EF-S 15-60 f/2.8 IS [CR1]

[KyleSTL]

It is easier to make an f/2.8 ef-s lens than an ef one of course. Also canon do a 24-105 which is a larger zoom range btw.

Oh duh, forgot that one, that comes out to 4.38x, so definitely longer, so this is likely the third longest constant aperture, and the longest f2.8. Sensor size does make a huge difference, consider the Olympus f2.0 zoom for the 4/3rds system. I'd like to see one of the big companies (Nikon or Canon) try a compact (read: point and shot for this crowd) with a 24-120mm equivalent f2.0 or 2.8 lens (constant). It's definitely do-able, but likely not profitable, especially considering the engineering that would go into it.

 

[lol]

The 15-85 is weaker than the 17-55 both in terms of optical quality (resolution, barrel distortions...) and build quality. So I don't understand why Canon believes such a lens would be a worthy replacement of the 17-55. If they don't make it as good as (or better than) the current 17-55, I can hardly imagine a 17-55 owner willing to "upgrade"(downgrade would be the better word actually)...

While the 17-55 does have less distortion on its wide end, the 15-85 isn't that much more and if you really hate distortion, you would still have to apply correction to both. The 18-55 has less distortion on the mid and long end though. Resolution wise there isn't much in it. Yes, the 17-55 has a slight advantage at equivalent focal lengths and apertures, but I think we need far more than the 18MP sensor to see if there is much of a difference. The increase zoom range would be welcome I feel, as 17mm just isn't that wide.

On other replies in this thread, while it would be the longest zoom constant f/2.8 lens made on SLR mount, do note lens zoom ranges and apertures have increased through the years. Don't expect to be limited to around 3x for f/2.8 forever.

Price wise, if it happens I'd expect it to be significantly more than the 17-55. For example, look at the 70-200 II compared to its predecessor.

 

[traveller]

If this lens does ever get released, you can bet your life it will be 30% more expensive than the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8.

The way that Canon will 'justify' this is by increasing prices across the board with each new lens; so the 24-70 f/2.8L replacement will gain at least 30% (the Nikkor 24-70 is already about 25% more and the Sony/CZ 24-70 is over 35% more expensive), a future 24-105L replacement will do the same. This will maintain the relative price points of these lenses.

Are Canon (and their competitors) justified in doing this? Well, there is inflation as well as R&D costs to cover and making all these super sharp lenses with multiple exotic elements is going to push up costs. Perhaps it is us demanding more (MOAR) and then moaning when they ask us to pay for it, who are being unreasonable?

I baulked at the cost of the 17-55 f/2.8 until Sigma brought out their new 17-50 f/2.8; I realised that despite only having micro-USM it was not that much cheaper. Clearly Canon is charging a premium for their brand name on a lens (over third-party offerings), but Sigma it seems, had to compromise on micro-USM to produce a lower cost lens than the Canon. Maybe it is not possible to produce a 17-55mm f/2.8 USM lens at significantly less than the current price; we should not expect a new lens to cost less.

(P.S. I do not work for Canon or any of its subsidiaries!)

 

[BennyJ]

While the 17-55 does have less distortion on its wide end, the 15-85 isn't that much more.... Resolution wise there isn't much in it.

I think there's significant difference between those two lenses and many reviews on the web come to the same conclusion. I dont care if Canon gives it a longer zoom and I also don't really need those 2 mm less focal length in the low end. It's nice, yeah, but you can always attach another lens anyway. I don't want quality to be compromised only to get some more zoom out of the lens.

Right now, we don't know what the product will look like and if it will be developed at all. But if its quality (either optical or build quality) falls short of that of the 17-55, I'm definitely not gonna buy it.

 

[JLN]

Interesting, i've been expecting canon to release a new flagship ef-s lens for awhile, something starting with 15mm.

Until recently, the 17-55 was the hands down go-to top end lens but the 15-85 has offered some competition. The aperture is of course slower but the 24mm equivalent width zoom is just attractive.

I'm dubious about the 15-60 range though, more realistic would be a 15-55 or even a 15-50, with a 4 stop IS.

 

[lol]

Right now, we don't know what the product will look like and if it will be developed at all. But if its quality (either optical or build quality) falls short of that of the 17-55, I'm definitely not gonna buy it.

Fair enough, we all have different wants and needs. My personal perspective is that a zoom should offer flexibility at "good enough" quality over going for a prime.

Even then we need to define what aspects and weighting we apply, such as but not limited to resolution (centre and border), at various apertures, at various focal lengths and even focus distances. Throw in considerations for vignetting, astigmatism, coma, bokeh characteristic and colour rendition. All in, "better" will be subjective.

If they make such a lens, increasing zoom range may impact some of those parameters. How it does so will be the question.

If this lens does ever get released, you can bet your life it will be 30% more expensive than the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8.

You can see it like bodies too. The new version will always come in at a high price. Over its life it might creep down slowly until it seems a bargain, when they replace it with another expensive one. Canon are not alone in this...

 

[anthony11]

Given Canon's obsession for pixel count over sensitivity, the potential stop gained by f/2.8 compared to f/4 zooms would seem to be countered by the extra ISO step needed for the same noise level compared to a FF unit.

As for EF prime updates, I suspect that we will never see these -- Canon hasn't updated any in years, and they clearly view primes as a "pro" L-class segment now, with zooms for consumers.

 

[AJ]

One thing about the current 17-55/2.8 IS is that it's not particularly wide. Although I haven't measured the field-of-view, it feels more like an 18-55. My Tamron 17-50/2.8 goes noticeably wider.

I wonder if a new 15-50 would have a true 28 mm equivalent. I have my doubts about 24 mm

 

[Loswr]

Given Canon's obsession for pixel count over sensitivity, the potential stop gained by f/2.8 compared to f/4 zooms would seem to be countered by the extra ISO step needed for the same noise level compared to a FF unit.

Exactly. Few people get this - especially those who make statements like, "I'm not upgrading to FF until they make a FF equivalent of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS," in reference to the magical unicorn also known as a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS. In fact, the 24-105mm f/4L IS when used on FF specs out better than the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on a crop body. The FF-equivalent of the latter is 27-88mm f/4.5 IS, meaning the 24-105mm is wider, longer, and faster. It's true that f/2.8 still yields a faster shutter speed than f/4, since the crop factor doesn't affect exposure (apparent effect is on DoF only), but as you point out - FF has a 1.3-stop advantage in ISO noise, meaning you can bump the shutter speed up a stop by using a higher ISO on FF to match the shutter speed you'd get with f/2.8 on a crop body.

 

[Wahoowa]

Given Canon's obsession for pixel count over sensitivity, the potential stop gained by f/2.8 compared to f/4 zooms would seem to be countered by the extra ISO step needed for the same noise level compared to a FF unit.

Exactly. Few people get this - especially those who make statements like, "I'm not upgrading to FF until they make a FF equivalent of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS," in reference to the magical unicorn also known as a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS. In fact, the 24-105mm f/4L IS when used on FF specs out better than the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on a crop body. The FF-equivalent of the latter is 27-88mm f/4.5 IS, meaning the 24-105mm is wider, longer, and faster. It's true that f/2.8 still yields a faster shutter speed than f/4, since the crop factor doesn't affect exposure (apparent effect is on DoF only), but as you point out - FF has a 1.3-stop advantage in ISO noise, meaning you can bump the shutter speed up a stop by using a higher ISO on FF to match the shutter speed you'd get with f/2.8 on a crop body.

Agreed.

Not on that, you have to shoot at a faster shutter speed (losing another 2/3 stops) to ensure stability in low light. (I can do 1/15 sec with a 24mm lens on FF in low light to get "acceptable" images. But I have to do at least 1/25 sec on my 7D.)

Still, I'm still holding on to my 7D and I will wait until the replacement of 5DII comes out. Hopefully, it will have similar features as the 7D.

 

[Admin US West]

One of the reasons you might want to use a faster shutter speed with a 7d is the higher pixel density. Even a tiny movement will show blur at the pixel level, while the much larger pizels of a FF may not get smeared with the same amount of movement.

However, the resultant image viewed at the same print size won't show it, just peeping at 1:1 magnification.

 

[AJ]

Given Canon's obsession for pixel count over sensitivity, the potential stop gained by f/2.8 compared to f/4 zooms would seem to be countered by the extra ISO step needed for the same noise level compared to a FF unit.

Exactly. Few people get this - especially those who make statements like, "I'm not upgrading to FF until they make a FF equivalent of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS," in reference to the magical unicorn also known as a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS. In fact, the 24-105mm f/4L IS when used on FF specs out better than the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on a crop body. The FF-equivalent of the latter is 27-88mm f/4.5 IS, meaning the 24-105mm is wider, longer, and faster. It's true that f/2.8 still yields a faster shutter speed than f/4, since the crop factor doesn't affect exposure (apparent effect is on DoF only), but as you point out - FF has a 1.3-stop advantage in ISO noise, meaning you can bump the shutter speed up a stop by using a higher ISO on FF to match the shutter speed you'd get with f/2.8 on a crop body.

Correct.

But here's another way to look at this. Suppose we want to emulate 17-55/2.8 IS on a FF body. We'll need a 27-88/4.5 IS lens to emulate field-of-view and dof, and we'll crank up the iso by one stop to emulate shutter speed.

So: the 17-55/2.8 IS can do almost the same as a 24-105/4 IS on full-frame. Not quite the same focal length range, just a tad shallower dof, and even with iso up one stop there's still a slight noise advantage. But it's close.

And that's pretty impressive if you think about it, for a sensor that's 2.5x smaller.

 

[kubelik]

So: the 17-55/2.8 IS can do almost the same as a 24-105/4 IS on full-frame. Not quite the same focal length range, just a tad shallower dof, and even with iso up one stop there's still a slight noise advantage. But it's close.

And that's pretty impressive if you think about it, for a sensor that's 2.5x smaller.

So: the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is almost the same as a 24-105 f/4 L IS on a full frame ... except not as good in any of the key competitive areas.

Since making lenses for smaller sensors is supposed to be 1. cheaper and 2. easier than making lenses for large sensors, I'd say those are actually quite lousy stats on the part of the 17-55 f/2.8 IS

 

[AJ]

Since making lenses for smaller sensors is supposed to be 1. cheaper and 2. easier than making lenses for large sensors

Actually it's the other way around. Making lenses for large format cameras is easier. Case in point: lenses for large view cameras. If you've ever looked at an Ansel Adam print, you're bound to be amazed at the resolution and detail. Yet the lenses he shot with are primitive compared to today's SLR lenses.

 

[Lawliet]

Lens construction isn't that one-dimensional.
A lens for a small sensor is almost always stopped down to near the limit of diffraction. Its hard to find an EF/EF-s lens that doesn't perform decent at f/8 or f/11. Those compact lenses also get the benefit of doubt in terms of assembly tolerances. Most defects are hidden in DOF, others are taken care of by the image processing or aren't recognized by the target audience. Autofocus from the imaging sensor makes things easier too.


The ancient large format lens had also a hidden ace in the hole - the strong color filtering used in bw photography.
All those wavelength dependent flaws our lenses have to deal with are suddenly gone. Being stopped down for sharpness across the frame helps also, f/64 should ring a bell.
Being a manual focus prime without IF/RF and built without the stringent budget constraints of consumer lenses is also a factor.

Going for a large zoom range while offering a wide aperture and excellent image quality across the whole frame and zoom range at a competitive price all at the same time is more difficult. Most of the knobs one could use to tweak the other designs are locked down, but in exchange you've got to meet higher standards.

 

[DrPizza]

Look, this is bollocks.

The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM is already one of Canon's best lenses (and one where Nikon fails to exercise any competitive pressure). It's ridiculous that it should be a candidate for replacement.

How about introducing a new lens to actually fill a gap? An EF-S 55-150 f/2.8 IS USM, for example. Yes, yes, I know about the various 70-200 Ls. Too big, too heavy, too white. I want smaller, lighter, crop sensor lenses. Something to slot in above the 17-55 would be fabulous.

And how about a few crop sensor primes. A 35mm f/1.4, say...

 

[DuLt]

Wouldn't it be better if instead of a longer range, we got a shorter but higher quality luminous zoom?
Say... 15-45 F2.8?
Then the 15-85 could be improved to continuous F4... giving us two choices: zoom range vs speed.

 

[Admin US West]

Wouldn't it be better if instead of a longer range, we got a shorter but higher quality luminous zoom?
Say... 15-45 F2.8?
Then the 15-85 could be improved to continuous F4... giving us two choices: zoom range vs speed.

I don't know what a luminous zoom is, nothing on Google either.

All Zoom lenses are a compromise, shorter ones compromise less, but if you get too short a zoom, then you can just use a prime. The biggest market for low cost EF-s zooms is from the Rebel users, who are not camera enthusiasts, they had a long zoom on their P&S, and want one on their DSLR. Even a long Zoom can be a big improvement over a P&S with a superzoom, so the buyer is very happy.

 

[DuLt]

Wouldn't it be better if instead of a longer range, we got a shorter but higher quality luminous zoom?
Say... 15-45 F2.8?
Then the 15-85 could be improved to continuous F4... giving us two choices: zoom range vs speed.

I don't know what a luminous zoom is, nothing on Google either.

All Zoom lenses are a compromise, shorter ones compromise less, but if you get too short a zoom, then you can just use a prime. The biggest market for low cost EF-s zooms is from the Rebel users, who are not camera enthusiasts, they had a long zoom on their P&S, and want one on their DSLR. Even a long Zoom can be a big improvement over a P&S with a superzoom, so the buyer is very happy.

Luminous zoom as in a faster zoom. Sorry if english is not my main language.
And in this sense I though than an EF-S 15-45 F2.8 and an EF-S 15-85 F4 would be the APS-C EF 24-70 F2.8 and EF 24-135 F4 versions.
15-45 would give us 24-70mm coverage, it's not that long but it serves my needs.

 

[Admin US West]

Luminous zoom as in a faster zoom. Sorry if english is not my main language.
And in this sense I though than an EF-S 15-45 F2.8 and an EF-S 15-85 F4 would be the APS-C EF 24-70 F2.8 and EF 24-135 F4 versions.
15-45 would give us 24-70mm coverage, it's not that long but it serves my needs.

No problem with Luminous, I thought I had come accross a new term, its actually quite a good one once i know what was meant.

The current 17-55mm IS is a excellent lens, it is a 3.2X zoom, which seems to be a good range for quality zooms. It is not as wide as I'd like, and even a few mm longer would be nice. However, on a light weight Rebel, many users complain of its weight. I found it ideal on a 40D and 7D.

The rumored 15-60mm f/2.8 lens is a 4X lens, and compromises can become more apparent with the longer range. The weight will increase too, unless Canon has a way to lighten it up.