Why does not Canon have a 50-150 f.2,8 L is and a 150-300 f.2,8 L is lenses.

[Heidrun]

Because i would find it wery usefull if they did. I myself have a 17-40 and would find this zoom range 50-150 very useful indeed . So the next thing would naturally be a 150-300 f.2,8 L is zoom.
If they could make suche lenses. Im sure these two lenses would be very compact.

[Hillsilly]

These focal lengths would make a lot of sense in a EF-S lens.  (Although, it is questionable if a 150-300 f2.8 lens would be noticeably smaller than an EF lens?)  Canon makes the 17-55 as an F2.8, but apart from this, they are lacking in fast EF-S lenses.  Personally, I'd much rather see an EF-S 15mm f1.8 L.  Especially if it is small, pocketable and takes regular filters.  Other manufacturers seem to cater well for APS-C sensored cameras.  With Canon, you sometimes get the impression that if you're not using a full frame camera, you are a second class citizen. 

[Hillsilly]

Also, I think a 150-300 F2.8 would be hideously expensive.  Sigma make a 120-300 f2.8, which sell for just over $3k.  A Canon lens would have a large premium in price over this.  I'd suspect that Canon are regularly talking to the likely buyers of such lenses.  The fact that it hasn't appeared would suggest that most people are happy with the 70-200 F 2.8 and the bigger prime lenses.  There may not be much of a market for it.

[lol]

An EF 50-150 f2.8L would be too niche I think. It isn't that much different from the existing selection of 70-200 lenses. The only way it could make sense is if was an EF-S "as good as L", where the cost, size and weight savings combined would be more significant if you take the Sigma lenses for comparison.

An EF 1xx-300 f2.8L (or wider) would be a very nice lens to have I think. It would cost in the ball park of the 300 f/2.8L regardless... maybe they could look at this once they're done with the 200-400 extender.

[Flake]

A few weeks ago I posted a similar thread about a lens for FF which gave roughly the same field of view that a 24 - 105mm gives on a crop body (40mm - 170mm) no one responded, and that is probably the answer - no one is interested.

A 150 - 300mm f/2.8 is more interesting, but again it's a low volume sector and would undoubtably steal sales from the 70 - 200mm IS L f/2.8 and the 300mm L f/2.8, the current model cost a whopping £5600 so a zoom version would have to be priced higher than that.  Having said that it looks like most of the big whites will soon break the £10K barrier, and it does make you wonder who on earth buys the things, I never have much call for super telephoto so I'd hire if I had to.

[lol]

All the great whites are probably low volume sellers. Doesn't mean they are not profitable. I have a 300mm f/2.8 lens, but the lack of zoom is a big negative for me. The Sigma 120-300/2.8 was also tempting at the time, but I'd pay the Canon premium if they were to make one, particularly with IS. Having said that, the 200-400 extender would fill a similar role for me and that will do nicely when it comes out.

[dr croubie]

wow, stop reading my thoughts, i was thinking exactly the same thing for the last few weeks, about the 50-150 f2.8.
personally, i don't see why people wouldn't love this one, it'd be the almost perfect 'all-purpose portrait lens', maybe 40-150 also possible. especially in a wedding or event, zoom to 150 to get fullbody shots of the happy couple from the back of the hall/church, out to 40 or 50 on a fullframe sensor for group shots. coupled with the 16-35 2.8 or just a 24/35 1.4 for the big group shots and you've got more versatility than the 24-70 + 70-200 2.8s (unless you have 2x FF bodies) imho.

150-300 would also be nice, but yeah, like everyone else has said it's gonna cost a packet, they've just gone and designed the 200-400 f4, and the 70-200s cover everything you can think of anyway.

i'm not in favour of making them efs only, frankly it doesn't make sense anyway, the only thing you need efs for is to get the rear element closer for ultra-wide angle shots. the only reason they made the efs 55-250 was to couple it with the 18-55 in dual lens kits (and make it lighter/cheaper).


personally, i'm still hanging out for the efs 30 1.4 as the 'aps-c nifty fifty' (maybe the 'dirty thirty'?)
and an ultrawide efs prime like the efs 15f2 or efs 11f2 (saw a patent rumour for one or the other here a month ago)

[adamdoesmovies]

These focal lengths would make a lot of sense in a EF-S lens.  (Although, it is questionable if a 150-300 f2.8 lens would be noticeably smaller than an EF lens?)  Canon makes the 17-55 as an F2.8, but apart from this, they are lacking in fast EF-S lenses.  Personally, I'd much rather see an EF-S 15mm f1.8 L.  Especially if it is small, pocketable and takes regular filters.  Other manufacturers seem to cater well for APS-C sensored cameras.  With Canon, you sometimes get the impression that if you're not using a full frame camera, you are a second class citizen.

It does seem like that, which is curious given that they only really have one full-frame camera,  and technologically speaking, their half-frame (or APS-C, or super35 sized) 7D, or their a-little-more-than-half-frame 1DmkIV are their most advanced cameras.  Also, the vast majority of their sales are half-frame cams.

[pgabor]

"With Canon, you sometimes get the impression that if you're not using a full frame camera, you are a second class citizen."

Its all about money. Its a food chain. The whole point of this, that if you want to take photography seriously, you cant get stuck at APS-C. What do you think, why theres no weather sealed EF-S lens? For the same reason. If you want to go pro, you have to go fullframe.

[unfocused]

"With Canon, you sometimes get the impression that if you're not using a full frame camera, you are a second class citizen."

Its all about money. Its a food chain. The whole point of this, that if you want to take photography seriously, you cant get stuck at APS-C. What do you think, why theres no weather sealed EF-S lens? For the same reason. If you want to go pro, you have to go fullframe.

One of the silliest statements ever. Sensor size has absolutely nothing to do with how serious of a photographer you are. A talented photographer can make great images with a point and shoot. A 1D won't make a no-talent photographer good.

[lol]

Both the previous posts I think miss the point. You need "good enough for the job". That may or may not be full frame, or weatherproofed. Doesn't matter if you're pro or not. Even the best photographer would struggle if they don't have the appropriate tools for the job.

[pgabor]

"With Canon, you sometimes get the impression that if you're not using a full frame camera, you are a second class citizen."

Its all about money. Its a food chain. The whole point of this, that if you want to take photography seriously, you cant get stuck at APS-C. What do you think, why theres no weather sealed EF-S lens? For the same reason. If you want to go pro, you have to go fullframe.

One of the silliest statements ever. Sensor size has absolutely nothing to do with how serious of a photographer you are. A talented photographer can make great images with a point and shoot. A 1D won't make a no-talent photographer good.

I never said that he cant. I sad that doesn't matter how talented you are, you cant shoot a whole wedding in a downpour with a 7D + 17-55. But if you shoot nikon, you can do that with a D300 + 17-55, because the nikon version is fully sealed. Professional =/= someone who take great pictures. Professional = Someone who do photography for a living. (I think i was not too clear with the "if you want to take photography seriously" phrase)

[unfocused]

I think i was not too clear with the "if you want to take photography seriously" phrase

Okay, I won't quibble. If the point is that Canon has neglected the EF-S line, that's certainly true. And, really, it would be easy to fix. It doesn't require offering lenses through the entire range of focal lengths, just a better selection at the wide end would cover it. It is frustrating that Canon seems to have ceded much of the crop sensor lens territory to third parties.

[7enderbender]

Because i would find it wery usefull if they did. I myself have a 17-40 and would find this zoom range 50-150 very useful indeed . So the next thing would naturally be a 150-300 f.2,8 L is zoom.
If they could make suche lenses. Im sure these two lenses would be very compact.

Who would be the targeted audience for this? Let's stipulate that this is a useful range for people with crop sensors. But it would also be quite expensive. And then what? Do many people who buy a $1000 camera go out and add a $3000 lens to it? Probably not.

And for full frame it's just not a traditional range. I'm sure this could be a nice lens, no doubt, but what is the application? Maybe as a portrait lens it may be interesting to some degree, but still highly specialized. And in that price range with a main interest in portraits I would chose the 85L and the 135L (or so) over a zoom like this any day.

And for walk around all purpose or as general use tele it doesn't cut it, does it?

[neuroanatomist]

It doesn't require offering lenses through the entire range of focal lengths, just a better selection at the wide end would cover it. It is frustrating that Canon seems to have ceded much of the crop sensor lens territory to third parties.

True about concentrating on the wide end, simply because at the tele end there's very little benefit to designing a lens with a smaller image circle.

I don't agree that Canon has ceded the crop format lens territory, in terms of focal length.  They've got the 10-22mm, 15-85mm, and 17-55mm as 'quality' lenses in that range, and the 17-85mm, 18-55mm, 18-135mm, and 18-200mm as consumer grade lenses.  Of those 7 lenses, 6 of them cover the 18-55mm range, and to me, that doesn't seem like a poor selection.

Where they've left a substantial gap is APS-C format wide angle prime lenses, (the only EF-S prime is the 60mm f/2.8 Macro).  On the other hand, for 3rd party vendors there are a couple of lenses from Sigma (30mm f/1.4 and 10mm f/2.8 fisheye).  I do agree that since Nikon has a 35mm f/1.8 DX-format prime, it does seem that there's a gap in Canon's lineup.