Patent: Lots of small, light and fast EF prime lenses

victorshikhman

I'm New Here
Mar 15, 2018
12
0
United States
The 80D is only 3 years old. I know that lately the xxD series has refreshed every 3 years or so, but nobody who owns an 80D should really be desperate to upgrade to a 90D. The 7dIII may be arguable, if they did want the higher FPS/better AF spread. But I can't imagine what a 90D could have that would be revolutionary over the 80D
Oh, there's plenty to improve, and three years is a long time. The 80d was never class leading, even when it came out. New sensor for better dynamic range, improved high iso, 4k, 1080p at 120fps, more and better distributed autofocus points with improved DPAF and face/object tracking, etc.

But as @QuisUtDeus said, in a few months the RP will be on sale for what a 90d would be priced at. It's too bad, really. If they had spec'ed the RP just a little better they could have pushed most of the 80d/7dii owners into full frame, the rest could be funneled into EF-M, and killed off the EF-S line. Maybe they still will, depending on how RP sales go.
 

jvillain

EOS M50
Sep 29, 2018
35
23
Has anyone heard of new EF-S glass? Much of what's out was built for late-2000s 8-18 megapixel Rebels and could really use a refresh. The 17-55 f2.8 is as good a place to start as any. It's a safe bet Canon sells a lot more crop bodies than all the full frame DSLR and mirrorless put together.
Take a look at this list.


Canon crop bodies every where. The R doesn't show up until 34th place. Maybe the RP will move the needle next month. Fuji mentioned that crop + M4/3 make up about 2/3s of ILC market. But that doesn't stop the big boys from treating it like the ugly step child. If you want good EF-S glass go third party.
 
Reactions: victorshikhman

Policar

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 20, 2010
517
1
My bet is the fact that most EF-S buyers buy the kit and could weld on the lens makes it hard to justify the development expense. The fact that the next-biggest group is likely the sports/ wildlife shooters who can use FF glass makes it even harder. The steady march downwards of the price of FF might just make it unviable - is the "step-up" purchase from a T7i going to be an 80D + 17-55 instead of a 6D2 (or RP) + 24-105? Yes I know there's a price difference there, but the smaller that price difference is, the fewer people who will be there to amortize the development cost across. The RP will in all likelihood get price cuts, and when a 24-105 3.5-6.3 is available as a kit...
That's a good point about EF-S owners and EF-S lenses, but it's also difficult to separate causation from correlation. Is it a lack of EF-S glass that leads Canon users to ignore the EF-S ecosystem or is it a lack of enthusiasm for the ecosystem that results in less glass being manufactured for it?

Fuji manufacture a lot of compelling crop glass, so clearly there's a market, but they cater to an upscale market and have the advantage of a smaller focal flange distance. I wonder how big a factor that is. Their fast wides look nice. If I were starting over, I suspect I'd start with Fuji.

Regardless, the RP seems to indicate that Canon's interest lies in affordable FF options, and why not? That caters to their strength, FF lenses. I'm more worried about the future of the M line....

And furthermore, the 24mm STM EF-S is #2 in Amazon's sales rank and the 40mm EF STM is #68... despite it being a useful focal length on both crop and FF. And I thought the 17-55mm IS f2.8 was a nice lens (I owned two of them).

I'm in the minority here, my primary dSLR body (selling my SL1 since it's not enough of an upgrade) is a Rebel XT. And I have, other than the kit lens, the 10-18mm STM, 18-35mm f1.8 Sigma, 50mm f1.8 STM, 24mm STM, 40mm STM, 85mm f1.8, 70-200mm f2.8 II IS, 4.5mm Sigma f2.8, and I'm selling my 55-250mm STM only because it's redundant with the 70-200, but it's a great lens.

And this is after selling a lot off. Canon definitely hooked me to the ecosystem with a crop body. (I did briefly upgrade to a 5D Mark III and loved it, but it was overkill for my needs.)

Edit: Amazon's sales ranks disagree with me. EF-S lenses seem to sell well.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: victorshikhman

degos

EOS 80D
Mar 20, 2015
137
69
Sounds like the lenses could be good for night sky pictures.
I can't think of any Canon lens that is recommended for astro use, except the 300mm f/4. It's just not of interest to them, unlike Samyang and Tamron etc who can obtain useful sales from targetting that market.
 

PerKr

EOS T7i
Jul 11, 2018
52
37
Sverige
Fuji on the other hand only produce APS-C cameras in their X-mount and have decided that two separate mounts for APS-C and small MF is the way forward rather than using one mount for two different sensor formats.
With Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax having both APS-C and "FF" sensors using the same mount the only reason to buy APS-C specific lenses is where there is no reasonable FF alternative or if you know you are never going to a larger format sensor. Or if you desperately need that last bit of image quality over the FF version (but then making the lens better would also increase the price so...)
 
Aug 22, 2010
1,535
236
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
I think the 16mm f1.4 wll keep the Astro boys happy. The 19mm will keep the Range Finder boys happy and the 14mm will keep the architecture boys happy. None of these lenses are mass consumption wide appeal (sorry for the pun) lenses...but ultra specialist lenses. It's also an indication that the EF mount isn't done...as some seem to think, but a pointer to the two formats running in parallel.
If the 14mm or 16mm are light and small enough...I may well consider one of these myself. It would be nice to see a small and light 11mm prime at some point.
 
Reactions: stevelee

victorshikhman

I'm New Here
Mar 15, 2018
12
0
United States
And I thought the 17-55mm IS f2.8 was a nice lens (I owned two of them).
If you are using an XT (350d), the 17-55 2.8 is a great lens, resolving 6 out of 8 megapixels (dxomark). You're getting most out of your sensor. This is what the lens was designed for.

Compare that to the 24 megapixel 760d, where the 17-55 resolves just 10 megapixels. The Sigma 18-35 does 16 megapixels. I can't seem to find Canon glass, EFS or full frame, that will resolve more than 14 on an APSC.

Of course, there is more to an image than resolution, etc.
 

victorshikhman

I'm New Here
Mar 15, 2018
12
0
United States
If you are using an XT (350d), the 17-55 2.8 is a great lens, resolving 6 out of 8 megapixels (dxomark). You're getting most out of your sensor. This is what the lens was designed for.

Compare that to the 24 megapixel 760d, where the 17-55 resolves just 10 megapixels. The Sigma 18-35 does 16 megapixels. I can't seem to find Canon glass, EFS or full frame, that will resolve more than 14 on an APSC.

Of course, there is more to an image than resolution, etc.
In case anyone is interested, from my searching, the lens that gets the highest resolution out of the 760d's 24mpx sensor (which I assume is equivalent to all the Canon 24mpx sensors), is the Sigma 85mm 1.4 Art, at 18mpx resolved.
 

jedy

EOS T7i
Feb 14, 2014
78
14
That's a good point about EF-S owners and EF-S lenses, but it's also difficult to separate causation from correlation. Is it a lack of EF-S glass that leads Canon users to ignore the EF-S ecosystem or is it a lack of enthusiasm for the ecosystem that results in less glass being manufactured for it?
I would have thought most Canon crop users are either non-professional who would own the kit lens and maybe one or two others (or perhaps upgrade the kit lens for a better EF-S zoom) and the other being more professional, like a 7DII user who would opt for L glass. It doesn’t seem likely an EF-S user, bar the 7DII, would own a lot of glass like a professional owning a lot of L glass would.

Right now, with two DSLR and two mirrorless lines, Canon do have too many cameras and I would bet EF-S would be the first to go in favour of the EOS-M. I do know a few photographers who abandoned the EF-S line in favour of a smaller EOS-M body and lenses. It would make sense to put more R&D money in the EOS-M line and eventually retire EF-S.
 
Aug 22, 2010
1,535
236
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
I would have thought most Canon crop users are either non-professional who would own the kit lens and maybe one or two others (or perhaps upgrade the kit lens for a better EF-S zoom) and the other being more professional, like a 7DII user who would opt for L glass. It doesn’t seem likely an EF-S user, bar the 7DII, would own a lot of glass like a professional owning a lot of L glass would.

Right now, with two DSLR and two mirrorless lines, Canon do have too many cameras and I would bet EF-S would be the first to go in favour of the EOS-M. I do know a few photographers who abandoned the EF-S line in favour of a smaller EOS-M body and lenses. It would make sense to put more R&D money in the EOS-M line and eventually retire EF-S.
It's all down to shooting needs and features. The pro end of the DSLR market is still growing slightly, unlike the bottom end of the market which is rapidly falling off. So yes i would agree that the 1.6x crop at the bottom end of the market had limited life expectancy.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 28, 2015
3,020
590
Irving, Texas
You might be right, but there must be a ton of people on 80d's with an EFS lens collection, and many of them would get a 90d/7dIII and upgrade their glass if this were an option.

I had a T2i for 7 years and just last week picked up a refurb 80d from canon for $700. I was really thinking about getting into full frame, a 6d or d750, or another system altogether, Fuji xt-30 looks great, but it's so hard to justify, even with my basic EFS lens collection (10-18, 18-50, 55-250, 24mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.8, all STM). To recreate the range of these lenses on full frame would take a couple thousand dollars more, on top of a $1200-2k body, and their resale value wouldn't even get me 25% of the way there. So I bit the bullet on an 80d and I have to say, it's very solid. Plenty there for me to work with to develop my skills, especially in video. Would really like to stay with Canon glass, but I think I'll be picking up a Sigma 18-35 sometime soon.
You are right, I think. When I had EOS crop cams (XSi, T5i, 70D) I had a bunch (8?) of EFs lenses. Resale was horrible. Now run EF "L" glass. Wouldn't think of selling. ;)
 

victorshikhman

I'm New Here
Mar 15, 2018
12
0
United States
It's all down to shooting needs and features. The pro end of the DSLR market is still growing slightly, unlike the bottom end of the market which is rapidly falling off. So yes i would agree that the 1.6x crop at the bottom end of the market had limited life expectancy.
Except, they're probably still selling 50 crop bodies for every pro full frame. Not to mention how many higher end Rebels and 70D/80D/7DII's and mirrorless with EF-S adapter are out in the field. There are a ton of creatives using these cameras who end up going to Sigma for higher end lenses. Because the L glass is very nice, but not designed for APSC and mostly doesn't deliver great resolution out crop sensors, where the pixels are much more tightly packed.

If they release a 90d/7DIII, we might see a new lens to go with it, and you'd think it would be a no brainer. The 80D is huge in the vlogger community, and the 7D is a mainstay of sports/animal photography. They're not going to the RP, which doesn't give vloggers the video features they want, or the speed/reach/durability that the action shooters want. It is odd that no one seems to bring up crop sensor cameras during all the interviews that Canon execs and engineers are giving these days.
 

Policar

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 20, 2010
517
1
If you are using an XT (350d), the 17-55 2.8 is a great lens, resolving 6 out of 8 megapixels (dxomark). You're getting most out of your sensor. This is what the lens was designed for.

Compare that to the 24 megapixel 760d, where the 17-55 resolves just 10 megapixels. The Sigma 18-35 does 16 megapixels. I can't seem to find Canon glass, EFS or full frame, that will resolve more than 14 on an APSC.

Of course, there is more to an image than resolution, etc.
Is that wide open or stopped down? I found it pretty soft in the corners wide open (compared with the Sigma I replaced it with–so yes, that is sharper), but found it pretty good around f4. I even compared it with a $50k Angenieux zoom on a video shoot, and that did much better wide open lol, but the Canon is pretty nice. The 18-35mm is very sharp wide open.

I mostly shoot cat photos and family photos and print at 8X10 so it takes a really horrendous lens for me to get worked up about resolution, but I could notice the difference with the 18-35mm, which is a remarkable lens for the money.

I would have thought most Canon crop users are either non-professional who would own the kit lens and maybe one or two others (or perhaps upgrade the kit lens for a better EF-S zoom) and the other being more professional, like a 7DII user who would opt for L glass. It doesn’t seem likely an EF-S user, bar the 7DII, would own a lot of glass like a professional owning a lot of L glass would.

Right now, with two DSLR and two mirrorless lines, Canon do have too many cameras and I would bet EF-S would be the first to go in favour of the EOS-M. I do know a few photographers who abandoned the EF-S line in favour of a smaller EOS-M body and lenses. It would make sense to put more R&D money in the EOS-M line and eventually retire EF-S.
Maybe. As I mentioned, Amazon's sales ranks show cheap EF-S lenses as being the most popular and Canon crop dSLRS dominate the body sales rank, too. Amazon sales data doesn't tell the full picture, but I doubt Canon would abandon their best-selling market segment in favor of its least successful major product launch in years (the M series). I say this as someone who would love a 32mm f1.4, I just wish it were available on EF-S. (The Sigma is too heavy for my taste.) Probably going to have to get a 28mm f1.8 or something...

But yeah, there's almost no "professional" EF-S glass, it's like Canon abandoned that market around the same time as the 17-55mm (which, I agree, is long in the tooth compared with newer FF options), while the 32mm f1.4 indicates they do have an interest in higher end M lenses. I don't understand that at all but it does hint at no more high end EF-S lenses being produced I think.
 
Last edited:

jedy

EOS T7i
Feb 14, 2014
78
14
It's all down to shooting needs and features. The pro end of the DSLR market is still growing slightly, unlike the bottom end of the market which is rapidly falling off. So yes i would agree that the 1.6x crop at the bottom end of the market had limited life expectancy.
The DSLR pro end is still healthy because the mirrorless technology at the pro end isn’t good enough yet and the smaller, lighter argument is irrelevant anyway. There are plenty of small, lighter mirrorless cameras at the consumer level that are fast making consumer crop DSLR’s a less attractive option.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 28, 2015
3,020
590
Irving, Texas
The DSLR pro end is still healthy because the mirrorless technology at the pro end isn’t good enough yet and the smaller, lighter argument is irrelevant anyway. There are plenty of small, lighter mirrorless cameras at the consumer level that are fast making consumer crop DSLR’s a less attractive option.
Except that sales at the high end (why people call it the "pro" end is a mystery to me) are carried by non-professionals. There are far more of us out here than professionals making their living at it. Far larger market (non-professionals). Then there is the assumption that we are all clamoring for mirrorless. Not true either. Some of us actually prefer the advantages of the mirror box, like an optical view finder and longer battery life. Same thing for crop DSLRs. I have a small mirrorless Olympus (M4/3). Hate the EVF. Hate the 2x crop. Hate the ergonomics. Hate the short battery life. A Canon R or RP would be much better for my uses. Since I don't do video, an RP would be great. At the high end, it isn't only about fast frame rates.
 
Last edited:

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
It's all down to shooting needs and features. The pro end of the DSLR market is still growing slightly, unlike the bottom end of the market which is rapidly falling off. So yes i would agree that the 1.6x crop at the bottom end of the market had limited life expectancy.
Except that sales at the high end (why people call it the "pro" end is a mystery to me) are carried by non-professionals. There are far more of us out here than professionals making their living at it. Far larger market (non-professionals)....
Hah! You beat me to it. I think it would be more accurate to say that the "enthusiast" (not pro) end of the DLSR market is still growing slightly. Aging baby-boomers with disposable income is a bigger market than actual professionals. Plus, it is a market that is not price sensitive or even that sensitive to economic conditions. The downside is that it is a market that will die off eventually, and even if we live into our 90s, we will stop buying cameras of any type at some point in the not too distant future.

That said, I don't disagree with GMC's basic premise about 1.6 crop lenses. I would add though that the 1.6x crop market in lenses has always been limited, as once you get into the telephoto range, there's little reason for manufacturers to product crop lenses. (Okay, the recent Sigma 100-400 is an exception) But that's been the case since well before full frame became "affordable."
 
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 28, 2015
3,020
590
Irving, Texas
Hah! You beat me to it. I think it would be more accurate to say that the "enthusiast" (not pro) end of the DLSR market is still growing slightly. Aging baby-boomers with disposable income is a bigger market than actual professionals. Plus, it is a market that is not price sensitive or even that sensitive to economic conditions. The downside is that it is a market that will die off eventually, and even if we live into our 90s, we will stop buying cameras of any type at some point in the not too distant future.

That said, I don't disagree with GMC's basic premise about 1.6 crop lenses. I would add though that the 1.6x crop market in lenses has always been limited, as once you get into the telephoto range, there's little reason for manufacturers to product crop lenses. (Okay, the recent Sigma 100-400 is an exception) But that's been the case since well before full frame became "affordable."
The beautiful thing is how FF has suddenly seemed to be more affordable. As far as crop lenses: When I had a crop Canon DSLR I learned too late that I should have been buying EF lenses all along. I couldn't see how EFs was any advantage. Maybe on price? I can't remember.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
958
130
Davidson, NC
But yeah, there's almost no "professional" EF-S glass, it's like Canon abandoned that market around the same time as the 17-55mm (which, I agree, is long in the tooth compared with newer FF options), while the 32mm f1.4 indicates they do have an interest in higher end M lenses. I don't understand that at all but it does hint at no more high end EF-S lenses being produced I think.
Come to think of it, almost all of the money I have made off photography in the last ten years (while not a lot) was from pictures I made with the EF-S 10–22mm lens. Now that I have a 6D2 and the 16–35mm f/4L lens, I no longer do any of that work. It would be a matter of semantics to say which for me was a "pro" lens.
 

Policar

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 20, 2010
517
1
Come to think of it, almost all of the money I have made off photography in the last ten years (while not a lot) was from pictures I made with the EF-S 10–22mm lens. Now that I have a 6D2 and the 16–35mm f/4L lens, I no longer do any of that work. It would be a matter of semantics to say which for me was a "pro" lens.
Yeah, I think the irony is "pros" want to spend less and "enthusiasts" want to spend more. I did a little work briefly with a super high end pro and he often shot with the 50mm f1.8. :/

Assuming you were shooting landscapes?

My dream landscape camera is still an Arca tech camera with a MFDB lol. But I don't make any money off that. I think most pros shoot dSLR.
 
Last edited: