*UPDATE* EOS 70D is Coming, The Future of Pro APS-C Will Change

[Loswr]

Why do we see extreme tele reach in some "superzoom" compact cameras? Do they only accomplish this through compromised IQ, or do they gain something from the small sensors used?

Ok, take the SX50 HS, FF-equivalent of 1200mm at the long end. But, it's not a 1200mm lens - it's a 215mm lens that's f/6.5 at the long end. The small sensor gives a 215mm lens the FoV of a much longer lens used on a FF camera, but focal length is an intrinsic property of the lens. The SX50 lens isn't a true telephoto design, but even if it were, that would mean only a 33mm diameter front element.

 

[CanNotYet]

Smell that? It's sweet-and-sour scent of optical physics and lens design waking you from your dream...

A telephoto lens design places the 'virtual' aperture at or near the front element. So, a 300/2.8 lens is going to need at least a ~107mm diameter front element to fill that aperture with light. That front element is going to be big and heavy, and need a strong frame to support it. A smaller image circle would mean a slight reduction in some of the internal elements, but won't really make the lens smaller (or cheaper).

There's a reason we don't see EF-S telephoto lenses (except one zoom that actually starts in the normal range and has a variable aperture, meaning a different lens design) - there's just no real advantage to a smaller image circle at long focal lengths.

Well, I DO understand that 2.8 might be pushing it, but maybe a 4? Tamrons 70-300 is plastic built, for FF, and this would be a prime, needing less moving parts. (I think that kind of build would be at least OK)

Also, are you taking into account the size difference in sensors? 300/2.8 might be 107mm on FF, but it sure is not on the Panasonic FZ200. So, how big would it HAVE to be, if optimized for a 1.6x sensor?

Edit: Oh, I saw your answer.

 

[Don Haines]

But there ought to be some room for a EF-S telephoto lens with the inherent advantages of weight reduction from the shortcuts the lensmakers can take when designing for a smaller image circle. I am almost certain there will be something like this coming for the M-mount, and I think a conversion to EF-S would be easy, as the glass is for the same sensor size, and the difference is in the mount and flange distance as I understand it.

Anyways, a 300mm f2.8 for EF-S, at the weight as the 300 f4 or less? They could get away with a weather sealed plastic build (something like the 17-55 2.8 ) if done properly, and the price is right. (Yes, dreaming now, but...)

Smell that? It's sweet-and-sour scent of optical physics and lens design waking you from your dream...

A telephoto lens design places the 'virtual' aperture at or near the front element. So, a 300/2.8 lens is going to need at least a ~107mm diameter front element to fill that aperture with light. That front element is going to be big and heavy, and need a strong frame to support it. A smaller image circle would mean a slight reduction in some of the internal elements, but won't really make the lens smaller (or cheaper).

There's a reason we don't see EF-S telephoto lenses (except one zoom that actually starts in the normal range and has a variable aperture, meaning a different lens design) - there's just no real advantage to a smaller image circle at long focal lengths.

Take a look at http://www.getolympus.com/ca/en/lenses/slr/zuiko-lens-ed-300mm-f2-8.html

There's your 300 f2.8 lens for 4/3..... it's a little bit smaller, and therefore a little bit less expensive than what a EOS-M lens would cost you.... only $7000 plus change... it only weighs 3.2 kilos and takes a 140mm filter on the end..

 

[dlleno]

I don't believe anyone serious enough to buy the 7D2 is likely to invest in long glass that won't mount up to a FF as well, even if such a lens were cost effective which (thanks) neuro has pointed out isn't really the case anyway. I suggest the target strategy for EF-S is pretty well established -- the highest quality EF-S glass is wide, and doesn't have the build quality that serious wildlifers would demand in their long glass. what that means to me is:

1. The 7D2 owner wishes to maximize the potential for sports/wildlife while investing in glass instead of a 2nd body. Such an owner will want to use/rent long L glass whenever possible, and will be happy to use EF-S glass for WA and UWA.

2. The 7D2 owner has a FF body as well, in which case the use of long L glass is expected anyway, and EF-S glass is not desired at all

3. More generally, the xxD and xxxD users are more likely to turn to lower cost third party long glass, not realizing that the higher density sensor demands more, not less, from the lens. I see Canon yielding this market to the third parties because it does not fit their reputation of leading absolutely in the high quality long glass department.

 

[Loswr]

Well, I DO understand that 2.8 might be pushing it, but maybe a 4? Tamrons 70-300 is plastic built, for FF, and this would be a prime, needing less moving parts. (I think that kind of build would be at least OK)

Also, are you taking into account the size difference in sensors? 300/2.8 might be 107mm on FF, but it sure is not on the Panasonic FZ200. So, how big would it HAVE to be, if optimized for a 1.6x sensor?

Tamron's 70-300mm is f/5.6 at the long end, not even f/4, much less f/2.8.

Are you saying the Panasonic FZ200 has a 300mm lens (or the 24-600mm lens claimed)? If so, why is 4.5-108 (mm) printed on the lens? Because 24-600mm would be a lie. The lens doesn't care about the sensor behind it, focal length is an intrinsic property of the lens. Period. If you want to equate that to the FoV of a FF lens, fine - but putting an iPhone 5 (8x crop factor) behind a 40mm f/2.8 'pancake' lens doesn't mean you magically have a 320mm f/2.8 supertele lens.

Bottom line, a 300mm f/2.8 lens optimized for a 1.6x sensor would be.....the same size as a 300mm f/2.8 lens for FF.

Now, if by 'optimized' you mean 'would give the same FoV as 300mm on FF' then a 200mm f/2.8 lens would do that (but 200/2.8 on APS-C it would give the DoF of 320mm f/4.5 on FF). Similarly, the 108mm f/2.8 lens on the Panasonic FZ200 gives you the FoV of 600mm on FF, and the DoF of about f/15.

 

[CanNotYet]

Yes, I saw your answer that you posted while I was writing my post. I have to admit I did not know how the size of the front lens element was determined. You learn something new every day.

Now I understand why there is no EF-S telephoto lenses.

But I still would like a Canon EF-S 50-150 2.8 IS USM. (58mm filter size would do)
I have been thinking of getting the Sigma, but I want Canon colors.

 

[Loswr]

But I still would like a Canon EF-S 50-150 2.8 IS USM.

Now that's an EF-S lens that would make sense!

 

[iP337]

Ah yes the legendary 50-150/2.8, I was waiting for the OS version for so long, I remember it quietly announced but was it ever released?

Actually I would really like some more EF-S primes; like an 85/1.4 to better compete with the 135/2, perhaps a 24/2 and the return of the 200/1.8 in EF-S (or is that going to be too big and expensive against the current 200/2 EF?).

Or why not go really crazy and hope for a 50-150/2.8 with built in 2x (fine maybe 1.4x) extender! lol. I think that might kill off the 100-400/4.5-5.6L though, but who's really buying this other than APS-C wildlife and sports photographers anyway.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

But I still would like a Canon EF-S 50-150 2.8 IS USM.

Now that's an EF-S lens that would make sense!

A EF lens like that might get my vote as well.

 

[CarlTN]

I agree on the high end EF-S lenses. The most blatant omission at the moment is in the telephoto range. A competitor to Sigmas 50-150 HSM OS springs to mind, or a telephoto prime in the 200-500 range with the weight reduction advantage of EF-S. (not as probable though)

Releasing one such lens would also reinforce the marketing of 7D2 as a sports/wildlife camera...

I'd suggest that Canon is deliberately yielding the lower-cost long glass market to third parties that are targeting the xxD and xxxD owners who may not realize the high demands upon glass that come with such high density sensors.

For the camp who predicts that the 7D2 will truly be a "mid-level" camera (meaning priced near the midpoint between a rebel and a 1DX), the expression "Future of Pro APS-C will change" means that the 7D2 will be a serious sports/wildlife Body. Such a camera could be evidence of a Canon strategy for serious/pro APS-C wildlifers to either rent or own the long L glass that meets the build quality, resolution, and weather sealing requirements of such a use case, as the reach/cost advantage is already realized in the form of the crop sensor itself.

The increased demands of the higher density sensor would be incentive enough, for those who are aware and who care, to use L glass, knowing that they are taking advantage of the best portion of the image circle as well.

If the 7D2 really targets the pro or semi-pro wildlife segment, then in my opinion Canon may assume that the 7D2 owner has a FF body as well (such as a 6D), or aspires to one, in which case there is no incentive to invest in EF-S glass at all. Moreover, accepting the wildlife specialized use case, the "single body" 7D2 owner may in fact be content with covering the WA and UWA ranges without L build quality and weather sealing, i.e. with the fine lenses available today such as the 10-22.

An excellent well written post, with valid points. However, if there is no incentive to own EF-S lenses, then why use the 1.6x sensor at all? I say the 1.6x sensor is an anvil around Canon's neck, especially regarding a birding or sports body for pros or semi-pros. For that matter, why even use 1.3x? Why not something in between? And I disagree, based on the one I rented, that the Canon 10-22 is a "fine" lens. It was severely soft in the outer 2/3 of the image, had poor contrast and dull color. The Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 absolutely murders it, and for less money...coupled with a more robust build. The Tokina I rented was slightly better than the one I bought a year later, though. But the rental house agreed with my thoughts on the Canon 10-22. They've had and tested a lot of them, so they would know better than me. If you somehow wound up with a magical copy that was sharp-ish towards the edges, then more power to ya...I hope you shot thousands of great images with it...but it's atypical of production. Even closed to f/9, the problem was helped some, but still very obvious.

 

[RMC33]

I agree on the high end EF-S lenses. The most blatant omission at the moment is in the telephoto range. A competitor to Sigmas 50-150 HSM OS springs to mind, or a telephoto prime in the 200-500 range with the weight reduction advantage of EF-S. (not as probable though)

Releasing one such lens would also reinforce the marketing of 7D2 as a sports/wildlife camera...

I'd suggest that Canon is deliberately yielding the lower-cost long glass market to third parties that are targeting the xxD and xxxD owners who may not realize the high demands upon glass that come with such high density sensors.

For the camp who predicts that the 7D2 will truly be a "mid-level" camera (meaning priced near the midpoint between a rebel and a 1DX), the expression "Future of Pro APS-C will change" means that the 7D2 will be a serious sports/wildlife Body. Such a camera could be evidence of a Canon strategy for serious/pro APS-C wildlifers to either rent or own the long L glass that meets the build quality, resolution, and weather sealing requirements of such a use case, as the reach/cost advantage is already realized in the form of the crop sensor itself.

The increased demands of the higher density sensor would be incentive enough, for those who are aware and who care, to use L glass, knowing that they are taking advantage of the best portion of the image circle as well.

If the 7D2 really targets the pro or semi-pro wildlife segment, then in my opinion Canon may assume that the 7D2 owner has a FF body as well (such as a 6D), or aspires to one, in which case there is no incentive to invest in EF-S glass at all. Moreover, accepting the wildlife specialized use case, the "single body" 7D2 owner may in fact be content with covering the WA and UWA ranges without L build quality and weather sealing, i.e. with the fine lenses available today such as the 10-22.

An excellent well written post, with valid points. However, if there is no incentive to own EF-S lenses, then why use the 1.6x sensor at all? I say the 1.6x sensor is an anvil around Canon's neck, especially regarding a birding or sports body for pros or semi-pros. For that matter, why even use 1.3x? Why not something in between? And I disagree, based on the one I rented, that the Canon 10-22 is an "excellent" lens. It was severely soft in the outer 2/3 of the image, had poor contrast and dull color. The Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 absolutely murders it, and for less money...coupled with a more robust build. The Tokina I rented was slightly better than the one I bought a year later, though. But the rental house agreed with my thoughts on the Canon 10-22. They've had and tested a lot of them, so they would know better than me. If you somehow wound up with a magical copy that was sharp-ish towards the edges, then more power to ya...I hope you shot thousands of great images with it...but it's atypical of production. Even closed to f/9, the problem was helped some, but still very obvious.

I used to have a Canon 10-22 and felt the same way about the softness in the edges.

I use my 7d for ski/snowboard work and the only lenses I use on it are a 70-200 MkII, 200 f/2 and 400 f/2.8 II. I don't own any glass for the 7D that isn't twice the cost I paid for it but the body continues to impress. I honestly feel if I were to get a new body STRICTLY for sports/wildlife it would have to be an APS-C as I am so used to it now at long distances. It felt weird when my 7D was at Canon and I had to shoot sports with my Mk3~ AF rocks but I felt "short" and had to crop a lot more then I usually would.

 

[CarlTN]

RMC33, I am passing out with envy at your lens collection !!! :'(

 

[dlleno]

An excellent well written post, with valid points. However, if there is no incentive to own EF-S lenses, then why use the 1.6x sensor at all? I say the 1.6x sensor is an anvil around Canon's neck, especially regarding a birding or sports body for pros or semi-pros. For that matter, why even use 1.3x? Why not something in between?

An angle worth considering, to be sure. I'd never really thought of a crop DLSR body as an incentive to or vehicle through which Canon can sell more EF-S lenses. I view the crop DSLRs as a way to extend the customer base of the whole Canon system with cheap kit lenses that people might upgrade in the future. the EOS-M market is not something I'm very close to either, so that segment may be a way to expand the market of EF-S glass for all I know. I just having been paying attention there. For some reason I just see the bulk of EF-S staying around the low to medium IQ level and low build quality levels, with the exception of a few more expensive lenses to satisfiy the W and UWA needs of serious single-body users. thats probably where the EF-S higher margins are, come to think of it -- look at the price of the 17-55 compared to the 24-105L and your head starts to shake.

As for the Anvil (good one!) the Canon strategy appears to remain firm around FF bodies and long L glass for the sports pros, and an advanced crop body using 'not-as long' L glass for the 'not so pro'. With advances in sensor technology assumed to come, it will be interesting to watch the real IQ differences play out between sensors of different sizes and pixel densities. for example, Will the crop body loose its lustre as a "long reach" flagship crop compared to the cropped FF images of the same FOV? is the "advanced crop" here to stay or is the 7D2 the last engine to leave the station?

 

[Lawliet]

It was severely soft in the outer 2/3 of the image, had poor contrast and dull color.

Mine had similar problems OOC - turned out to be a CA related problem. I.e. the color seams cancelled each other out, but the brightness information got smeared.
OTOH its still behind the 16-35 at similar aperture, and lets not think about the TS-Es or the current 24-70s.

 

[CanNotYet]

Ah yes the legendary 50-150/2.8, I was waiting for the OS version for so long, I remember it quietly announced but was it ever released?

Actually I would really like some more EF-S primes; like an 85/1.4 to better compete with the 135/2, perhaps a 24/2 and the return of the 200/1.8 in EF-S (or is that going to be too big and expensive against the current 200/2 EF?).

Or why not go really crazy and hope for a 50-150/2.8 with built in 2x (fine maybe 1.4x) extender! lol. I think that might kill off the 100-400/4.5-5.6L though, but who's really buying this other than APS-C wildlife and sports photographers anyway.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/853533-REG/Sigma_692_101_50_150mm_f_2_8_EX_DC.html

 

[marinien]

Ah yes the legendary 50-150/2.8, I was waiting for the OS version for so long, I remember it quietly announced but was it ever released?

Actually I would really like some more EF-S primes; like an 85/1.4 to better compete with the 135/2, perhaps a 24/2 and the return of the 200/1.8 in EF-S (or is that going to be too big and expensive against the current 200/2 EF?).

Or why not go really crazy and hope for a 50-150/2.8 with built in 2x (fine maybe 1.4x) extender! lol. I think that might kill off the 100-400/4.5-5.6L though, but who's really buying this other than APS-C wildlife and sports photographers anyway.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/853533-REG/Sigma_692_101_50_150mm_f_2_8_EX_DC.html

Filter Thread Front: 77 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.4 x 7.8" (8.64 x 19.81 cm)
Weight 2.95 lb (1.34 kg)

The 50-150 non-OS was relatively small and light. This one, given the size and weight, I do not see the point of making it for crop sensor only .

 

[iP337]

Ah yes the legendary 50-150/2.8, I was waiting for the OS version for so long, I remember it quietly announced but was it ever released?

Actually I would really like some more EF-S primes; like an 85/1.4 to better compete with the 135/2, perhaps a 24/2 and the return of the 200/1.8 in EF-S (or is that going to be too big and expensive against the current 200/2 EF?).

Or why not go really crazy and hope for a 50-150/2.8 with built in 2x (fine maybe 1.4x) extender! lol. I think that might kill off the 100-400/4.5-5.6L though, but who's really buying this other than APS-C wildlife and sports photographers anyway.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/853533-REG/Sigma_692_101_50_150mm_f_2_8_EX_DC.html

Filter Thread Front: 77 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.4 x 7.8" (8.64 x 19.81 cm)
Weight 2.95 lb (1.34 kg)

The 50-150 non-OS was relatively small and light. This one, given the size and weight, I do not see the point of making it for crop sensor only .

Price ain't bad, but I already got a 70-200/2.8

Good point about its size and weight, I'd rather stick to the 70-200.

 

[insanitybeard]

Following on from the good quality EF-S lenses discussion, I would like to see a decent compact ultra wide angle crop sensor prime. I doubt it will happen but the only Canon option is the 10-22 zoom, which I own, and like others here have said, especially used on a pixel dense sensor like the 7D, the resolution does drop off and become mushy towards the corners- especially when files are viewed close to 100%. Don't get me wrong, I think the 10-22 is a fine lens but may be due an update to keep it viable on the higher res sensors. A compact ultra wide crop lens would make a nice alternative- other than the horrendously expensive 14L which is mostly wasted on crop anyway Canon have no primes you could call truly ultra wide for crop. The recent IS primes (24,28 and 35) have gone some way to increase the choice of modern Canon standard-ish or moderately wide primes for crop and FF but are still expensive at the present time.

 

[CanNotYet]

The 50-150 non-OS was relatively small and light. This one, given the size and weight, I do not see the point of making it for crop sensor only .

I quite agree. I am looking at a used 50-150 HSM II, and it is a lot smaller and more inconspicuous. Price is about half of the OS version (new) in the used market. When you pass the 2.5 pound mark, I think you could go EF.
Too bad it has got focus issues...

 

[CarlTN]

I have the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, and it's quite a bit sharper than the Canon 10-22. That said, there is simply no way anyone will ever make a wide zoom lens for a crop camera, that could ever make use of more pixels than 18MP. Just not going to happen. It might be theoretically possible, but production tolerances would still keep it from working on most copies. Putting a wide lens on a crop camera, is about like putting tiny spare tires on a range rover and then taking it to a mud bog.