If people are legit using the small-sensor cameras for pro work, it makes total sense to me to make an L-quality lens for them. The advantages more or less square with the reduction in sensor width, so such an L lens could be half the price of a full-frame lens of the same range of viewing angles.
One thing to remember though is that they won't have the bokeh of a full-frame f/2.8. The small-sensor lens at say 28mm f/2.8 will have the identical bokeh to a full-frame 28mm f/2.8; the difference is that you only see the central 50% or so (by area) of that image.
Also, f/2.8 was mainly needed in the SLR days just 1) for viewfinder accuracy; 2) to allow the autofocus sensors to work; and 3) to give you an option to reach for in desperation if ISO 400 or so simply wasn't fast enough and you were already teetering on the edge of the reciprocal rule. With today's sensors you can publish ISO5000 images for almost any purpose I think except fine art. Meanwhile, on the film SLRs we hardly ever blew most photos up past 10x15"/25x37cm. Yet today we inspect every potential keeper even from a small-sensor camera on at least 21-inch monitors without flinching, and the web gives us output options practically all of our photos (e.g., click the regular-size photo to see a full-screen). At these much higher magnifications, and with the added sharpness of the perfect AF and IBIS and IS and low-noise sensors, it is so clear what the subject is vs. the background, that we just don't need f/2.8 any more, even in full-frame. F/4 is the new f/2.8, I've often said, with the 100-500 an honorary f/4 lens as it shoots a lot like a 100-300/4 that has teleconverters when you need them.
In summary, I can totally see small-sensor L lenses. And given that there still seems to be some "muscle memory" that keeps people pounding the order button when they see f/2.8, I can see Canon making them. But they're certainly not especially needed now.
One thing to remember though is that they won't have the bokeh of a full-frame f/2.8. The small-sensor lens at say 28mm f/2.8 will have the identical bokeh to a full-frame 28mm f/2.8; the difference is that you only see the central 50% or so (by area) of that image.
Also, f/2.8 was mainly needed in the SLR days just 1) for viewfinder accuracy; 2) to allow the autofocus sensors to work; and 3) to give you an option to reach for in desperation if ISO 400 or so simply wasn't fast enough and you were already teetering on the edge of the reciprocal rule. With today's sensors you can publish ISO5000 images for almost any purpose I think except fine art. Meanwhile, on the film SLRs we hardly ever blew most photos up past 10x15"/25x37cm. Yet today we inspect every potential keeper even from a small-sensor camera on at least 21-inch monitors without flinching, and the web gives us output options practically all of our photos (e.g., click the regular-size photo to see a full-screen). At these much higher magnifications, and with the added sharpness of the perfect AF and IBIS and IS and low-noise sensors, it is so clear what the subject is vs. the background, that we just don't need f/2.8 any more, even in full-frame. F/4 is the new f/2.8, I've often said, with the 100-500 an honorary f/4 lens as it shoots a lot like a 100-300/4 that has teleconverters when you need them.
In summary, I can totally see small-sensor L lenses. And given that there still seems to be some "muscle memory" that keeps people pounding the order button when they see f/2.8, I can see Canon making them. But they're certainly not especially needed now.
Upvote
0
