EF-S L Lenses

[RichardF]

Does Canon Rumors know if Canon ever plans to introduce EF-S L lenses?

 

[calerouxz]

It is highly unlikely, as the L lenses are meant to be for Pro bodies, and canon's pro bodies dont have the EF-S mount, as you can see in the 5D, 5D mark II and 1D series.

 

[pgabor]

Never gonna happen. Period.

 

[RichardF]

Oops! I guess I was unclear. What I meant to say was do you think that Canon will ever manufacture L type EF-S lenses - lenses of similar quality to the L series.

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Oops! I guess I was unclear. What I meant to say was do you think that Canon will ever manufacture L type EF-S lenses - lenses of similar quality to the L series.

They do optically. The 10-22 and 17-55 come to mind. Build quality will never be at an L level.

 

[epsiloneri]

Fair question since we now have the weather-sealed 7D. But, nobody knows.

 

[unfocused]

I'm going to be contrary and say: "absolutely yes."

The minute Canon's market research shows that they can make a profit on "L" type lenses in the EF-S format, they will make them. Canon (like any other company) couldn't care less if the people buying their products are "pros." (What does that term even mean these days?)

Sure, they may give it a designation slightly different from "L" so as not to undermine their full-frame camera sales. But, if they see the market is there, they will gladly fill it. And, frankly, looking at the market trends, I think the market either is there, or soon will be.

Keep in mind that "L" is an arbitrary designation that Canon created to market high-end lenses. It's not consistent across the line. It can and does mean different things for different lenses.

In fact, one could argue that Canon already has at least two "L" lenses that that they are marketing as much to APS-C camera users as to full frame users. The 70-300mm L and the still-to-come 8-16 Fisheye.

When used with EOS bodies featuring APS-C or APS-H sensors, the EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM produces a more traditional, full frame fisheye view. (Canon Press Release)

.

So, yes, my prediction is that Canon will develop "L" quality lenses in the EF-S format, if the market keeps growing and if they think they can make a profit doing so.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Senior Canon personnel have stated on several occasions that there will never be a designated EF-S L lens. The reasons given were that to be designated an L the lens must meet several criteria, including type of glass, build quality and the necessity that it must work on every EOS camera ever made.

I didn't know that last one was a requirement. Tell me...does the 7.2-50.8mm f/2.4-3.5 L lens sporting it's red ring on the PowerShot Pro1 'work on every EOS camera ever made'?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I don't think there's such a thing as an 'EOS' lens. There are EF lenses, where EF stands for electro-focus. The EOS line refers to camera bodies, not lenses.

I'd suggest that if the marketing department has the clout to 'weaken the L series prestige' by giving the moniker to a point-and-shoot lens (which they obviously do), then they could apply that same clout to apply the red L to EF-S lenses, based on the fact that 1.6x crop bodies represent a substantially larger market share than do FF bodies, and in the wide/standard range, EF-S lenses make a lot of sense. That sounds pretty relevant to the discussion, at least to me.

I'm not saying they will, but they certainly could...

 

[Admin US West]

Many people are already confused by the difference between EF-S and EF lenses, not to mention E lenses like the TS-E tilt and shift.

It would be better not to further confuse things by having a EF-s L lens. Perhaps a different designator for luxury lenses might work. I'm not going to suggest one.

 

[calerouxz]

I dont think there is space for an EF-S L lens, if they ever made an L lens for APS-C, I think it would probably be designated as an EF "L" lens, so it wouldnt be exclusive to the EF-S line. The only plus to EF-S lenses over the EF L lenses is the fact that they are much more lightweight, my dad's 14mm f/2.8L II outweighs my EF-S 10-22 f/3.5, and to be honest, I think they both are very, VERY competent optically (have used the 18-200, 18-55, both the 10-22 and 14mm are top of the line lenses, even if the EF-S 10-22 f/3.5 isnt a designated L lens.)

 

[docsmith]

Many people are already confused by the difference between EF-S and EF lenses

With full names like EF 70-200 mm f/2.8 L IS II USM, EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, or EF 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM.....how could anything about a lens name be confusing?

I for one hope and think that there will someday be an EF-S "L" or and EF-S "L" equivalent lens. There is a market, the optics are already there for a couple of lenses and really what is missing is build quality. So...add weather sealing, up the build quality and slap on a red ring. Come'on canon, what are you waiting for? ;D

 

[kubelik]

I am strongly of the opinion that Canon will not release any red-ringed EF-S lenses. I know neuro loves to whip out that image of the Powershot Pro1 but that was clearly a marketing mistake early on in the nebulous years of digital photography and a mistake that Canon has not perpetuated since then.

if the 1DsIII is Canon's flagship camera, and L glass is Canon's top-of-the-line glass, would it make any sense for someone to buy the 1DsIII and then discover there are L lenses that won't work on the camera? or aren't designed specifically for optimal utilization with that camera?

it'd be like paying for the highest level of VIP access to a fairly exclusive club, and then being told, "sorry, sir, you can't access these perks; they're reserved for our budget members." it just wouldn't make any sense from a marketability point of view, unless your goal is to lower the value of your luxury brand.

I agree with privatebydesign, there's nothing that precludes Canon from making a high-end EF-S line, but they will not/should not receive a red ring. Canon has shown in the past it will release green-ringed glass; there's no reason they can't come up with another color for premium EF-S lenses

I also want to question the perception that the reason L-designated EF-S lenses are inevitable because the APS-C market will dominate the future. I do think APS-C cams are around to stay, just like the 1/2.3" sensor and 1/1.6" sensors are probably around to stay. However, I think that FF cams will actually grow in popularity as time goes on, especially as Leica has already demonstrated how to stuff a FF sensor in a relatively small body. if you were to interview everyone who owns an APS-C cam, I think a very large number of them aspire to own a FF camera someday; knowing that there is a difference in image quality, and you are utilizing your wide angle lenses to their full capability. I don't think canon should dilute its luxury brand in the long term for short tem profit.

 

[telephonic]

So...add weather sealing, up the build quality and slap on a red ring. Come'on canon, what are you waiting for? ;D

Hey, NOT all red-ringed L are weather sealed, no? I mean, I recently acquired 200/2.8II and nowhere in its manual stated that it is weather sealed. Or may be I am the one who is wrong.

And back to the topic, I heard that optically, some EF-S lenses like 10-22, 17-55, and 60 Macro is up to the L standard. Of those lenses, I had only used the 10-22 for like an hour. The build quality, if I may say, is decent at least. It will surely leave the likes of nifty fifty or 18-55 in dust. It's robust and probably just lacking red ring around its front element. Again, may be I am the one who is wrong.

 

[Admin US West]

Many people are already confused by the difference between EF-S and EF lenses

With full names like EF 70-200 mm f/2.8 L IS II USM, EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, or EF 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM.....how could anything about a lens name be confusing?

Maybe they should be something like "Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 SP Di VC USD"

 

[docsmith]

Many people are already confused by the difference between EF-S and EF lenses

With full names like EF 70-200 mm f/2.8 L IS II USM, EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, or EF 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM.....how could anything about a lens name be confusing?

Maybe they should be something like "Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 SP Di VC USD"

Ha! I know. I wonder if canon knows how much brand loyalty I have just because I don't want to jump into and try to figure out Nikon's naming system.

Getting back to topic at hand, the 1.6x crop factor market is under served. I actually don't care if the EFS lenses ever get a red ring, but I do want to see things like weather sealing on our general purpose zoom lenses. I own and shoot a 7D. So my camera body has weather sealing but my general purpose zoom doesn't? Then the 70-200 mm lenses are great for full frame bodies as it covers the entire portrait range and short telephoto. On a 1.6x body, a lot of the portrait range is lost. So, at least, give us equivalent EF-S lenses to the EF "L"s....even if Canon doesn't give us the red ring.

 

[neuroanatomist]

privatebydesign, not my intent to shoot the messenger, but I feel sad that everyone forgets the poor, orphaned PowerShot Pro1. Who knows, maybe there'll be a PowerShot Pro2 someday...

So, at least, give us equivalent EF-S lenses to the EF "L"s....even if Canon doesn't give us the red ring.

To me, it does make sense to release weather-sealed lenses designed for the 7D and its successors, and if you take something like the 17-55mm with its L-level optical quality and add weather sealing to it, how could you not call it an L lens? But maybe the compromise will be an EF 17-50mm f/4L IS? It would be the right focal length for a general purpose zoom on 1.6x, even if it's only f/4...

I would hope that anyone dropping >$2.5K on a camera body would know better than to try and mount an EF-S lens on it. After all, before there were EF L-series lenses, there were FD L-series lenses, and the latter certainly won't mount on EOS bodies.

I think the bottom line is that if Canon thinks there's a profit to be made by producing L-series lenses in the EF-S mount, they'll do it. Keeping the 'purity' of the L lens lineup, making sure an L lens will work on any EOS body, etc., will all be tossed out the window and into the Tamagawa River, if there's a profit to be made...

 

[EYEONE]

Many people are already confused by the difference between EF-S and EF lenses

With full names like EF 70-200 mm f/2.8 L IS II USM, EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, or EF 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM.....how could anything about a lens name be confusing?

Maybe they should be something like "Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 SP Di VC USD"

Ha! I know. I wonder if canon knows how much brand loyalty I have just because I don't want to jump into and try to figure out Nikon's naming system.

Getting back to topic at hand, the 1.6x crop factor market is under served. I actually don't care if the EFS lenses ever get a red ring, but I do want to see things like weather sealing on our general purpose zoom lenses. I own and shoot a 7D. So my camera body has weather sealing but my general purpose zoom doesn't? Then the 70-200 mm lenses are great for full frame bodies as it covers the entire portrait range and short telephoto. On a 1.6x body, a lot of the portrait range is lost. So, at least, give us equivalent EF-S lenses to the EF "L"s....even if Canon doesn't give us the red ring.

I agree completely. That is one reason I have considered just embracing EF-S is because the focal ranges are designed for cropped bodies. But I want weather sealing and top optical quality too. The current state of things pushes me to go full frame. Which could be the point of Canon making only EF lenses L lenses.

 

[Cropper]

Well a blue ring would look nice.

 

[Admin US West]

Well a blue ring would look nice.

At one time, Canon sold screw on colored rings to customize the color of your lens, and blue was one of the colors.

http://vistek.ca/store/CameraLenses/235104/canon-ring-kit-rakdc1-for-g9.aspx

Then, there was the much vaunted Canon 20-400mm f/2.8 zoom which had a blue ring.

http://balkophoto.com/blog/?p=26