EF-s prime lenses?

[dickgrafixstop]

With over 60% of Canon's DSLR line (by product count) and probably more in terms of revenue percentage, why
are there no EF-s mount "serious" lenses? I've heard the consumer market argument and feel it's incredibly weak.
Certainly some percentage of photographers using AFS cameras are serious enough about photography to seek
higher quality lenses than are currently available . I'd like to see several reasonable fast prime EF-s lenses - maybe not at the "L" quality level, but then again, why not? How about a 15mm f2.0, 22mm f2.0, 32mm f1.8
and 53mm f1.8 (23-35-53-85 equivalent)?

 

[Loswr]

The EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro doesn't count?

The reality is, APS-C cameras are considered 'comsumer' cameras, and 'consumers' want zoom lenses.

 

[chilledXpress]

Certainly some percentage of photographers using AFS cameras are serious enough about photography to seek
higher quality lenses than are currently available .

That percentage is probably to small for Canon and they already made a line for those photographers... by the time most reach "serious" they already know where they have to go.

 

[Loswr]

...by the time most reach "serious" they already know where they have to go.

Whether they know or not, Canon knows where Canon wants them to go...up to a FF camera. Since high-quality EF-S primes might be seen as a barrier to that move, I suspect Canon feels that it's not in their best (corporate) interests to develop them.

 

[Drizzt321]

...by the time most reach "serious" they already know where they have to go.

Whether they know or not, Canon knows where Canon wants them to go...up to a FF camera. Since high-quality EF-S primes might be seen as a barrier to that move, I suspect Canon feels that it's not in their best (corporate) interests to develop them.

The place I'd feel they'd need primes is on the super-wide for APS-C, otherwise you can just pick the 35mm instead of 50mm L to go on your APS-C camera. However even going for the 14mm, you're still barely into super-wide territory on APS-C. Otherwise, I wouldn't be surprised if Neuro is mostly right that it's a move to try and push people up to more expensive FF cameras. Although when the expected 7D2 comes out, that'll probably be the boosted high end crop APS-C that people have been waiting a long time for since they went FF on the 1D, and the 7D is so old.

 

[distant.star]

The EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro doesn't count?

That's the first thing that came to mind when I read the OP. My 60 is optically as good as anything I can put on the APS-C sensor camera I have.

I'd say there is at least one "serious" prime out there. And while as a "macro" it's considered a specialty lens, it does much more. I've especially liked the look it gives landscapes.

 

[paul13walnut5]

Mix of EF's and EF-s working fine for me.

It's a shame Canon didn't go down the 'DC' route in a way (by which I mean being able to mount and use the cropped sensor lenses on full frame bodies) that Sony and Nikon have, so that their DX or APS-C lenses at least have some life on a full frame, be it with the same field of view as on APS-C but at generally much lower resolutions.

In fact, the larger photosites of a full frame camera cropped to APS-C, may actually mean the images are better from a cropped full frame, than from a native APS-C. Lower resolution yes, but wider range of usable apertures, the DR and noise/iso dividends of the better sensors.

How about getting 12.5MP images from a DC lens on a 5D3? If you had previously spent a lot of money on say a 17-55 f2.8, you might be quite please with this arrangement.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

It is quite clear that Canon has grudgingly users with APS-C when it finds only one prime lens EF-S. Modern cameras like 70D (and the future 7D Mark II) need high quality lenses, and fast primes are lacking, especially wide angle. Although the new lenses 24, 28, 35mm IS are great, are not as light and cheap as can be EF-S lenses. I must admit that in this aspect, Nikon and Sony treat their customers better by offering several options suitable for small cameras such as SL1, that is orphan of lightweight and fast primes.

 

[Rat]

It is quite clear that Canon has grudgingly users with APS-C when it finds only one prime lens EF-S. Modern cameras like 70D (and the future 7D Mark II) need high quality lenses, and fast primes are lacking, especially wide angle. Although the new lenses 24, 28, 35mm IS are great, are not as light and cheap as can be EF-S lenses. I must admit that in this aspect, Nikon and Sony treat their customers better by offering several options suitable for small cameras such as SL1, that is orphan of lightweight and fast primes.

This is weird reasoning and it is not clear to me that Canon is some sort of at fault here.

Firstly, primes are not lacking. There is an abundance of them, and they're all versatile enough that you can use them on FF too. Fish goes down to 8mm, and 14mm rectilinear isn't too bad either. Actually, I think Canon is doing crop users a favor. Primes are much cheaper than zooms as it is; if Canon were to double their primes catalogue to accomodate EF-S, it would more likely than not *increase* prices. Regardless, if you're buying primes, you've likely invested more than zoom users. And it's not just Neuro's (very valid) point on that, but it is in your best interest too, if you're climbing the ladder of quality.

Because: what quality advantage would crop primes get you? The low light advantages are there, but the 70D is at 12k8 and following camera's will only fare better. That's pretty extreme already. Sure, wider aperture is better, but it's a relatively small advantage, and if you want better, again there's a slew of FF bodies waiting for you. I think it's very sensible of Canon not to allow you to buy (more than one) EF-S prime.

The most important feature of primes by far, if you ask me, is the DOF they deliver. And if you want maximum DOF, you must go FF. If memory serves, FF has more than a full stop advantage. So, if you're buying to get DOF, you can just see EF lenses as upgrade-proof. Whether that is because Canon wants it or because you want it, is immaterial.

I admit that an approx. 10mm EF-S prime could find a niche, but everything else is covered.

Oh, and other manufacturers are *not* being nicer; Canon makes lenses for smaller camera's where that is prudent (EF-M anyone?). And Nikon only has a lot of crop lenses because they forgot to even *make* FF dslr's for about a decade.

 

[wsmith96]

Although the new lenses 24, 28, 35mm IS are great, are not as light and cheap as can be EF-S lenses.

What makes you think that a "quality" EF-S lens will be light and cheap? The 17-55 isn't light like the 18-55 and when I bought it, it was around $1000. Not sure I'd call that cheap, but I do agree that the quality is much improved over the 18-55 that came with my camera. I also really like my EF-S 60mm.

IMO, I think that if there is a superior lens out there, people will buy it whether or not it's EF or EF-S (assuming the camera is a crop camera). If canon made high-end EF-S lenses, then they would sell them and make money. If better quality is desired as one's skills progress, then canon can get even more $$ out of you as you move up to full frame and EF lenses. I believe the money is in the glass, not the camera, for the general public, and if canon made high-end EF-S lenses, they would make money off of them. There is a natural desire for people to get better/faster/smarter products - why not add a rung to that ladder and make some additional money along the way.

That is my opinion of course.

 

[RobertP]

The existing Canon 50mm f1.8 is cheap enough and light enough already. I can't see any need for EF-S version.
If you want a fast standard lens you could try the SIGMA 30mm F1.4 DC HSM
I don't see a use for a 24mm prime. Its not wide enough on EF-S. I'd like something a little wider than 17mm for some of my photography but I've never wished my wide angle was faster than f2.8

 

[Jura]

I'm going to Chime in on this one because I have a little relevant experience.
A little over a year ago I decided to sell all of my camera equipment and step into the world of FF and L glass. the only problem with doing so was that I was living in China (where gear is even more expensive then the UK) and new that at some point I would be returning to the EU, probably the UK. I settled on buying everything I wanted (everything I could afford I should say) from B&H, having it shipped to a friends boyfriend who lived in Florida but would be coming to China a few weeks later and then waiting for my goodies to arrive. The process was made simpler by the fact that B&H were a genuine pleasure to buy from (even sent me back $100 a few weeks later after the price of one item dropped) and the whole process worked out as being a fair bit cheaper than digital rev etc.

my UK debit card went through no problems and as for waranty...well I have my fingers crossed and will cross that bridge when/if I come to it...I still have that friend in the US....

 

[RAKAMRAK]

The original question should be modified to why canon is not developing any UWA prime for EF-S EOS cameras - something like a 8mm rectilinear or 10 mm or 12 mm. Especially given the claim that EF-S mount with its smaller mirror helps to engineer wide angle lenses. Above 20mm whether a prime is EF or EF-S only does not really matter - does it?

Regarding the UWA primes, my guess is Canon is thinking "if you want serious wide angle for whatever type of photography you do, you need to be "serious" and move up to Full Frame and make my profits larger. Others who use APS-C like you are happy with zooms and I am not going to structure a new production line just for you."

 

[noncho]

I was waiting for wide EF-S prime like 12mm, but it does not looks like there will be such lens. Now I'm tired...

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

The original question should be modified to why canon is not developing any UWA prime for EF-S EOS cameras - something like a 8mm rectilinear or 10 mm or 12 mm. Especially given the claim that EF-S mount with its smaller mirror helps to engineer wide angle lenses. Above 20mm whether a prime is EF or EF-S only does not really matter - does it?

Regarding the UWA primes, my guess is Canon is thinking "if you want serious wide angle for whatever type of photography you do, you need to be "serious" and move up to Full Frame and make my profits larger. Others who use APS-C like you are happy with zooms and I am not going to structure a new production line just for you."

I think canon 14mm F2.8 (about U.S. $ 2,360) is not appropriate for users of 70D for example. The Canon 24mm F1.4 (about U.S. $ 1,750) also seems disproportionate to APS-C cameras. And the wonderful TS-E 17mm f / 4 is not really very appealing to APS-C cameras, mainly because it costs $ 2500. I'm sure users of SL1 would appreciate lenses like EF-S 22mm F2, or EF-S 8mm F2.8 (rectilinear).

 

[Pi]

Canon wants you to buy an FF body, and you should listen...

 

[RAKAMRAK]

The original question should be modified to etc. etc......"

I think canon 14mm F2.8 (about U.S. $ 2,360) is not appropriate for users of 70D for example. The Canon 24mm F1.4 (about U.S. $ 1,750) also seems disproportionate to APS-C cameras. And the wonderful TS-E 17mm f / 4 is not really very appealing to APS-C cameras, mainly because it costs $ 2500. I'm sure users of SL1 would appreciate lenses like EF-S 22mm F2, or EF-S 8mm F2.8 (rectilinear).

Of course you are right, but did you miss my second paragraph? I myself am an APS-C shooter (and shall remain so in the foreseeable future) and would immensely love a very wideangle (as you mentioned). But as my second paragraph in the earlier post "presumes" Canon is not interested in what me or (may be) you would like to have. We are not "serious enough" for them apparently.

 

[chilledXpress]

The original question should be modified to why canon is not developing any UWA prime for EF-S EOS cameras - something like a 8mm rectilinear or 10 mm or 12 mm. Especially given the claim that EF-S mount with its smaller mirror helps to engineer wide angle lenses. Above 20mm whether a prime is EF or EF-S only does not really matter - does it?

Regarding the UWA primes, my guess is Canon is thinking "if you want serious wide angle for whatever type of photography you do, you need to be "serious" and move up to Full Frame and make my profits larger. Others who use APS-C like you are happy with zooms and I am not going to structure a new production line just for you."

Sigma makes a sweet selection of UWA for the APS-C format. People knocked them before they started up with the 35mm and new makeover but in the UWA offerings they have been very well received. When I used my 7D's the 10-20 and the 8-16 were perfect. I love my 15mm Rect Fish for the FF, using it on both the 1DX and 5D3.

 

[paul13walnut5]

I liked my Sigma 10-20, I liked my Sigma 12-24. I love my Tokina 11-16.

 

[RAKAMRAK]

Sigma makes a sweet selection of UWA for the APS-C format. People knocked them before they started up with the 35mm and new makeover but in the UWA offerings they have been very well received. When I used my 7D's the 10-20 and the 8-16 were perfect. I love my 15mm Rect Fish for the FF, using it on both the 1DX and 5D3.

Yes they do. But the OP was looking for "Canon" lenes. Good to hear good words about 8-16 from someone who have used it. I wanted to buy it but finally went with the Tokina 12-24 f/4 last year. May be in future I will go for the sigma 8-16.