Professional Web Applications Themes

Would you buy expensive "Digital Only" lenses - Photography

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 ed if /Canon tried to oust the current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount. - Siddhartha...

  1. #1

    Default Would you buy expensive "Digital Only" lenses

    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 ed if /Canon tried to oust the
    current set of lens mount with the new EF-S mount.

    - Siddhartha

    Siddhartha Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Would you buy expensive "Digital Only" lenses

    "Siddhartha Jain" <co.uk> wrote in message
    news:googlegroups.com... 

    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 Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Would you buy expensive "Digital Only" lenses

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

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




    Ken Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Would you buy expensive "Digital Only" lenses

    In article <com>,
    Ken Oaf <com.au> wrote:
     

    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 Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Would you buy expensive "Digital Only" lenses

    In article <dyndns.org>,
    no_uce_please.com says... 
    >
    > Dinosaurs and those making large prints, which still can't be done using
    > digital at a price that competes with medium format/at all.
    >[/ref]

    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 Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Would you buy expensive "Digital Only" lenses

    Op Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:51:12 GMT schreef Chris Brown
    <no_uce_please.com>:
     
    >
    >Dinosaurs and those making large prints, which still can't be done using
    >digital at a price that competes with medium format/at all.[/ref]

    Aren't it the dinosaurs who made the largest (foot)prints?

    Bart
    you can send email to me using
    mendelson-at-mendelson-dot-nl
    www.mendelson.nl
    bart Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Would you buy expensive "Digital Only" lenses

    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" <co.uk> ?????? ??? ??????
    news:googlegroups.com... 


    Dimitrios Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Would you buy expensive "Digital Only" lenses

    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" <co.uk> wrote in message
    news:googlegroups.com... 


    YoYo Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Would you buy expensive "Digital Only" lenses


    "Chris Brown" <no_uce_please.com> wrote in message
    news:dyndns.org... [/ref]
    Only 
    >
    > Dinosaurs and those making large prints, which still can't be done using
    > digital at a price that competes with medium format/at all.[/ref]

    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 Guest

  10. Moderated Post

    Default Re: Would you buy expensive "Digital Only" lenses

    Removed by Administrator
    grilla Guest
    Moderated Post

  11. #11

    Default Re: Would you buy expensive "Digital Only" lenses


    "Larry" <net> wrote in message
    news:individual.NET... [/ref][/ref]
    Only 
    > >
    > > Dinosaurs and those making large prints, which still can't be done using
    > > digital at a price that competes with medium format/at all.
    > >[/ref]
    >
    > 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[/ref]
    even a 
    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 Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Would you buy expensive "Digital Only" lenses


    "YoYo" <_> wrote in message news:supernews.com... 
    Canon is unlikely to make consumer level cameras in full-frame. Witness the
    EF-S line of lenses.



    Darrell Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Would you buy expensive "Digital Only" lenses

    "Siddhartha Jain" <co.uk> wrote in
    news:googlegroups.com:
     

    ....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/
     

    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'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 Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Would you buy expensive "Digital Only" lenses

    "Ken Oaf" <com.au> wrote in message
    news:com... 
    >
    > 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. ;-)
    >
    >
    >
    >[/ref]
    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 Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Would you buy expensive "Digital Only" lenses

    Siddhartha Jain wrote: 

    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 Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Would you buy expensive "Digital Only" lenses

    Skip M wrote: 
    the 1D 
    here.

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

    - Siddhartha

    Siddhartha Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Would you buy expensive "Digital Only" lenses

    In article <com>, Darrell <dev/null> wrote: [/ref]
    >Only 
    >>
    >> Dinosaurs and those making large prints, which still can't be done using
    >> digital at a price that competes with medium format/at all.[/ref]
    >
    >How big prints are you talking about?[/ref]

    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.
     

    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.
     

    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 Guest

  18. Moderated Post

    Default Re: Would you buy expensive "Digital Only" lenses

    Removed by Administrator
    Skip Guest
    Moderated Post

  19. #19

    Default Re: Would you buy expensive "Digital Only" lenses

    In article <googlegroups.com>,
    Siddhartha Jain <co.uk> wrote:
     

    Not a chance. Buying lenses that cover less than full frame only
    encourages them. At some point we're going to need the larger frame
    size, and if we go too far into the APS-size valley it will never
    happen.

    I can only hope that the manufacturers interpret slow sales of
    digital-only lenses correctly. Instead of "I guess people wanted
    full-coverage lenses", they may well decide they have to make the
    APS-size lenses even cheaper.
    Scott Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: Would you buy expensive "Digital Only" lenses

    Chris Brown <no_uce_please.com> writes:
     
    >
    > Dinosaurs and those making large prints, which still can't be done using
    > digital at a price that competes with medium format/at all.[/ref]

    Artists are getting badly squeezed here, because they don't generally
    have the volumes to really benefit financially from digital. For a
    commercial studio, even the high-end medium format backs pay for
    themselves in saved lab charges fairly quickly.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
    David Guest

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 16
    Last Post: January 29th, 08:56 PM
  2. "Film Latitude" in relation to digital photography
    By Mike Cook in forum Photography
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 13th, 01:49 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139