July 28, 2014, 05:17:19 AM

Author Topic: We want more EF-S lens  (Read 7228 times)

dgatwood

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 564
  • 300D, 400D, 6D
    • View Profile
Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #30 on: August 24, 2013, 07:05:50 PM »
12 2.8 prime would be nice, 50-150 2.8 IS too.

Make that a 12 EF prime instead of EF-S, and I'd probably buy that, too.  :)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #30 on: August 24, 2013, 07:05:50 PM »

ajfotofilmagem

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 836
    • View Profile
Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #31 on: August 24, 2013, 07:11:13 PM »
12 2.8 prime would be nice, 50-150 2.8 IS too.

Make that a 12 EF prime instead of EF-S, and I'd probably buy that, too.  :)
The problem of an Canon EF12mm F2.8 would be the price of $ 2500, maybe $ 3000. ::)

dgatwood

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 564
  • 300D, 400D, 6D
    • View Profile
Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #32 on: August 24, 2013, 08:38:48 PM »
12 2.8 prime would be nice, 50-150 2.8 IS too.

Make that a 12 EF prime instead of EF-S, and I'd probably buy that, too.  :)
The problem of an Canon EF12mm F2.8 would be the price of $ 2500, maybe $ 3000. ::)

And an EF-S won't?  All twelve people worldwide who are frothing at the mouth waiting for such a lens will buy it if it's EF.  If it's EF-S, only six or seven of them will.  :D :D :D

Chuck Alaimo

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 908
    • View Profile
    • Chuck Alaimo Photography
Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #33 on: August 24, 2013, 08:38:58 PM »
Tell me which EF-S lenses you would like to buy if it existed. Would have some advantage over existing lenses, even if it is just the price.
My short list:
EF-S 8-16mm F4-5.6 $ 800 (non-fisheye)
EF-S 16-55mm F2.8 IS $ 900 (I have a dream ...)
EF-S 17-70mm F4 IS $ 500 (not impossible)
EF-S 55-150mm F2.8 IS $ 1100 (so sexy)
EF-S 135-500mm F4-5.6 IS $ 1200 (not too heavy)
Does my dreams will be met? What is your dream lens EF-S?
Canon already has the 10-22, so don't need the 6-16.
Canon already has the 17-55, so don't need the 16-55.
Canon already has the 15-85, so don't need the 17-70.
A 55-200 F2.8 could be interesting.
The 135-500 would be my pick.
In fact, the difference between 8mm and 10mm is quite noticeable, and although I would also like a 8mm F2.8, it seems that Canon does not plan to primes EF-S lenses. Also I think 16-55mm is a useful improvement over the current 17-55. My wish is that it would be 17-70mm F4, not F3.5-5.6 as the current 15-85. What we have seen is Tamrom Sigma and investing more in developing new lenses for APS-C, Canon while showing little interest in the area.

Down the road canon may get to some of these lenses you mention, or other variants with similar stats.  But, looking at the releases - I think they are going top down.  Lots of "L" updates.  Which makes sense in a way.  as was said by others..,.EF glass works with crop bodies, but the same doesn't go the other way.

If you look at it from the marketing logic standpoint, canon wants People to progress up the line, from a P&S to a rebel, to a XXD, then make the leap to Full Frame.  Less people will make the leap if they produce too much good EF-S glass.  Like this one you bring up -- "My wish is that it would be 17-70mm F4, not F3.5-5.6 as the current 15-85."  the current one is $700 --- if you make it a constant f4 then that price will jump.  If people are shelling out over $1000 on EF-s Lenses, then that would create a very effective roadblock in getting to FF bodies.  Keeping the EF-S specific lenses to a minimum makes those looking to buy good glass buy EF lenses (maybe even L lenses) so they don't get stuck in the trap of "now I want to step up to FF but I would have no glass for it."

and finally, your ultra wide ---isn't the Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM Ultra-Wide Zoom Lens covering that? 
Owns 5Dmkiii, 6D, 16-35mm, 24mm 1.4, 70-200mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 85 mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8 macro, 1-600RT, 2 430 EX's, 1 video light

Chuck Alaimo

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 908
    • View Profile
    • Chuck Alaimo Photography
Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #34 on: August 24, 2013, 08:54:30 PM »
12 2.8 prime would be nice, 50-150 2.8 IS too.

Make that a 12 EF prime instead of EF-S, and I'd probably buy that, too.  :)
The problem of an Canon EF12mm F2.8 would be the price of $ 2500, maybe $ 3000. ::)

there's your bottleneck, your roadblock.. whats the end cost!  high end glass will be costly, and for canon doesn't want you loading on on really expensive Ef-S glass, they'd prefer you go with L series EF lenses then upgrade to FF.

Back earlier in your post, you brought up how even the pro's in the less affluent countries are using crop bodies because of the cost, which is much much more. If a 6d is 2k here, and 4k there, then a $600 lens would be $1200..so any higher end EF or EF-S is gonna be out of your range too....that ain't canon's fault...thats the global economy...
Owns 5Dmkiii, 6D, 16-35mm, 24mm 1.4, 70-200mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 85 mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8 macro, 1-600RT, 2 430 EX's, 1 video light

ajfotofilmagem

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 836
    • View Profile
Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #35 on: August 24, 2013, 09:39:53 PM »
Tell me which EF-S lenses you would like to buy if it existed. Would have some advantage over existing lenses, even if it is just the price.
My short list:
EF-S 8-16mm F4-5.6 $ 800 (non-fisheye)
EF-S 16-55mm F2.8 IS $ 900 (I have a dream ...)
EF-S 17-70mm F4 IS $ 500 (not impossible)
EF-S 55-150mm F2.8 IS $ 1100 (so sexy)
EF-S 135-500mm F4-5.6 IS $ 1200 (not too heavy)
Does my dreams will be met? What is your dream lens EF-S?
Canon already has the 10-22, so don't need the 6-16.
Canon already has the 17-55, so don't need the 16-55.
Canon already has the 15-85, so don't need the 17-70.
A 55-200 F2.8 could be interesting.
The 135-500 would be my pick.
In fact, the difference between 8mm and 10mm is quite noticeable, and although I would also like a 8mm F2.8, it seems that Canon does not plan to primes EF-S lenses. Also I think 16-55mm is a useful improvement over the current 17-55. My wish is that it would be 17-70mm F4, not F3.5-5.6 as the current 15-85. What we have seen is Tamrom Sigma and investing more in developing new lenses for APS-C, Canon while showing little interest in the area.

Down the road canon may get to some of these lenses you mention, or other variants with similar stats.  But, looking at the releases - I think they are going top down.  Lots of "L" updates.  Which makes sense in a way.  as was said by others..,.EF glass works with crop bodies, but the same doesn't go the other way.

If you look at it from the marketing logic standpoint, canon wants People to progress up the line, from a P&S to a rebel, to a XXD, then make the leap to Full Frame.  Less people will make the leap if they produce too much good EF-S glass.  Like this one you bring up -- "My wish is that it would be 17-70mm F4, not F3.5-5.6 as the current 15-85."  the current one is $700 --- if you make it a constant f4 then that price will jump.  If people are shelling out over $1000 on EF-s Lenses, then that would create a very effective roadblock in getting to FF bodies.  Keeping the EF-S specific lenses to a minimum makes those looking to buy good glass buy EF lenses (maybe even L lenses) so they don't get stuck in the trap of "now I want to step up to FF but I would have no glass for it."

and finally, your ultra wide ---isn't the Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM Ultra-Wide Zoom Lens covering that?
Before shooting with Canon APS-C, I used 35mm color film, so I had a few years of experience with the "feeling" equivalent to full frame DSLR. I remember I needed to use the diaphragm F5.6 (or F8) in all the photos of groups of people to have the necessary depth of field. At that time I did not plan to spend much money on a zoom lens F2.8 to use in F5.6 most of the time. When I started with DSLR (Rebel XT) I was pleasantly surprised to see that F4 was enough to give me the DOF I wanted, and some time later I bought a F2.8 zoom. Today, I would not go back to using F5.6 because the DOF on full frame. I know that Canon wants to push users APS-C to full frame to make more profit with L lenses, but for me, APS-C is ideal DOF. Just need high quality lenses to accompany the evolution of APS-C sensors. On the suggestion of the EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye, I really do not like the distortion exaggerated, but I prefer ultra wide rectilinear.

ajfotofilmagem

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 836
    • View Profile
Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #36 on: August 24, 2013, 10:04:07 PM »
12 2.8 prime would be nice, 50-150 2.8 IS too.

Make that a 12 EF prime instead of EF-S, and I'd probably buy that, too.  :)
The problem of an Canon EF12mm F2.8 would be the price of $ 2500, maybe $ 3000. ::)

there's your bottleneck, your roadblock.. whats the end cost!  high end glass will be costly, and for canon doesn't want you loading on on really expensive Ef-S glass, they'd prefer you go with L series EF lenses then upgrade to FF.

Back earlier in your post, you brought up how even the pro's in the less affluent countries are using crop bodies because of the cost, which is much much more. If a 6d is 2k here, and 4k there, then a $600 lens would be $1200..so any higher end EF or EF-S is gonna be out of your range too....that ain't canon's fault...thats the global economy...
Yes, I live in a city of three million people, which has no shop to sell full frame cameras, only Rebel T3i and D3100. :o If a Canon 6D with 24-105mm costs $ 4000 here, Rebel T5i with 18-55mm costs $ 1300. >:( In this situation, many photographers prefer cameras like 60d, because a 6D deserves a high quality lens like 24-70mm F2.8 which costs $ 3,600. I would never use 5D Mark iii with low quality lens. So, I care more 7D Mark ii with the best lenses I can afford.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #36 on: August 24, 2013, 10:04:07 PM »

elflord

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 705
    • View Profile
Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #37 on: August 24, 2013, 11:11:15 PM »
In fact, the difference between 8mm and 10mm is quite noticeable, and although I would also like a 8mm F2.8, it seems that Canon does not plan to primes EF-S lenses. Also I think 16-55mm is a useful improvement over the current 17-55.

Tokina has 16-50mm.

elflord

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 705
    • View Profile
Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #38 on: August 24, 2013, 11:18:47 PM »
You are right. If Sigma can do it, why can not Canon? About the statement "How important is 16mm", I say that I use a Tokina 16-50mm F2.8 and understand well the difference of 16mm to 17mm. Strongly urge that Canon makes a 16-55mm F2.8 IS, but would not pay $ 1300 for it.

They can but they don't want to. The reasons have been explained in this thread -- basically it doesn't play well with their overall strategy. What puzzles me about this thread is, why not just go ahead and buy what is available from manufacturers who have released a product that addresses your needs (Sigma, other third parties), instead of complaining about the manufacturers who have not done so (Canon)

josephandrews222

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #39 on: August 24, 2013, 11:43:45 PM »
I love this website and enjoy reading the posts here.

I wonder if anyone else thinks what I think--what we now call a dslr will, in a while, be fullframe...and the apsc sensors will be found on mirrorless.
5DMkIII; 40D; M; S95 + a dozen or so lenses & a half-dozen flashes

moreorless

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 579
    • View Profile
Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #40 on: August 25, 2013, 07:21:22 AM »
Personally I'd say the most obvious gap is a wider prime, either something like a 30mm 1.4 ala Sigma or a 20-25mmish pancake to go with the SL-1/100D.

I have my doubts as to whether theres a market for a 50-150mm f/2.8, I think crop users tend to want the extra reach so will go for a FF 70-200mm f/2.8 instead, as I understand it going EF-S isn't going to effect the size/price of tele's much.

One zoom that I think might be interesting is something between your typical normal and UWA ranges. Tokina seem to be targeting this with there new 12-28mm, I think something like a 14-35mm could be very popular if the price wasn't too high.

ajfotofilmagem

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 836
    • View Profile
Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #41 on: August 25, 2013, 09:06:54 AM »
You are right. If Sigma can do it, why can not Canon? About the statement "How important is 16mm", I say that I use a Tokina 16-50mm F2.8 and understand well the difference of 16mm to 17mm. Strongly urge that Canon makes a 16-55mm F2.8 IS, but would not pay $ 1300 for it.

They can but they don't want to. The reasons have been explained in this thread -- basically it doesn't play well with their overall strategy. What puzzles me about this thread is, why not just go ahead and buy what is available from manufacturers who have released a product that addresses your needs (Sigma, other third parties), instead of complaining about the manufacturers who have not done so (Canon)
I have a Tokina 16-50mm F2.8 and it looks like the mechanical bulletproof. I could buy the Canon 17-55mm, but honestly, I think a lot of money for a building only reasonable. Seems plausible that update the Canon 17-55mm at some point, improving construction and extending the range for 16-55mm F2.8 IS. If Tokina make, I would buy, but they do not manufacture lens image stabilizer. I have a Sigma 10-20mm in 10mm I use for 99% of the time. I wish I had 8mm straight, but the Sigma 8-16mm is too dark (F4.5-5.6) and does not accept filters. What I have seen is the Sigma, Tamron and Tokina are meeting some needs of photographers that Canon does not want to meet. I have a canon 50mm F1.4 which has many weaknesses, but I do not see much better options at the moment. As people clamor for 50mm F1.4 IS, Canon is busy putting in image stabilizer lenses 24mm and 28mm. I know there is no perfect lens, but I hope Canon improves what really needs improvement. However, if you like 28mm F2.8 IS that tripled the price of the updated version, guess I'll have to wait for new Sigma lenses.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2013, 09:42:21 AM by ajfotofilmagem »

ajfotofilmagem

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 836
    • View Profile
Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #42 on: August 25, 2013, 09:22:09 AM »
I love this website and enjoy reading the posts here.

I wonder if anyone else thinks what I think--what we now call a dslr will, in a while, be fullframe...and the apsc sensors will be found on mirrorless.
I hope not. Why the evolution of technology should reduce the options currently available? :( Just as I do not wish to make the leap to full frame DSLR, do not want to stay with mirrorless. Who knows if in the future mirrorless offering a viewfinder as good as DSLR, ergonomics, speed autofocus, set of lenses and accessories, I might want one. 8)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #42 on: August 25, 2013, 09:22:09 AM »

ajfotofilmagem

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 836
    • View Profile
Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #43 on: August 25, 2013, 10:38:34 AM »
Personally I'd say the most obvious gap is a wider prime, either something like a 30mm 1.4 ala Sigma or a 20-25mmish pancake to go with the SL-1/100D.

I have my doubts as to whether theres a market for a 50-150mm f/2.8, I think crop users tend to want the extra reach so will go for a FF 70-200mm f/2.8 instead, as I understand it going EF-S isn't going to effect the size/price of tele's much.

One zoom that I think might be interesting is something between your typical normal and UWA ranges. Tokina seem to be targeting this with there new 12-28mm, I think something like a 14-35mm could be very popular if the price wasn't too high.
It is. Canon offers fast primes that are wide angle on APS-C ... EF14mm f2.8 $ 2100, also TS-E 17mm f4 $ 2300. I do not seem suitable to the purpose of the user 7D, for example. Tokina and Sigma has experienced major innovations in this area. Maybe a 15-45mm F2.8 costing $ 800?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #43 on: August 25, 2013, 10:38:34 AM »