Review: Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16596"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16596">Tweet</a></div>
<p>Northlight has posted their initial review of the new <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00K899B9Y/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00K899B9Y&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=SYUOCVQGBCUI2BEC" target="_blank">Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5.5-6 IS STM lens</a>. As you would expect the lens appears to be a very good deal at $299, although it’s not going to set any benchmarks for optical performance. It is however, a great completement to your APS-C stills or video kit if you don’t need ultra wide angle very often. If you do, there are better and more expensive options out there.</p>
<p><strong>Says Northlight:

</strong><em>“If you’re not used to ‘shooting wide’ then this lens is a very welcome addition to Canon’s line-up. At appreciably less cost than the EF-S10-22, the 10-18mm surprised me with its build quality and optical performance. The image stabilisation adds to its general purpose usefulness and partly makes up for its relatively restricted aperture.”</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/lenses/canon_efs10-18.html" target="_blank"><strong>Read the full review</strong></a></p>
<p><strong>Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM $299:</strong> <a style="color: #900000;" href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00K899B9Y/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00K899B9Y&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=SYUOCVQGBCUI2BEC" target="_blank">Amazon</a> | <strong><a style="color: #900000;" href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1051476-USA/canon_9519b002_ef_s_10_18mm_f_4_5_5_6_is.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a></strong> | <a style="color: #900000;" href="http://adorama.evyy.net/c/60085/51926/1036?u=http://www.adorama.com/CA1018.html?kbid=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[lw]

It is however, a great completement to your APS-C stills or video kit if you don’t need ultra wide angle very often. If you do, there are better and more expensive options out there.

What "better and more expensive options" are there in the 10-18 range, on an APS-C?
(not trying to trip Northlight up, just genuinely interested)

The 10-18 STM appears to be better than the Canon 10-22mm - at least on paper

Sigma 10-20mm options perhaps?

What options are there around this range? (that isn't a fisheye)

 

[traveller]

It is however, a great completement to your APS-C stills or video kit if you don’t need ultra wide angle very often. If you do, there are better and more expensive options out there.

What "better and more expensive options" are there in the 10-18 range, on an APS-C?
(not trying to trip Northlight up, just genuinely interested)

The 10-18 STM appears to be better than the Canon 10-22mm - at least on paper

Sigma 10-20mm options perhaps?

What options are there around this range? (that isn't a fisheye)

Apart from third party options, the Canon EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM is better built (metal mount, ultrasonic motor), slightly faster and longer. Of course the 10-18 STM has IS, which the 10-22 lacks. I would say that whilst image stabilisation is a really nice feature, even in a wide angle lens, optical performance would override all of these in my decision (not that either of these lenses would fit my camera!). I have a suspicion that the 10-22 might be slightly superior in the corners, but we'll have to wait for Photozone, TDP or Lensrentals (etc.) more formal tests to establish this...

 

[LuCoOc]

It is however, a great completement to your APS-C stills or video kit if you don’t need ultra wide angle very often. If you do, there are better and more expensive options out there.

What "better and more expensive options" are there in the 10-18 range, on an APS-C?
(not trying to trip Northlight up, just genuinely interested)

The 10-18 STM appears to be better than the Canon 10-22mm - at least on paper

Sigma 10-20mm options perhaps?

What options are there around this range? (that isn't a fisheye)

Apart from third party options, the Canon EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM is better built (metal mount, ultrasonic motor), slightly faster and longer. Of course the 10-18 STM has IS, which the 10-22 lacks. I would say that whilst image stabilisation is a really nice feature, even in a wide angle lens, optical performance would override all of these in my decision (not that either of these lenses would fit my camera!). I have a suspicion that the 10-22 might be slightly superior in the corners, but we'll have to wait for Photozone, TDP or Lensrentals (etc.) more formal tests to establish this...

Agree! I'll wait for Roger's review (Lensrentals) and if this lens is only 90% as good as the older 10-22 I get one!

I don't think this will be a lens for pixel peepers but for me it will make a nice f/8.0 landscape lens for 20"x30" prints.

 

[neech7]

It is however, a great completement to your APS-C stills or video kit if you don’t need ultra wide angle very often. If you do, there are better and more expensive options out there.

What "better and more expensive options" are there in the 10-18 range, on an APS-C?
(not trying to trip Northlight up, just genuinely interested)

The 10-18 STM appears to be better than the Canon 10-22mm - at least on paper

Sigma 10-20mm options perhaps?

What options are there around this range? (that isn't a fisheye)

Apart from third party options, the Canon EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM is better built (metal mount, ultrasonic motor), slightly faster and longer. Of course the 10-18 STM has IS, which the 10-22 lacks. I would say that whilst image stabilisation is a really nice feature, even in a wide angle lens, optical performance would override all of these in my decision (not that either of these lenses would fit my camera!). I have a suspicion that the 10-22 might be slightly superior in the corners, but we'll have to wait for Photozone, TDP or Lensrentals (etc.) more formal tests to establish this...

Depending on what you do, not everyone considers USM a plus over STM. And are you sure the actual mount of the 10-22 is metal, or is it just the end piece visible?

 

[rs]

Depending on what you do, not everyone considers USM a plus over STM. And are you sure the actual mount of the 10-22 is metal, or is it just the end piece visible?

Without having disassembled mine, I'd hazard a guess at it being not much more then the visible part of the mount which is metal. Which is exactly the way it should be. Engineered in failure point which isn't the mount in the body, and metal where the main contact/wear point is.
Have you ever seen a plastic mount lens which has been on/off the body as often as a typical pro use lens has been? I'd hate to think where all that worn out plastic has worked its way into.

 

[sdsr]

It is however, a great completement to your APS-C stills or video kit if you don’t need ultra wide angle very often. If you do, there are better and more expensive options out there.

What "better and more expensive options" are there in the 10-18 range, on an APS-C?
(not trying to trip Northlight up, just genuinely interested)

The 10-18 STM appears to be better than the Canon 10-22mm - at least on paper

Sigma 10-20mm options perhaps?

What options are there around this range? (that isn't a fisheye)

I've no idea how they compare, but if you really want to go wide, the Sigma 8-24mm is still probably the widest non-fisheye zoom; it's surprisingly (?) good but costs more than twice as much, is rather heavy, and has no IS. I look forward to better reviews (and with better photos, too...).

 

[c.d.embrey]

I bought my EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM when I bought my Canon 20D (2006). I see no reason to replace it. The minimum focus distance is 9.5 inches (24cm). At 10mm (16mm FF) there is some wonderful barrel distortion, but at 22mm (35mm FF) it's rectilinear and I've used it for products shots and people It weighs 13.6 oz. (385 g.) and uses 77mm filters.

The Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM is lighter at 8.5 oz (240g), the minimum focus distance is about the same at 8.64in (22cm) and it uses smaller, less expensive, 67mm filters. It's also a lot cheaper -- $299.99 vs $649.99 (BTW these are Canon USA prices).

Photography is a lot like shooting, Snipers don't have stabilizers on their rifles and TV News Camera-people don't have stabilizers on their lenses. Holding a rifle/pistol or a camera steady is an acquired skill and fairly easy to learn.

 

[traveller]

It is however, a great completement to your APS-C stills or video kit if you don’t need ultra wide angle very often. If you do, there are better and more expensive options out there.

What "better and more expensive options" are there in the 10-18 range, on an APS-C?
(not trying to trip Northlight up, just genuinely interested)

The 10-18 STM appears to be better than the Canon 10-22mm - at least on paper

Sigma 10-20mm options perhaps?

What options are there around this range? (that isn't a fisheye)

Apart from third party options, the Canon EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM is better built (metal mount, ultrasonic motor), slightly faster and longer. Of course the 10-18 STM has IS, which the 10-22 lacks. I would say that whilst image stabilisation is a really nice feature, even in a wide angle lens, optical performance would override all of these in my decision (not that either of these lenses would fit my camera!). I have a suspicion that the 10-22 might be slightly superior in the corners, but we'll have to wait for Photozone, TDP or Lensrentals (etc.) more formal tests to establish this...

Depending on what you do, not everyone considers USM a plus over STM. And are you sure the actual mount of the 10-22 is metal, or is it just the end piece visible?

For stills use with conventional separate-sensor-phase-detect-AF at least (what a mouthful that's become!), I would always prefer USM to STM: YMMV as the Americans like to say ;-)

As for the thorny issue of plastic versus metal mounts, the new 10-18 is plastic right to the bayonet, whilst the 10-22 has a metal bayonet. Metal bayonets are generally considered more durable. As for your question about whether the 10-22 has an all metal mount, I think you should read this article by Roger Cicala:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/12/assumptions-expectations-and-plastic-mounts

On the basis of Roger's report, I would think that the 10-22 has a plastic inner mount, just like a high proportion of Canon L-series lenses.

 

[preppyak]

What "better and more expensive options" are there in the 10-18 range, on an APS-C?
(not trying to trip Northlight up, just genuinely interested)

Tokina 11-16, for one. What you lose in range (very little) you make up in aperture and sharpness. Sigma 8-16 is obviously much wider and well regarded. Really, the $4-500 street price wide angle APS-C market is pretty solid. I'm not even sure Canon could update the 10-22 and be competitive.

The 10-18 STM appears to be better than the Canon 10-22mm - at least on paper

Eh, it appears to be cheaper, but we still haven't actually seen the corner-to-corners performance, etc. The 10-18 is giving up a stop to the 10-22, and nearly 2 stops to the Tokina; so it's a matter of your shooting conditions whether the IS makes up for that.

The sample images look great for it's target market (consumers with rebels who also have the 18-55/55-250 combos).

 

[Random Orbits]

I bought my EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM when I bought my Canon 20D (2006). I see no reason to replace it. The minimum focus distance is 9.5 inches (24cm). At 10mm (16mm FF) there is some wonderful barrel distortion, but at 22mm (35mm FF) it's rectilinear and I've used it for products shots and people It weighs 13.6 oz. (385 g.) and uses 77mm filters.

The Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM is lighter at 8.5 oz (240g), the minimum focus distance is about the same at 8.64in (22cm) and it uses smaller, less expensive, 67mm filters. It's also a lot cheaper -- $299.99 vs $649.99 (BTW these are Canon USA prices).

Photography is a lot like shooting, Snipers don't have stabilizers on their rifles and TV News Camera-people don't have stabilizers on their lenses. Holding a rifle/pistol or a camera steady is an acquired skill and fairly easy to learn.

I can see the 17-55 and 10-22 being updated over the next few years. I remember times when the 17-55 was 1000+ and the 10-220 was 850 new. Although I only had the 10-22 a short time before moving to FF, I liked the lens a lot. The overlapping FL range with the 17-55 was handy and prevented a lot of lens changes.

I agree with preppyak in that the lens will be popular with the rebel market. Sell it as a 10-18/18-55/55-250 combo, and Canon will sell a LOT of these.

 

[traveller]

I bought my EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM when I bought my Canon 20D (2006). I see no reason to replace it. The minimum focus distance is 9.5 inches (24cm). At 10mm (16mm FF) there is some wonderful barrel distortion, but at 22mm (35mm FF) it's rectilinear and I've used it for products shots and people It weighs 13.6 oz. (385 g.) and uses 77mm filters.

The Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM is lighter at 8.5 oz (240g), the minimum focus distance is about the same at 8.64in (22cm) and it uses smaller, less expensive, 67mm filters. It's also a lot cheaper -- $299.99 vs $649.99 (BTW these are Canon USA prices).

Photography is a lot like shooting, Snipers don't have stabilizers on their rifles and TV News Camera-people don't have stabilizers on their lenses. Holding a rifle/pistol or a camera steady is an acquired skill and fairly easy to learn.

I can see the 17-55 and 10-22 being updated over the next few years. I remember times when the 17-55 was 1000+ and the 10-220 was 850 new. Although I only had the 10-22 a short time before moving to FF, I liked the lens a lot. The overlapping FL range with the 17-55 was handy and prevented a lot of lens changes.

I agree with preppyak in that the lens will be popular with the rebel market. Sell it as a 10-18/18-55/55-250 combo, and Canon will sell a LOT of these.

Updating the 17-55 and producing a high end constant aperture replacement for the 10-22 (f/2.8?) would be a good start to catching up with 4/3rds and heading off Fuji. The 10-18 is a good idea from Canon to entice the lower end of the market; what other lenses might sell? EF-M has a 22mm f/2 STM that's perhaps the highlight of the entire EOS-M system, why not produce one for EF-S (granted, it's slightly more difficult to design for a DSLR)? Nikon's 35mm f/1.8 DX lens sells pretty well by many accounts, why does Canon not produce a low price normal prime too? How about a premium 15mm f/2 USM? Combine this with a 50-135mm f/2.8 and you could start to claim that EF-S is a good choice of system for people that don't want the cost or size of full frame.

At the moment, Canon's message seems to be that if you want anything more exotic that a slow zoom, you need to go full frame. Whilst many will (including you and I!), many others will decide it is not worth the extra price and bulk; they will switch to one of the increasingly capable alternatives.

 

[keithcooper]

It's quite a reasonable lens - particularly at the price. I suspect that Canon will do well with it. I'd broadly include the 10-22 as a more expensive (and in some ways better) option.

I too await the tests from the true lens anoraks ;-) ...but I've long since learned to gloss over most long discussions I see about lens sharpness (oh and I love IS on lenses too, since I generally dislike using a tripod, apart from some of my commercial work).

The shots in the review are there to give a reasonable idea what it will do in different situations rather than provide a detailed analysis (they are only 720 pixels wide jpegs after all). There are several higher res versions on my linked G+page, and if you look in the links at the end of the review, there are two downloadable RAW files.

Glad people have found the review of interest ;-)

 

[Zv]

I bought my EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM when I bought my Canon 20D (2006). I see no reason to replace it. The minimum focus distance is 9.5 inches (24cm). At 10mm (16mm FF) there is some wonderful barrel distortion, but at 22mm (35mm FF) it's rectilinear and I've used it for products shots and people It weighs 13.6 oz. (385 g.) and uses 77mm filters.

The Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM is lighter at 8.5 oz (240g), the minimum focus distance is about the same at 8.64in (22cm) and it uses smaller, less expensive, 67mm filters. It's also a lot cheaper -- $299.99 vs $649.99 (BTW these are Canon USA prices).

Photography is a lot like shooting, Snipers don't have stabilizers on their rifles and TV News Camera-people don't have stabilizers on their lenses. Holding a rifle/pistol or a camera steady is an acquired skill and fairly easy to learn.

I can see the 17-55 and 10-22 being updated over the next few years. I remember times when the 17-55 was 1000+ and the 10-220 was 850 new. Although I only had the 10-22 a short time before moving to FF, I liked the lens a lot. The overlapping FL range with the 17-55 was handy and prevented a lot of lens changes.

I agree with preppyak in that the lens will be popular with the rebel market. Sell it as a 10-18/18-55/55-250 combo, and Canon will sell a LOT of these.

Updating the 17-55 and producing a high end constant aperture replacement for the 10-22 (f/2.8?) would be a good start to catching up with 4/3rds and heading off Fuji. The 10-18 is a good idea from Canon to entice the lower end of the market; what other lenses might sell? EF-M has a 22mm f/2 STM that's perhaps the highlight of the entire EOS-M system, why not produce one for EF-S (granted, it's slightly more difficult to design for a DSLR)? Nikon's 35mm f/1.8 DX lens sells pretty well by many accounts, why does Canon not produce a low price normal prime too? How about a premium 15mm f/2 USM? Combine this with a 50-135mm f/2.8 and you could start to claim that EF-S is a good choice of system for people that don't want the cost or size of full frame.

At the moment, Canon's message seems to be that if you want anything more exotic that a slow zoom, you need to go full frame. Whilst many will (including you and I!), many others will decide it is not worth the extra price and bulk; they will switch to one of the increasingly capable alternatives.

Low price normal lens that's cheap? Hmmm could that be the 40mm pancake perhaps?

 

[Deleted member 7828]

At the moment, Canon's message seems to be that if you want anything more exotic that a slow zoom, you need to go full frame.

Not really, TBH...you can still use FF lenses on the Rebels after all. The only issue would be cost, I suppose - can they make an EF-S 70-200 2.8 equivalent for $1K or less? If not, no use trying IMO.

 

[c.d.embrey]

Updating the 17-55 and producing a high end constant aperture replacement for the 10-22 (f/2.8?) would be a good start ...

The variable aperture 10-22mm is fairly heavy. For Me a 10-18mm (16-29mm FF) f/2.8 would be a better/lighter choice. Even better, for me, would be 10mm f/1.8 (16mm FF), 17mm f/1.8 (27mm FF) and a 22mm f/1.8 (35mm FF) primes.

At the moment, Canon's message seems to be that if you want anything more exotic that a slow zoom, you need to go full frame. Whilst many will (including you and I!), many others will decide it is not worth the extra price and bulk; they will switch to one of the increasingly capable alternatives.

Canon, Nikon and Sony are trying tp move their customers to High Profit Full Frame cameras. The lack of a 7D2, D4 and NEX 7 II may be a costly mistake.

 

[lescrane]

my 10-22 is niche lens, very happy with it, but it is fairly heavy.
The new lens..well it does have IS which is less vital on such a wide angle as it would be on a tele., lighter...maybe same IQ?? but the killer for me is lower zoom range. 22mm at least you are getting towards ""normal wide angle".

 

[traveller]

I bought my EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM when I bought my Canon 20D (2006). I see no reason to replace it. The minimum focus distance is 9.5 inches (24cm). At 10mm (16mm FF) there is some wonderful barrel distortion, but at 22mm (35mm FF) it's rectilinear and I've used it for products shots and people It weighs 13.6 oz. (385 g.) and uses 77mm filters.

The Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM is lighter at 8.5 oz (240g), the minimum focus distance is about the same at 8.64in (22cm) and it uses smaller, less expensive, 67mm filters. It's also a lot cheaper -- $299.99 vs $649.99 (BTW these are Canon USA prices).

Photography is a lot like shooting, Snipers don't have stabilizers on their rifles and TV News Camera-people don't have stabilizers on their lenses. Holding a rifle/pistol or a camera steady is an acquired skill and fairly easy to learn.

I can see the 17-55 and 10-22 being updated over the next few years. I remember times when the 17-55 was 1000+ and the 10-220 was 850 new. Although I only had the 10-22 a short time before moving to FF, I liked the lens a lot. The overlapping FL range with the 17-55 was handy and prevented a lot of lens changes.

I agree with preppyak in that the lens will be popular with the rebel market. Sell it as a 10-18/18-55/55-250 combo, and Canon will sell a LOT of these.

Updating the 17-55 and producing a high end constant aperture replacement for the 10-22 (f/2.8?) would be a good start to catching up with 4/3rds and heading off Fuji. The 10-18 is a good idea from Canon to entice the lower end of the market; what other lenses might sell? EF-M has a 22mm f/2 STM that's perhaps the highlight of the entire EOS-M system, why not produce one for EF-S (granted, it's slightly more difficult to design for a DSLR)? Nikon's 35mm f/1.8 DX lens sells pretty well by many accounts, why does Canon not produce a low price normal prime too? How about a premium 15mm f/2 USM? Combine this with a 50-135mm f/2.8 and you could start to claim that EF-S is a good choice of system for people that don't want the cost or size of full frame.

At the moment, Canon's message seems to be that if you want anything more exotic that a slow zoom, you need to go full frame. Whilst many will (including you and I!), many others will decide it is not worth the extra price and bulk; they will switch to one of the increasingly capable alternatives.

Low price normal lens that's cheap? Hmmm could that be the 40mm pancake perhaps?

Depends upon your needs. Whilst I think it's a great compact option on full frame, for me it's too long and too slow for a true fast-50 equivalent on APS-C. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is the closest you'll get in EF mount, as Canon doesn't think it's worth making one.

Now repeat the exercise for a fast 35mm equivalent? That would be either the 24mm f/2.8 IS (a bit slow) or the 24mm f/1.4L (heavy and expensive).
How about a fast 24mm equivalent lens: Canon 14mm f/2.8L, Samyang 16mm f/2 or Zeiss ZE 15mm Distagon? All have pretty obvious drawbacks!
70-200mm f/2.8? -Third party again (Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 or Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 ) are you're only options.

Is it any wonder that plenty of photography enthusiasts are looking at the increasing capable mirrorless options? Canon are at risk of losing the middle ground between the "Soccer Moms" (a lovely American marketing term!) and professionals. If they want to secure this ground, it's lenses not bodies that they need to address.

 

[Random Orbits]

Depends upon your needs. Whilst I think it's a great compact option on full frame, for me it's too long and too slow for a true fast-50 equivalent on APS-C. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is the closest you'll get in EF mount, as Canon doesn't think it's worth making one.

Now repeat the exercise for a fast 35mm equivalent? That would be either the 24mm f/2.8 IS (a bit slow) or the 24mm f/1.4L (heavy and expensive).
How about a fast 24mm equivalent lens: Canon 14mm f/2.8L, Samyang 16mm f/2 or Zeiss ZE 15mm Distagon? All have pretty obvious drawbacks!
70-200mm f/2.8? -Third party again (Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 or Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 ) are you're only options.

Is it any wonder that plenty of photography enthusiasts are looking at the increasing capable mirrorless options? Canon are at risk of losing the middle ground between the "Soccer Moms" (a lovely American marketing term!) and professionals. If they want to secure this ground, it's lenses not bodies that they need to address.

When I used crop cameras, I had the 10-22, 17-55 and supplemented it with a 24L and 35L. The Sigma 30 f/1.4 is not nearly in the same league as the Sigma 35 f/1.4, and at 500 the Sigma 30 is also pricy for what it offers. The 35 f/2 IS is a nice lens and could be had for less than 500 during one of the Canon refurb store's sales. Smaller format cameras are at a disadvantage when light levels are low, so faster glass is more necessary and flash will be used more.

If I were looking to outfit a crop kit from scratch, I'd seriously look at Sigma's 18-35 f/1.8. With that lens, you wouldn't need 24 or 35mm primes. Add a Tokina 11-16, and that'll satisfy most for the wide and mid range. I'd then supplement it with a 50mm prime and a 70-200. I like the f/2.8, and wouldn't give it up. I used it for sports, events, etc. I think 3rd party offerings strengthen the APS-C offerings; not everything needs to be Canon.

The 6D can be purchased new for ~1500, which isn't that much more than the X-T1, and I'm sure the price of FF will continue to drop, which will threaten premium APS-C systems like Fuji. The Fuji system is more compact, but the lens family is much smaller than Canon + 3rd parties. Plus, the Fuji lenses are expensive too. I like the idea of a Fuji system, but the lens/flash options are too limiting. When I need to use something compact, then I use the M. It's not as nice or capable as the Fuji, but then it had cost a lot less and I can still use all my lenses on it if I had to.

 

[traveller]

Depends upon your needs. Whilst I think it's a great compact option on full frame, for me it's too long and too slow for a true fast-50 equivalent on APS-C. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is the closest you'll get in EF mount, as Canon doesn't think it's worth making one.

Now repeat the exercise for a fast 35mm equivalent? That would be either the 24mm f/2.8 IS (a bit slow) or the 24mm f/1.4L (heavy and expensive).
How about a fast 24mm equivalent lens: Canon 14mm f/2.8L, Samyang 16mm f/2 or Zeiss ZE 15mm Distagon? All have pretty obvious drawbacks!
70-200mm f/2.8? -Third party again (Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 or Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 ) are you're only options.

Is it any wonder that plenty of photography enthusiasts are looking at the increasing capable mirrorless options? Canon are at risk of losing the middle ground between the "Soccer Moms" (a lovely American marketing term!) and professionals. If they want to secure this ground, it's lenses not bodies that they need to address.

When I used crop cameras, I had the 10-22, 17-55 and supplemented it with a 24L and 35L. The Sigma 30 f/1.4 is not nearly in the same league as the Sigma 35 f/1.4, and at 500 the Sigma 30 is also pricy for what it offers. The 35 f/2 IS is a nice lens and could be had for less than 500 during one of the Canon refurb store's sales. Smaller format cameras are at a disadvantage when light levels are low, so faster glass is more necessary and flash will be used more.

If I were looking to outfit a crop kit from scratch, I'd seriously look at Sigma's 18-35 f/1.8. With that lens, you wouldn't need 24 or 35mm primes. Add a Tokina 11-16, and that'll satisfy most for the wide and mid range. I'd then supplement it with a 50mm prime and a 70-200. I like the f/2.8, and wouldn't give it up. I used it for sports, events, etc. I think 3rd party offerings strengthen the APS-C offerings; not everything needs to be Canon.

The 6D can be purchased new for ~1500, which isn't that much more than the X-T1, and I'm sure the price of FF will continue to drop, which will threaten premium APS-C systems like Fuji. The Fuji system is more compact, but the lens family is much smaller than Canon + 3rd parties. Plus, the Fuji lenses are expensive too. I like the idea of a Fuji system, but the lens/flash options are too limiting. When I need to use something compact, then I use the M. It's not as nice or capable as the Fuji, but then it had cost a lot less and I can still use all my lenses on it if I had to.

The original Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (non-"Art" and optically identical) version is on run-out special, here in the UK at least, for £279. The "Art" version is £369, which is still cheaper than the EF 35mm f/2 IS at £459 (although I would probably recommend the Canon lens as worth the extra money). None of these is really at the same price point as the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX lens, which is why I think that there is still a gap in the market for a Canon equivalent.

I sort of agree when it comes to the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, but it is very heavy and quite expensive -£629 is quite a put off to the owner of an entry level camera that might have been purchased for half that amount. Whilst a set of fast primes may end up costing and weighing a similar amount, they have the advantage of being purchased over a period of time and not needing to be mounted on the camera at the same time. The problem with Canon's current strategy is that you're forced to use full frame ultra-wides with all the attendant size, cost and speed disadvantages to fill in for non-existent dedicated APS-C wide angles.

I wouldn't like to comment on the production costs of a 6D versus a X-T1, but one could turn your argument around and point out that the X-T1 currently manages to hold 75% of the 6D's price despite being only APS-C. My guess would be that whatever cost savings can be made on a full frame camera can also be applied to an APS-C camera. Besides, the real cost of jumping up a format size can often be measured in lenses rather than just the body.

I know that one runs into thorny ground with the whole lens equivalence question, but I think that if absolute depth of field and/or low light performance are critical to your style of photography, then you're probably one of the people for whom full-frame-35mm will always make sense. If you're prepared to accept some compromises, sub-frame can make sense; it's just a question of which brand offers the most for the least...