The 24mm is 2.8, any lens bellow this focal length is more expensive to make, and even more expensive to make it fast. 99% sure will be a 2.8 lens.
Upvote
0
New Canon EF-S Wide Angle Prime Announcement Coming April 5
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
I would be glad to see anything in the"wide" interval that is F2.0 or f1.8 and it is not pancake (=too much compromise in quality for a small gain in size), but "cupcake" sized.
Canon, please give us a 22mm f/1.8 (or f/2.0 with IS) or a 15mm 2.0.
Not interested in f/2.8 - my zoom starts at 15mm 3.5 and it has IS.
Canon, please give us a 22mm f/1.8 (or f/2.0 with IS) or a 15mm 2.0.
Not interested in f/2.8 - my zoom starts at 15mm 3.5 and it has IS.
Upvote
0
ashmadux said:It should be a 22/f2 as an ef-s version of the sweet M lens, or anything below 15mm.
15 @ 2.8 mm on crop is, well 'crap' - not interesting in the least. 2.8 on crop isn't spectacular either, so go lower or go home.
12mm? now your talking
I don't think they'd put out a 22/2 when they already have the 24/2.8, which is said to be the equivalent of the 22/2 in terms of optical formula. I'm betting the "more likely" FL is 16mm, or maybe a mm or two lower.
Upvote
0
ashmadux said:12mm? now your talking
Completely agree, 12mm, a great focal length on crop!
Just picked up the Rokinon 12mm prime for a trip to Asia. Love the lens, gotta give Samyang some credit as the optics are incredible. Very very sharp, great resolving power.
As for this rumor??? My bet is on a ~35mm (FF equiv) fast prime.
Upvote
0
ExodistPhotography
Photographer, Artist & Youtuber
Canon Rumors said:
Canon could update the 60Da. The 80D modified for astrophotography would not be a whole new camera but just a 80D modified from factory. Canon could do this, IMHO its possibility. Who knows. But Ashanford has a point though, why release a fast prime UWA for APS-C if not for Astro. And, not have an updated Astro camera. Doesn't really make sense. But guess we will find out.. LOL
Upvote
0
sanj said:
Or you could just get the existing 35mm f/2 EF
Or, if you want a 35mm equivalent f/2 then an EOS M5/6 with the EF-M 22mm f/2 is the other option
Upvote
0
I recall Scott Kelby's conclusion about the essence of the 7D2: making it possible for parents to take really good sports photos without having to pay pro gear price.traveller said:
But it certainly starts to look like Canon see it differently. They may now basically be targeting semi-pro daytime birders, then needing just long EF lenses. Therefore, EF-S lenses would from now on not be fast, but rather designed for general use and a more distinctively low price. What Sigma is releasing though, seem to suggest they believe in the market that Kelby described, and similarly demanding ones like amateurs' indoor events.
The reason why Canon wouldn't go for those markets, wouldn't necessarily be just about protecting FF sales but also lack of time and resources given today's FF competition, as well as lack of belief in them.
Upvote
0
I was hoping for a fast 50mm equivalent normal lens (so 30/32/35 mm), aperture at least f1.8, preferably f1.4. Seeing as the 40mm f2.8 is a pancake lens with a full-frame image circle I think they could easily make a 35mm crop-frame f1.8 for a similar cost. Alternatively I would have a liked a portrait lens (100-135mm equiv.) where I wouldn't have to pay double for the 1.6x larger image circle. But this better be a real UWA, i.e. 10mm (16mm full-fram equiv.) or wider, at least f2.8 (f4.5 full-frame equiv.), and preferably f1.8 (f2.9 full-frame equiv.).
Canon is really making it difficult to want to use their crop-frame cameras. There is a good telephoto lens (55-250mm STM) and an OK standard zoom lens (17-55mm f2.8 ). Even that one isn't really anything special. It's a 27-88mm f4.5 full-frame equivalent lens. Meanwhile the 24-105mm f4 full-frame lens is considered lackluster. Only other crop frame lenses are small aperture ultrawides (which are bad for night-sky photography), a 24mm f2.8 prime and a 60mm f2.8 macro lens (100mm f4.5 full-fram equiv.). You're forced to use at least 1 to 3 full-frame lenses, which means paying for a 1.6^2=2.56 times larger image circle. At that point it's almost worth it to buy a full-frame camera to be able to use the whole of these lenses, which means also replacing the couple of good crop lenses with full-frame lenses. And that's exactly what Canon wants...
Canon is really making it difficult to want to use their crop-frame cameras. There is a good telephoto lens (55-250mm STM) and an OK standard zoom lens (17-55mm f2.8 ). Even that one isn't really anything special. It's a 27-88mm f4.5 full-frame equivalent lens. Meanwhile the 24-105mm f4 full-frame lens is considered lackluster. Only other crop frame lenses are small aperture ultrawides (which are bad for night-sky photography), a 24mm f2.8 prime and a 60mm f2.8 macro lens (100mm f4.5 full-fram equiv.). You're forced to use at least 1 to 3 full-frame lenses, which means paying for a 1.6^2=2.56 times larger image circle. At that point it's almost worth it to buy a full-frame camera to be able to use the whole of these lenses, which means also replacing the couple of good crop lenses with full-frame lenses. And that's exactly what Canon wants...
Upvote
0
KristinnK said:
Yep. If crop is where you want to live and you don't want to pony up for larger-than-you-need FF glass to use with it, Fuji would appear to be a company to consider.
Since Fuji lacks an FF platform, they are pumping all kinds of money into 'pro crop' lenses no bigger than they need to be for crop that Canonites would love to see in EF-S: 56mm f/1.2, 23mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4 etc.
- A
Upvote
0
CR: "Canon EF-S xxmm f/2.8 IS STM
We haven’t confirmed the focal length of this lens yet, but it will be announced on or around April 5, 2017. We’ve also been told that it’ll have a unique feature for an EF-S lens."
So it will be xx mm (expecting to be way lower than the EF-S 24, otherwise it'd be too similar in FL, I'm guessing at least (!) 18mm or lower), have a unique feature on board (what could be unique for a wideangle lens?), is at f/2.8 while having IS and STM.
These are considered unique features: the ef-m macro has built-in lights, the ef-m kitzoom is retractable... Now what could be useful for a wideangle lens? Is being a pancake considered a unique feature? Or tilt/shift? (I guess it wont be any of these)
We haven’t confirmed the focal length of this lens yet, but it will be announced on or around April 5, 2017. We’ve also been told that it’ll have a unique feature for an EF-S lens."
So it will be xx mm (expecting to be way lower than the EF-S 24, otherwise it'd be too similar in FL, I'm guessing at least (!) 18mm or lower), have a unique feature on board (what could be unique for a wideangle lens?), is at f/2.8 while having IS and STM.
These are considered unique features: the ef-m macro has built-in lights, the ef-m kitzoom is retractable... Now what could be useful for a wideangle lens? Is being a pancake considered a unique feature? Or tilt/shift? (I guess it wont be any of these)
Upvote
0
KristinnK said:
f/2.8 on crop is also f/2.8 on FF. It just "appears" to look like a f/4.5 in terms of depth of field (because you have to go further away with crop to get the same framing as with a FF camera), but in reality the depth of field between crop and FF sensor is the same (DOF depends on something else, see below). And also in terms of light-gathering ability; f/2.8 on crop lets in the exact amount of light as a f/2.8 lens for FF. It just "appears" to be better because FF cameras usually have a better signal to noise ratio than crop cameras.
The DOF. is only dependent on the distance between your sensor and the subject (not the sensor size) - and of course the chosen aperture. Just to clarify.
Upvote
0
Crosswind said:
What you say makes no sense. 10 mm f/2.8 gives same angle of view and DoF as 16 mm f/4.5 on FF. Changing position has nothing to do with it (if you change the distance you change everything) Also the total light to the sensor is same. This means you get similar image quality on high ISO. In FF you need to raise ISO higher but the sensor can take it. On low ISO the FF has advantage as the crop cannot go low enough and one often stops down anyway losing the advantage of the higher speed. FF cameras have better signal to noise ratio as they gather more light.
People often forget the ISO part in the equivalences and they complain that the exposure is incorrect. 10 mm f/2.8 ISO 400 is equivalent to 16 mm f/4.5 ISO 1000. If one uses those, then the angle of view, depth of field, exposure and noise are same if the sensors have same quality. Yes, nothing changes on the lens, it is always what it is. These are just calculations.
One can, however, question the need of the calculations. If you choose crop sensor, you make some choices relating to cost and size. People who expect FF performance on crop have made the wrong choice on the body. Understanding these formulas is one thing. Trying to use them to undo the limitations of the crop sensor is another. Sigma can try that as they have nothing else to sell. Canon will not make expensive crop lenses that would make their FF bodies less desirable. Also an average crop user will not want expensive and heavy lenses.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)