New EF-S Lenses Are Coming [CR2]

[Marsu42]

It was also noted that the 1100D and 60D would quietly be discontinued in the first part of 2013 with no replacements being imminent.

So they do merge the lines again after the 60d/7d split  - this probably means the the 7d2 sensor is such an improvement that they couldn't sell the 60d anymore anyway, nor can they drop the 60d price because the 650d is near.

[neuroanatomist]

Seriously?  Lighter, cheaper, and in the case of the 17-55, no FF equivalent (i.e., FF equivalent 27-88 f2.8 with IS).

Again, I chuckle. Guffaw, even.  While it's true that there's no 2x-7/8x f/2.8 IS zoom for FF, the crop factor affects DoF for the same framing and FF sensors collect more total light meaning lower noise. So, the real FF equivalent of the 17-55/2.8 is a 27-88mm f/4.5 lens, meaning the 24-105mm f/4L IS on FF is wider, longer, and faster (DoF for same framing), still has IS, and is a couple of hundred dollars cheaper when bought as a FF kit lens. The >1.3-stop lower noise more than compensates for the loss of 1-stop of aperture, in terms of shutter speed.  All you lose are the f/2.8 AF point(s).  Don't get me wrong - I loved the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and I think it's the best general purpose zoom for APS-C, but the 24-105mm f/4L IS on FF is better spec'd and delivers better IQ than the 17-55 on APS-C. 

[unfocused]

It was also noted that the 1100D and 60D would quietly be discontinued in the first part of 2013 with no replacements being imminent.

So they do merge the lines again after the 60d/7d split  - this probably means the the 7d2 sensor is such an improvement that they couldn't sell the 60d anymore anyway, nor can they drop the 60d price because the 650d is near.

I think "merge" might not be correct. They could very well do what they did with the 7D and 60D – Introduce the 7DII and then wait 9-12 months and follow it up with a 70D. Nikon has allowed both the D300 and D7000 to languish, while they upgrade lower-level models. You are correct in that the T4i pretty much matches the 60D currently and Nikon's actions means there is no real pressure on Canon to upgrade the 60D at this time. But, I think there is still room in the lineup for a 70D and I doubt that Canon will leave what could be a $1,000 gap between the T4i and the 7DII.

[distant.star]

Given the pretty outstanding prices on the 5D III we're seeing, and the likely even lower price of the 6D, I wouldn't mind seeing a high-resolution APS-H sensor

I KNEW we couldn't get through this without someone saying he wants an APS-H. All I can say is that if you beat a dead horse long enough you'll get dog food!

To paraphrase George Carlin as the returned Jesus the Christ, APS-H definitely ain't comin' back.

[Promature]

Seriously?  Lighter, cheaper, and in the case of the 17-55, no FF equivalent (i.e., FF equivalent 27-88 f2.8 with IS).

Again, I chuckle. Guffaw, even.  While it's true that there's no 2x-7/8x f/2.8 IS zoom for FF, the crop factor affects DoF for the same framing and FF sensors collect more total light meaning lower noise. So, the real FF equivalent of the 17-55/2.8 is a 27-88mm f/4.5 lens, meaning the 24-105mm f/4L IS on FF is wider, longer, and faster (DoF for same framing), still has IS, and is a couple of hundred dollars cheaper when bought as a FF kit lens. The >1.3-stop lower noise more than compensates for the loss of 1-stop of aperture, in terms of shutter speed.  All you lose are the f/2.8 AF point(s).  Don't get me wrong - I loved the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and I think it's the best general purpose zoom for APS-C, but the 24-105mm f/4L IS on FF is better spec'd and delivers better IQ than the 17-55 on APS-C.

I was thinking more about light capture, but you bring up good points about DoF and better ISO performance for FF.  Maybe my aversion to FF isn't quite justified.

[neuroanatomist]

I was thinking more about light capture, but you bring up good points about DoF and better ISO performance for FF.  Maybe my aversion to FF isn't quite justified.

Really, FF gives you more choices.  You can choose a shallower DoF and a lot less noise, or choose the same DoF and slightly less noise, compared to APS-C.  The only relevant downside to FF is the higher cost of bodies and often lenses. If you can afford it, FF is the way to go.

[shinjuku-thief]

i think there is no question that these upgraded lenses will be a lot more expensive.

it´s canon after all...

New things are more expensive, who'd have thunk it?

...a new “pro” APS-C camera, currently expected to be the EOS 7D Mark II.

I'm interested in this.  I wonder what 'pro' means?  I'd love a redesigned APS-C sensor with significantly lower high ISO noise, in a 1-series style body with the 1D X's AF system.  That's what 'pro' means to me... 

This is interesting to me, as well.

And when it is released, I won't expect it to come at a lower pricepoint than the 6D.

[neuroanatomist]

...a new “pro” APS-C camera, currently expected to be the EOS 7D Mark II.

I'm interested in this.  I wonder what 'pro' means?  I'd love a redesigned APS-C sensor with significantly lower high ISO noise, in a 1-series style body with the 1D X's AF system.  That's what 'pro' means to me... 

This is interesting to me, as well.

And when it is released, I won't expect it to come at a lower pricepoint than the 6D.

If it's actually a 1-series body, I'd expect to pay $3800...and I'd cheerfully do so!

[AvTvM]

love my EF-S lenses. All of them. 10-22, 17-55, 60 Macro.
Don't care at all for any of the lenses rumored here.

I only want one more EF-S lens:
* EF-S 50-150/2.8 IS ...

• of course in black (!)
  
• size and weight like the Sigma 50-150/2.8
  
  • 4-stop IS and Ring-USm AF
    
  • rounded 9 aperture blades
    
    • image quality just like the 70-200/2.8 L IS II
      

[verysimplejason]

I was thinking more about light capture, but you bring up good points about DoF and better ISO performance for FF.  Maybe my aversion to FF isn't quite justified.

Really, FF gives you more choices.  You can choose a shallower DoF and a lot less noise, or choose the same DoF and slightly less noise, compared to APS-C.  The only relevant downside to FF is the higher cost of bodies and often lenses. If you can afford it, FF is the way to go.

and WEIGHT (for some people...). 

[Lee Jay]

I was thinking more about light capture, but you bring up good points about DoF and better ISO performance for FF.  Maybe my aversion to FF isn't quite justified.

Really, FF gives you more choices.  You can choose a shallower DoF and a lot less noise, or choose the same DoF and slightly less noise, compared to APS-C.  The only relevant downside to FF is the higher cost of bodies and often lenses. If you can afford it, FF is the way to go.

and WEIGHT (for some people...). 

When I got my 5D, my lens kit went from 8 to 5, with a reduction in total weight.

[coreyhkh]

YES YES YES I cant wait for the new 7D I have $$$$$ waiting lol

[Don Haines]

I was thinking more about light capture, but you bring up good points about DoF and better ISO performance for FF.  Maybe my aversion to FF isn't quite justified.

Really, FF gives you more choices.  You can choose a shallower DoF and a lot less noise, or choose the same DoF and slightly less noise, compared to APS-C.  The only relevant downside to FF is the higher cost of bodies and often lenses. If you can afford it, FF is the way to go.

I would agree that in general, FF is the way to go, but for those of us who are outdoors enthusiasts and have to carry the camera gear on our back for a week, plus tent, sleeping bag, food, etc... a lighter weight camera starts looking awful good. Most of my compatriots have gone to point and shoots, but for me the drop in IQ, ISO sensitivity, and poor lenses keeps me with DSLR's.

The smaller size body of an APS-C camera is a lot easier to take with you into the wild. Carrying a 400/5.6 lens on an APS-C body is the same reach as carrying a 640/5.6 lens on a FF body.... Which one do you want to carry up the mountain? For my use, a 7D is the ideal Canon camera and I look forward to the new version and hope that the form factor does NOT head towards a 1 series camera.

[epsiloneri]

The only relevant downside to FF is the higher cost of bodies and often lenses.

For the equivalent specs/quality, FF lenses would actually be cheaper than APS-C - if equivalent lenses really existed. The EF-S 17-55/2.8 (on APS-C) and EF 24-105/4L (on FF) are probably the best examples, the EF 85/1.2L II (on APS-C) and EF 135/2.0L (on FF) is another example with similarly spec:ed lenses with the second lens being half the price. Even with the cheaper lens, I would expect the IQ to be better on the FF. If there was an EF-S 85/1.2 lens made that actually rivaled the EF 135/2.0L on FF, it would probably have to be even more expensive than the current EF 85/1.2L II.

[insanitybeard]

I would agree that in general, FF is the way to go, but for those of us who are outdoors enthusiasts and have to carry the camera gear on our back for a week, plus tent, sleeping bag, food, etc... a lighter weight camera starts looking awful good. Most of my compatriots have gone to point and shoots, but for me the drop in IQ, ISO sensitivity, and poor lenses keeps me with DSLR's.

The smaller size body of an APS-C camera is a lot easier to take with you into the wild. Carrying a 400/5.6 lens on an APS-C body is the same reach as carrying a 640/5.6 lens on a FF body.... Which one do you want to carry up the mountain? For my use, a 7D is the ideal Canon camera and I look forward to the new version and hope that the form factor does NOT head towards a 1 series camera.

Having said that, the 7D body is actually heavier than the 5DII and only a bit lighter then the 5DIII, and not much smaller physically either. Being able to use smaller lenses for the same equivalent reach on the crop body (compared to FF) is another matter of course.