We want more EF-S lens

[moreorless]

Personally I'd say the most obvious gap is a wider prime, either something like a 30mm 1.4 ala Sigma or a 20-25mmish pancake to go with the SL-1/100D.

I have my doubts as to whether theres a market for a 50-150mm f/2.8, I think crop users tend to want the extra reach so will go for a FF 70-200mm f/2.8 instead, as I understand it going EF-S isn't going to effect the size/price of tele's much.

One zoom that I think might be interesting is something between your typical normal and UWA ranges. Tokina seem to be targeting this with there new 12-28mm, I think something like a 14-35mm could be very popular if the price wasn't too high.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

You are right. If Sigma can do it, why can not Canon? About the statement "How important is 16mm", I say that I use a Tokina 16-50mm F2.8 and understand well the difference of 16mm to 17mm. Strongly urge that Canon makes a 16-55mm F2.8 IS, but would not pay $ 1300 for it.

They can but they don't want to. The reasons have been explained in this thread -- basically it doesn't play well with their overall strategy. What puzzles me about this thread is, why not just go ahead and buy what is available from manufacturers who have released a product that addresses your needs (Sigma, other third parties), instead of complaining about the manufacturers who have not done so (Canon)

I have a Tokina 16-50mm F2.8 and it looks like the mechanical bulletproof. I could buy the Canon 17-55mm, but honestly, I think a lot of money for a building only reasonable. Seems plausible that update the Canon 17-55mm at some point, improving construction and extending the range for 16-55mm F2.8 IS. If Tokina make, I would buy, but they do not manufacture lens image stabilizer. I have a Sigma 10-20mm in 10mm I use for 99% of the time. I wish I had 8mm straight, but the Sigma 8-16mm is too dark (F4.5-5.6) and does not accept filters. What I have seen is the Sigma, Tamron and Tokina are meeting some needs of photographers that Canon does not want to meet. I have a canon 50mm F1.4 which has many weaknesses, but I do not see much better options at the moment. As people clamor for 50mm F1.4 IS, Canon is busy putting in image stabilizer lenses 24mm and 28mm. I know there is no perfect lens, but I hope Canon improves what really needs improvement. However, if you like 28mm F2.8 IS that tripled the price of the updated version, guess I'll have to wait for new Sigma lenses.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I love this website and enjoy reading the posts here.

I wonder if anyone else thinks what I think--what we now call a dslr will, in a while, be fullframe...and the apsc sensors will be found on mirrorless.

I hope not. Why the evolution of technology should reduce the options currently available? Just as I do not wish to make the leap to full frame DSLR, do not want to stay with mirrorless. Who knows if in the future mirrorless offering a viewfinder as good as DSLR, ergonomics, speed autofocus, set of lenses and accessories, I might want one. 8)

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Personally I'd say the most obvious gap is a wider prime, either something like a 30mm 1.4 ala Sigma or a 20-25mmish pancake to go with the SL-1/100D.

I have my doubts as to whether theres a market for a 50-150mm f/2.8, I think crop users tend to want the extra reach so will go for a FF 70-200mm f/2.8 instead, as I understand it going EF-S isn't going to effect the size/price of tele's much.

One zoom that I think might be interesting is something between your typical normal and UWA ranges. Tokina seem to be targeting this with there new 12-28mm, I think something like a 14-35mm could be very popular if the price wasn't too high.

It is. Canon offers fast primes that are wide angle on APS-C ... EF14mm f2.8 $ 2100, also TS-E 17mm f4 $ 2300. I do not seem suitable to the purpose of the user 7D, for example. Tokina and Sigma has experienced major innovations in this area. Maybe a 15-45mm F2.8 costing $ 800?