EF-S or EF 35 f/1.8? [CR1]

[foobar]

I don't understand making it EF-S rather than EF. They can make affordable, EF primes, both the 50 1.8 and 501.4 prove that.

Every focal length is different and 50mm in particular is a sweet spot where you can get great image quality with a relatively simple construction and a minimal amount of glass.

That's why a 50mm f/1.4 only costs a fraction of a 35mm f/1.4 for example.

An EF-S 35mm f/1.4 would be much more affordable than the EF-version because less glass is needed.
The effect is less dramatic on telephoto lenses (neuroanatomist has posted a detailed explanation of this in another thread IIRC).

The other thing you can always do to reduce costs is of course making the lens slower.

[SnapHappy]

Long time lurker, first time poster here.

I don't understand the 35mm range on an APSc only camera lens so I believe this will be for both EFs and EF mounts. I have an APSc cam and find even a 35mm tight. Now on a FF cam it would be great but strictly speaking from an APSc point of view I don't like it as much as say the 28mm or 30mm view.

Now if they wanted to make this an EFs only lens then a 30mm 1.8 would be a real sweetheart of a lens for crop users.

Just my opinion.

[Rocky]

The 35 f/1.8 may not be EF-S. If Canon wants to make a "Standard" APS-C prime, it will be 30 f/1.8 to give us the angle of 48mm on a FF.

[briansquibb]

A lot of landscapers use ff (5DII) - so why make a APS-C?. 35mm is nice on a ff - which is where my 17-40L often ends up.