Give EF-S the L treatment?

[Tinky]

It's around about this time of night I like to chuck another log on the fire, draw the curtains, top up my wee glayva, and throw a big old spanner in the works:

"L" doesn't mean anything tangible. It's marketing.

Here's some things that L does not mean:

-The very fastest autofocus (TSE 24 L)
-The very best optics (the 17-40 is shaded somewhat by the 18-55 IS)
-Weathersealed construction (loads of Ls aren't weatherproof rated)

Some of Canons best lenses aren't L lenses, or even all that expensive.

A look at Canons own recommended list for the 5DS reveals a few diamonds in the rough:

EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM
EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM
EF 35mm f/2 IS USM
EF 40mm f/2.8 STM (CHEAP)
EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
EF 50mm f/1.8 II (VERY CHEAP)
EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro
EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
TS-E 90mm f/2.8
EF 100mm f/2 USM
EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM

All except the 90 TS-E are everyday money.

I think rather than bemoan the lack of dedicated EF-S L lenses, why not decide what FL / aperture spec you require and see if theres a fit for it in the existing EF range? (gives you an eye to the future... which you must have according the the Full-Frame Fascists.

If these lenses are good enough for the 5DS then they are good enough for the 24MP APS-C cameras.

And theres another couple can be added to the mix.. the new 24 EF-S is one and there are some great third party lenses for modest cost.

L doesn't actually mean anything other than an assumed set of values that rarely apply in entirity to any specific L lens. I'm being very pedantic. Point is, don't get hung up on it. Only M system users have more choice.

 

[NancyP]

The 40mm and 24mm f/2.8 STM are GREAT lenses for the money.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I think rather than bemoan the lack of dedicated EF-S L lenses, why not decide what FL / aperture spec you require and see if theres a fit for it in the existing EF range? (gives you an eye to the future... which you must have according the the Full-Frame Fascists.

L doesn't actually mean anything other than an assumed set of values that rarely apply in entirity to any specific L lens. I'm being very pedantic. Point is, don't get hung up on it. Only M system users have more choice.

I do not care about the "L" designation, but I would have EF-S lenses with comparable quality to the Canon 24-70mm F2.8 II.

I'm sure the 7D Mark II users would like to have a EF-S15-45mm F2.8 with high image quality, and is not a dust sucking just like the 17-55mm. If the quality is very good, it would pay $ 1200 for this lens.

 

[unfocused]

"L" doesn't mean anything tangible. It's marketing.

L doesn't actually mean anything other than an assumed set of values that rarely apply in entirety to any specific L lens.

Absolutely true. Even Canon admits that the "L" is for Luxury. Whatever the heck that means. In fact, to me that's kind of a downside. I'd never be caught dead in a luxury car for example.

I do not care about the "L" designation, but I would have EF-S lenses with comparable quality to the Canon 24-70mm F2.8 II.

I'm sure the 7D Mark II users would like to have a EF-S15-45mm F2.8 with high image quality, and is not a dust sucking just like the 17-55mm. If the quality is very good, it would pay $ 1200 for this lens.

I think that's very valid, but I'm not sure the market would support a lens like that. In fact I think it's even less likely today than it used to be. With the advent of the 6D, the price differential is no longer a big factor separating full frame and crop sensor users. At the high end, the 7D II seems to be marketed more as a niche camera rather than general all-around use (although it certainly is fine for all around use).

I suspect that many 7DII buyers (the most likely target market for the lens you mention) already own a full frame body and use the 7DII primarily for wildlife, birding or sports, where a wide to normal focal length is not as important.

Those that use the 7DII or 70D as their primary camera may be more price sensitive than forum users are.

Other than its relatively slow variable aperture, the 15-85mm EF-S is really a fantastic all-purpose lens. I personally think they should have made it a constant f4, but I have no idea what that would have meant in terms of cost and weight.

The good news is that many third-party manufacturers have stepped up to fill in the gaps. Tokina's wide constant aperture f2.8 zooms are outstanding.

 

[Big_Ant_TV_Media]

so your telling me a APSC tele-zoom lens isnt very good on 7D2 or 70D or etc
hmm please clarify what your trying too say
YESS WOULD BE GREAT TOO HAVE APS-C LENSES UPGRADED TOO FULL OR PARTIAL "L" LENS DURABILITY
i honestly love my 24-105 stm lens i use it more then my 24-105 L lens
9W9A3605-1 by Bigz Ant, on Flickr
taken with a 55-250mm stm lens

I meant:
Create an EF-S version 70-300mm for example, would give very little advantage in size, weight and price on EF70-300L.

On the other hand, an EF-S16-50mm F2.8 would save a lot of size, weight and money on a hypothetical EF16-50mm F2.8. There are patents for a Canon EF16-50mm.

Congratulations make very good use of the great (but fragile) 55-250 STM.

fragile wast that an insult are u happy too carry that boulder bka ugly 1DX around and huge white spy lens that police across the usa hate

 

[ahsanford]

I do not care about the "L" designation, but I would have EF-S lenses with comparable quality to the Canon 24-70mm F2.8 II.

I'm sure the 7D Mark II users would like to have a EF-S15-45mm F2.8 with high image quality, and is not a dust sucking just like the 17-55mm. If the quality is very good, it would pay $ 1200 for this lens.

I think that's very valid, but I'm not sure the market would support a lens like that. In fact I think it's even less likely today than it used to be.

ajfotofilmagem is not alone -- a lot of folks want that lens, but I just don't think Canon will give it to them.

I believe that Canon is deliberately not offering pro-quality glass in the EF-S mount, and I doubt they ever will. With the exception of the 7D2 (whose owners often are tracking longer targets where slapping on EF glass is very, very common), Canon's entire APS-C strategy is get enthusiasts hooked on SLR image quality and constrain them with enough limitations...

• Good but not great EF-S lenses
• Using better EF zooms is handcuffing due to the 1.6x crop (i.e. a 24-something zoom is a PITA on crop for a walkaround)

...that they inevitably migrate entirely to FF. That's the black math of all of this. They don't want blissfully happy APS-C shooters*, they want slightly frustrated APS-C users that are one big payment away (be it their first L zoom or the big move to a 6D) from getting what they want.

(*again, 7D2 people with super whites are an exception. In fairness, they are never happy as a rule, but Canon has nothing to do with that. )

- A

 

[unfocused]

...that they inevitably migrate entirely to FF. That's the black math of all of this...

No black math involved as far as I'm concerned. For a long time I've figured that part of Canon's strategy to grow the market is to sell enthusiasts two bodies. Stagger the release dates so that each new version of the 6D, 70D, 5D and 7D has just enough features that their full frame/APS-C counterparts lack so as to encourage people to upgrade to one of each.

Sure, you can get a 1D that does it all, but it's still more expensive than one each of the others and you have to lay out all the money at once. Of course, Canon would happily sell everyone a 1D if they could...but they know they can't.

What I am unsure of is the math of lens development and recovery. I suspect that lens development (being a much more mature technology) requires a larger up-front development cost and lower per-unit profits, but those profits can be spread out over a 5-10 year cycle, rather than the 2-3 years for bodies. That would argue for Canon being much more conservative in the lenses it releases, looking for lenses that will have a 10+ year lifespan when possible.

 

[Sabaki]

...that they inevitably migrate entirely to FF. That's the black math of all of this...

No black math involved as far as I'm concerned. For a long time I've figured that part of Canon's strategy to grow the market is to sell enthusiasts two bodies. Stagger the release dates so that each new version of the 6D, 70D, 5D and 7D has just enough features that their full frame/APS-C counterparts lack so as to encourage people to upgrade to one of each.

Sure, you can get a 1D that does it all, but it's still more expensive than one each of the others and you have to lay out all the money at once. Of course, Canon would happily sell everyone a 1D if they could...but they know they can't.

What I am unsure of is the math of lens development and recovery. I suspect that lens development (being a much more mature technology) requires a larger up-front development cost and lower per-unit profits, but those profits can be spread out over a 5-10 year cycle, rather than the 2-3 years for bodies. That would argue for Canon being much more conservative in the lenses it releases, looking for lenses that will have a 10+ year lifespan when possible.

Wow! You're smart! I wouldn't play black jack with you

Question: EF-S 10-22 ($600) vs EF-10-22 L* ($900), which would you see as a more viable business decision for Canon over 8-10 years, if the profit margin is identical for either model?

*Yes, I do know that no such lens exists

 

[Sabaki]

Did a quick Google search to see what the biggest selling EF-S lens of all time is but couldn't find an answer.

I'd guess it's one of either the 18-55 or 55-250 kit lenses but I'm more interested in a number for a lens that is sold separately.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Did a quick Google search to see what the biggest selling EF-S lens of all time is but couldn't find an answer.

I'd guess it's one of either the 18-55 or 55-250 kit lenses but I'm more interested in a number for a lens that is sold separately.

Excluding kit lenses on this count, the best-selling SLR lens ever is Canon EF50mm F1.8II.

From 2016 will be EF50mm F1.8 STM. The large volume of sales explains the ridiculously low price for a high quality lens (in its category).

 

[RobertP]

I've sold my 50D and bought a Nikon D610. I could have got a good trade in for a 7D II but I ran out of lenses I wanted to put on it after the 17-55 2.8.

I could have gone for the 100-400 but I objected to paying the Full Frame tax. More importantly, for me, I wanted something wider than 17mm but I wasn't confident that the EF-S lenses could deliver wide open.

I'd like to see a wide angle with IS, a 35mm f1.4 and an alternative to the 55-250. An EF-S 300mm f4 would be nice.

 

[The Supplanter]

I agree that the tele side, there would be little benefit with EF-S lenses, but in wide angle zoom there is demand not met by high quality lenses for APS-C cameras. We must remember that many journalists who used 1D cameras in the past, today use 7D Mark II.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Demand is there but companies just aren't recognizing it, and that makes me irritated. Maybe I should just get a full frame and the 16-35 f4 or Tamron 15-30? Just can't pull the trigger on Canon's UWA zooms, Tokina's, Sigma's, Tamron's, or Samyang/Rokinon's 10mm.

 

[The Supplanter]

The 40mm and 24mm f/2.8 STM are GREAT lenses for the money.

+1
Every time I shoot with the 40, I'm surprised at how nice the photos are.

 

[Tinky]

"L" doesn't mean anything tangible. It's marketing.

L doesn't actually mean anything other than an assumed set of values that rarely apply in entirety to any specific L lens.

Absolutely true. Even Canon admits that the "L" is for Luxury. Whatever the heck that means. In fact, to me that's kind of a downside. I'd never be caught dead in a luxury car for example.

Can you help me with what you mean here. I detect layers of irony, in that on the one hand I think you are agreeing with me, and then on the other hand I think you aren't.

I'm not sophisticated enough to understand the duplicity. You see I think of luxury as a generic concept, not as a specific. And when you throw in a car analogy, bam!, you just lose me. Whatever the heck that means. I'd never be caught being facetious about one marketing term by comparison to another.

It's just that cars are for taking journeys, cameras are for taking photos. Why are you taking about cars? Do you get L series cars?

Did you miss my point... i.e. don't get hung up on the marketing. There are some shizzle L lenses. There are some brilliant non-L lenses. The thread is entitled 'Re: Give EF-s the L treatment?" Agree? Disagree? Well, lets define what the L treatment is first, no?

And there's your cadaver being caught in it's eternal rest in a luxury car, whatever the Fork that has to do with anything.

 

[ahsanford]

"L" doesn't mean anything tangible. It's marketing.

L doesn't actually mean anything other than an assumed set of values that rarely apply in entirety to any specific L lens.

Absolutely true. Even Canon admits that the "L" is for Luxury. Whatever the heck that means. In fact, to me that's kind of a downside. I'd never be caught dead in a luxury car for example.

Can you help me with what you mean here. I detect layers of irony, in that on the one hand I think you are agreeing with me, and then on the other hand I think you aren't.

I'm not sophisticated enough to understand the duplicity. You see I think of luxury as a generic concept, not as a specific. And when you throw in a car analogy, bam!, you just lose me. Whatever the heck that means. I'd never be caught being facetious about one marketing term by comparison to another.

It's just that cars are for taking journeys, cameras are for taking photos. Why are you taking about cars? Do you get L series cars?

Did you miss my point... i.e. don't get hung up on the marketing. There are some S___ L lenses. There are some brilliant non-L lenses. The thread is entitled 'Re: Give EF-s the L treatment?" Agree? Disagree? Well, lets define what the L treatment is first, no?

And there's your cadaver being caught in it's eternal rest in a luxury car, whatever the Fork that has to do with anything.

Waaaaaay back in the day, L series, as I understand it, meant 'Luxury'. But practically speaking, it just meant you got a lens that was about a stop faster than a non-L lens. That was it, I thought.

Over time, it became a platform for a more premium lens in general. Build quality, IQ, sealing, focus speed, etc. improved, and the marketing guys got clever enough to put a red ring on it, take sexy pictures of it and ask for a lot more money for it.

But the problem is that (as many will point out) a non-L lens from 2-3 years ago can circles around a 20 year old L lens. So I tend to view that red ring as a step in quality vs. the peers of its era and not categorically the best option for that FL.

- A

 

[The Supplanter]

And there's your cadaver being caught in it's eternal rest in a luxury car, whatever the Fork that has to do with anything.

Ok, now that's funny! ;D

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Every once in a while, the topic comes up again. Canon is doing right to manufacture both low cost cameras and lenses as well as expensive ones.

Generally, what you get with a "L" lens is wide apertures and rugged construction.

A 55-250mm EF-s is a sharp lens, so no apology is needed for its use. A person could buy 10 of them in place of a similar "L" lens, mostly what is lost is durability and wide aperture. There may be a bit more distortion, but its not a big deal. You pay a huge premium for a relatively small improvement in IQ.

A ruggedized wide aperture EF-s telephoto will be the same price and about the same size and weight as a "L" lens, so there is a point where they are not going to sell.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

A 55-250mm EF-s is a sharp lens, so no apology is needed for its use. A person could buy 10 of them in place of a similar "L" lens, mostly what is lost is durability and wide aperture. There may be a bit more distortion, but its not a big deal. You pay a huge premium for a relatively small improvement in IQ.

The EF-S 55-250mm STM has image quality similar to Canon 70-300L when mounted on an APS-C body.

On the other hand, the humble 18-55mm STM surpasses the image quality of the Canon 17-55mm very expensive (except in 55mm). This is shameful for a lens that costs $ 1000, and does not even have a red ring on it.

 

[bholliman]

A 55-250mm EF-s is a sharp lens, so no apology is needed for its use. A person could buy 10 of them in place of a similar "L" lens, mostly what is lost is durability and wide aperture. There may be a bit more distortion, but its not a big deal. You pay a huge premium for a relatively small improvement in IQ.

The EF-S 55-250mm STM has image quality similar to Canon 70-300L when mounted on an APS-C body.

On the other hand, the humble 18-55mm STM surpasses the image quality of the Canon 17-55mm very expensive (except in 55mm). This is shameful for a lens that costs $ 1000, and does not even have a red ring on it.

The latest EF-S STM lenses are definitely great, and terrific values. I agree the 17-55 IS probably needs a refresh with current optics and coatings. However, the constant f/2.8 aperture is a big selling point over the variable aperture of the kit lens. Maybe not worth 10x the cost, but definitely worth something.

 

[unfocused]

"L" doesn't mean anything tangible. It's marketing.

L doesn't actually mean anything other than an assumed set of values that rarely apply in entirety to any specific L lens.

Absolutely true. Even Canon admits that the "L" is for Luxury. Whatever the heck that means. In fact, to me that's kind of a downside. I'd never be caught dead in a luxury car for example.

Can you help me with what you mean here. I detect layers of irony, in that on the one hand I think you are agreeing with me, and then on the other hand I think you aren't.

I'm not sophisticated enough to understand the duplicity. You see I think of luxury as a generic concept, not as a specific. And when you throw in a car analogy, bam!, you just lose me. Whatever the heck that means. I'd never be caught being facetious about one marketing term by comparison to another.

It's just that cars are for taking journeys, cameras are for taking photos. Why are you taking about cars? Do you get L series cars?

Did you miss my point... i.e. don't get hung up on the marketing. There are some S___ L lenses. There are some brilliant non-L lenses. The thread is entitled 'Re: Give EF-s the L treatment?" Agree? Disagree? Well, lets define what the L treatment is first, no?

And there's your cadaver being caught in it's eternal rest in a luxury car, whatever the Fork that has to do with anything.

Sorry to be so unclear. Yes. I am agreeing with you. I just wasn't being very articulate.

I meant that the only defining factor that Canon uses to call a lens "L" is that "L" stands for luxury – which is nothing more than a marketing term and a vague one at that. As you correctly pointed out, there are no universal standards for "L" lenses. In fact, I would add to your list that "L" also does not mean constant aperture – the 70-300 "L" and the 100-400 "L" for example are both variable aperture zooms and included in the "L" designation.

My car reference is just a bit of reverse snobbery. I find the thought of spending more than what I paid for my first home to buy a car utterly appalling. In fact, I'm more than a bit turned off by anything that is marketed as a 'luxury,' hence I have to overcome my bias against luxury items when I buy an "L" lens. It doesn't stop me (GAS is a much stronger and more dangerous addiction) but I still feel like a little bit of my soul dies when I succumb to the purchase of anything deemed a luxury. That's all.

As for being literally caught dead in a luxury car, that's better left to Willie the Wimp (obscure Stevie Ray Vaughn musical reference).