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

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
986
140
Davidson, NC
Assuming you were shooting landscapes?
No, interiors. Homes for realtors and settings for a designer. The 10–22mm did great for that, except when space was so limited that I had to use the wide end, and it looked a little phony because of perspective. I mostly just rearranged how I was shooting to avoid that. I would photograph the master bath from just outside the doorway, and used the mirror to show areas not seen directly, sometimes into a connecting walk-in closet. They were fortunately good sized and had separate tubs and showers. The pictures for the designer were more straightforward, and therefore easier to set up. The T3i had plenty of resolution for what they needed. Pictures were destined for the web and brochures.

Before I had that lens, my house was under construction. I'd come over about once a week and take pictures on the progress. Once the walls were in place, I never got a decent shot of my bathroom, even though it is large, because I did not have that lens yet. Once they installed the mirror, I could give a sense of the space. Maybe that helped me later in devising work-arounds.

I've never made any money off of landscapes. I do have some nice landscapes on my walls, including the panorama over my mantel of glaciers in the Canadian ice fields. None of them were made with my DSLRs, however, just my travel cameras, the G7X II and before that the S120. They look fine printed on 13" x 19" paper when you view them from normal distances.
 

Policar

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 20, 2010
518
1
Makes sense, I think I'm selling off my 10-18mm because it's too wide for anything I would use it for, but it's a great lens and would be perfect for real estate, being similar to the 10-22mm.

I think in good light (or with a tripod) P+S can be good for landscapes. No need for shallow depth of field and you can shoot at high ISO. I currently use a high end P+S for landscapes so I can travel light.
 
Last edited:

Antono Refa

EOS 7D MK II
Mar 26, 2014
762
79
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).
Exactly. A camera shop employee told me to look at what wedding photographers use every time I go to a wedding. I was surprised to see a wedding photographer use an EF 28-80mm f/2.8-4L, but it does the job, and is cheap to buy (= quick return on investment), and if broken it would probably be cheaper to buy a used one on eBay than fixing a modern EF 24-70mm f/2.8L.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,854
193
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.
This is good news but do not expect them small and light. Small and light is my EF14mm 2.8L II. But the Sigma Art 14mm 1.8 is neither small not light so I do not expect a similar Canon to be any different in size and weight. But as I mentioned: Good news.
 
Last edited:

David - Sydney

I'm New Here
Dec 7, 2014
22
2
www.flickr.com
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.
Although I tend to use my 14mm Samyang for astro, the 8-15mm fisheye can be fun even though it is f4 :)
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 28, 2015
3,107
677
Irving, Texas
  1. DXO :rolleyes:
  2. Your links DO NOT show superiority of EFS lenses over L lenses on crop cameras. In fact, I see only two EFS lenses on your list. "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." Where's the rest? You pull only two EF-S lens examples to bolster your claim? Then those two examples suck as examples. The EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM (Prime lens), according to DXO, resolves at 13MP? The EF 24-70 f/2.8L II resolves at 14MP? It's a got dang zoom and resolves better. The Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II (14MP) also out resolves the EFS 24mm. Again, according to DXO. According to DXO the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II (17MP) out resolves the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM (15MP). Canon 16-35 outresolves the EFs 18-55mm. What was your point again?
  3. Anyway, your hypothesis is false. EFS lenses on crop are not superior to L on crop.
  4. Blanket statements are almost never true.
  5. Explain the design differences that you think make EFs superior to L on crop. You made the claim, now give the science as to why your claim is true. Or did you just repeat something you read somewhere? How does pixel density affect lens resolution?
  6. I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong, if I am. So far, it doesn't look like I am wrong.
 
Last edited: