September 20, 2014, 04:37:29 PM

Author Topic: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?  (Read 12565 times)

dickgrafixstop

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
    • View Profile
Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« on: July 26, 2011, 05:59:36 PM »
seeing the build quality of the 7d is up to 5d standards, why no super high quality lenses from
canon to optimize the aps-c chip.  Would love to see a ef-s 35mm f1.4 for example or an ef-s 75/80 f1 or
a ef-s 35-105 zoom.

canon rumors FORUM

Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« on: July 26, 2011, 05:59:36 PM »

Macadameane

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 209
    • View Profile
Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #1 on: July 26, 2011, 06:27:34 PM »
Someone with a good number of EF-S lenses will have to answer, but from what I understand, there are many high quality EF-S lenses that are optically on par with L lenses.

Otherwise, get L prime lenses and use them on your 7D.

thejoyofsobe

  • Guest
Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #2 on: July 26, 2011, 06:41:52 PM »
because a red ring and a white square would look weird together.

dr croubie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1400
  • Too many photos, too little time.
    • View Profile
Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #3 on: July 26, 2011, 07:41:28 PM »
Someone with a good number of EF-S lenses will have to answer, but from what I understand, there are many high quality EF-S lenses that are optically on par with L lenses.
The efs 15-85 and 17-55 f/2.8 are both very good, a lot of people say the 17-55 is better than the 24-105 f/4L for the same focal length, IS, and effective aperture.
But just being an 'L' doesn't especially mean it's flawlessly perfect, look at the corner softness of the 17-40L, 35/1.4L, 24/1.4L. Look at the field curvature of the 24-70/2.8L. Look at the barrelling of the 28-300L @28mm. Compare the MTF sharpness of the 50/1.4 and 50/1.2L (yes, the f/1.4 has its own problems though).
But then, look at the release dates of some of those lenses. Also, pushing the boundaries of useful lens design leads to compromises, like the ultra-fast apertures, or extreme zoom ranges. They'll get better with new revisions, and it's not like any other company can do any better (and make it affordable).

Some say the 17-55 f/2.8 should have been 'L' designated, for its quality. Maybe, but what's the difference? If it's L, that doesn't mean it will automatically be weather-sealed. And weather-sealing is probably the only L-feature that lens lacks. Adding a red-ring won't mean anything to anything except the price (and maybe the stealability).

Also consider, it came out before the 7D. Before the 7D, nothing APS-C was sealed (to that degree at least). 7D is a sports/wildlife camera, not landscapes. Buying a 7D for sports/wildlife generally entails a weather-sealed telephoto L lens, 70-200 IS, 70-300L, Big White Primes etc. Buying any less is a waste (i found that out with the 70-300nonL).

Sure, you _can_ use the 7D for landscapes, i've taken some good ones with my 15-85. But the 5D2 in the same spot will probably take a sharper shot in most circumstances (and i can't afford a 5D2). But still, the 7D is not a 'dedicated' landscaper, it has its specialties elsewhere...

because a red ring and a white square would look weird together.
Doesn't look so weird with my 70-300L on my 7D.
How about an EFs L with a white ring?

Otherwise, get L prime lenses and use them on your 7D.
Yep, that's surely not a mistake by their marketing department, that's what they want us to do no doubt...
Too much gear, too little space.
Gear Photos

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14437
    • View Profile
Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #4 on: July 26, 2011, 08:32:03 PM »
Simple logic: L-series lenses are pro lenses. 1-series bodies are pro bodies. A pro lens that does not mount on a pro body is a non-starter.

Granted, they've made EF-S lenses with L-series optical quality. The could add the sealing to complete the package and give it a new designation (like the green ring for DO lenses).  Buy why?  Currently there's only one partially-sealed APS-C body, and there are current L lenses as wide as 14mm with sealing, or 8mm if you include the new fisheye. An EF-S lens that's functionally equivalent to an L lens is likely too small a market to be commercially viable. I think EF-S wide primes make sense, but EF-S L series - no.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Rocky

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 619
    • View Profile
Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #5 on: July 26, 2011, 08:49:27 PM »
We need some short focal length prime lenses for APS-C body. I do not care whether they are L lenses or not. As it is now, we are forced to use the EF prime lenses. That is a waste of weight, design and size of the lenses. I would like to see the following:
30mm, f1.8 or 1.4. This will make a good and smaller Normal lens.
21mm, f2.8 or f2.0. This  will be a 34mm equilvalent lens.
17mm, f2.8 , this will be a 27mm equilvalent lens.
13mm, f 2.8, this will be a 21mm equilvalent lens.
I did not propose any really fast lens in consideration of size, cost and design.
Hope Canon is listening.

kawasakiguy37

  • Guest
Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #6 on: July 26, 2011, 09:23:07 PM »
This would be a huge waste of time for canon. Just use a full frame L lens. Its futureproof

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #6 on: July 26, 2011, 09:23:07 PM »

V8Beast

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 962
    • View Profile
    • Stephen Kim Automotive Photography
Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #7 on: July 26, 2011, 11:12:59 PM »
How Canon labels and markets a lens is irrelevant. Just get the lens that best suits your needs. Back when I was shooting with a 20D, I thought the 10-22 was pretty darn close optically to my 17-40L on my old 5D. The 10-22 wasn't that far behind the 16-35L, either. Canon makes plenty of EF-S lenses with outstanding optics, so who cares how they're labeled?

Addressing your comment on the build quality of bodies, while I wasn't impressed with the 7D in terms of image quality during my brief time with it, I'd say the build quality was hands down superior to the 5D. 

afira

  • Guest
Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #8 on: July 27, 2011, 03:28:10 AM »
There is no reason to build EF-S style lenses with "L" standards.

A) Competition versus lenses already in the range
B) Cost, EF-S lenses are typically more cost efficient to purchase for APS-C users
C) No compatibility for FF users that might want the EF-S L Pro range
D) 7D still capable of using FF lenses and benefiting from full range of L series
E) Unique benefits would be limited to sealing, better materials/build and accurate focal range/crop, however, I do not believe any of these provide unique reasons to purchase given reason D
F) APS-C users are typically not "Pro" users (not always, but usually), L series marketed as "Pro"
G) Lens quality and sharpness on EF-S can be on par with L quality (My 10-22mm EF-S is amazing, hands down razor sharp)
H) Weight, most of your L series zooms are very very very heavy, in order to weight it properly on an APS-C you must cut down the build materials, otherwise you have a lens heavy set up which is harder to balance with the lightweight rebels

bycostello

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 910
    • View Profile
    • London Weddings
Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #9 on: July 27, 2011, 03:30:03 AM »
L lenes will fit your crop frame camera so tehy already do...  but as it dosn't work vice versa i'd imagine economies of scale don't really warrant their production...

epsiloneri

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 357
    • View Profile
Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #10 on: July 27, 2011, 05:19:05 AM »
I agree, it would be nice to have EF-S lenses that better match the 7D in sealing and build quality. What they are called is of no concern to me. In particular on the wide end, there is no sealed lens that takes advantage of the EF-S more compact format. An EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 with the build quality/sealing of the EF 17-40/4.0L would be welcome. Both lenses are currently at about the same price. Higher up on my wish list, however, are fast, wide, and compact EF-S primes.

ecka

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 636
  • Size matters ;)
    • View Profile
    • flickr
Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #11 on: July 27, 2011, 06:40:02 AM »
There is no need for EF-S L lenses. I think that majority of the crop DSLR users agree that we need more, affordable (reasonably priced) fast EF-S primes from Canon. I don't understand why they (Canon) think that optically inferior EF 28/1.8USM covers that hole in their lens line-up. IMHO they should replace it with something like EF-S 28/1.4USM, because the old one is not good enough on FF to justify it's $500 price, or let Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM dominate.
FF + primes !

moreorless

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 650
    • View Profile
Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #12 on: August 02, 2011, 06:28:45 AM »
I agree, it would be nice to have EF-S lenses that better match the 7D in sealing and build quality. What they are called is of no concern to me. In particular on the wide end, there is no sealed lens that takes advantage of the EF-S more compact format. An EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 with the build quality/sealing of the EF 17-40/4.0L would be welcome. Both lenses are currently at about the same price. Higher up on my wish list, however, are fast, wide, and compact EF-S primes.

I'm a bit supprized they didnt include some sealing with the 15-85 as that afterall launched with the 7D.

The 10-22 is getting on in age a bit by modern zoom standards but I don't see Canon updating anytime soon personally, its not been surpassed optically and still looks to be selling very well.

A 30mm 1.8 prime seems like the most realistic EF-S release to me, Sigma have afterall already got something on the market but I think Canon would look to beat them for price rather than quality with something around $200-300.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #12 on: August 02, 2011, 06:28:45 AM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14437
    • View Profile
Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #13 on: August 02, 2011, 07:01:17 AM »
A 30mm 1.8 prime seems like the most realistic EF-S release to me, Sigma have afterall already got something on the market but I think Canon would look to beat them for price rather than quality with something around $200-300.

Strike that, reverse it.  Canon would almost certainly look to beat them for quality, but even if not, it will almost certainly be priced higher than the Sigma version.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Edwin Herdman

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 543
    • View Profile
Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #14 on: August 02, 2011, 04:46:08 PM »
A 30mm EF-S prime seems unlikely for a few reasons.  First, it's a non-specialized prime - not a target for EF-S (there's the 60mm macro lens, and nothing else outside of zooms).  On APS-C it also gives a field of view roughly equivalent to 50mm, which I keep reading has fallen from fashion somewhat...I wouldn't know about that but it has been a while since there's been a 50mm lens released (about 10 and 9 years from the f/1.2 and f/1.8 Mark II releases respectively).  Additionally, there is at least one cheap 30/35mm option from Canon with a build quality similar to the 50mm f/1.8 II.

Sigma did release a 30mm f/1.4 for APS-C sensors and Photozone.de doesn't give it high marks due to bad vignetting characteristics and lower sharpness at the edges - not having used it, I still think their analysis is fair so perhaps this is a case of "be careful what you wish for" (there may be a trend of Sigma getting lower marks on that site due to lower resolution at frame edges, though, even when it's not an issue in normal use).  I personally wouldn't mind getting a full format 30/35mm lens because there are some good performers in that range.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #14 on: August 02, 2011, 04:46:08 PM »