The Next Lens from Canon Will be an EF-S Prime

[Sharlin]

I don't see the point why they should release a 35 when this focal lenght is already well cvered by several small and low cost options for EF/EF-S: old 35, new 35IS 2.0, and 40 pancake, 28IS are pretty close. I'm sure I've missed something. Isn't that enough for enthusiast photographer within the APS-C range (even if these are able to cover FF circle)?

The old 35mm is not in production anymore, it was replaced by the quite a bit more expensive IS version. The 28mm IS is expensive and only f/2.8. The old 28mm/1.8 is long in the tooth and not good bang for the buck. The 40mm is cheap but only f/2.8. I'd say there's definitely room in Canon's lineup for a 28..35mm f/1.8..2 STM to mirror the recently upgraded nifty fifty - the question is just whether it makes more sense for it to be EF or EF-S.

 

[slclick]

I don't see the point why they should release a 35 when this focal lenght is already well cvered by several small and low cost options for EF/EF-S: old 35, new 35IS 2.0, and 40 pancake, 28IS are pretty close. I'm sure I've missed something. Isn't that enough for enthusiast photographer within the APS-C range (even if these are able to cover FF circle)?

The old 35mm is not in production anymore, it was replaced by the quite a bit more expensive IS version. The 28mm IS is expensive and only f/2.8. The old 28mm/1.8 is long in the tooth and not good bang for the buck. The 40mm is cheap but only f/2.8. I'd say there's definitely room in Canon's lineup for a 28..35mm f/1.8..2 STM to mirror the recently upgraded nifty fifty - the question is just whether it makes more sense for it to be EF or EF-S.

I the big scheme of things, these IS wide lenses you speak about are actually some of Canon's less expensive FF glass. Usually all are found <$500.00. So, unless you are comparing prices to EF-S lenses, they are the new inexpensive. True money is a subjective and relative term but I'm not using in the context of salaries but as in Canon's Pricelist. http://www.canonpricewatch.com/prices/

 

[Sharlin]

I the big scheme of things, these IS wide lenses you speak about are actually some of Canon's less expensive FF glass. Usually all are found <$500.00. So, unless you are comparing prices to EF-S lenses, they are the new inexpensive.

Agree that "expensive" might have been too strong a word. I just meant that it appears there's room for a cheaper tier of lenses at those focal lengths, especially for EF-S for which none of the existing glass is a really good alternative to a hypothetical ~$300 ~30mm ~f/2 STM.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Canon doesn't really have any fast wideangle prime or zoom for APS-C, something like 9-10 or 11mm and at least F2.8.

 

[ecka]

Actually, less than half the price. According to Amazon.co.uk the RRP on the EF 35mm f/2 IS is £799 (although they sell it for £470) and, the comparable Nikon 35mm f1.8G lens is £183 (their price £152.)

I would expect Canon to produce an EF-S 35mm 1.8 lens for under £250, probably under £200.

Of course, if you wanted a cheap bargain 35mm lens now, the Yongnuo 35mm f/2 is available for £85 on Amazon.

The cheap Nikon DX 35/1.8G is not comparable, at all.
EF 35/2IS is a much better tool. While Nikon FX 35/1.8G costs £439 and has no IS.

 

[Azathoth]

Fisheye , UWA lens or a 400 f5.6 would be sweet.

 

[Crosswind]

Fisheye , UWA lens or a 400 f5.6 would be sweet.

Agree, especially with the UWA, but it won't be a Fisheye (specialty lens) nor a 400mm 5.6 (they won't produce it only for EF-S), and I'm 99% sure. Though I'm not sure if it will be a 35 or some UWA lens.

Canon doesn't really have any fast wideangle prime or zoom for APS-C, something like 9-10 or 11mm and at least F2.8.

Canon has always been lacking some good options in the UWA range, with some (partially very expensive) exceptions; 11-24L, 14L II, 8-15L (fisheye), EF-M 11-22. The 10-22 or 10-18 doesn't count as they are far off in either built or image quality when compared to named lenses. At least that was my impression when I have compared them myself.

I do own the 8-15L fisheye zoom and there is defonitely a bigger gap between it and my 24IS, so I'm looking (and hoping) for a cheaper, but high resolution UWA prime between 8 and 14mm. The only cheaper alternative would be Samyang's 10mm 2.8. The others are either too expensive, too low resolution (esp. in the corners), or only for EF-M mount (don't want to invest into it).

 

[Antono Refa]

Fisheye, UWA lens or a 400 f5.6 would be sweet.

Canon seems happy to cover the fisheye spots with the EF 8-15mm f/4L*, and let 3rd party manufacturers cover the cheaper prime spots (read: Sigma 10mm diagonal & 4.5mm circular fisheyes).

AFAIK, there's no saving in size, weight, or price in making a super tele for crop cameras.

A fast UWA prime would be nice.



* To be frank, I didn't buy the EF 8-15mm. I own an EF 15mm f/2.8 since before the zoom came out, and decided to wait until the zoom's price fell, and DXO supported it. By the time that happened, I lost interest in favor of the Samyang 12mm, and lately Canon EF 11-24mm. I'mm happy enough with the later, that I'll probably sell both the EF 15mm & Samyang 12mm whenever I feel the urge to upgrade / buy some other lens.

 

[scyrene]

It seems to be ridiculous that, for example, the micro four thirds has a full range of "native" AF primes (from 24mm to 150mm equivalent) with f <= 2.0, even in several quality levels, but Canon still has only the arrogant answer "go FF if you want primes".

Micro Four Thirds is a standard, not a manufacturer, and third parties make other lens options for the Canon EF-S mount; your comparison is therefore not quite fair.

 

[Don Haines]

Fisheye , UWA lens or a 400 f5.6 would be sweet.

As much as I would love to see a new 400F5.6, it won't be an EF-S mount, at that focal length there would be virtually no difference between it and an EF mount.....

Now an ultra wide, count me in!

 

[PeterT]

It seems to be ridiculous that, for example, the micro four thirds has a full range of "native" AF primes (from 24mm to 150mm equivalent) with f <= 2.0, even in several quality levels, but Canon still has only the arrogant answer "go FF if you want primes".

Micro Four Thirds is a standard, not a manufacturer, and third parties make other lens options for the Canon EF-S mount; your comparison is therefore not quite fair.

OK, but if I replace "Canon still has" with "All manufacturers still have" then my statement will be still true. There is no full range of dedicated APS-C primes for canon mount DSLRs for those users that do not want to "upgrade" to larger bodies and lenses. There is no reasonable (AF,size,quality,price) 22mm f/2 or f/1.8, no reasonable 15mm f/2 or at least f/2.4. From any manufacturer.

 

[andrei1989]

It seems to be ridiculous that, for example, the micro four thirds has a full range of "native" AF primes (from 24mm to 150mm equivalent) with f <= 2.0, even in several quality levels, but Canon still has only the arrogant answer "go FF if you want primes".

Micro Four Thirds is a standard, not a manufacturer, and third parties make other lens options for the Canon EF-S mount; your comparison is therefore not quite fair.

OK, but if I replace "Canon still has" with "All manufacturers still have" then my statement will be still true. There is no full range of dedicated APS-C primes for canon mount DSLRs for those users that do not want to "upgrade" to larger bodies and lenses. There is no reasonable (AF,size,quality,price) 22mm f/2 or f/1.8, no reasonable 15mm f/2 or at least f/2.4. From any manufacturer.

these lenses you are mentioning would cost the same as their FF equivalents.

why, from a business point of view, would canon invest R&D/manufacturing in some lenses only for half their camera range?? Panasonic/Olympus don't have this problem, their whole camera range has ONE sensor size so R&D will focus on that aspect only. Same with Fuji. Nikon/Sony are in the same situation as Canon.

 

[Antono Refa]

There is no reasonable (AF,size,quality,price) 22mm f/2 or f/1.8, no reasonable 15mm f/2 or at least f/2.4. From any manufacturer.

these lenses you are mentioning would cost the same as their FF equivalents.

The APS-C diagonal is 26.8mm, close to 20mm. Wouldn't that indicate it would be much easier to design a 20mm for crop than for FF?

If the answer is no, Canon's 20mm lens is old, and Sigma's 20mm f/1.4 indicates there's interest in an upgrade.

 

[PeterT]

There is no reasonable (AF,size,quality,price) 22mm f/2 or f/1.8, no reasonable 15mm f/2 or at least f/2.4. From any manufacturer.

these lenses you are mentioning would cost the same as their FF equivalents.

I did not say "cheap". When I mention price then I mean "reasonable price".

I am not sure what do you mean under "FF equivalents". Is the equivalent of EF-S 22mm f/2.0 an FF 22mm f/2.0 or FF 35mm f/2.0 or FF 35mm f/3.2?
The FF 35mm f/2.0 IS can be bought for 489 EUR, that would be an ok price for me for an EF-S 22mm f/2.0 IS.
But I do not need that much the IS for a wide angle lens, so without IS it may be smaller and cheaper.

Even in the worst case (if you meant FF 22mm f/2.0 as "equivalent"):
The FF 24mm 2.8 IS can be bought for 485 EUR. When considering that the EF-S lenses can protrude a few millimeters deeper into the body, there would be no IS and a big part of the price is a pure marketing decision then I can imagine that EF-S 22mm f/2.0 could be about the same size as the mentioned FF lens and somewhat cheaper.

why, from a business point of view, would canon invest R&D/manufacturing in some lenses only for half their camera range??

They did invest R&D/manufacturing in several EF-S zooms, so why not into primes that would fill the gaps where there are no reasonable sized and priced lenses available?
It may help them to keep some customers like me, who do not want to go FF and are considering go micro four thirds. And if they had a full set of EF-S primes then "commitment to EF-S" would not be just an empty marketing slogan, but a real fact.

 

[andrei1989]

"reasonable price" is a relative and subjective term.

the existing zooms for crop are really cheap, except the 15-85, which is "reasonable". These zooms exist so they can be sold as kits with the crop cameras or to people who need a second/third lens (at most!).

regarding the primes, to me at least, the 22/24mm length is awkward...i had the ef-s 24mm and sold it because i wasn't using it..not wide enough, not "normal" enough either..the 40mm is better for me.

 

[Loswr]

"reasonable price" is a relative and subjective term.

the existing zooms for crop are really cheap, except the 15-85, which is "reasonable". These zooms exist so they can be sold as kits with the crop cameras or to people who need a second/third lens (at most!).

The first statement is true. I think most people ('most' being defined as buyers of Canon's entry level xxxD bodies) would find the 15-85 – a lens costing more than their camera, which already came with a lens – to be quite expensive, not at all 'reasonable'.

For those of us routinely carrying around $10-20K in camera gear, with another $20-30K of camera gear in the closet at home, an $800 lens is more likely 'reasonable'...if not downright cheap.

 

[Crosswind]

an $800 lens is more likely 'reasonable'...if not downright cheap.

What you consider as "cheap" is somewhat...

INCONCEIVABLE!!!

( )

 

[PeterT]

"reasonable price" is a relative and subjective term.

In general, you are right.
But you can "calibrate" the meaning of those words against the existing prices of other EF-S lenses and non-L EF primes. I would say that "cheap" is below 200 EUR and "reasonable" is below 500 (or 600) EUR.

the existing zooms for crop are really cheap, except the 15-85, which is "reasonable".

The 17-55 costs more than the 15-85, the 10-22 is not "cheap" either.
By the way, I think that 15-85 is crazily overpriced. The proof for that is, IMO, that I was able to buy it used in good condition on eBay for 260 EUR including a Hoya Pro1 CPL filter (after a week of searching and bidding).

These zooms exist so they can be sold as kits with the crop cameras or to people who need a second/third lens (at most!).

I do not understand the argument. Now they exist, but at the time when they were deciding to develop them they did not exist. And they decided in favor of developing them, even the not-so-cheap ones...

regarding the primes, to me at least, the 22/24mm length is awkward...i had the ef-s 24mm and sold it because i wasn't using it..not wide enough, not "normal" enough either..the 40mm is better for me.

35mm was the usual FL for point and shoot film compacts, so I think that it is a quite interesting FL for some people (of course, not for everybody, so your taste may differ).
For "normal" I have the EF 35mm 2.0 (and I am thinking to upgrade to the IS version).
But it is actually the widest reasonable prime for Canon APS-C (to be exact, the widest is the 30mm Sigma, but having a 35mm I do not plan to buy it). And in low light situations I often need something wider...
In not so low light situations I often find myself to use the 22mm end of the 10-22 zoom. But it is dark (4.5) for low light and also not that stellar IQ (as the upper ends of zooms use to be). So I think that I would use a fast 22mm lens.

 

[traveller]

"reasonable price" is a relative and subjective term.

the existing zooms for crop are really cheap, except the 15-85, which is "reasonable". These zooms exist so they can be sold as kits with the crop cameras or to people who need a second/third lens (at most!).

The first statement is true. I think most people ('most' being defined as buyers of Canon's entry level xxxD bodies) would find the 15-85 – a lens costing more than their camera, which already came with a lens – to be quite expensive, not at all 'reasonable'.

For those of us routinely carrying around $10-20K in camera gear, with another $20-30K of camera gear in the closet at home, an $800 lens is more likely 'reasonable'...if not downright cheap.

What price would 7D Mk. II owners call reasonable? They've already bought a camera that cost the same as the 6D. If you are a 7D Mk. II or even an 80D user, you currently face a bit of a Hobson's choice as your standard zoom (ignoring the kit zooms):

• the ageing EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8,
• the slow EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6,
• sacrifice the wide end with the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II (or the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS II),
• or give up the long end with the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L III (or EF 16-35mm f/4L IS).

To be honest, your best option is probably either the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM (because whilst the Canon version is slightly superior, it probably doesn't justify it being over double the price), or the superb Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8.

What about wide angle options:

• the EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5
• the EF-S 10-18 f/4-5.6

A very short list that leaves either the Sigma 8-16mm f4.5-5.6 DC HSM or the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 AT-X PRO DX MKII as probably the best choices.

The situation is even worse for wide angle primes: you have a choice of the budget EF-S 24mm f/2.8, the EF 24mm f/2.8 IS, or expensive L-series primes which are somewhat over-designed for APS-C. Again, you would probably be better off with third party options, although there isn't much choice here either. That this situation is also replicated across the EF-M line is very sad, especially considering the lineups in m4/3rds and Fuji X-mount.

As you have so correctly pointed out many times in the past, the majority of Canon's sales are in the lower price brackets. It appears to me that there is a gulf opening up between the budget/entry level and the 'Prosumer'/Professional range. If Canon isn't careful, I can see them losing their mid-range market to a combination of leakage of people "side-grading" to mirrorless systems and third-party lens manufacturers.

 

[AvTvM]

@traveller
totally disagree.
EF-S 17-55 is a brilliant lens, no third party offering can even remotely touch it.
EF-S 24/2.8 is a brilliant lens. No APS-C third party 24mm lens can even remotely touch it.
EF-S 10-18 is a very good lens. No thrid party offering at reasonable cost can even remotely touch it.

Canon Rebel and xxD and 7D/II shooters have an excellent array of high quality, reasonable price Canon EF-S lenses. In addition to the entire Canon EF lens universe. Only very few third party lense of any interest to Canon APS-C mirrorslapper users.