New EF-S Lenses ?

[Haydn1971]

Given the 17-85mm EF-S was effectively replaced in 2009 by the 15-85mm EF-S and the chatter on here about new lenses being needed for the next big step up in sensor densities, I'm wondering if the quite old by EF-S standards 10-22mm and 17-55mm EF-S lenses are perhaps getting to a stage where a refresh is required.

Why ?  Well if the reviews are anything to go by, the 17-55mm is appearing to offer little benefit over the 15-85mm in terms of sharpness, its looking a bit out of "style" with the newer EF-S chrome ring and better looking plastics, could perhaps feature current generation IS and could in theory push the boundary further by droping another half stop to beat the competition.  The 10-22mm also has the older style and perhaps both could using newer manufacturing techniques be sold at a slightly lower price and increase profitability for canon.

Given the market share of the crop body cameras over the full frames an the push of crop bodies upmarket (7D), I'd suspect the crop specific premium lenses sell in far greater numbers than like-for-like lenses in the L ranges.

I'm also thinking that although the current lenses may well work fine for the current 18mp crop models, they may well start to show a few weaknesses perhaps not with the next step up, but maybe the step after that, thus getting new glass out over the next couple of years would set the stall out for new crop bodies in 2013 onwards, which by recent jumps could see crops at 25-30mp by 2013/14

[neuroanatomist]

Why ?  Well if the reviews are anything to go by, the 17-55mm is appearing to offer little benefit over the 15-85mm in terms of sharpness...

It seems to be about the same in terms of sharpness, yes.  But f/2.8 is very important for some applications!  They are both good general purpose zooms for a 1.6x body, but they suit different needs and different styles.  The obvious analogy is the 24-70mm f/2.8L and the 24-105mm f/4L IS - just like the 17-55mm and 15-85mm, one has a faster aperture with a shorter zoom range and less distortion, and costs a bit more, the other is slower with a longer zoom range and more distortion, and is a bit cheaper.  You pays your money and you makes your choice (or you pays more money and get both, which I suspect is more common among FF users).

...looking a bit out of "style" with the newer EF-S chrome ring and better looking plastics...The 10-22mm also has the older style...

The newer chrome ring?  Oh please, no!!  Canon touted that very same silver ring on a previous lens  - the cheap and rather crappy EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM, about which Canon stated, "The front part of the zoom ring now sports a silver ring for a luxury touch."  Luxury indeed...but very, very far from Luxury.  I'll take the gold USM ring, thanks very much. 

[AJ]

I just don't see the 70-300L replacing the 100-400L.  That's like saying the 300/4 replaces the 400/5.6.

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

As for a 100-500 L IS.  This would be my dream lens!  If it's f/6.3 at the long end then it shouldn't get too expensive or heavy. 

400/5.6=72 mm front element, plus some more to allow for IS
500/6.3 = 82 mm front element, plus some more to allow for IS

100-500/4-6.3 IS - maybe $2500 ?

[scalesusa]

It won't be a EF lens at f/6.3, since it won't autofocus.  Sigma lies to the camera when their telephoto is f/6.3, which is part of the reason focus is so slow.  Canon won't cheat like others do.

[Haydn1971]

The newer chrome ring?  Oh please, no!!  Canon touted that very same silver ring on a previous lens  - the cheap and rather crappy EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM, about which Canon stated, "The front part of the zoom ring now sports a silver ring for a luxury touch."  Luxury indeed...but very, very far from Luxury.  I'll take the gold USM ring, thanks very much.

You so easily dismiss qualitities in that comment :-/

I don't doubt that both the 17-55mm and 15-85mm meet different needs in their light abilities, but the production game moves on - my point was that back in 2004 when the 10-22mm was launched, just the Canon 10D and 300D where on the crop market, by the time the 17-55mm was launched the pixel count had jumped from 6 to 8/10 with the 30D & 400D - i.e. Just two bodies.

We now have a very wide range of crop models, the basic 1000D, the slightly better 500D, then the three cameras based around the 18mp APS-C sensor.  The market share for these five cameras will be 10, perhaps 20 times bigger than the FF market - recent Jan-Jul 2010 sales figures for cameras with interchangeable lenses in Japan (where you would expect expensive tech to sell better) suggest higher with canon crops taking almost 30% of the market share against 1.8% by the 5D, the 1D doesn't even make the top 20 list - emerging markets will be more interested in cheap not FF

Quantity is king, which is why crops roll over with new models each 12-18 months, this is where the money is made.  Although I acknowledge that a pro would have in the past bought FF and several lenses and that crop body buyers would typically have bought perhaps 1-3 lenses, the tide is changing, the 60D and 7D are offering near pro features and performance at consumer prices, Canon needs to feed that aspiration with matching lenses - it has been said before, that there is some comfort for many in buying into a brand and matching equipment.

Selling 1 cheap lens to every crop owner each time they buy a new camera will be more profitable than selling several to a pro who keeps their equipment for years.  Thats economics ;-) EF-S ain't going away anytime soon, there is a huge market to tap, which needs feeding with marketing blurb like new chrome rings - thats life I'm afraid.

[IllegalFun]

Quantity is king, which is why crops roll over with new models each 12-18 months, this is where the money is made.  Although I acknowledge that a pro would have in the past bought FF and several lenses and that crop body buyers would typically have bought perhaps 1-3 lenses, the tide is changing, the 60D and 7D are offering near pro features and performance at consumer prices, Canon needs to feed that aspiration with matching lenses - it has been said before, that there is some comfort for many in buying into a brand and matching equipment.

Selling 1 cheap lens to every crop owner each time they buy a new camera will be more profitable than selling several to a pro who keeps their equipment for years.  Thats economics ;-) EF-S ain't going away anytime soon, there is a huge market to tap, which needs feeding with marketing blurb like new chrome rings - thats life I'm afraid.
[/quote]

You're right...  although a pro will spend several tens of thousands on gear, there are still so few pro photographers for it to be worth it. canon probably subsidise the R&R costs of the 1D series with the rebel series.

as for pro's holding onto equipment... I have seen pro's still taking pictures with the 500mm F/4.5... now 3 generations old (when the F/4 IS mk2 comes out). It is alll the people who are enthusiasts where they make money. they buy a rebel, get hooked, buy 2 cheap lenses, relise their mistake and spend even more on a 60D/7D when they can afford it, with quality lenses and L series lenses. (I am making the switch, so I think I understand!)

Will

[Haydn1971]

I'm not so sure the pro kit is sold at a loss...  I would expect Canon would still make a tidy profit form L lenses, 1D's and 5D's, they will make similar or even less profit as a percentage on cameras and lenses further down the range, it's back to volume.  The profit margin on parts like lens caps, hoods, straps, batteries will be astronomical !

A friend of mine was rewarded at work several years ago for negotiating a 0.3p discount per 1000 units on air freshener lids - her company car was upgraded from a Clio to a Merc, she got a significant pay rise and a cash bonus - she had saved her firm £1M's over the contract period.

[neuroanatomist]

Well, I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek about the chrome ring. 

In all honesty, I would not be surprised if they update the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS to something like a 15-55mm f/2.8 IS with better resolution.  But the 17-55mm is definitely an excellent lens as it is today.

[Haydn1971]

I'm new here... not quite got the personalities yet ;-)

Reading back, I noticed a few post re a f2.0 lens, assuming his would be a big ask on a FF lens, it's fair to assume it could either be a EF-S or perhaps an EVIL lens ?

Other than the general purpose 15-85mm which is new and the ultrawide 10-22mm and low light 17-55mm, are there any other EF-S lenses that might be an upgrade target or perhaps missing from the range ? 

[neuroanatomist]

Other than the general purpose 15-85mm which is new and the ultrawide 10-22mm and low light 17-55mm, are there any other EF-S lenses that might be an upgrade target or perhaps missing from the range ?

Well, there has been some discussion of an EF-S 50-135mm f/2.8 IS of a quality equivalent to the 17-55mm, basically similar to the 70-200mm series for FF.  That probably springs from the fact that Tokina makes a 50-135mm lens, but it would be a nice complement to the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS (analogous to the 24-70mm+70-200mm f/2.8 L zooms).

[gj64mad1989]

What I would like to see Canon do is give the EF-S lenses with Super UD Elements (or L series glass) the red ring treatment.

I own a 17-55 2.8 IS and I sold a 17-40F4L to get it. The 17-55 is a vastly superior lens in terms of speed and IS and the Image Quality seems to be a lot better as-well- just the build quality lets it down.

Is this just a marketing thing?

[scalesusa]

What I would like to see Canon do is give the EF-S lenses with Super UD Elements (or L series glass) the red ring treatment.

I own a 17-55 2.8 IS and I sold a 17-40F4L to get it. The 17-55 is a vastly superior lens in terms of speed and IS and the Image Quality seems to be a lot better as-well- just the build quality lets it down.

Is this just a marketing thing?

It probably is a marketing thing.  In the automobile world, beginning level autos with a minimum of features are sold at low profit, but higher models are offered with more opptions that often cost little if anything, but are much more expensive and the high end autos are hugely profitible.  Give a consumer a chance to spend more, and many of them will and do.

The DSLR is a upgrade path from P&S, and the XXD, and then XD are further upgrades.  Same thing with lenses.

[foobar]

Given the 17-85mm EF-S was effectively replaced in 2009 by the 15-85mm EF-S and the chatter on here about new lenses being needed for the next big step up in sensor densities, I'm wondering if the quite old by EF-S standards 10-22mm and 17-55mm EF-S lenses are perhaps getting to a stage where a refresh is required.

Don't think so. The 17-85 got bashed for it's bad wide-angle performance right from the start and things didn't get any better when the 18-55 IS came out, being noticeably sharper (again, at wider angles that is).

its looking a bit out of "style"

If style was anything to go by: Why didn't they update the styling on all the old late-80s/early-90s lenses they're still selling?

Given the market share of the crop body cameras over the full frames an the push of crop bodies upmarket (7D), I'd suspect the crop specific premium lenses sell in far greater numbers than like-for-like lenses in the L ranges.

I'd love to see EF-S lenses with L-style build quality (including weather sealing). Don't care if they would call them L but anyway, I don't think it's going to happen. Somehow Canon thinks it's not a good idea.

I'm also thinking that although the current lenses may well work fine for the current 18mp crop models, they may well start to show a few weaknesses perhaps not with the next step up, but maybe the step after that, thus getting new glass out over the next couple of years would set the stall out for new crop bodies in 2013 onwards, which by recent jumps could see crops at 25-30mp by 2013/14

Going from 18 to 25mp would actually not be a big jump compared to previous generations (slightly more than going from 6mp to 8mp, relatively speaking). I don't believe they will go much further from there because even at 18mp, diffraction already starts to kick in at around f/8. Unless we see some real breakthroughs in sensor tech, I think APS-C sensors will probably top out around 24mp in the medium term, even given the megapixel race still continues for a while.

However, I have a glimmer of hope that it's slowly changing into an image quality race.

[fman]

I'm also thinking that although the current lenses may well work fine for the current 18mp crop models, they may well start to show a few weaknesses perhaps not with the next step up, but maybe the step after that, thus getting new glass out over the next couple of years would set the stall out for new crop bodies in 2013 onwards, which by recent jumps could see crops at 25-30mp by 2013/14

Current lenses start to show weaknesses already when mounted on 7D (60D/550D) if I interpret DxOMark charts correctly.
The EF 24-105 that shines with FF/APS-H does not have any green in the Resolution/Global map:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Lens-with-Camera/All-tested-lenses/Canon/EF24-105mm-f-4L-IS-USM

EF-S 15-85 manages to keep up at the wide angle,
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Lens-with-Camera/All-tested-lenses/Canon/EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM
but EF-S 17-55 not really:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Lens-with-Camera/All-tested-lenses/Canon/EF-S-17-55-f-2.8-IS-USM

So IMHO Canon should stop this crazy megapixel race and concentrate on real features (just one example: single SD slot in 60D vs. dual SD slot in Nikon D7000).

Maybe they make money on lenses not bodies anymore so that's behind the megapixel race. The more megapixels, the bigger need to change to higher resolution (more expensive) EF-S lenses (look at the price of 15-85!).
But isn't APS-C for those that price matters? Anyhow, megapixel race has a future: Lens resolution race...
Cheap APS-C bodies to attract people and then spend a fortune on EF-S lenses...

[scalesusa]

Current lenses start to show weaknesses already when mounted on 7D (60D/550D) if I interpret DxOMark charts correctly.

DXO does not directly test lens resolution, they test a system resolution, a lens mounted on a camera.  Any figures generated only apply to that combination.

I wish that someone had a lens testing setup, but its far too expensive for ordinary mortals, so we only see test results with lens mounted on a camera where the actual lens MTF canot be measured, just estimated.  In particular, there can be a lot of error at the edges and corners, where the light strikes the photosites at a angle.  Camera manufacturers put more photosites at the edges to compensate for this, and this makes edge measurements which assume the same photosite density as the center questionable.   


from http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/dxo-explained.shtml

— DxO Analyzer can only be used to test lenses in combination with a digital sensor. A lens by itself can not be tested, and a lens in combination with a film camera can not be tested.

— In the case of DSLRs and interchangeable lenses, measurements are only meaningful for a specific type of combination. For example, a 135mm lens on a full-frame Canon 1Ds will measure differently than on a reduced frame Canon 10D. This of course is because much more of the lens is being used by the full-frame camera and therefore most measurements will differ due to the difference in coverage.

— Identical lenses, aren't. No two cameras or lenses are the same. Even ones off the same assembly line. It isn't unusual to find significant variance, and indeed some pros typically test a number of lenses of the same brand and type before choosing one.

— Only test results of lenses of similar focal lengths should be compared with each other. Long lenses are always going to perform as well as measure better than wide-angle lenses, regardless of brand or price.

— Don't compare zooms and prime lenses at the same focal length. With very few exceptions prime lenses will always be superior to zooms. The trade-off is convenience.

— Measurements don't tell the whole story. One camera / lens combination may perform better optically than another, yet because of design, handling and other non-measurable performance differences be less desirable for actually producing photographs than one that measures better.

— Small differences may not be important. Learn to read the results properly. Just because there is a small measurable difference between one system and another doesn't mean that this difference is necessarily visible on a print — regardless of size.