August 20, 2014, 05:27:34 PM

Author Topic: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?  (Read 12442 times)

AJ

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 409
    • View Profile
Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #15 on: August 02, 2011, 05:11:56 PM »
Forget about Sigma.  Nikkor 35/1.8 DX with AF-S autofocus is the competition that Canon will answer to.  The Nikkor is a really nice lens.  Hopefully Canon will match it, and hopefully they'll do it sooner rather than later.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #15 on: August 02, 2011, 05:11:56 PM »

Edwin Herdman

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 542
    • View Profile
Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #16 on: August 02, 2011, 05:24:17 PM »
If Canon deems that a part of the lineup they need to flesh out, that is.  Canon already has some pretty serviceable entries in the 35mm range and I think they just could use a TS-E there now (admittedly they chose more wisely to go with wider options and these lenses are expensive enough that people don't just buy focal other TS-E focal lengths unless they have a specific use for them).

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13840
    • View Profile
Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #17 on: August 02, 2011, 08:55:10 PM »
A TS-E lens in between the existing 24mm and 45mm versions?  Extremely unlikely. The only thing more unlikely is a TS-E-S lens of any focal length.  Quite likely are L versions of the 45mm and 90mm TS-E lenses. 

The existing 35mm f/2 is very old and not a big seller, and as a non-L EF prime, it won't receive an update. The 35mm f/1.4L is a out of the consumer range (and also a likely update candidate).  Nikon's DX 35mm f1.8 is pretty popular. Add that up, and I think that *IF* Canon produces a second EF-S prime, 30mm or 35mm f/1.8 (maybe f/1.4, probably not to keep the cost down and differentiate from the L) is the most likely candidate.   
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

dr croubie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1398
  • Too many photos, too little time.
    • View Profile
Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #18 on: August 02, 2011, 10:43:08 PM »
Add that up, and I think that *IF* Canon produces a second EF-S prime, 30mm or 35mm f/1.8 (maybe f/1.4, probably not to keep the cost down and differentiate from the L) is the most likely candidate.

second that. Alternatively they could upgrade the EF 35 f/1.4L to EF 35 f/1.2L (or 1.3?) then introduce an EF-S 35 f/1.4 (or 1.6?)

But then again, there's nothing wrong with doubling up on L/nonL numbers, like the 100/2.8 macro vs the 100/2.8L macro, both have their own markets, features, uses, and price-points.
I don't think that an EF-S 35/1.4 wouldn't cut out too much market from the EF 35/1.4L (especially as the EF-S would probably be lower IQ, but cheaper, smaller, lighter), but canon marketers probably disagree there...
Too much gear, too little space.
Gear Photos

moreorless

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 590
    • View Profile
Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #19 on: August 04, 2011, 07:18:02 AM »
Forget about Sigma.  Nikkor 35/1.8 DX with AF-S autofocus is the competition that Canon will answer to.  The Nikkor is a really nice lens.  Hopefully Canon will match it, and hopefully they'll do it sooner rather than later.

Yeah thats the kind of 30-35mm EF-S lens I see Canon being most likely to come out with. The fact is that most of the market for primes on crops is as a specalist lens for users who mainly depend on zooms and that makes a lower price point much more attractive.

EYEONE

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
    • View Profile
Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #20 on: August 04, 2011, 08:43:44 AM »
Would love to see a ef-s a 35-105 zoom.

Why??   ???
Canon 5D Mark III w/BG-E11, Canon 7D w/BG-E7: EF 24-70mm f.2.8L, EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS II, EF 40mm f2.8 Pancake STM, Speedlite 430EXII + 430EXI, Canon EOS 3

Cropper

  • Guest
Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #21 on: August 05, 2011, 12:04:46 PM »
I do think it would be a great idea for Canon to release a "Premium" line of EF-S lenses.
A blue ring would look nice  ;D

They could have three zooms (wide angle, general purpose and telephoto) and maybe three fast primes (f1.4) with focal leghts more adapted for the 1.6 crop factor.

They could price them somewhere along the 600-1000 price range.

I have a feeling that there is definitly a market for it. But is it big enough to generate good profit margins, considering the investment needed and allocation of resourses ? That I doubt.

Good idea, I´m all for it, but sadly it will probably never happen   :(
 

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #21 on: August 05, 2011, 12:04:46 PM »

dstppy

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 892
    • View Profile
Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #22 on: August 05, 2011, 12:30:57 PM »
I do think it would be a great idea for Canon to release a "Premium" line of EF-S lenses.
A blue ring would look nice  ;D

They could have three zooms (wide angle, general purpose and telephoto) and maybe three fast primes (f1.4) with focal leghts more adapted for the 1.6 crop factor.

They could price them somewhere along the 600-1000 price range.

I have a feeling that there is definitly a market for it. But is it big enough to generate good profit margins, considering the investment needed and allocation of resourses ? That I doubt.

Good idea, I´m all for it, but sadly it will probably never happen   :(

Honestly, if they just slapped a red ring on the EF-S 15-85mm people might actually stop bellyaching about the price.  Build quality and image sharpness on that and the 60mm macro are quite nice.
Canon Rumors is presently creating photographer shortages in Middle Earth (all the trolls emigrated here)

Rocky

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 589
    • View Profile
Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #23 on: August 05, 2011, 12:36:26 PM »
I do think it would be a great idea for Canon to release a "Premium" line of EF-S lenses.
A blue ring would look nice  ;D

They could have three zooms (wide angle, general purpose and telephoto) and maybe three fast primes (f1.4) with focal leghts more adapted for the 1.6 crop factor.

Canon already has 17-50mm and 10-20mm. both are 'premium priced" EF-S. As for telephoto, It is really a waste of resouce to do EF-S. There are hardly any size (weight ) and cost saving. We may just use EF lens instead.
However. I am all for standard and wideangle EF-S lense. These are where the better performance and smaller  size will come in. I would like to see a 30mm f1.8, 17mm f2.8 to start with.  I did not ask for fast lens due to smaller size and better performance can be obtained with a "not that fast lens".
« Last Edit: August 05, 2011, 03:20:21 PM by Rocky »

moreorless

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 590
    • View Profile
Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #24 on: August 05, 2011, 05:09:19 PM »
Its probabley a fools dream but the EF-S prime I'd most like to see it an affordable wideangle TSE lens, something like 15mm. Obviously it would never be cheap but it does seem to me that Canon could potentially save alot on the production cost since the large amounts of glass probabley make up alot of what they charge for the FF ones.

Edwin Herdman

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 542
    • View Profile
Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #25 on: August 05, 2011, 08:22:35 PM »
The fact is that most of the market for primes on crops is as a specalist lens for users who mainly depend on zooms and that makes a lower price point much more attractive.
To EF-S / APS-C users, not to Canon necessarily.  The upside is a 30-35mm lens shouldn't be too hard to manufacture, so they wouldn't have to dump tons of resources into it.  I'm sure they would rather sell 17-55mm f/2.8 lenses but that's not fooling anybody; a fast prime is still important.  But, as I hinted before, they already have a few primes in this range - the "old" f/2 is still on sale and is around $370; the f/1.4 is about $1500, and you won't likely cut that price too much with a reduced image circle lens.  Considering the decent range of affordable full-frame lenses (with reduced vignetting on APS-C) and the niche status of faster lenses, there doesn't seem to be a good argument for Canon to make the lens you're asking for.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13840
    • View Profile
Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #26 on: August 05, 2011, 09:47:10 PM »
Honestly, if they just slapped a red ring on the EF-S 15-85mm people might actually stop bellyaching about the price.  Build quality and image sharpness on that and the 60mm macro are quite nice.

The EF-S 15-85mm (like the EF-S 17-55mm and EF-S 10-22mm) delivers optical quality on par with many L lenses (when the latter are used on APS-C).  But, build quality of those EF-S lenses, while 'quite nice,' is definitely not L quality.

To confess, I made similar comments about the excellent build quality of the 17-55mm after dropping a grand on it. But since then, I've bought several L lenses and the difference is evident. Comparing to the similarly-sized 24-105mm f/4L, the zoom and focus mechanisms on the L lens are much smoother and better damped, leading to a more solid overall feel. The 17-55mm feels a bit 'hollow' by comparison, especially the clunk as you hit the ends of the zoom range. So, nice, but not L.   

But, as I hinted before, they already have a few primes in this range - the "old" f/2 is still on sale and is around $370; the f/1.4 is about $1500, and you won't likely cut that price too much with a reduced image circle lens.  Considering the decent range of affordable full-frame lenses (with reduced vignetting on APS-C) and the niche status of faster lenses, there doesn't seem to be a good argument for Canon to make the lens you're asking for.

Nikon has an 'old' 35mm f/2 and a pro-quality 35mm f/1.4 in FX format, which are very close in price to their Canon EF counterparts. What do you suppose was Nikon's rationale for the 35mm f/1.8 DX lens?  It's worth noting that on Amazon's list of bestselling lenses, the Nikon 35/1.8 DX is ranked #5 and is Nikon's second-best selling lens.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2011, 10:21:49 PM by neuroanatomist »
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Edwin Herdman

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 542
    • View Profile
Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #27 on: August 07, 2011, 03:08:17 PM »
Nikon has an 'old' 35mm f/2 and a pro-quality 35mm f/1.4 in FX format, which are very close in price to their Canon EF counterparts. What do you suppose was Nikon's rationale for the 35mm f/1.8 DX lens?  It's worth noting that on Amazon's list of bestselling lenses, the Nikon 35/1.8 DX is ranked #5 and is Nikon's second-best selling lens.
I see - about $165 difference.  Once again I'm totally wrong!  I'm sure some of the savings are from the obviously reduced build quality (no distance scale window, notably smaller max magnification due to focusing a few inches farther than the f/2, but still the same weight) but (as I had hoped) Photozone's MTF charts (the APS-C 16mp D7000 results) show the DX format f/1.8 lens identical in corner sharpness but pulling far ahead beyond that.  Outstanding!  As for the f/2, from what I've been able to gather it was introduced around 2001, so not a particularly old lens - but perhaps not a modern classic either.

Since APS-C DSLRs are currently the mainstay in the market it does make sense to have a better, cheaper alternative to a full-frame lens whose image circle goes mainly unused (especially when it doesn't even give much better vignetting results than the lens, not to mention the apparently markedly worse resolution figures).

However, back to Canon lenses for a moment:  The EF 35mm f/2 is $330, which seems a slight savings over the Nikkor lens ($360), so there is still an argument to be made that in terms of sheer price there could be an EF-S version made for substantial savings all around.  The other side of the argument isn't as convincing - while the DX Nikkor 35 seems overall a much better lens (for its format) than the f/2 full format version, Canon's f/2 does not (again relying on Photozone's data) exhibit the marked resolution drop off beyond the centers.  Still, I'll agree that cost is the primary consideration for many on the APS-C system.  I wouldn't expect a EF-S version to get worse, but unlike the Nikkor side, I also don't expect it to get that much markedly better, either.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2011, 03:17:54 PM by Edwin Herdman »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #27 on: August 07, 2011, 03:08:17 PM »

Rocky

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 589
    • View Profile
Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #28 on: August 08, 2011, 04:04:48 AM »
I wouldn't expect a EF-S version to get worse, but unlike the Nikkor side, I also don't expect it to get that much markedly better, either.
If it is done right, the 35mm EF-S can outperform a 35mm EF easily. The 35mm EF is a wide angle lens (to cover the FF sensor). While 35mm EF-S (with equilvalent focal length of 56mm) is slightly longer than a "normal lens". Anybody with knowledge in lenses knows that it is harder to design a good wide angle lens than a good normal lens for SLR or DSLR due to the flange focal distance (42 to 47 mm depends on the camera, for Canon is 44mm). If fact most the SLR had 55mm as "normal les until the mid 60's for the same reason. They just cannot make a good 50mm lens. Also 35mm EF-S just need to cover less than half of area of FF. If they cannot make the35mm EF-S better than the 35mm EF, something is really wrong.
That is the reason we are asking for some short EF-S prime lens. may be a 30mm  f1.8 and a 17mm f 2.8 prime in EF-S mount.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13840
    • View Profile
Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #29 on: August 08, 2011, 06:53:30 AM »
If it is done right, the 35mm EF-S can outperform a 35mm EF easily. The 35mm EF is a wide angle lens (to cover the FF sensor). While 35mm EF-S (with equilvalent focal length of 56mm) is slightly longer than a "normal lens". Anybody with knowledge in lenses knows that it is harder to design a good wide angle lens than a good normal lens for SLR or DSLR due to the flange focal distance (42 to 47 mm depends on the camera, for Canon is 44mm).

It would certainly be possible for an EF-S 35mm lens to outperform an EF 35mm lens, but that would not be because designing a 35mm lens to cover an APS-C image circle is equivalent to designing a 56mm lens for FF.  Focal length is the distance from the rear nodal point to the image plane, regardless of the sensor size.  So, a 35mm lens for APS-C still must be designed with a 35mm focal length.  The mirror on an APS-C camera is only ~9mm shorter (vertical dimension) than that on a FF camera, so an EF-S 35mm lens can would still require the retrofocus design you need for wide angle lens.

The real benefit to the EF-S format is that the image circle is smaller, which means the elements of the lens can be smaller in diameter.  In the case of the inexpensive kit lenses, that usually just means less glass can be used, so the lens can be made more cheaply.  But, it also means the for the same cost and lower total weight, they can include more elements in the lens design, or better-made elements (e.g. molded glass instead of a resin replica for aspherical elements), or both, and that increases the ability of the lens to correct for aberrations - i.e. better IQ. 
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?
« Reply #29 on: August 08, 2011, 06:53:30 AM »