September 16, 2014, 05:43:46 AM

Author Topic: EF-s prime lenses?  (Read 4776 times)

candc

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Re: EF-s prime lenses?
« Reply #30 on: November 06, 2013, 08:54:43 PM »
2 more from same day

canon rumors FORUM

Re: EF-s prime lenses?
« Reply #30 on: November 06, 2013, 08:54:43 PM »

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: EF-s prime lenses?
« Reply #31 on: November 06, 2013, 08:58:18 PM »
Super stuff.  would you have anything of the same scene just for a comparison for field of view?

Looks great! You live in a nice part of the world.

ajfotofilmagem

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 900
    • View Profile
Re: EF-s prime lenses?
« Reply #32 on: November 06, 2013, 08:58:54 PM »
Canon wants you to buy an FF body, and you should listen...

Correct, no matter whether one needs it or not..... go full frame...
I think that companies should listen to their customers to not be beyond their expectations and make products that will be a failure (EOS M anyone?). Consumers should also listen to the companies? Of course you do! If a company demonstrates not believe in the future of a product line, we must be careful not to buy products that will serve only as a paperweight. To this day I wonder why stopped to manufacture DVD VIDEO RECORDERS household. Yes, now you can record video to hard disk for notebooks, but is not as immediate as practical and record your favorite programs directly to DVD. I know many people who have MINI-DV tapes, HI8, VHS, and can not find a device to copy to DVD. There is demand, but manufacturers have abandoned these consumers without offering a BLURAY VIDEO RECORDER that could satisfy them. Knowing that APS-C sells much more than full frame, does not seem a good idea to let your consumers abandoned. If Canon does not, sigma will do. Call me stubborn, but it is not true that one day all APS-C users will jump to full frame. This is not reality in my country, and in almost every planet. In the USA full frame is the rule, and Japan mirrorles is the trend, but the rest of the world APS-C is used by both advanced amateurs who prefer lighter equipment, and professionals who do not earn $ 100,000 per year....

You forgot that there is no other market or no other country.... only USA market... professionals and advanced amateurs in other countries!!!.... which species are they? How could they be professional if they do not use Full Frame and L lenses .... by definition professional = Full Frame + L Lenses.
When I think of a better definition of "professional" remember the taxi drivers. They work with your car, which is not really different from an ordinary sedan. The Formula 1 drivers are also professionals and use a suitable car for your needs. I'm sure a Formula 1 car is wonderful, but it is not suitable for the work of the professional taxi driver. Can you imagine if car manufacturers try to force cabbies to buy Formula 1 cars as they are the best there is? Here at CR, I see people with similar thoughts. On another topic, a mother said to do photos and videos of the children, and someone recommended Canon 24-70 F2.8L + 70-200 F2.8L. For me, seemed a snobby comment, or sadistic.

candc

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Re: EF-s prime lenses?
« Reply #33 on: November 06, 2013, 09:17:24 PM »
Super stuff.  would you have anything of the same scene just for a comparison for field of view?

Looks great! You live in a nice part of the world.

my daughter lives in perth au so when i go to visit her i always love taking photos. there is a good comparison tool at the digital picture which has a gizmo and review for the sigma as well as all the other ultra wides for aps-c. it helped me decide. you can click on lens, focal range, and aperature. all in a matrix of the same scene, your tokina is the sharpest of the bunch but i like the 8mm width.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-8-16mm-f-4.5-5.6-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx
« Last Edit: November 06, 2013, 09:21:01 PM by candc »

RAKAMRAK

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 300
    • View Profile
Re: EF-s prime lenses?
« Reply #34 on: November 06, 2013, 09:29:46 PM »
.......On another topic, a mother said to do photos and videos of the children, and someone recommended Canon 24-70 F2.8L + 70-200 F2.8L. For me, seemed a snobby comment, or sadistic.

Actually this forum may not be a good place for such questions. Do not get me wrong, this is in itself a great forum with knowledgeable contributors about gear and rumors. Even for some technical stuff this is wonderful. But this is definitely not a forum where the photography part is the prominent element, the gear is more prominent element here. But that IS the characteristic of this forum. If someone here just recommended 24-70 F/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 to a mother for kids photography that is still fine - the recommender may have used that gear and is happy to recommend that. (For me at least) When such recommendation become sadistic and snobby is when the recommender tries to "prove" that there is no life/world/existence beyond those particular pieces of gear and anyone trying to work with lesser equipment has no idea about photography. 
Need to learn a lot more.
My Flickr Page

RAKAMRAK

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 300
    • View Profile
Re: EF-s prime lenses?
« Reply #35 on: November 06, 2013, 09:30:54 PM »
2 more from same day

That is wonderful stuff.
Need to learn a lot more.
My Flickr Page

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: EF-s prime lenses?
« Reply #36 on: November 06, 2013, 09:35:57 PM »

 I know many people who have MINI-DV tapes, HI8, VHS, and can not find a device to copy to DVD. There is demand, but manufacturers have abandoned these consumers without offering a BLURAY VIDEO RECORDER that could satisfy them.

And of course, the inverse.  The curse of CR2.  Buy a new Camera, prepare yourself for the adobe tax.
Will DNG remain free once they've figured  out how to stop folk hacking the CC password databases?

Planned obsolesence.


canon rumors FORUM

Re: EF-s prime lenses?
« Reply #36 on: November 06, 2013, 09:35:57 PM »

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: EF-s prime lenses?
« Reply #37 on: November 06, 2013, 09:40:57 PM »
.......On another topic, a mother said to do photos and videos of the children, and someone recommended Canon 24-70 F2.8L + 70-200 F2.8L. For me, seemed a snobby comment, or sadistic.

Actually this forum may not be a good place for such questions. Do not get me wrong, this is in itself a great forum with knowledgeable contributors about gear and rumors. Even for some technical stuff this is wonderful. But this is definitely not a forum where the photography part is the prominent element, the gear is more prominent element here. But that IS the characteristic of this forum. If someone here just recommended 24-70 F/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 to a mother for kids photography that is still fine - the recommender may have used that gear and is happy to recommend that. (For me at least) When such recommendation become sadistic and snobby is when the recommender tries to "prove" that there is no life/world/existence beyond those particular pieces of gear and anyone trying to work with lesser equipment has no idea about photography.

+1.

I could say a lot more on this, but you know what, I'm not going to. Ok, just a little more then.. Suffice to say there would be a very different dynamic if status and kudos, nay sycophancy was proffered on photographic ability or merit of images.

pj1974

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 378
    • View Profile
    • A selection of my photos (copyright)
Re: EF-s prime lenses?
« Reply #38 on: November 06, 2013, 11:41:05 PM »
Sigma makes a sweet selection of UWA for the APS-C format. People knocked them before they started up with the 35mm and new makeover but in the UWA offerings they have been very well received. When I used my 7D's the 10-20 and the 8-16 were perfect. I love my 15mm Rect Fish for the FF, using it on both the 1DX and 5D3.

Yes they do. But the OP was looking for "Canon" lenes. Good to hear good words about 8-16 from someone who have used it. I wanted to buy it but finally went with the Tokina 12-24 f/4 last year. May be in future I will go for the sigma 8-16.

------------------------

Would it be a huge ask to post a grab of a pic set at 8mm and a pic set at 11mm.

I'm really very delighted with my Tokina, but if the extra 3mm makes a substantial difference (which at this end of the FL's it is likely to) then I might be trying to convice Santa about my behaviour this year.

------------------------

Super stuff.  would you have anything of the same scene just for a comparison for field of view?

Looks great! You live in a nice part of the world.

my daughter lives in perth au so when i go to visit her i always love taking photos. there is a good comparison tool at the digital picture which has a gizmo and review for the sigma as well as all the other ultra wides for aps-c. it helped me decide. you can click on lens, focal range, and aperature. all in a matrix of the same scene, your tokina is the sharpest of the bunch but i like the 8mm width.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-8-16mm-f-4.5-5.6-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

------------------------

I’ve been following this thread, and am writing a reply here.  I’m currently at work, using a bit of my break to write a reply – so I can’t upload any of my photos as they are on my home PC.   (As a note, I live in Adelaide.... Perth is indeed a beautiful city of Australia, and so is Adelaide, they're fairly similar in some aspects).

When I bought my first DSLR (Canon 350D), I bought the Canon 28-135mm which became my most used lens, but it obviously isn’t wide.  I bought the 50mm as my prime lens / fast glass.  I had also bought the Canon 18-55m kit lens, so I used that for most of my ‘wide angle’ landscape shots.  After some time I wanted wider, so I looked at the current UWA zoom lenses available, and ended up buying the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6.

At that stage there were only 3 real options: Canon 10-22mm (expensive- nearly double the Sigma), Tokina 12-24mm (not as wide as I wanted) and Sigma 10-20mm (bit of an unknown back then). I read several professional reviews and user reviews and went with the Sigma. I was very happy with the quality of the Sigma, though there was a bit of an issue with my first copy (AF/decentring).  But my second copy of the same lens was much better- AF sometimes got thrown, but it was sharp corner to corner – which was my main criterion.  I often use MF mostly anyway.

A few years after that, I bought the Canon 15-85mm, a great all purpose lens (and sold my Canon 28-135mm – which served me well). The 15-85mm is a much more useful focal range, plus it was superior in terms of sharpness, contrast, and IS. Many more UWA lenses for APS-C cameras have become available in the last few years, eg Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Tamron 10-24mm, Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5, etc. (As a note – the EF-M Canon 11-22m IS for the EOM is a very interesting lens, as it incorporates IS… certainly can be helpful, even for UWA shots… let’s see if Canon or other manufacturers comes out with an ultrawide for APS-C or FF that has IS….)

This year I decided to buy the Sigma 8-16mm (mainly as 8mm is 20% wider than 10mm – and reviews indicated it had superior IQ than my Sigma 10-20mm). I bought a new Sigma 8-16mm for a good price, and it certainly is a fantastic lens. I’ve used the Canon 10-22mm, which is also great, but the Sigma 8-16mm really has the features that I am after. It’s IQ and AF are superior to my Sigma 10-20mm: it has less CA, is sharper and that 8mm is certainly very wide (I need to keep in mind not to include my feet, or shadow in many shots).  I’ve had a good run from my Sigma 10-20mm, and sold it for half of what I bought it for, but seeing as I’ve had it for over 6 years, I’m very happy with that!

Now, back to primes… I don’t find I need any specific ‘prime’ for ultrawide. I enjoy having UWA zooms, though yes, most of the time I do use them at their minimal focal range – and my Sigmas have been (very) sharp corner to corner – even wide open. I know some people might find an UWA prime handy for certain applications – however I would encourage people to try / consider the Sigma 8-16- it’s also a great complement for my 15-85mm - and on the tele end of my 15-85mm, I have my Canon 70-300mm L to complement – which is a super sweet, high IQ lens…  

So for primes,  I’m more interested in a new Canon 50mm prime, hopefully similar in specs to the latest Canon 35mm f/2 USM IS…   So at 50mm, there is less difference if it’s a EF or EF-S lens.  I enjoy the focal length of 50mm, for my style of photography (eg subject isolation, portrait photography, etc).  I do at times use the 35-40mm focal range, but 50mm suits me better (when I have reviewed how I use my 15-85mm and 28-135mm lenses).

Finally, as a note - I use my Canon 100mm f/2.8 at times for non-macro applications (eg I’ve got some great outdoor portraits).  I think the EF-S 60mm is also a great lens for lots of applications (actually can be ideal as a ‘semi-fast’ portrait lens on an APS-C too, but it’s not fast enough for me… and I don’t like the minimum (1:1) working distance … that’s why I went with the Canon 100mm USM instead. Let’s see what the future brings, but I think most people find EF primes do work for APS-C cameras.

PJ
I'm not a brand-fanatic. What I do appreciate is using my 7D and 350D cameras along with a host of lenses & many accessories to capture quality photos, and share with friends.

chilledXpress

  • Guest
Re: EF-s prime lenses?
« Reply #39 on: November 07, 2013, 01:02:32 AM »
Sigma makes a sweet selection of UWA for the APS-C format. People knocked them before they started up with the 35mm and new makeover but in the UWA offerings they have been very well received. When I used my 7D's the 10-20 and the 8-16 were perfect. I love my 15mm Rect Fish for the FF, using it on both the 1DX and 5D3.

Yes they do. But the OP was looking for "Canon" lenes. Good to hear good words about 8-16 from someone who have used it. I wanted to buy it but finally went with the Tokina 12-24 f/4 last year. May be in future I will go for the sigma 8-16.

The OP was asking about quality primes for EF-s mounts. I think it's pretty obvious that Canon already has a wide offering of quality primes. Put them on which ever body you choose and they will work fine. Buy a 35L and put some gaff on it with a label calling it an EF-s 56mmL, it will work beautifully. Canon won't undercut their professional offerings by developing EF-s "L"'s or similar... it's like buying a 3 series BMW and then asking for a 7 series engine. You'd never lust for the 7 series if you could have a 3 with all (or most) the advantages of the higher end 7. If that were an option, you'd never have the development of a 7 series. Canon wants you to lust for their professional "serious" gear. It's marketing and done purposely. 

The complaint that there are not many Canon UWA's for an APS-C is somewhat true. There are a limited number of options if you have that body... but who says you need a Canon brand. My point was... there are plenty of 3rd party UWA lenses out there to chose from and they have been available for quite sometime. They are quite good. I love the Siggy UWAs for both crop and FF. Canon isn't shifting philosophy just because they are available and that should be a big indicator for most about their marketing strategy. It does no good to complain about what isn't available directly from Canon, their development path is influenced little by the average consumer and only slightly more so by the prosumer. Scream your disdain for a lack quality EF-s lenses with your dollars and go elsewhere, it's good for all. Canon might eventually hear your "scream" and Sigma will hopefully continue to kill it with their new revamped line. That gap in Canon's line leaves room for improvement by all and money available for other companies development... and I like it that way. I've never been bound to only one brand. For me, I don't really care if Canon can't or won't budge. It gives me incentive to explore other opportunities. Variety is the spice of life...

A couple from the Sigma 15mm Rect Fish, absolutely love this lens and use it on 7D's, 5D3's and a 1DX.

Palace of Fine Arts - San Francisco California by David.K.M, on Flickr

MotoGP 2012 - Laguna Seca, California by David.K.M, on Flickr

Rat

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 269
    • View Profile
Re: EF-s prime lenses?
« Reply #40 on: November 07, 2013, 04:23:01 AM »
A couple from the Sigma 15mm Rect Fish

The palace shot is something else, very nice* - but a 'rect fish'? I'd think a WA is either rectilinear OR a fish-eye, but not both :) What did you mean?

*) No, the Laguna Seca one has reflections. I don't like those. Grab a rubber lens hood from ebay, put it flush against the window, and presto - gone are your reflections!
« Last Edit: November 07, 2013, 04:25:48 AM by Rat »
5DIII, 17-40, 24-105, 70-200/4IS, 50/1.8II, 85/1.8 and a truckload of gimmicks and bits.

RAKAMRAK

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 300
    • View Profile
Re: EF-s prime lenses?
« Reply #41 on: November 07, 2013, 04:30:45 AM »
sub]*) No, the Laguna Seca one has reflections. I don't like those. Grab a rubber lens hood from ebay, put it flush against the window, and presto - gone are your reflections![/sub]

Hey Thanks @Rat, good to know this technique...
Need to learn a lot more.
My Flickr Page

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: EF-s prime lenses?
« Reply #42 on: November 07, 2013, 07:25:21 AM »
Buy a 35L and put some gaff on it with a label calling it an EF-s 56mmL, it will work beautifully.

It will work. Beautifully? Not really. It will be soft wide open, with noticeable LoCA. The  reason is that it is designed for FF, as a WA lens. It needs to cover a larger circle, with decent performance near the edges. When you remove those constraints, the design could be more "normal" but still affected by the relative large flange distance. The lens would lose some weight, as well.





canon rumors FORUM

Re: EF-s prime lenses?
« Reply #42 on: November 07, 2013, 07:25:21 AM »