We want more EF-S lens

[ajfotofilmagem]

Wouldn't you prefer the flexibility to go FF without chucking all of your EF-S lenses or duplicating them? An EF-S 10-22 is equivalent to 16-35 when it reaches the sensor? A 16-35 EF would be a 24-55 equivalent on an APS-C. I guess my point is if you want to go wide or UWA then you should go FF. I bought a 5D to complement my 7D because it made more sense to buy a 16-35/2.8 EF for the 5D than a 10-22/3.5-4.5 EF-S for the 7D. When I need the extra reach, the 7D and 1D gives me a 1.6 and 1.3 crop factor on the long lenses.

Your suggestion makes sense. But I like to shoot with two bodies at the same time. The first, with battery grip + zoom lens F2.8 + flash + flash diffuser, and the second with fast prime lens. With full frame, I would have to carry 5 kg in the neck for several hours. I'm not an athletic body type, and would be quite uncomfortable. I also think women photographers who always end up using F4-5.6 lens because of the size and total weight.

 

[Gareth]

Almost all these lenses have pretty close equivalents (oddly all made by Sigma), so is this post really "we want CANON to make these lenses?"

> EF-S 8-16mm F4-5.6 $ 800 (non-fisheye)

Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM, $650 (except not f/4 to start)

> EF-S 16-55mm F2.8 IS $ 900 (I have a dream ...)

No one makes this down to 16mm, but 17-55mm or 17-50mm. How important is 16mm?

> EF-S 17-70mm F4 IS $ 500 (not impossible)

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM, $500. Even faster than f/4 and recently re-designed.

> EF-S 55-150mm F2.8 IS $ 1100 (so sexy)

Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM APO, $950. Except apparently it's about the same size and weight as a FF 70-200mm 2.8. The non-stabilized previous version was significantly smaller.

> EF-S 135-500mm F4-5.6 IS $ 1200 (not too heavy)

I got nothing for this. Although given the size of the 50-150, maybe it just makes more sense to buy a FF lens.
Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM APO, $970.

> EF-S 30mm f/1.4 USM

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM, $500. A recently re-designed Art lens.

 

[Don Haines]

My dream: EF-S 30mm f/1.4 USM

Me too. Moreover, EF-S22mm F2, EF-S15mm F2.8, EF-S10mm F2.8(non-fisheye). When comes the long awaited 7D Mark II, which are the wide angle primes high quality for it? 24mmL U.S. $ 1550 and 14mmL $ 2100? That's it?

Sigma has it.

 

[tiger82]

Your suggestion makes sense. But I like to shoot with two bodies at the same time. The first, with battery grip + zoom lens F2.8 + flash + flash diffuser, and the second with fast prime lens. With full frame, I would have to carry 5 kg in the neck for several hours. I'm not an athletic body type, and would be quite uncomfortable. I also think women photographers who always end up using F4-5.6 lens because of the size and total weight.

There's not much weight difference between my gripped 7D and gripped 5D and they share batteries! I keep weight off my neck by using a two body sling. Most of that is because I suffer from cervical dystoni but if I were completely healthy, I would still do it that way.

 

[neuroanatomist]

EF-S 135-500mm F4-5.6 IS $ 1200 (not too heavy)

I guess you don't realize that for a telephoto design, the size of the image circle isn't limiting, the limiting parameter is filling the entrance pupil with light, and the entrance pupil is effectively at the front element.

Such a lens would need an 89mm front element, and be large, heavy, and expensive (because unlike Sigma, Canon wouldn't make it f/6.3 so it's only 79mm in front and have to spoof their own AF system).

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Almost all these lenses have pretty close equivalents (oddly all made by Sigma), so is this post really "we want CANON to make these lenses?"

> EF-S 8-16mm F4-5.6 $ 800 (non-fisheye)

Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM, $650 (except not f/4 to start)

> EF-S 16-55mm F2.8 IS $ 900 (I have a dream ...)

No one makes this down to 16mm, but 17-55mm or 17-50mm. How important is 16mm?

> EF-S 17-70mm F4 IS $ 500 (not impossible)

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM, $500. Even faster than f/4 and recently re-designed.

> EF-S 55-150mm F2.8 IS $ 1100 (so sexy)

Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM APO, $950. Except apparently it's about the same size and weight as a FF 70-200mm 2.8. The non-stabilized previous version was significantly smaller.

> EF-S 135-500mm F4-5.6 IS $ 1200 (not too heavy)

I got nothing for this. Although given the size of the 50-150, maybe it just makes more sense to buy a FF lens.
Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM APO, $970.

> EF-S 30mm f/1.4 USM

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM, $500. A recently re-designed Art lens.

You are right. If Sigma can do it, why can not Canon? About the statement "How important is 16mm", I say that I use a Tokina 16-50mm F2.8 and understand well the difference of 16mm to 17mm. Strongly urge that Canon makes a 16-55mm F2.8 IS, but would not pay $ 1300 for it.

 

[tiger82]

What happens if/when Canon delivers inexpensive full frame for the masses and abandons APS-C in favor of micro 4/3 for the consumer?

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

EF-S 135-500mm F4-5.6 IS $ 1200 (not too heavy)

I guess you don't realize that for a telephoto design, the size of the image circle isn't limiting, the limiting parameter is filling the entrance pupil with light, and the entrance pupil is effectively at the front element.

Such a lens would need an 89mm front element, and be large, heavy, and expensive (because unlike Sigma, Canon wouldn't make it f/6.3 so it's only 79mm in front and have to spoof their own AF system).

This is my first post in canonrumors, but I read a few years ago and I am honored with the contribution of Neuro always enlightening. It could be an EF-S 150-400mm F4-5.6 costing $ 1100 and I would be very happy.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It could be an EF-S 150-400mm F4-5.6 costing $ 1100 and I would be very happy.

If so, you could consider a used 100-400L, they often sell for ~$1000-1100.

 

[noncho]

12 2.8 prime would be nice, 50-150 2.8 IS too.

 

[dgatwood]

12 2.8 prime would be nice, 50-150 2.8 IS too.

Make that a 12 EF prime instead of EF-S, and I'd probably buy that, too.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

12 2.8 prime would be nice, 50-150 2.8 IS too.

Make that a 12 EF prime instead of EF-S, and I'd probably buy that, too.

The problem of an Canon EF12mm F2.8 would be the price of $ 2500, maybe $ 3000. :

 

[dgatwood]

12 2.8 prime would be nice, 50-150 2.8 IS too.

Make that a 12 EF prime instead of EF-S, and I'd probably buy that, too.

The problem of an Canon EF12mm F2.8 would be the price of $ 2500, maybe $ 3000. :

And an EF-S won't? All twelve people worldwide who are frothing at the mouth waiting for such a lens will buy it if it's EF. If it's EF-S, only six or seven of them will.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Tell me which EF-S lenses you would like to buy if it existed. Would have some advantage over existing lenses, even if it is just the price.
My short list:
EF-S 8-16mm F4-5.6 $ 800 (non-fisheye)
EF-S 16-55mm F2.8 IS $ 900 (I have a dream ...)
EF-S 17-70mm F4 IS $ 500 (not impossible)
EF-S 55-150mm F2.8 IS $ 1100 (so sexy)
EF-S 135-500mm F4-5.6 IS $ 1200 (not too heavy)
Does my dreams will be met? What is your dream lens EF-S?

Canon already has the 10-22, so don't need the 6-16.
Canon already has the 17-55, so don't need the 16-55.
Canon already has the 15-85, so don't need the 17-70.
A 55-200 F2.8 could be interesting.
The 135-500 would be my pick.

In fact, the difference between 8mm and 10mm is quite noticeable, and although I would also like a 8mm F2.8, it seems that Canon does not plan to primes EF-S lenses. Also I think 16-55mm is a useful improvement over the current 17-55. My wish is that it would be 17-70mm F4, not F3.5-5.6 as the current 15-85. What we have seen is Tamrom Sigma and investing more in developing new lenses for APS-C, Canon while showing little interest in the area.

Down the road canon may get to some of these lenses you mention, or other variants with similar stats. But, looking at the releases - I think they are going top down. Lots of "L" updates. Which makes sense in a way. as was said by others..,.EF glass works with crop bodies, but the same doesn't go the other way.

If you look at it from the marketing logic standpoint, canon wants People to progress up the line, from a P&S to a rebel, to a XXD, then make the leap to Full Frame. Less people will make the leap if they produce too much good EF-S glass. Like this one you bring up -- "My wish is that it would be 17-70mm F4, not F3.5-5.6 as the current 15-85." the current one is $700 --- if you make it a constant f4 then that price will jump. If people are shelling out over $1000 on EF-s Lenses, then that would create a very effective roadblock in getting to FF bodies. Keeping the EF-S specific lenses to a minimum makes those looking to buy good glass buy EF lenses (maybe even L lenses) so they don't get stuck in the trap of "now I want to step up to FF but I would have no glass for it."

and finally, your ultra wide ---isn't the Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM Ultra-Wide Zoom Lens covering that?

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

12 2.8 prime would be nice, 50-150 2.8 IS too.

Make that a 12 EF prime instead of EF-S, and I'd probably buy that, too.

The problem of an Canon EF12mm F2.8 would be the price of $ 2500, maybe $ 3000. :

there's your bottleneck, your roadblock.. whats the end cost! high end glass will be costly, and for canon doesn't want you loading on on really expensive Ef-S glass, they'd prefer you go with L series EF lenses then upgrade to FF.

Back earlier in your post, you brought up how even the pro's in the less affluent countries are using crop bodies because of the cost, which is much much more. If a 6d is 2k here, and 4k there, then a $600 lens would be $1200..so any higher end EF or EF-S is gonna be out of your range too....that ain't canon's fault...thats the global economy...

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Tell me which EF-S lenses you would like to buy if it existed. Would have some advantage over existing lenses, even if it is just the price.
My short list:
EF-S 8-16mm F4-5.6 $ 800 (non-fisheye)
EF-S 16-55mm F2.8 IS $ 900 (I have a dream ...)
EF-S 17-70mm F4 IS $ 500 (not impossible)
EF-S 55-150mm F2.8 IS $ 1100 (so sexy)
EF-S 135-500mm F4-5.6 IS $ 1200 (not too heavy)
Does my dreams will be met? What is your dream lens EF-S?

Canon already has the 10-22, so don't need the 6-16.
Canon already has the 17-55, so don't need the 16-55.
Canon already has the 15-85, so don't need the 17-70.
A 55-200 F2.8 could be interesting.
The 135-500 would be my pick.

In fact, the difference between 8mm and 10mm is quite noticeable, and although I would also like a 8mm F2.8, it seems that Canon does not plan to primes EF-S lenses. Also I think 16-55mm is a useful improvement over the current 17-55. My wish is that it would be 17-70mm F4, not F3.5-5.6 as the current 15-85. What we have seen is Tamrom Sigma and investing more in developing new lenses for APS-C, Canon while showing little interest in the area.

Down the road canon may get to some of these lenses you mention, or other variants with similar stats. But, looking at the releases - I think they are going top down. Lots of "L" updates. Which makes sense in a way. as was said by others..,.EF glass works with crop bodies, but the same doesn't go the other way.

If you look at it from the marketing logic standpoint, canon wants People to progress up the line, from a P&S to a rebel, to a XXD, then make the leap to Full Frame. Less people will make the leap if they produce too much good EF-S glass. Like this one you bring up -- "My wish is that it would be 17-70mm F4, not F3.5-5.6 as the current 15-85." the current one is $700 --- if you make it a constant f4 then that price will jump. If people are shelling out over $1000 on EF-s Lenses, then that would create a very effective roadblock in getting to FF bodies. Keeping the EF-S specific lenses to a minimum makes those looking to buy good glass buy EF lenses (maybe even L lenses) so they don't get stuck in the trap of "now I want to step up to FF but I would have no glass for it."

and finally, your ultra wide ---isn't the Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM Ultra-Wide Zoom Lens covering that?

Before shooting with Canon APS-C, I used 35mm color film, so I had a few years of experience with the "feeling" equivalent to full frame DSLR. I remember I needed to use the diaphragm F5.6 (or F8) in all the photos of groups of people to have the necessary depth of field. At that time I did not plan to spend much money on a zoom lens F2.8 to use in F5.6 most of the time. When I started with DSLR (Rebel XT) I was pleasantly surprised to see that F4 was enough to give me the DOF I wanted, and some time later I bought a F2.8 zoom. Today, I would not go back to using F5.6 because the DOF on full frame. I know that Canon wants to push users APS-C to full frame to make more profit with L lenses, but for me, APS-C is ideal DOF. Just need high quality lenses to accompany the evolution of APS-C sensors. On the suggestion of the EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye, I really do not like the distortion exaggerated, but I prefer ultra wide rectilinear.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

12 2.8 prime would be nice, 50-150 2.8 IS too.

Make that a 12 EF prime instead of EF-S, and I'd probably buy that, too.

The problem of an Canon EF12mm F2.8 would be the price of $ 2500, maybe $ 3000. :

there's your bottleneck, your roadblock.. whats the end cost! high end glass will be costly, and for canon doesn't want you loading on on really expensive Ef-S glass, they'd prefer you go with L series EF lenses then upgrade to FF.

Back earlier in your post, you brought up how even the pro's in the less affluent countries are using crop bodies because of the cost, which is much much more. If a 6d is 2k here, and 4k there, then a $600 lens would be $1200..so any higher end EF or EF-S is gonna be out of your range too....that ain't canon's fault...thats the global economy...

Yes, I live in a city of three million people, which has no shop to sell full frame cameras, only Rebel T3i and D3100. If a Canon 6D with 24-105mm costs $ 4000 here, Rebel T5i with 18-55mm costs $ 1300. In this situation, many photographers prefer cameras like 60d, because a 6D deserves a high quality lens like 24-70mm F2.8 which costs $ 3,600. I would never use 5D Mark iii with low quality lens. So, I care more 7D Mark ii with the best lenses I can afford.

 

[elflord]

In fact, the difference between 8mm and 10mm is quite noticeable, and although I would also like a 8mm F2.8, it seems that Canon does not plan to primes EF-S lenses. Also I think 16-55mm is a useful improvement over the current 17-55.

Tokina has 16-50mm.

 

[elflord]

You are right. If Sigma can do it, why can not Canon? About the statement "How important is 16mm", I say that I use a Tokina 16-50mm F2.8 and understand well the difference of 16mm to 17mm. Strongly urge that Canon makes a 16-55mm F2.8 IS, but would not pay $ 1300 for it.

They can but they don't want to. The reasons have been explained in this thread -- basically it doesn't play well with their overall strategy. What puzzles me about this thread is, why not just go ahead and buy what is available from manufacturers who have released a product that addresses your needs (Sigma, other third parties), instead of complaining about the manufacturers who have not done so (Canon)

 

[josephandrews222]

I love this website and enjoy reading the posts here.

I wonder if anyone else thinks what I think--what we now call a dslr will, in a while, be fullframe...and the apsc sensors will be found on mirrorless.