
    cheaper lenses for those people who just want a cheap, compact DSLR
    for a little more control over their photography. For this class of
    consumer an APS-C sized sensor and lenses designed specifically for it
    make a lot of sense, so I expect the form factor to stick around for a
    while. I certainly don't subscribe to the idea that as technology
    moves forward, sensor sizes will get bigger and we'll all end up using
    full frame sensors.

    On a related note, I might however buy a lens optimised for digital
    use such as Sigma's DG range, which are the full 35mm but with a
    coating better designed to cut down the image abberations specific to
    digital. Assuming that is, that Sigma can convince me that it's not
    just a marketing exercise when I visit their stand at the Focus on
    Imaging show in the UK next week, anyway...

    Andy
     
    Andy Blanchard, Feb 22, 2005
    #10
  11. Siddhartha Jain

    Darrell Guest

    "Chris Brown" <_uce_please.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > Ken Oaf <> wrote:
    >
    > >Film is dead as far as I and most photographers I know are concerned.

    Only
    > >dinosaurs insist that film is still better than digital.

    >
    > Dinosaurs and those making large prints, which still can't be done using
    > digital at a price that competes with medium format/at all.


    How big prints are you talking about?

    Film is DEAD, Agfa and Ilford are both in the equivalent of Chapter 11,
    Kodak is dropping a lot of different films. Medium Format is dead, look at
    Bronica. Mamiya and Hasselblad are building digital product. I work in a
    large busy camera shop in Ottawa, I haven't shown or sold a 35mm SLR since
    September 2004.
     
    Darrell, Feb 22, 2005
    #11
  12. Siddhartha Jain

    grilla Guest

    any medium format print from something as small as a 6 x 4.5 will blow away
    the best money can by digital print. film may be dead for 35mm, but to
    suggest film is dead is just plain ignorant.
     
    grilla, Feb 22, 2005
    #12
  13. Siddhartha Jain

    Darrell Guest

    "Larry" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > _uce_please.com says...
    > > In article <>,
    > > Ken Oaf <> wrote:
    > >
    > > >Film is dead as far as I and most photographers I know are concerned.

    Only
    > > >dinosaurs insist that film is still better than digital.

    > >
    > > Dinosaurs and those making large prints, which still can't be done using
    > > digital at a price that competes with medium format/at all.
    > >

    >
    > Film is NOT dead (not yet anyway).
    >
    >
    > Many people who post to the usenet digital camera newsgroups are doing
    > digital only, but they only represent a small group and dont amount to

    even a
    > blip on the statistical radar.
    >

    Well our store hasn't sold a 35mm film SLR since September 2004, effectively
    Ilford and Agfa are gone, Kodak discontinues various films at will. Hate to
    say it but film is dead, about half our lab business is digital files.
     
    Darrell, Feb 22, 2005
    #13
  14. Siddhartha Jain

    Darrell Guest

    "YoYo" <_> wrote in message news:...
    > I wont touch ef-s lens, I would rather an ef lens
    > You lost your money on a few Canon bodies.
    > Your ef-s won't work on full frame sensors :+(
    >

    Canon is unlikely to make consumer level cameras in full-frame. Witness the
    EF-S line of lenses.
     
    Darrell, Feb 22, 2005
    #14
  15. Siddhartha Jain

    Eric Gill Guest

    "Siddhartha Jain" <> wrote in
    news::

    > Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series


    ....though not all of them are limited to small-sensor DLSRs.

    This is a bloody fine lens:

    http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/28_75_Di/

    > and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
    > these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
    > lenses if the lens is very expensive?


    In a word, no. Part of the "digital" or "APS-C" only attraction is that
    they are cheaper.

    That being said, I *did* pop for the 10-22, which is around $800USD. It
    was completely unique at the time, though, and I don't really regret it,
    as the lens has turned out to be an unexpectedly good performer.

    We're never really going to have a choice of full-frame on the very short
    end, it looks like. The shortest full-frame zoom lens so far is Sigma's
    Popeye, at 12mm. The difference between it and the APS-C 10MMs is
    amazing.

    Hopefully the newly-announced Sigma 10-20 will be in the inexspensive
    range and of the same quality as the Canon offering. Allegedly, it *will*
    work on bigger-sensor or film bodies, though with terrible vignetting.
    Cheaper plus at least works on your other cameras means less pain in
    deciding to buy.

    > I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
    > in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
    > the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
    > current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.


    I'm not sure why you'd be worried about this. Canon is probably going to
    get their brains beaten out trying to compete with Sigma and Tamron at
    the low and medium end. I'm hoping Canon marketing will realize this and
    we'll see the return of super-premiums such as f/1.0 primes and f/1.2
    zooms in the near future.
     
    Eric Gill, Feb 22, 2005
    #15
  16. Siddhartha Jain

    Skip M Guest

    "Ken Oaf" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 22 Feb 2005 02:31:46 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
    >> and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
    >> these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
    >> lenses if the lens is very expensive?
    >>
    >> I'd put my money of lenses that work on both, film as well as digital
    >> in the hope that full-frame sensors based dSLRs become affordable in
    >> the next 2-3 years. And I'd be damn pissed if /Canon tried to oust the
    >> current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.

    >
    > Film is dead as far as I and most photographers I know are concerned.
    > Only
    > dinosaurs insist that film is still better than digital.
    >
    > While I still own some film gear, it will be going out with the garbage
    > very
    > soon. ;-)
    >
    >
    >
    >

    But the EF mount lenses work on the larger sensored digital bodies, the 1D
    mkII and 1Ds mkII, and the EF-S lenses don't, so film isn't the issue here.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Feb 22, 2005
    #16
  17. Siddhartha Jain wrote:
    > Canon's putting out new EF-S lenses, Tamron's selling the "Di" series
    > and Sigma's out with the "DC" series. Are you going to invest $$$ in
    > these lenses or will you stick to the full-frame (35mm) compatible
    > lenses if the lens is very expensive?


    Please correct me if I am wrong but one of the advantages of using a
    sub-35mm sensor, as I understand, was that the lenses would be smaller,
    lighter and most importantly - faster in terms of aperture. The newer
    P&S cameras often have fixed aperture or f2.8-3.5/4 throughout the zoom
    range (3x - upto 12x). But the EF-S series doesn't seem to be any
    faster than the EF series, for the same price.

    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Feb 22, 2005
    #17
  18. Skip M wrote:
    > But the EF mount lenses work on the larger sensored digital bodies,

    the 1D
    > mkII and 1Ds mkII, and the EF-S lenses don't, so film isn't the issue

    here.

    Right. My bad. I mixed up 35mm sensor/film vs sub-35mm with film vs
    digital. That wasn't the intention.

    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Feb 22, 2005
    #18
  19. Siddhartha Jain

    Guest

    Ken Oaf <> wrote:

    >While I still own some film gear, it will be going out with the garbage very
    >soon. ;-)


    If it is Canon stuff, I'll send you a pre-paid recycling box addressed
    to me. :)

    Wes

    EF F1

    --
    Reply to:
    Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
    Lycos address is a spam trap.
     
    , Feb 22, 2005
    #19
  20. Siddhartha Jain

    Chris Brown Guest

    In article <>, Darrell <dev/null> wrote:
    >
    >"Chris Brown" <_uce_please.com> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> In article <>,
    >> Ken Oaf <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Film is dead as far as I and most photographers I know are concerned.

    >Only
    >> >dinosaurs insist that film is still better than digital.

    >>
    >> Dinosaurs and those making large prints, which still can't be done using
    >> digital at a price that competes with medium format/at all.

    >
    >How big prints are you talking about?


    A3 and up. My 10D A3 prints look OK, until I put them next to a similarly
    sized print from my Mamiya 7, then they look like utter crap. It's all
    relative.

    >Film is DEAD, Agfa and Ilford are both in the equivalent of Chapter 11,
    >Kodak is dropping a lot of different films. Medium Format is dead, look at
    >Bronica. Mamiya and Hasselblad are building digital product.


    MF is far from dead, it's just having a little shakeout as it moves from
    being a primarilly professional-photographer dominated field, to one where
    the bulk of users are amateur photographers doing it for the enjoyment.
    Expect to see a lot of the more "businesslike" Mf SLR setups get
    discontinued, but the sort of stuff that appeals to amateur photographers
    will most licontinue to be made for a long time, but on more of a "cottage
    industry" scale, rather like large format view cameras have for years.

    After all, you can still buy a brand new Rolleiflex TLR - they're still
    made.

    There is money to be made selling film cameras and equipment, otherwise
    people like Wista and film like Agfa Scala simply wouldn't exist. The
    large-scale film industry as it has existed, however, is probably a thing of
    the past.

    >I work in a
    >large busy camera shop in Ottawa, I haven't shown or sold a 35mm SLR since
    >September 2004.


    35mm SLRs are rapdily becoming white-elephants as DSLRs that use the same
    lenses become more and more affordable. IOW, DSLRs are a direct replacement
    for them, more or less.

    But if the pursuit of the best image quality is your game,the amount of
    money you have to spend on digital to even get close to what is possible
    with a second hand Rolleiflex that can be picked up on ebay for $not_much is
    prohibitive.
     
    Chris Brown, Feb 22, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Newbie

    Which camera would YOU buy if you have $300?

    Newbie, Apr 5, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    490
    Paul Rubin
    Apr 6, 2005
  2. M-M

    About expensive lenses

    M-M, Jan 30, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    78
    Views:
    1,580
    Ilya Zakharevich
    Feb 4, 2007
  3. Douglas

    Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses

    Douglas, Nov 30, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    120
    Views:
    3,421
    Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
    Dec 29, 2007
  4. richard
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    570
    Mike Yetto
    Jan 31, 2010
  5. Rich
    Replies:
    66
    Views:
    1,406
    John Turco
    Jun 30, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page