The Next Lens from Canon Will be an EF-S Prime

[AvTvM]

STUPID CANON!
They should be releasing 2 or 3 EF-s primes.....

Yes. In addition to pancake 24/2.8 an EF-S 12/4, 35/2.0 and EF-S 85/2.4 STM IS would have been nice. Now it is a bit late, since "Rebel and EF-S doomsday" is near.

 

[andrei1989]

at which focal length...length...does the smaller image circle cancel any weight/size advantages?

For WIDE ANGLE, lenses shorter than 24mm (38mm in full frame) need to be retrofocal design, and they are no longer as compact as pancakes.
For TELE OBJECTIVE, longer than 200mm the advantage of size and weight in APS-C is lost, because of the inevitably large front element.

thanks, understood

i still hope for a wide cheap prime, not a normal one..

i don't think it makes sense for canon to release something longer than 75mm, as someone said earlier, because there are already 4 lenses in that area only from canon and all are reasonably cheap: the 85mm and the 3 100mm versions with the 100L being the second cheapest L lens, i believe..

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Being more specific:
It is possible to save some glass on an EF-S lens that is shorter than 24mm ... But only a small saving, and it would not be much cheaper to manufacture EF-S, compared to EF lenses.

On the other hand, the shorter flange distance in EOS-M, allows a considerable saving of glass, on wide-angle lenses.

 

[jolyonralph]

This is why I'd be very surprised to see anything except an EF-S 35mm f/1.8

The only question is whether it'll have IS or not.

 

[Crosswind]

Wow, so many who would like it to be a UWA prime. I'm with you guys. I just hope that it will have the same or even better quality than the EF-M 11-22 @ 11mm (which is pretty good, far better than most of its rivals, almost excellent - I've used it a few days ago).

You know there's the option to buy the Samyang 10mm 2.8 for now. But I'm holding off to buy it because of this rumor. Maybe we have a chance to hear more about this new EF-S prime in february. I'm not saying that it WILL BE a UWA prime, but I certainly hope so. Something to rival said Samyang, just with AF and hopefully even better image quality - especially in the corners - like the EF-M 11-22.

Canon is known for some of their outstanding and very unique lenses.

 

[funkboy]

The flange-focal distance of the Canon EF mount is 44mm. Given that the rear element can protrude a little bit into the body, the widest non-retrofocus EF lens is probably the 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake (& from the patent it's really a 39mm lens).

EF-S has short back-focus. Let's say for sake of argument (as I can't find the data so I eyeballed it) that the minimum distance from the rear element to the focal plane is ~35mm (maybe less, but in this ballpark). So normally they should be able to design a small, light <35mm-ish non-retrofocus EF-S lens with enough room in the lens barrel for a wide aperture (say f/1.8 or f/2) AND their consumer-grade image stabilization (or alternatively, f/1.4 without IS), which would of course provide a "standard"-ish (~50mm) equivalent focal length on APS-C sensors.

Which most enthusiasts with an EF-S compatible camera will immediately dash out & buy (if they manage to keep the street price sufficiently under $US 400).

But see also http://www.canonrumors.com/patent-canon-ef-s-20mm-f2-8-stm/

 

[neuroanatomist]

Being more specific:
It is possible to save some glass on an EF-S lens that is shorter than 24mm ... But only a small saving, and it would not be much cheaper to manufacture EF-S, compared to EF lenses.

Can you please explain how that applies to the 10-22mm and 10-18mm compared to the FF UWA zooms (either the FoV matched 16-35 and 17-40 or the focal length matched 11-24)?

 

[funkboy]

"specialty lens" in the context of EF-M lenses simply means "no macro lens" since any other category of specialty lens from super-tele to tilt-shift to apodization filter or MP65-micro lens would make little to no sense in Digital Rebel land populated by crop sensors.

I'd say that "specialty lenses" also includes fisheyes.

(Not trying to be pedantic, just covering all the bases)

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Being more specific:
It is possible to save some glass on an EF-S lens that is shorter than 24mm ... But only a small saving, and it would not be much cheaper to manufacture EF-S, compared to EF lenses.

Can you please explain how that applies to the 10-22mm and 10-18mm compared to the FF UWA zooms (either the FoV matched 16-35 and 17-40 or the focal length matched 11-24)?

Compared to EF 16-35mm models, the EF-S 10-22mm is not so small, considering aperture is only F3.5-4.5.
The EF-S 10-18mm really is small but has less zoom range, and only F4.5-5.6.
The only APS-C with comparable angle of view to 11-24mm would be the Sigma 8-16mm, again F4.5-5.6.


So far, the APS-C prime of Sigma, Samyang, Mitakon are not very small and cheap compared to wide lens for full frame. Obviously I'd like to be wrong, and be surprised by a EF-S like the EF-M 22mm F2, costing less than $ 500.

 

[ecka]

"specialty lens" in the context of EF-M lenses simply means "no macro lens" since any other category of specialty lens from super-tele to tilt-shift to apodization filter or MP65-micro lens would make little to no sense in Digital Rebel land populated by crop sensors.

yes, it will be a rather pedestrian, small, optically decent, boring, cheap, tiny consumer lens with plastic mount - most likely a EF-S 35/2.0 STM or at best f/1.8.

OK, but I wouldn't call let's say 10mm UWA prime not specialty lens for any APS-C system. While EF-S 35/2 STM Macro sounds pretty generic.

 

[Woody]

I would be very surprised if we don't get a EF-S 30/35mm STM

Yay!!! ;D

 

[vangelismm]

Tamron 17-50 2.8 is not so big, remove some glass and make a effort to leave at 15mm.

 

[x-vision]

It'll either be a 16mm f/2.8 or a 35mm f/1.8

There's very little point in them doing anything else as it'll either be too specialist or too much of an overlap with other lenses.

My thoughts exactly!

 

[phree_ed]

At least 15mm or wider and f1.8 or better.

 

[Crosswind]

It'll either be a 16mm f/2.8 or a 35mm f/1.8

There's very little point in them doing anything else as it'll either be too specialist or too much of an overlap with other lenses.

My thoughts exactly!

I don't see the point why they should release a 35 when this focal lenght is already well covered by several small and low cost options for EF/EF-S: old 35, new 35IS 2.0, and 40 pancake, 28IS are pretty close. I'm sure I've missed something. Isn't that enough for enthusiast photographer within the APS-C range (even if these are able to cover FF circle)?

A 15 1.8 would be pretty cool, but I doubt they will make it so fast. A 15 or wider with 2.0 - 2.8 is more likely I guess, and rather with STM than nUSM. One interesting addition in the UWA area would be an 8mm 2.8, but... wouldn't that be too specialist again??

 

[jolyonralph]

An EF-S 35mm f/1.8 non-IS would be around half the price of the EF 35mm f/2 IS

Big difference for the lower end market.

 

[jolyonralph]

Actually, less than half the price. According to Amazon.co.uk the RRP on the EF 35mm f/2 IS is £799 (although they sell it for £470) and, the comparable Nikon 35mm f1.8G lens is £183 (their price £152.)

I would expect Canon to produce an EF-S 35mm 1.8 lens for under £250, probably under £200.

Of course, if you wanted a cheap bargain 35mm lens now, the Yongnuo 35mm f/2 is available for £85 on Amazon.

 

[Crosswind]

An EF-S 35mm f/1.8 non-IS would be around half the price of the EF 35mm f/2 IS

Big difference for the lower end market.

I agree, just thought that it is still considered low-priced, even for the entry level market, especially when looking up to their L glass.

Are there even any Canon UWA patents at or below 15mm APS-C? I'm not sure. What about a new and cheap 85 2.0 IS STM - is that out of question or how do you see it?

 

[vscd]

I don't see the point why they should release a 35 when this focal lenght is already well covered by several small and low cost options for EF/EF-S: old 35, new 35IS 2.0, and 40 pancake, 28IS are pretty close.

Don't judge "close" on the difference on millimeters. The Difference between 28, 35 and 40mm is quite visible. The difference beteen 400mm and 407mm not that much

 

[Crosswind]

I don't see the point why they should release a 35 when this focal lenght is already well covered by several small and low cost options for EF/EF-S: old 35, new 35IS 2.0, and 40 pancake, 28IS are pretty close.

Don't judge "close" on the difference on millimeters. The Difference between 28, 35 and 40mm is quite visible. The difference beteen 400mm and 407mm not that much

Haha yeah you're right
I thought they're all still pretty close to 35mm, especially when using your feet a little bit (if it is possible) or doing a small panorama with proper handholding technique (if your subject is static). Well, I tend to experiment a bit as I'm used to limiting myself to one focal lenght, or maybe two, which makes me "think" more creative.