Give EF-S the L treatment?

[privatebydesign]

EF L did used to have a three part shortlist that meant it 'qualified':-

1/ It fit all EOS cameras.
2/ It contained at least one flourite, or a ground and polished aspherical (as opposed to molded), or UD, or super UD, or other special optical materials.
3/ Meet stringent standards of performance (though as far as I know what that actually means has never been elaborated on).

Now some will say, 'but there was a Powershot with an L lens', the Pro1, yes but that wasn't an EF L lens, just like the myriad of FD L lenses weren't EF L lenses. talking of FD lenses, there were two versions of the 50mm f1.2 sold at the same time, one was an L the other not, also the 600mm f4.5 was not an L lens, but all the other white super teles from 300mm to 800mm were.

 

[wsmith96]

Does it really matter if the lens is an EF or EF-S lens, or if it has a red ring on it? After all of the review sites get a hold of a lens, you'll know if you want to check out.

This thread is all over the board (which makes it fun). Get the lens you want, and go have fun with it. Do we have to have EF-S lenses exactly match up with their FF counterparts? And, why is it a tax to have an EF lens on a crop body? As for quality of lenses, after you pass 24mm I'm not sure it matters any more if it's EF or EF-S. It's more a question of if you need rugged, and are you shooting in sufficient light or not.

Regarding the 17-55, I have one and appear to be lucky as mine is not a dust hog. It's sharp and worthy of a L red ring, but it's not an L and I'm not losing sleep over that. It's been a great lens, but I do understand the desire to get just a hair wider with a 2.8 aperture.

 

[RGF]

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.

I want the same controls and menu structure, 12 FPS, ... A true 1D style model

 

[Tinky]

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.

I want the same controls and menu structure, 12 FPS, ... A true 1D style model

But you just don't want to have to pay for it?

That'll work.

 

[greger]

It isn't going to happen! If it did the post would read. Why did Canon make a 70-200 f2.8 EFS lens and charge as much for it as the 70-200 2.8 ll?

 

[RobertP]

And, why is it a tax to have an EF lens on a crop body?

6D vs 7D II
Standard Prime 50mm f1.8 vs 35mm f2 IS - Crop equivalent costs 3 times as much
Fast wide angle prime 35mm f1.4 vs 24mm f1.4 - Crop equivalent weighs more and costs more
Fast wider angle prime 24mm f1.4 vs nothing - Crop not catered for at all.

The 7D II is a premium body but if you want to put a premium lens on it then you have to buy a FF lens. Canon's latest lens have been praised for their IQ right out to the edges. Crop cameras don't use those edges so crop owners buying FF lens are paying for the development and production of features they can't use.

The new 100-400 weighs at 1640g. If it was slimmed down to just cover a crop sensor the weight would be closer to 1000g. Even at 1200g that would be a saving worth making.

At the entry level I'm happy with Canon's EF-S lineup but the premium level is lacking.

 

[Tinky]

It isn't going to happen! If it did the post would read. Why did Canon make a 70-200 f2.8 EFS lens and charge as much for it as the 70-200 2.8 ll?

Exactly. And why would anybody buy a lens that you can only use on some EOS bodies when there is and indentical spec lens you can use on all EOS bodies? The 18-55 EF-s isn't really any smaller than a 28-90 consumer zoom, the 55-250 isn't really any smaller than a 70-300 etc...

I think there is more mileage in canon making their own speedbooster... but even then when you add the cost of a 7D2 and speedbooster, why wouldn't folks just buy a 5D3?

 

[ahsanford]

It isn't going to happen! If it did the post would read. Why did Canon make a 70-200 f2.8 EFS lens and charge as much for it as the 70-200 2.8 ll?

Exactly. And why would anybody buy a lens that you can only use on some EOS bodies when there is and indentical spec lens you can use on all EOS bodies?

I agree with you, it makes sense to make the largest investment of glass work on the most bodies.

But there certainly is a reason why you wouldn't want to do that: size. Canon EF-S lenses aren't tiny b/c there was no pressure for them to be tiny in 2003 when EF-S was rolled out. Canon didn't design EF-S lenses with a high priority on keeping them as small as possible, like Fuji and Sony (APS-C) have done. Imagine getting a f/1.4 prime in a small package -- that's impossible for EF-S users unless you go third party.

These two pictures are both APS-C sensored rigs with a 35mm f/1.4, for instance. Here is a 23mm f/1.4 against the EF equivalent. Night and day. These are the most stinging examples to be fair, but you get the idea.

- A

 

[Tinky]

Okay, well lets see a 50mm comparison, or an 85 comparison. And lets use an SL1

Your example neglects the fact these rigs are not comparable.. One body produces a 70mm equivalent, the other a 56mm..

The 23f1.4 against the 35mm f1.4 would be a more real world comparison. And lets see it on an SL1.

Oh, and what if you actually want a mirror box?

 

[ahsanford]

Okay, well lets see a 50mm comparison, or an 85 comparison. And lets use an SL1

Your example neglects the fact these rigs are not comparable.. One body produces a 70mm equivalent, the other a 56mm..

The 23f1.4 against the 35mm f1.4 would be a more real world comparison. And lets see it on an SL1.

Oh, and what if you actually want a mirror box?

Both sets of pictures were APS-C rigs with effectively the same FL at play. No, we should be comparing the same FL/aperture combos and not comparing a 24 against a 35. (You weren't referring to the 1.5 (Fuji) vs 1.6 (Canon) crop multiplier, were you? That's a tiny difference, if so.)

But, if you want to see it on an SL1, it won't make the lenses any smaller, but here you go:
http://camerasize.com/compact/#520.408,448.484,ha,t
http://camerasize.com/compact/#520.422,448.16,ha,t

Your mirror box point is 100% valid -- I'm just saying, look how small a lens can be when it isn't trying to gather light for an FF sensor. They can get much, much smaller. Buying an EF lens and slapping it on an APS-C sensor will work fine, but it's unnecessarily oversized.

- A

 

[Tinky]

You weren't referring to the 1.5 (Fuji) vs 1.6 (Canon) crop multiplier, were you? That's a tiny difference, if so.

I absolutely was.

Doh!

Apologies. Had my MFT head on.

 

[midluk]

When you are comparing "equivalent" lenses for FF and APS-C, make sure you take into account that you not only have to scale the focal length by the crop factor but also the f-stop. For an APS-C sensor a lens has to be one stop (or more exactly 4/3 stops) faster than for a FF sensor to be equivalent. That way you will not only have the same viewing angle, but also have the same absolute aperture diameter, and therefore the same depth of field and the same light per pixel (=>similar noise).
So for really equivalent lenses there is not that much weight and size advantage of EF-S (on APS-C) vs EF (on FF).

 

[ahsanford]

When you are comparing "equivalent" lenses for FF and APS-C, make sure you take into account that you not only have to scale the focal length by the crop factor but also the f-stop. For an APS-C sensor a lens has to be one stop (or more exactly 4/3 stops) faster than for a FF sensor to be equivalent. That way you will not only have the same viewing angle, but also have the same absolute aperture diameter, and therefore the same depth of field and the same light per pixel (=>similar noise).
So for really equivalent lenses there is not that much weight and size advantage of EF-S (on APS-C) vs EF (on FF).

Yes, yes, of course. I'm just making a point that the upside of being able to slap an EF lens on an APS-C rig is not all good. The lenses are far bigger than an APS-C rig needs them to be.

I'm just furthering the argument than some purpose-built higher end APS-C lenses could have their advantages. You could have an EF-S f/1.4 lens at a much smaller size than an EF f/1.4 lens, that's all.

- A