foobar said:+1LuCoOc said:how about a 35mm equivalent?
A cheaper, EF-S version of the 24L would be very nice.
Heidrun said:Still i dont understand why Canon makes 2 sets of lenses. and one set doesent fitt on procamera
Heidrun said:Still i dont understand why Canon makes 2 sets of lenses. and one set doesent fitt on procamera
epsiloneri said:Heidrun said:Still i dont understand why Canon makes 2 sets of lenses. and one set doesent fitt on procamera
That's not really difficult to understand. It's more expensive to manufacture lenses that produce an image that covers a larger sensor. Thus to make lenses cheaper for the large consumer market, they produce a special "cheap version" (EF-S) that only cover a small sensor (APS-C).
EYEONE said:True, but Canon doesn't really make EF-S Primes (except for the 60mm Macro). In this case, they make a cheaper Non L with lower build quality and a L version with top quality. But it has nothing to do with EF and EF-S regarding primes.
epsiloneri said:I guess it's because these non-L primes are from the old film days, when even the cheaper SLRs where FF.
epsiloneri said:In particular wide-angle primes would benefit from going EF-S (price- and size-wise). I find it a bit perplexing that Canon hasn't put more effort into producing such lenses, I guess the reason is that zooms are relatively so much more popular in that sector. It shouldn't be impossible to make, e.g., an EF-S 10mm/2.8 lens, I look forward to the day we see one.