April 20, 2014, 03:44:36 AM

Author Topic: Your lenses wishlist for 2011 - RESULTS  (Read 12999 times)

tzalmagor

  • Guest
Re: Your lenses wishlist for 2011 - RESULTS
« Reply #15 on: February 21, 2011, 05:49:29 AM »
Canon released no more than 6 lenses a year for at least a decade. Do they develop and dump a lens or two every year ?
As a random thought, would "lenses" on compact cameras count too?

Looking at the variety of Canon compact camera lenses, I get the impression the variety is small enough to get into this count.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Your lenses wishlist for 2011 - RESULTS
« Reply #15 on: February 21, 2011, 05:49:29 AM »

DrPizza

  • Guest
Re: Your lenses wishlist for 2011 - RESULTS
« Reply #16 on: February 27, 2011, 02:00:26 AM »
Plus, EF-S lenses concentrate at the wide-angle end of the focal length spectrum. Beyond wide-angle lenses, it's easy to substitute a full-frame lens for an EF-S lens. Is a 70-300 mm lens a full-frame lens or is it an EF-S lens? It depends on the camera it's on.
I was going to say that but there it is already.

I think the relative lack of interest in EF-S lenses is that most of it is well covered already. You have cheap zooms, wide and tele, and less cheap standard zooms too. What gaps are there? I think some cheap EF-S primes will help keep up with Sony and Nikon e.g. 30/35mm f/1.8 and a 8-16 would keep up with Sigma. On the long end, you can go EF lens easily.
I don't think this is true at all.

I know it may surprise some, but for a lot of us, APS-C is a virtue. For the same parameters (focal length, aperture, build quality, etc.) an APS-C lens will be smaller, lighter, and cheaper than an APS lens. Those are all good things.

To us, it's not a good answer to say "Oh, if you want a decent quality telephoto zoom just get one of the 70-200 mm or 70-300 mm variants". Doing that compromises on size, weight, and price.

But just because we want smaller, lighter, and less expensive lenses doesn't mean we want to compromise on quality. Canon has plenty of cheap and cheerful EF-S lenses, but the high-end ones are rarer: the 17-55 mm (obviously), and the 60 mm macro. The 10-22 mm and 15-85 mm are also well regarded, but the lack of constant apertures IMO leaves me wanting.

As it stands, Tokina's got my money for an ultra-wide, and I think there's a good chance that Sigma will get my money for a telephoto (the new 50-150 looks very tempting). Likewise a prime: the Sigma 30 mm f/1.4 is probably the best option.

lol

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 477
    • View Profile
    • My dA
Re: Your lenses wishlist for 2011 - RESULTS
« Reply #17 on: February 27, 2011, 04:42:50 AM »
To us, it's not a good answer to say "Oh, if you want a decent quality telephoto zoom just get one of the 70-200 mm or 70-300 mm variants". Doing that compromises on size, weight, and price.
I only seriously use crop sensor myself, but there is a point where diminishing returns kick in and there the disadvantages to making a lens EF-S start to outweigh the possible benefits. I believe you may be over-estimating the possible cost/size/weight savings from having a possible EF-S lens over a an EF lens of the same (actual) focal length and aperture range.

In simple terms, EF-S gets you two things:
1 - the rear lens element can be placed closer to the sensor. This mainly benefits wide(r) angle lenses, and would be of little value once you get to a 70-xxx zoom.
2 - the reduced image circle for a crop sensor. The front of a lens will be the same for both, unless you want to argue with the known laws of physics. I've lost that one every time I tried. e.g. an EF-S 70-200 f/2.8 will be the same size front elements as an EF 70-200 f/2.8. Now, the rest of the lens could be made smaller due to the reduced image circle, but if you look at the lens diagrams, those inner and rear elements are already smaller than the front section, so the saving would be small in proportion. At shorter focal lengths (wide to mid angles) the front element sizes are closer compared to the rear elements therefore the size/weight savings become more significant.

Combine the above two and you get the current situation. Crop sensor lenses from any manufacturer only exist for lenses of shorter focal lengths. I guess the only exception to the Sigma 50-150, but how popular is that? Even with the market to themselves it feels like everyone still goes for the 70-200 in preference.

That is not to say there couldn't or shouldn't be more EF-S lenses. Canon are still lagging around the 30-35mm mark compared to other manufacturers in providing affordable choices there.
Canon 1D, 300D IR, 450D full spectrum, 600D, 5D2, 7D, EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 70-300L, 100-400L
EF-S 15-85, TS-E 24, MP-E 65, Zeiss 50/2 macro, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8 OS, Samyang 8mm fisheye

DrPizza

  • Guest
Re: Your lenses wishlist for 2011 - RESULTS
« Reply #18 on: February 27, 2011, 03:44:06 PM »
To us, it's not a good answer to say "Oh, if you want a decent quality telephoto zoom just get one of the 70-200 mm or 70-300 mm variants". Doing that compromises on size, weight, and price.
I only seriously use crop sensor myself, but there is a point where diminishing returns kick in and there the disadvantages to making a lens EF-S start to outweigh the possible benefits. I believe you may be over-estimating the possible cost/size/weight savings from having a possible EF-S lens over a an EF lens of the same (actual) focal length and aperture range.
There may be such a point, but I don't think we're at it yet. The Sigma 50-150 (the current model, without OS) weighs about 780 grams. The 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS weighs 1310 grams. The crop-apropriate range (50-150 mm) affords big savings, IMO.

Quote
Combine the above two and you get the current situation. Crop sensor lenses from any manufacturer only exist for lenses of shorter focal lengths. I guess the only exception to the Sigma 50-150, but how popular is that? Even with the market to themselves it feels like everyone still goes for the 70-200 in preference.
Going third-party is a crap shoot. Misfocus issues are persistent. That's a strong incentive to go for a Canon-brand lens, even if it's not exactly what you want.

traveller

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 630
    • View Profile
Re: Your lenses wishlist for 2011 - RESULTS
« Reply #19 on: February 28, 2011, 02:54:37 PM »

Going third-party is a crap shoot. Misfocus issues are persistent. That's a strong incentive to go for a Canon-brand lens, even if it's not exactly what you want.

+1

This is what puts me off the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8, otherwise it would be the perfect lens for my needs.  Personally, I don't really like the 70-200mm class on APS-C, they start just a bit too long.  Of course, this is a good excuse to go full frame, where they are more at home IMHO; I'm sure this hasn't escaped Canon's notice!

lol

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 477
    • View Profile
    • My dA
Re: Your lenses wishlist for 2011 - RESULTS
« Reply #20 on: February 28, 2011, 04:26:39 PM »
There may be such a point, but I don't think we're at it yet. The Sigma 50-150 (the current model, without OS) weighs about 780 grams. The 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS weighs 1310 grams. The crop-apropriate range (50-150 mm) affords big savings, IMO.
The weight "saving" going down to the 150mm lens I believe is mostly down to the shorter focal length, moreso than any further saving from being a crop sensor design.

Also, if you're going to start comparing crop sensor + lens vs full frame sensor + other lens, you might also want to start considering aperture equivalence too...
Canon 1D, 300D IR, 450D full spectrum, 600D, 5D2, 7D, EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 70-300L, 100-400L
EF-S 15-85, TS-E 24, MP-E 65, Zeiss 50/2 macro, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8 OS, Samyang 8mm fisheye

match14

  • Guest
Re: Your lenses wishlist for 2011 - RESULTS
« Reply #21 on: March 01, 2011, 07:53:12 AM »
EF-S 30mm 1.4 to rival the Sigma 30mm.  Iknow the Sigma is good but it would be interesting to see what Canon could do.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Your lenses wishlist for 2011 - RESULTS
« Reply #21 on: March 01, 2011, 07:53:12 AM »