Give EF-S the L treatment?

[Sabaki]

There are some great EF-S lenses out there, like the 17-55, 10-22 and so on.

But there are some concessions with EF-S lenses though:
• Cheaper build quality (cheaper plastics, buttons, knobs etc)
• Lens hoods & cases are optional extras
• Variable apertures
• Lack of weather sealing
• Lens coatings

I believe it's a given that the biggest reason for these concessions is cost, as the APS-C market is a gateway to DSLRs and not Canon's premium system. Certainly costing cannot be set aside but here's a theoretical poser to the forum:

Would you pay an extra say, 20% for an EF-S lens if they brought L series build quality, weather sealing etc? If this theoretical 20% price increase was levied, what features would you want?

This post is a flight of fancy, yet I'm very interested in hearing what people would want done differently with EF-S lenses.

 

[2n10]

I think correcting the group you have listed is a perfect start. The only thing extra that comes to mind is a tripod foot for the long zooms. The variable aperture doesn't bother me that much though with the improved noise characteristics of the newest sensors.

I love that the 7DII can have an apparent improvement of up to 2 stops higher ISO after noise reduction. Granted not all shots/situations have this ability but it is an improvement that is noticeable to me.

 

[jarrodeu]

If you really want an L lens why not just buy one? There is a large selection and if you upgrade to a full frame in the future you don't have to buy new lenses. I have a 7D and the 24-105 and 100-400II so if/when I buy a full frame camera I'm ready to go.

Jarrod

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

If you really want an L lens why not just buy one? There is a large selection and if you upgrade to a full frame in the future you don't have to buy new lenses. I have a 7D and the 24-105 and 100-400II so if/when I buy a full frame camera I'm ready to go.

Jarrod

In many cases, the lenses "L" serve well in bodies like 7D Mark II, but not so with wide-angle zoom. Try 16-35 F2.8 in APSC, and you will see that the image quality is very limited (and zoom range too) compared to 24-70mm F2.8ii. The truth is that 24mm is not wide enough to APS-C.

EF-S 15-45mm F2.8L (with quality comparable to the current 24-70L) would be a much more appropriate option, even if the price is above US $ 1,200.

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.

 

[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

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

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.

 

[[email protected]]

This has started, I believe, with the Sigma 18-35 f/Art. They took a lens that would be 4 pounds (and who knows how much $, and how much higher an f/stop) in full frame and did something absolutely brilliant in APS-C.

Whether Canon decides to follow the lead with their L program is less material for me. I'd certainly like them to. I'm more interested in seeing what Sigma comes out with now, however, as I suspect that more such glass will come out of Sigma than Canon in the next year or two.

Canon deserves praise for the 7D2, still my favorite camera even after going full frame, because it showed a new philosophy of treating the crop sensor as a professional, L-level tool. You might think that this would bode well for their spending more attention to APS-C in the lens department, but we haven't seen any evidence of that. I will note, though, that Canon tends to take two or three years to react to market verdicts. That the 7d2 was a great hit might result in thinking about pro-quality APS-C lenses, but it would be unlikely to hit the shelves before 2017. My own suspicion is that they'll focus on full frame for the highest quality lenses anyway.

The Sigma 18-35 really did open all of our eyes to the sort of thing that hasn't been served to date. With Canon providing crop bodies that deserve it, like the 7D2, it's definitely a real market. Can you imagine the 600mm f/4 prime designed for a crop image circle? Might not be too crazy. We'll likely see that from Sigma or Tamron before Canon.

 

[ahsanford]

I want that lens as well, I do.

Not to be negative, but I think this won't happen for one big reason: money.

Canon makes very very very little money making crop folks happy with (for instance) an EF-S 15-45 f/2.8L lens. That's say that lens is offered for $1,250 - 1,500, b/c we know Canon will gouge those folks for 'an EF-S first'. But that's all the money they'll get, and those folks are almost guaranteed to never go to full-frame because they'd be obsoleting a killer lens that they just paid a lot of money for!

Now compare that to the cost of an enthusiast migrating to FF to get an L standard zoom that works well on that sensor (i.e. slapping a 16-35L or 17-40L feels short on a crop, and putting a 24-anything on a crop isn't wide enough). Buying, say, a 6D + 24-105L costs about $1,800-2,000.

And then there are the extra batteries you have to buy.

And there is the need to buy a speedlite, b/c the 6D has no pop-up.

And then Canon's got you.

If you want L quality in a standard zoom that does not handcuff you for focal length on either end, you need to go FF, and it's going to cost you. And that's 100% by design.

So this is where Sigma and Tamron have to swoop in to the rescue. That, or you can go for an aging EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS with a host of known drawbacks. And I doubt Canon will revise even a non-L version of that design as it (again) gives crop owners a reason to stay there.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

My comments about the problems with it never happening notwithstanding, I love the idea. I've been asking about this for some time.

I only think it makes sense to go L (or non-L of very high quality / price) in two areas:

• 
  Ultra-wide zoom like a 10-22, 10-18, etc.
  
  
• 
  Standard zoom, like a 17-55, 15-45, 16-50, etc.

The second is needed much more than the first, I think. As much as the ultra-wide landscapers would love weather-sealed lenses, the much bigger pain point in my eyes is that the L standard zooms currently are either too wide or too short for EF-S standard zoom use.

Before I migrated to FF, I was using a 24-70 f/2.8L I on my old T1i. I constantly needed to switch that thing out for the EF-S 10-22 as 24 x 1.6 = 38.4mm is not wide enough for walkaround use for me.

So, if Canon only made one of these beastly EF-S lenses, I'd want to see 15-45 f/2.8 or something like it, which would roughly replicate the 24-70 sweet spot for walkaround use.

- A

 

[ScottyP]

Where are we getting this hypothetical 20% premium? In the EF lenses the markup is more like 80% to 400% markup between the L and non-L versions?

 

[NancyP]

Good weatherproofing would be nice in a general-purpose APS-C zoom. Pentax does it.

 

[The Supplanter]

Where are we getting this hypothetical 20% premium? In the EF lenses the markup is more like 80% to 400% markup between the L and non-L versions?

My thoughts exactly.

 

[ahsanford]

Where are we getting this hypothetical 20% premium? In the EF lenses the markup is more like 80% to 400% markup between the L and non-L versions?

My thoughts exactly.

There's a ceiling to the price for a non-EF lens (i.e. EF-S or EF-M).

Canon currently sells no EF-S lens for more than ~ $800 today. The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS was their last attempt at a higher performance / pricey EF-S lens -- it was at $1,149 at one point. One can only presume the price came back down to earth because it wasn't selling.

I just don't see Canon getting people to buy a > $1,000 lens that only works with crop. Such a lens would take too much potential FF conversion (i.e. pullthrough) profit off the table. So I think normal markup percentages between good and great lenses do not apply in EF-S. The math gets reversed to hit a price point instead of a target set of features: How good of a lens can Canon make for the EF-S mount and keep it's sale price under $1,000?

My guess is the answer to that is maaaaaaaybe a hybrid 17-55 f/2.8-4.0 USM like we've seen from the competitors, or a slower-but-everywhere-else-better 17-55 f/4 IS USM with internal focusing, weather sealing, better build, better IQ, etc. And let's face it, neither of those lenses are particularly sexy.

- A

 

[candc]

Its nice to have the lower price option of the ef-s lenses. If your $300.00 55-250 stm ever breaks (unlikely) then get another!

 

[Ruined]

Honestly I'd say recently (past 5 years) Canon's EF-S lenses have been a perfect balance of quality, weight and price. I would not make any changes.

When I use an EF-S lens it is generally because I am willing to trade off a bit of quality for a reduction in size, weight and cost. If they started building them like L lenses it would add to size, weight and cost which defeats the purpose IMO.

 

[RGF]

How about 1D caliber APS-C body?

 

[Ruined]

How about 1D caliber APS-C body?

The 7DII is pretty darn close to that frankly, aside from the lack of builtin grip... which again some would say goes against aps-c size/weight advantage.

 

[Tinky]

+1

If you can't do it with a 7d2 then a 1d series isn't going to fix it for you, alusions to sensor size aside as thats kind of the point of the thread.

Maybe add a funky viewfinder blind?


In seriousness, my wife is using my old 10d to learn photography on, I do rather wish that more canon cameras were as confidence inspiring to handle. Known as the mini-1d in its day, and out-dated in every technical way, can still turn out a good image, and still feels like you could hammer in nails with it.

 

[Freddy]

I've only joined recently and posted just a couple of comments, and they all seem to be on the same topic! It's been mentioned that if APS-C shooters want L quality then just buy them, maybe as a prelude to moving up to FF. However, I don't want to move to FF. I can't afford it and I really don't want the weight\size. I would DEFINITELY prefer to buy Canon EF-S glass, but if it is not available then I'll have no trouble buying the alternatives from 3rd. party manufacturers. As has been mentioned, the Sigma F1.8 zoom is very good, and I'm also interested in the WA tokina zoom. If someone came up with a 2.8 tele zoom, I'd probably be in the store the next day.

 

[Sabaki]

I've only joined recently and posted just a couple of comments, and they all seem to be on the same topic! It's been mentioned that if APS-C shooters want L quality then just buy them, maybe as a prelude to moving up to FF. However, I don't want to move to FF. I can't afford it and I really don't want the weight\size. I would DEFINITELY prefer to buy Canon EF-S glass, but if it is not available then I'll have no trouble buying the alternatives from 3rd. party manufacturers. As has been mentioned, the Sigma F1.8 zoom is very good, and I'm also interested in the WA tokina zoom. If someone came up with a 2.8 tele zoom, I'd probably be in the store the next day.

There are some topics that circle without ever ending. We're a passionate lot when it comes to our hobby though and if we're not doing it, we're talking about it.

I see you're someone who keeps your options open and I guess that's what posts like these are about, talking about options, real or not.

For the very least, I hope these posts entertain rather than irritate