Why no APS-C "Holy Trinity"?

[gruhl28]

Full frame has their 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200 f/2.8 and f/4 lenses, but there are no equivalents for APS-C. The closest is the 17-55 f/2.8 from Canon and some third party manufacturers, but the wide end is only 27 mm equivalent, and those 3 mm make a significant difference. I think this is the only fixed aperture zoom from Canon for APS-C.

I realize the FF zooms are professional quality and expensive, and most pros don't shoot APS-C, but couldn't the APS-C focal length equivalents be made with decent IQ, but without making them bullet-proof like the L lenses to keep down costs, size, weight? And the smaller image circle requirement should also help keep down cost, size, and weight.

Sigma has their 18-35 f/1.8 and 50-100 f/1.8, but these have only a 2x zoom ratio, are heavy, have no IS, and the 18-35 doesn't go wide enough. APS-C may be a bit of a second thought for Canon, but other manufacturers seem to take crop more seriously, and even Canon have several crop prime lenses. Why no 10-22 f/2.8 (or f/4), 15-45 f/2.8 (or f/4), and 45-125 f/2.8 (or f/4)? The light-gathering and ability to blur on a crop f/2.8 would only be equivalent to f/4 on FF, but even f/4 versions would be preferable to the f/3.5 - f/5.6 zooms that we currently have for crop. I'm not asking for f/2.0 lenses, which are what would be necessary to get true equivalency to the FF f/2.8 lenses - those would be nice, but probably too big, heavy, and expensive.

Do these really not make business sense? I would think these zooms would be more popular than the 60mm and 35 mm EF-S macro lenses, and Canon thought there was a business case for these.

Is there some technical reason this can't be done practically? If Canon can make a 15-85 f/3.5 - 5.6, why not a 15-45 f/2.8? Or a 15-65 f/4 (24-105 FF equivalent)?

 

[bholliman]

I would like to see more fixed aperture EF-S zooms as well, but I don't think its going to happen.

As you pointed out, the only fixed aperature zoom is the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, which is a nice lens, but getting a little long in the tooth. The APS-C UWA zooms and tele zooms are all variable aperture. Canon's EF-S 10-18 and 10-22mm are nice lenses, as is the EF-S 55-250 STM despite the lack of a fixed aperture, "L" quality build and USM focus motors.

Based on what we have seen, I don't think Canon sees a market for professional quality lenses for APS-C. Thus what is available is consumer level glass. Probably makes business sense, as Canon apparently wants to push APC-S photographers who want to upgrade toward full frame, where they can make better margins. It also avoids the R&D expense of developing high end APS-C lenses.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The APS-C trinity is the EF-S 10-18mm, EF-S 18-55mm and EF-S 55-250mm. Fixed aperture zooms cost more, and are larger. Neither of those (particularly the first one) appeal to the majority of APS-C camera buyers.

 

[jolyonralph]

With current directions I think it's more likely we'll see such lenses in the future in the EF-M mount rather than EF-S.

 

[gruhl28]

"Based on what we have seen, I don't think Canon sees a market for professional quality lenses for APS-C."

bholliman, I agree, that's why I suggested lenses that weren't bullet-proof like the L lenses, good IQ but not professional grade in other respects.


"The APS-C trinity is the EF-S 10-18mm, EF-S 18-55mm and EF-S 55-250mm. Fixed aperture zooms cost more, and are larger. Neither of those (particularly the first one) appeal to the majority of APS-C camera buyers."

Neuro, I guess you're right. Even the crop primes are pretty inexpensive. The 15-85 and 17-55 aren't cheap, but I don't know how well they sell.


"With current directions I think it's more likely we'll see such lenses in the future in the EF-M mount rather than EF-S."

jolyonralph, I was wondering about that too.

 

[YuengLinger]

Isn't part of the problem with expensive aps-c lenses that people willing to pay more are hoping to upgrade to full frame someday and not be stuck with a bunch of lenses they can't use?

 

[wsmith96]

Full frame has their 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200 f/2.8 and f/4 lenses, but there are no equivalents for APS-C.

To me the trinity for performance was the 10-22, 17-55, and 70-200 with the 10-22 being the only one without a fixed aperture. I can't explain why there isn't a f/2.8 version of a UWA zoom from Canon for APS-C. I just figure that's not their target market for such a lens.

As previously mentioned, there is also the 10-18, 18-55, and 55-200 STM line for the entry level. Even then, the 10-18 and 55-200 do well within their specifications and will make many photographers happy.

 

[SkynetTX]

Tamron has the 10-24 Di II VC HLM developed for APS-C cameras. So you can have the Tamron 10-24 and any of 24-70 and 70-200 you like and you have equivalent focal lengths from 16 to 320 mm.

 

[YuengLinger]

Tamron has the 10-24 Di II VC HLM developed for APS-C cameras. So you can have the Tamron 10-24 and any of 24-70 and 70-200 you like and you have equivalent focal lengths from 16 to 320 mm.

That's right, and the 24-70 and 70-200 will also work on full frame. I just don't see the sense investing in more expensive lenses that only work on cropped.

 

[bholliman]

With current directions I think it's more likely we'll see such lenses in the future in the EF-M mount rather than EF-S.

+1, at least I hope so since my two cameras are full frame and EF-M mount.

 

[slclick]

I wasn't aware that Holy has been slumming it. I'd use the term functional...Neuro nailed the zoom lengths.

 

[mistaspeedy]

I believe there are a number of simultaneous reasons why we dont have a high quality 'trinity' for APSC.

1) It forces APSC users to buy more expensive full frame glass.
2) Even if the APSC lenses were the same price, full frame pro lenses allow you to upgrade your camera body to a more expensive full frame body.... if you had 3-4 expensive 'L' APSC lenses, you would probably never upgrade to full frame, or would make the move much harder.
3) It costs extra money to develop another line of L lenses for APSC when you can focus your efforts on full frame.

 

[BillB]

I believe there are a number of simultaneous reasons why we dont have a high quality 'trinity' for APSC.

1) It forces APSC users to buy more expensive full frame glass.
2) Even if the APSC lenses were the same price, full frame pro lenses allow you to upgrade your camera body to a more expensive full frame body.... if you had 3-4 expensive 'L' APSC lenses, you would probably never upgrade to full frame, or would make the move much harder.
3) It costs extra money to develop another line of L lenses for APSC when you can focus your efforts on full frame.

and 4) there isn't much demand for expensive high quality aps-c glass. For better IQ, FF is hard to beat.. The crop factor takes its toll.

 

[Mikehit]

Is there some technical reason this can't be done practically? If Canon can make a 15-85 f/3.5 - 5.6, why not a 15-45 f/2.8? Or a 15-65 f/4 (24-105 FF equivalent)?

What is the advantage?
Price will be about the same. Size will not be much different.

 

[Don Haines]

Is there some technical reason this can't be done practically? If Canon can make a 15-85 f/3.5 - 5.6, why not a 15-45 f/2.8? Or a 15-65 f/4 (24-105 FF equivalent)?

What is the advantage?
Price will be about the same. Size will not be much different.

How about a 17-55 F2.8?

 

[slclick]

Is there some technical reason this can't be done practically? If Canon can make a 15-85 f/3.5 - 5.6, why not a 15-45 f/2.8? Or a 15-65 f/4 (24-105 FF equivalent)?

What is the advantage?
Price will be about the same. Size will not be much different.

How about a 17-55 F2.8?

That was the single bone Canon threw to the 1.6 dog.

 

[Don Haines]

Is there some technical reason this can't be done practically? If Canon can make a 15-85 f/3.5 - 5.6, why not a 15-45 f/2.8? Or a 15-65 f/4 (24-105 FF equivalent)?

What is the advantage?
Price will be about the same. Size will not be much different.

How about a 17-55 F2.8?

That was the single bone Canon threw to the 1.6 dog.

It is not a L lens, but it feels like one...

Once you start to go longer, there really isn’t a lot of weight savings between crop and FF lenses, and I suspect that’s why there is no offering of longer L glass for the crop line... I know a lot of crop shooters who have the FF 70-200 in some variation so that lens takes the top end of the crop trilogy..... but there is nothing of L quality at the wide end. It would have been nice to see something from Canon like a 10-17mm F2.8 lens, that is a hole in the lens lineup that Canon has left unfilled for a long time

 

[slclick]

I liked my 10-22 when I shot crop, sure it needed a bit of correction in post but it was a very good value. Didn't need it to be faster, it was fantastic stopped down.

 

[Don Haines]

I liked my 10-22 when I shot crop, sure it needed a bit of correction in post but it was a very good value. Didn't need it to be faster, it was fantastic stopped down.

I have one of those.... it is a nice lens, a great lens for the price. It eventually got replaced in the bag by a Tokina that was sharper and faster, but nowhere near as compact.

One of the big advantages of crop is smaller size, and fast lenses kind of ruin that advantage. I think that’s one of the reasons why there are a lot of F5.6 crop lenses, and also the reason why there are a lot of F6.3 M lenses....

 

[brad-man]

The times they are a changing. EF-M 22, check. EF-M 32ish, soon. EF-M 50-something, we'll see...