...and only make up 0.00............1% of Canon users?...calculate what is 1% (the figure you so randomly plucked from others' posts)
Actually, the number he suggests is far less than 1%. He didn't pluck it from anywhere, he wrote it as to mean vanishingly small.
Um, okay, but that's not what I asked. At least, that's not what I intended to ask. Let me add the missing letter to my question:
What do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF L prime?
An EF-S L-prime would take advantage of the shorter "back-focus" distance. This could possibly eliminate the need for a retro-focal design in certain focal lengths, as an example. If you don't know why this is desirable, then you also wouldn't understand it if I explained it to you. And I suspects you don't, which why you also cannot fathom the point of EF-S primes (L or not).
And sure, I'll bite. I may not understand, although I don't know whether that's a reflection on me or on your ability to explain things.
Initially, I do not understand, but I have no qualms about admitting such.
Suggested advantage of EF-S L over EF L: A shorter back focas distance can eliminate retrofocal designs.
Don't retrofocal designs increase
the back focus distance? How does reducing the back focus distance eliminate the need to increase the back focus distance? If the goal is a shorter back focus distance, then you are talking telephoto, not retrofocal, right? Maybe not.