August 30, 2014, 06:17:01 AM

Author Topic: We want more EF-S lens  (Read 7452 times)

ajfotofilmagem

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 855
    • View Profile
Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #15 on: August 24, 2013, 09:55:22 AM »
Its a one sided poll.  I would not buy any because FF bodies are the up and coming thing.  I've nothing against APS-C, I own one, but EF lenses work fine on them and can be used on my FF body as well.

I don't really believe that crop sensors will ever go away now - the benefits are for too great for the manufacturers in the mass market - however here in lays the problem, the vast majority of crop camera owners will never own more than two lenses, many of these will stick with just the one "super zoom".  However, looking at the options, the EOS-M 22mm f2.0 is nearly a third of the depth and weight of the full frame 35mm f2.0 (ok so this has IS) - so I feel that there is an opportunity to provide a small range of crop specific primes, which a widened range of FF pancakes wouldn't necessarily forfill.

Similarly with the crop zooms, the 15-85mm is a cracking lens, but crop users need more like it, the 17-55mm is getting old, it could be improved in a number of ways, there isn't a decent crop specific zoom to match the 70-200mm range (something like a 40-135mm f2.8 would be nice) - the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II just looks silly on a 700D, but as a starting camera, more serious users are likely to grab an extra lens or two and the 70-200 range is popular.

I'd love to know the breakdown of lens sales to users, whilst we speculate, I really do think that the crop user is underestimated by the minority FF buyer, especially in the UK where I live, you hardly ever see FF cameras other than in the hands of wedding photographers and even then it's just as likely to be a crop body.
I agree entirely with Haydn1971. Indeed, Canon needs to understand that in most countries, APS-C cameras dominate the market, even for professional use. Affluent consumers in rich countries do not care about APS-C, after they pay the value of a monthly salary for a full frame camera with a lens L. It turns out that most of the planet, the same full frame camera with a lens L costs three months' salary, perhaps up to five months. I think the blame for the Canon 17-55mm is so expensive is its Nikon equivalent cost $ 1300. Does not have options intermediate between Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm $ 600 and the original Canon and Nikon 17-55mm $ 1200? In my town, I watch dozens of weddings every year, and only see professional photographers using cameras full frame in 5% of the time. Why is it? It is because a Canon 6D with 24-105mm L costs $ 4,000 american dollars.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2013, 07:06:21 PM by ajfotofilmagem »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #15 on: August 24, 2013, 09:55:22 AM »

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3907
    • View Profile
    • http://dylannguyen.smugmug.com
Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #16 on: August 24, 2013, 10:04:07 AM »
After jumping from crop to FF, EF-S is no longer on my wish list. Do wish for more PANCAKES though.

2005, I started with 40D + 17-55 + 50 f1.4
Body: 1DX -- 5D III
Zoom: 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 400L f2.8 IS II

ajfotofilmagem

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 855
    • View Profile
Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #17 on: August 24, 2013, 10:16:47 AM »
My dream: EF-S 30mm f/1.4 USM
Me too. Moreover, EF-S22mm F2, EF-S15mm F2.8, EF-S10mm F2.8(non-fisheye). When comes the long awaited 7D Mark II, which are the wide angle primes high quality for it? 24mmL U.S. $ 1550 and 14mmL $ 2100? That's it?

ajfotofilmagem

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 855
    • View Profile
Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #18 on: August 24, 2013, 10:41:26 AM »
EF-S does need some development, badly.   In primes particularly.  Admittedly, the relatively recent 24 & 35 non-L rejuvenations mitigate that a little.  EF 24mm IS can pinch hit as a 35 on crop, 35 IS as a 50.  But it would still be nice to see:

EF-S 24mm equiv (16mm f/whatever IS)
EF-S 35mm equiv (22mm f/whatever IS)
EF-S 50mm equiv (31mm f/whatever IS)
and some more pancakes !!!

The FF options listed above are not cheap, EF-S equivs would surely be cheaper.  There is a saying that if you don't cannibalise your own products then somebody else will - it seems odd for MFT and mirrorless systems to have a proliferation of primes whilst Nikon and Canon crops get nothing.  Canon is not alone, this is the number one complaint from Thom Hogan in the last few months.  The most logical explanation is that Canikon are trying to push more ambitious crop users into FF systems.  But giving more lens options to crop would not take away some of the other attractions of FF like better high ISO performance and shallower DOF.
That's right. If Canon does not cannibalize their sales of lenses L, Sigma will. In fact, already doing. I also believe that Canon will not risk if Nikon does not. But already Nikon offers 35mm f/1.8 DX, 40mm f/2.8 DX Macro, 85mm f/3.5 DX Macro VR, 10.5mm f/2.8 DX Fisheye. And canon, offers only EF-S 60mm F2.8 macro. Nothing more.

tiger82

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 343
    • View Profile
Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #19 on: August 24, 2013, 12:12:23 PM »
Wouldn't you prefer the flexibility to go FF without chucking all of your EF-S lenses or duplicating them?  An EF-S 10-22 is equivalent to 16-35 when it reaches the sensor?  A 16-35 EF would be a 24-55 equivalent on an APS-C.  I guess my point is if you want to go wide or UWA then you should go FF.  I bought a 5D to complement my 7D because it made more sense to buy a 16-35/2.8 EF for the 5D than a 10-22/3.5-4.5 EF-S for the 7D.  When I need the extra reach, the 7D and 1D gives me a 1.6 and 1.3 crop factor on the long lenses.
1D4 with 70-200 IS f/2.8L, 5D2 with 24-70 f/2.8L

ajfotofilmagem

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 855
    • View Profile
Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #20 on: August 24, 2013, 12:36:12 PM »
Wouldn't you prefer the flexibility to go FF without chucking all of your EF-S lenses or duplicating them?  An EF-S 10-22 is equivalent to 16-35 when it reaches the sensor?  A 16-35 EF would be a 24-55 equivalent on an APS-C.  I guess my point is if you want to go wide or UWA then you should go FF.  I bought a 5D to complement my 7D because it made more sense to buy a 16-35/2.8 EF for the 5D than a 10-22/3.5-4.5 EF-S for the 7D.  When I need the extra reach, the 7D and 1D gives me a 1.6 and 1.3 crop factor on the long lenses.
Your suggestion makes sense. But I like to shoot with two bodies at the same time. The first, with battery grip + zoom lens F2.8 + flash + flash diffuser, and the second with fast prime lens. With full frame, I would have to carry 5 kg in the neck for several hours. I'm not an athletic body type, and would be quite uncomfortable. I also think women photographers who always end up using F4-5.6 lens because of the size and total weight.

Gareth

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #21 on: August 24, 2013, 01:42:57 PM »
Almost all these lenses have pretty close equivalents (oddly all made by Sigma), so is this post really "we want CANON to make these lenses?"   :)

> EF-S 8-16mm F4-5.6 $ 800 (non-fisheye)

Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM, $650 (except not f/4 to start)

> EF-S 16-55mm F2.8 IS $ 900 (I have a dream ...)

No one makes this down to 16mm, but 17-55mm or 17-50mm.  How important is 16mm?

> EF-S 17-70mm F4 IS $ 500 (not impossible)

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM, $500.  Even faster than f/4 and recently re-designed.

> EF-S 55-150mm F2.8 IS $ 1100 (so sexy)

Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM APO, $950.  Except apparently it's about the same size and weight as a FF 70-200mm 2.8.  The non-stabilized previous version was significantly smaller.

> EF-S 135-500mm F4-5.6 IS $ 1200 (not too heavy)

I got nothing for this.  Although given the size of the 50-150, maybe it just makes more sense to buy a FF lens.
Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM APO, $970.

> EF-S 30mm f/1.4 USM

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM, $500.  A recently re-designed Art lens.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #21 on: August 24, 2013, 01:42:57 PM »

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3044
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #22 on: August 24, 2013, 01:48:00 PM »
My dream: EF-S 30mm f/1.4 USM
Me too. Moreover, EF-S22mm F2, EF-S15mm F2.8, EF-S10mm F2.8(non-fisheye). When comes the long awaited 7D Mark II, which are the wide angle primes high quality for it? 24mmL U.S. $ 1550 and 14mmL $ 2100? That's it?
Sigma has it.
The best camera is the one in your hands

tiger82

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 343
    • View Profile
Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #23 on: August 24, 2013, 01:51:37 PM »

Your suggestion makes sense. But I like to shoot with two bodies at the same time. The first, with battery grip + zoom lens F2.8 + flash + flash diffuser, and the second with fast prime lens. With full frame, I would have to carry 5 kg in the neck for several hours. I'm not an athletic body type, and would be quite uncomfortable. I also think women photographers who always end up using F4-5.6 lens because of the size and total weight.

There's not much weight difference between my gripped 7D and gripped 5D and they share batteries!  I keep weight off my neck by using a two body sling.  Most of that is because I suffer from cervical dystoni but if I were completely healthy, I would still do it that way.
1D4 with 70-200 IS f/2.8L, 5D2 with 24-70 f/2.8L

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13965
    • View Profile
Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #24 on: August 24, 2013, 01:53:15 PM »
EF-S 135-500mm F4-5.6 IS $ 1200 (not too heavy)

I guess you don't realize that for a telephoto design, the size of the image circle isn't limiting, the limiting parameter is filling the entrance pupil with light, and the entrance pupil is effectively at the front element.

Such a lens would need an 89mm front element, and be large, heavy, and expensive (because unlike Sigma, Canon wouldn't make it f/6.3 so it's only 79mm in front and have to spoof their own AF system).
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

ajfotofilmagem

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 855
    • View Profile
Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #25 on: August 24, 2013, 01:54:41 PM »
Almost all these lenses have pretty close equivalents (oddly all made by Sigma), so is this post really "we want CANON to make these lenses?"   :)

> EF-S 8-16mm F4-5.6 $ 800 (non-fisheye)

Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM, $650 (except not f/4 to start)

> EF-S 16-55mm F2.8 IS $ 900 (I have a dream ...)

No one makes this down to 16mm, but 17-55mm or 17-50mm.  How important is 16mm?

> EF-S 17-70mm F4 IS $ 500 (not impossible)

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM, $500.  Even faster than f/4 and recently re-designed.

> EF-S 55-150mm F2.8 IS $ 1100 (so sexy)

Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM APO, $950.  Except apparently it's about the same size and weight as a FF 70-200mm 2.8.  The non-stabilized previous version was significantly smaller.

> EF-S 135-500mm F4-5.6 IS $ 1200 (not too heavy)

I got nothing for this.  Although given the size of the 50-150, maybe it just makes more sense to buy a FF lens.
Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM APO, $970.

> EF-S 30mm f/1.4 USM

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM, $500.  A recently re-designed Art lens.
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.

tiger82

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 343
    • View Profile
Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #26 on: August 24, 2013, 01:58:05 PM »
What happens if/when Canon delivers inexpensive full frame for the masses and abandons APS-C in favor of micro 4/3 for the consumer?
1D4 with 70-200 IS f/2.8L, 5D2 with 24-70 f/2.8L

ajfotofilmagem

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 855
    • View Profile
Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #27 on: August 24, 2013, 02:04:20 PM »
EF-S 135-500mm F4-5.6 IS $ 1200 (not too heavy)

I guess you don't realize that for a telephoto design, the size of the image circle isn't limiting, the limiting parameter is filling the entrance pupil with light, and the entrance pupil is effectively at the front element.

Such a lens would need an 89mm front element, and be large, heavy, and expensive (because unlike Sigma, Canon wouldn't make it f/6.3 so it's only 79mm in front and have to spoof their own AF system).
This is my first post in canonrumors, but I read a few years ago and I am honored with the contribution of Neuro always enlightening. It could be an EF-S 150-400mm F4-5.6 costing $ 1100 and I would be very happy.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #27 on: August 24, 2013, 02:04:20 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13965
    • View Profile
Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #28 on: August 24, 2013, 03:24:44 PM »
It could be an EF-S 150-400mm F4-5.6 costing $ 1100 and I would be very happy.

If so, you could consider a used 100-400L, they often sell for ~$1000-1100.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

noncho

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 164
    • View Profile
    • NonchoILiev.com
Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #29 on: August 24, 2013, 03:30:55 PM »
12 2.8 prime would be nice, 50-150 2.8 IS too.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: We want more EF-S lens
« Reply #29 on: August 24, 2013, 03:30:55 PM »