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)?
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)?