New Canon EF-S Wide Angle Prime Announcement Coming April 5

[Crosswind]

What you say makes no sense.

Sure.

10 mm f/2.8 gives same angle of view and DoF as 16 mm f/4.5 on FF.

A 10mm lens on crop gives the same angle of view as a 16mm lens of FF - that's correct. But I have referred to the aperture, not focal lenght.

Please consider this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy5UTSmg2i0 to rethink what you've just said. There seems to be a lot of widespread confusion about that.

P.S.: A 10mm lens on a crop body won't change its focal lenght when you put it on a FF body (but the field of view will change - that is a big difference). The same is true for aperture - if the lens has f/2.8 on crop, it has f/2.8 on FF too - and the same DoF, if the distance to the subject is the same for both cameras (because the crop sensor is smaller than the FF sensor so it will give a different framing).
DoF has nothing to do with sensor size.

 

[Maximilian]

That would be certainly useful, 24/28mm equivalent pancake lens.

Something like that would get my interest for my travel kit.

 

[LonelyBoy]

Canon is really making it difficult to want to use their crop-frame cameras. There is a good telephoto lens (55-250mm STM) and an OK standard zoom lens (17-55mm f2.8 ). Even that one isn't really anything special. It's a 27-88mm f4.5 full-frame equivalent lens. Meanwhile the 24-105mm f4 full-frame lens is considered lackluster. Only other crop frame lenses are small aperture ultrawides (which are bad for night-sky photography), a 24mm f2.8 prime and a 60mm f2.8 macro lens (100mm f4.5 full-fram equiv.). You're forced to use at least 1 to 3 full-frame lenses, which means paying for a 1.6^2=2.56 times larger image circle. At that point it's almost worth it to buy a full-frame camera to be able to use the whole of these lenses, which means also replacing the couple of good crop lenses with full-frame lenses. And that's exactly what Canon wants...

Eh, I think rather Canon has decided that the market breaks down thusly (or the market they're interested in does):

1) pros/ deep-pocket enthusiasts who will either have a 7D2 + big lenses, or a FF + maybe a crop for portability
2) casual/ budget enthusiasts who will buy whatever crop body is on sale at BB/ Costco and either weld on the 18-135, 18-55 (or MAYBE 17-55 or 18-200), possibly add the 55-250 or 60 macro if they're "serious", and call it a day

Especially with the 6D, and the current going rate for the 5D3, the number of people who specifically want a crop camera with high-end EF-S lenses is probably not that high. They just tend to hang out here and make it seem like a large, untapped market.

Personally, from the people I know, that's exactly how the market breaks down: the people who primarily shoot crop couldn't imagine paying more than a couple hundred for a lens, or having more than a couple in total. It would be shocking if Canon hadn't done the market research to figure out how many people would actually pay for premium EF-S lenses.

 

[privatebydesign]

DoF has nothing to do with sensor size.

That is simply not true in real terms, and your video is just plain wrong.

DOF is dictated by two things alone, magnification and aperture (the actual apparent aperture size not number).

Now if you take a 10mm lens at f2.8 and a 16mm lens at f 2.8 from the same spot the wider lens has greater dof because the aperture opening is smaller. Ergo, shoot a smaller sensor with a lens that gives you the same fov from any point and you have greater dof, that is why camera phones have an f2 lens yet inordinate amounts of dof, their sensors are comparatively smaller and the actual apparent aperture is physically smaller. It isn't the sensor size per se that is impacting the dof, it is the physical size of the aperture. An f2.8 lens is not an f2.8 when talking about dof.

Equivalence is a real thing, you can take identical shots from an image quality perspective that include noise levels, dof and fov across sensor sizes and from the same place, but you have to change all three. It is so easy to prove it is farcical that anybody could argue differently, especially somebody wearing a tee shirt with "get out and take some damn photos" on!

Now because so many people would rather listen to idiots on YouTube sprouting bull---- than actually take some pictures here is an example I did years ago to illustrate this very point. Three different sensor sizes, three different exposures, three identical pictures from the point of view of perspective, noise, framing, and depth of field.

if you want to really understand this stuff read this article: www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

 

[privatebydesign]

So Crosswind, what do you 'dislike' about my post? What is inaccurate?

 

[c.d.embrey]

Canon still camera sales are decreasing. Canon's Super35 Cine sales are increasing.

Canon's C-100 Mk2, etc can use EF-S lenses. Maybe the new EF-S lenses is aimed at the cine/video market. Say something like an 18mm f/1.8

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Canon still camera sales are decreasing. Canon's Super35 Cine sales are increasing.

Canon's C-100 Mk2, etc can use EF-S lenses. Maybe the new EF-S lenses is aimed at the cine/video market. Say something like an 18mm f/1.8

Not one there is a great market for such a lens.
But, on second thought, it makes sense to offer a truly wide-angle F1.8 lens, so C100 users will not be forced to buy Sigma / Samyang.

 

[LonelyBoy]

Canon still camera sales are decreasing. Canon's Super35 Cine sales are increasing.

Canon's C-100 Mk2, etc can use EF-S lenses. Maybe the new EF-S lenses is aimed at the cine/video market. Say something like an 18mm f/1.8

Wouldn't CR-guy know if it was a Cine lens? As in, the specs leaked to him would be in T-stop rather than f-stop, they're designed differently, in different bodies, and named differently?

 

[slclick]

DoF has nothing to do with sensor size.

That is simply not true in real terms, and your video is just plain wrong.

DOF is dictated by two things alone, magnification and aperture (the actual apparent aperture size not number).

Now if you take a 10mm lens at f2.8 and a 16mm lens at f 2.8 from the same spot the wider lens has greater dof because the aperture opening is smaller. Ergo, shoot a smaller sensor with a lens that gives you the same fov from any point and you have greater dof, that is why camera phones have an f2 lens yet inordinate amounts of dof, their sensors are comparatively smaller and the actual apparent aperture is physically smaller. It isn't the sensor size per se that is impacting the dof, it is the physical size of the aperture. An f2.8 lens is not an f2.8 when talking about dof.

Equivalence is a real thing, you can take identical shots from an image quality perspective that include noise levels, dof and fov across sensor sizes and from the same place, but you have to change all three. It is so easy to prove it is farcical that anybody could argue differently, especially somebody wearing a tee shirt with "get out and take some damn photos" on!

Now because so many people would rather listen to idiots on YouTube sprouting bull---- than actually take some pictures here is an example I did years ago to illustrate this very point. Three different sensor sizes, three different exposures, three identical pictures from the point of view of perspective, noise, framing, and depth of field.

if you want to really understand this stuff read this article: www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

Thank you for sharing that. This argument, this inane argument is perpetuated by YouTube personalities who convince people solely based upon their magnitude of followers.

 

[c.d.embrey]

The NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) show runs fro April 17 to 22 http://www.nabshow.com Announcing a wide Super35 Cine prime on April 5th makes some sense. Get some buzz going before the show. Baybe there is a new EOS C100-500 series Cine camera being announced at the show :-\

 

[noncho]

Interesting, if it's below 24mm and it's compact I doubt that could be below 14/15mm - with wider angle lenses(from other manufacturers) are getting bigger.
So with good small body might be good reply to the mirrorless.
.
About unique feature... could it be fisheye? Wide angle pancakes naturally are barrel distortion friendly.

 

[c.d.embrey]

Canon's C-100 Mk2, etc can use EF-S lenses. Maybe the new EF-S lenses is aimed at the cine/video market. Say something like an 18mm f/1.8

Wouldn't CR-guy know if it was a Cine lens? As in, the specs leaked to him would be in T-stop rather than f-stop, they're designed differently, in different bodies, and named differently?

Check-out the Canon EOS C100MK II with 17-55 Lens Kit (EF-S Mount) https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1244137-REG/canon_0202c030_eos_c100mk_ii_with.html That's just an autofocus EF-S lens that's been around since 2006.

Learn all about the various flavors of EOS Cine bodies and lenses at http://cinemaeos.usa.canon.com Not everything is in T-stops and PL mounts, lots of autofocus F/stop lenses in EF and EF-S mounts.

 

[LonelyBoy]

I recall Scott Kelby's conclusion about the essence of the 7D2: making it possible for parents to take really good sports photos without having to pay pro gear price.

But it certainly starts to look like Canon see it differently. They may now basically be targeting semi-pro daytime birders, then needing just long EF lenses. Therefore, EF-S lenses would from now on not be fast, but rather designed for general use and a more distinctively low price. What Sigma is releasing though, seem to suggest they believe in the market that Kelby described, and similarly demanding ones like amateurs' indoor events.

The reason why Canon wouldn't go for those markets, wouldn't necessarily be just about protecting FF sales but also lack of time and resources given today's FF competition, as well as lack of belief in them.

Do parents taking sports photos not just use the 85/1.8, 100/2, 135L, or whichever 70-200/2.8? With the bulk of the COGS for those lenses being in the front elements, EF-S versions (especially in lower volume) might not be a ton cheaper. They're also pretty affordable - a 7D2 + 85/1.8 is way cheaper than a 5D4 + 135L/70-200, or a 1DX/2 + anything.

 

[slclick]

Ok, I'll go ahead and do this.....

'The Pancake Trinity'

There.

 

[okaro]

What you say makes no sense.

Sure.

P.S.: A 10mm lens on a crop body won't change its focal lenght when you put it on a FF body (but the field of view will change - that is a big difference). The same is true for aperture - if the lens has f/2.8 on crop, it has f/2.8 on FF too - and the same DoF, if the distance to the subject is the same for both cameras (because the crop sensor is smaller than the FF sensor so it will give a different framing).
DoF has nothing to do with sensor size.

DoF surely depends on the sensor size. I have actually done these calculations. With same focal length DoF is smaller on smaller sensor as the image is magnified more so smaller error is required on the sensor. If the angle of view is same then the smaller sensor has more depth of field. Just check Wikipedia for the formulas pr check a Depth of Field calculator.

As I said, nothing changes in the lens depending on the sensor. That is why we call them equivalences. They are tools to compare the final result on relation to the depth of field and the total noise. Yes, one needs to adjust also the ISO and the aperture to get the proper results.

The format for the hyperfocal distance (on which DoF is based) is H = f + f^2 / (N*c). There f is the focal length, N is the aperture value and c is the maximum acceptable circle of confusion. That depends on the sensor size. On FF it is typically 0.03mm. On APS-C for the same results one needs about 0.019mm. That is so that on a 100 mm x 150 mm print the values on both are about 0.125 mm. Note the equivalence is not exact as it only makes the second part of the sum equal, not the first f. This is insignificant in normal (non-macro) photography. Lets use the same example: FF: 16 + 16^2 / (4.5*0.03) = 1912 mm. Crop: 10 + 10^2 / (2.8 * 0.01875) = 1915 mm. Close enough.

 

[anden]

I recall Scott Kelby's conclusion about the essence of the 7D2: making it possible for parents to take really good sports photos without having to pay pro gear price.

But it certainly starts to look like Canon see it differently. They may now basically be targeting semi-pro daytime birders, then needing just long EF lenses. Therefore, EF-S lenses would from now on not be fast, but rather designed for general use and a more distinctively low price. What Sigma is releasing though, seem to suggest they believe in the market that Kelby described, and similarly demanding ones like amateurs' indoor events.

The reason why Canon wouldn't go for those markets, wouldn't necessarily be just about protecting FF sales but also lack of time and resources given today's FF competition, as well as lack of belief in them.

Do parents taking sports photos not just use the 85/1.8, 100/2, 135L, or whichever 70-200/2.8? With the bulk of the COGS for those lenses being in the front elements, EF-S versions (especially in lower volume) might not be a ton cheaper. They're also pretty affordable - a 7D2 + 85/1.8 is way cheaper than a 5D4 + 135L/70-200, or a 1DX/2 + anything.

Yes they do, because there is not much else available...

You can take fantastic sports photos with an ultra wide angle lens. But now it's the 10-22 with its f/3.5 at the wide end, and that's doable but indoors you need to push ISO so much that you really wish for something faster.

The bunch of 70-200's are usable, but combining the crop factor and the limited size of indoor courts, the short end's 70 mm is often too long. Add the rather slow-for-crop f/2.8 and you have lenses leaving much to desire.

About "way cheaper" - yes, with that huge difference already in body price, crop-friendly focal length and aperture lenses don't even need to be much cheaper for the system to be much more affordable - they just need to exist.

We can question this market size, but go to any kids indoor sports event and you see parents lined up with their iphones and looking confused when they see how miserable the pictures look. Then you will see someone here and there with a DSLR, getting away better but rarely with pictures representative of what a mid-price DSLR would be able to do.

 

[LonelyBoy]

Yes they do, because there is not much else available...

You can take fantastic sports photos with an ultra wide angle lens. But now it's the 10-22 with its f/3.5 at the wide end, and that's doable but indoors you need to push ISO so much that you really wish for something faster.

The bunch of 70-200's are usable, but combining the crop factor and the limited size of indoor courts, the short end's 70 mm is often too long. Add the rather slow-for-crop f/2.8 and you have lenses leaving much to desire.

About "way cheaper" - yes, with that huge difference already in body price, crop-friendly focal length and aperture lenses don't even need to be much cheaper for the system to be much more affordable - they just need to exist.

We can question this market size, but go to any kids indoor sports event and you see parents lined up with their iphones and looking confused when they see how miserable the pictures look. Then you will see someone here and there with a DSLR, getting away better but rarely with pictures representative of what a mid-price DSLR would be able to do.

Hell, my wife's mother tries to take pictures at her Ironmans with an iPad. And I mentioned in another thread one of her friends trying to take a shot from a second-floor balcony after our marathon and it not going well. The Apple ads have convinced people the iPhone is as good as a huge SLR; there's no convincing them. If the 70-200 is too long, what about the 24-70? The 7D2 should be able to handle the ISO needed. If not, then yeah, you sound like a good candidate for a 5D3 or 5D4. A crop zoom faster than the 2.8 is going to be huge (and expensive) as well, so I don't know what you think you'd gain by having a super-fast crop zoom.

 

[anden]

Hell, my wife's mother tries to take pictures at her Ironmans with an iPad. And I mentioned in another thread one of her friends trying to take a shot from a second-floor balcony after our marathon and it not going well. The Apple ads have convinced people the iPhone is as good as a huge SLR; there's no convincing them. If the 70-200 is too long, what about the 24-70? The 7D2 should be able to handle the ISO needed. If not, then yeah, you sound like a good candidate for a 5D3 or 5D4. A crop zoom faster than the 2.8 is going to be huge (and expensive) as well, so I don't know what you think you'd gain by having a super-fast crop zoom.

Indeed, maybe Canon need to up their marketing.

The crop cameras can handle f/2.8 indoor sports ISO, but lights are often so dim that you are stretching into somewhat grainy pictures. Additionally, if you could have some extra background separation that's just great. These faster lenses aren't a must - but they would be a very nice option.

24-70 is also 2.8 slow. And it is a bit short for general court coverage, covering just the nearest half or so on crop. Third, the price is very high.

I don't think even a very small part of this market can be steered to a 5D4-priced system. Additionally, you lose those 10 fps that are terrific for sports.

What is gained? Big savings, like +50%. Compare 7D2 + 50-100 with 5D4 + 70-200. And the 10 fps. Yes, the 5D4 is a more capable general system, but the price is way up there for most people.

 

[Don Haines]

Hell, my wife's mother tries to take pictures at her Ironmans with an iPad. And I mentioned in another thread one of her friends trying to take a shot from a second-floor balcony after our marathon and it not going well. The Apple ads have convinced people the iPhone is as good as a huge SLR; there's no convincing them. If the 70-200 is too long, what about the 24-70? The 7D2 should be able to handle the ISO needed. If not, then yeah, you sound like a good candidate for a 5D3 or 5D4. A crop zoom faster than the 2.8 is going to be huge (and expensive) as well, so I don't know what you think you'd gain by having a super-fast crop zoom.

Indeed, maybe Canon need to up their marketing.

The crop cameras can handle f/2.8 indoor sports ISO, but lights are often so dim that you are stretching into somewhat grainy pictures. Additionally, if you could have some extra background separation that's just great. These faster lenses aren't a must - but they would be a very nice option.

24-70 is also 2.8 slow. And it is a bit short for general court coverage, covering just the nearest half or so on crop. Third, the price is very high.

I don't think even a very small part of this market can be steered to a 5D4-priced system. Additionally, you lose those 10 fps that are terrific for sports.

What is gained? Big savings, like +50%. Compare 7D2 + 50-100 with 5D4 + 70-200. And the 10 fps. Yes, the 5D4 is a more capable general system, but the price is way up there for most people.

Yes, that is a point that is often forgotten on this forum......we buy the best camera we can AFFORD! If you can not afford a particular camera, it really does not matter what it's features and capabilities are......

 

[LonelyBoy]

Indeed, maybe Canon need to up their marketing.

The crop cameras can handle f/2.8 indoor sports ISO, but lights are often so dim that you are stretching into somewhat grainy pictures. Additionally, if you could have some extra background separation that's just great. These faster lenses aren't a must - but they would be a very nice option.

24-70 is also 2.8 slow. And it is a bit short for general court coverage, covering just the nearest half or so on crop. Third, the price is very high.

I don't think even a very small part of this market can be steered to a 5D4-priced system. Additionally, you lose those 10 fps that are terrific for sports.

What is gained? Big savings, like +50%. Compare 7D2 + 50-100 with 5D4 + 70-200. And the 10 fps. Yes, the 5D4 is a more capable general system, but the price is way up there for most people.

But if you want the light-equivalent of the 70-200/2.8 for crop, so a ~45-120/1.8 or so, it'll be the same size except for the rear elements, and so as expensive as the 70-200/2.8. And for the body, yes, 10FPS is great for sports. Do you really think Canon can, or will, give a no-compromise body with FF and speed for mid-range price? I'm about to buy a 4Runner, wish I could afford a GX460, but I know Toyota can't (or won't) give me the premium version for the same price.

The zoom isn't mandatory; people can and do shoot basketball with a crop + 85/1.8. If you want to be all-in for less than $2000, there will be some compromises compared to the full pro-setup. And for a lot of people even $2000 is too much, so they'll just have to rely on whatever photographer is there from the school or paper (or go with a yet-cheaper option than you're talking about and manage to make do...).