We want more EF-S lens

[ajfotofilmagem]

Tell me which EF-S lenses you would like to buy if it existed. Would have some advantage over existing lenses, even if it is just the price.
My short list:
EF-S 8-16mm F4-5.6 $ 800 (non-fisheye)
EF-S 16-55mm F2.8 IS $ 900 (I have a dream ...)
EF-S 17-70mm F4 IS $ 500 (not impossible)
EF-S 55-150mm F2.8 IS $ 1100 (so sexy)
EF-S 135-500mm F4-5.6 IS $ 1200 (not too heavy)
Does my dreams will be met? What is your dream lens EF-S?

 

[paul13walnut5]

An 8-11 that was faster.

Would be a perfect match for my tokina 11-16.

 

[Promature]

Tell me which EF-S lenses you would like to buy if it existed. Would have some advantage over existing lenses, even if it is just the price.
My short list:
EF-S 8-16mm F4-5.6 $ 800 (non-fisheye)
EF-S 16-55mm F2.8 IS $ 900 (I have a dream ...)
EF-S 17-70mm F4 IS $ 500 (not impossible)
EF-S 55-150mm F2.8 IS $ 1100 (so sexy)
EF-S 135-500mm F4-5.6 IS $ 1200 (not too heavy)
Does my dreams will be met? What is your dream lens EF-S?

Canon already has the 10-22, so don't need the 6-16.
Canon already has the 17-55, so don't need the 16-55.
Canon already has the 15-85, so don't need the 17-70.
A 55-200 F2.8 could be interesting.
The 135-500 would be my pick.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Its a one sided poll. I would not buy any because FF bodies are the up and coming thing. I've nothing against APS-C, I own one, but EF lenses work fine on them and can be used on my FF body as well.

 

[duydaniel]

I doubt Canon/Nikon will ever go shorter than 10mm on DX camera because they don't want
competition with their Rectilinear widest angle lenses (Nikon 14-24) or (Canon 16-35)

17-55 2.8 is the best one lens on DX just like the 24-70 2.8 on FX imo.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Tell me which EF-S lenses you would like to buy if it existed. Would have some advantage over existing lenses, even if it is just the price.
My short list:
EF-S 8-16mm F4-5.6 $ 800 (non-fisheye)
EF-S 16-55mm F2.8 IS $ 900 (I have a dream ...)
EF-S 17-70mm F4 IS $ 500 (not impossible)
EF-S 55-150mm F2.8 IS $ 1100 (so sexy)
EF-S 135-500mm F4-5.6 IS $ 1200 (not too heavy)
Does my dreams will be met? What is your dream lens EF-S?

Canon already has the 10-22, so don't need the 6-16.
Canon already has the 17-55, so don't need the 16-55.
Canon already has the 15-85, so don't need the 17-70.
A 55-200 F2.8 could be interesting.
The 135-500 would be my pick.

In fact, the difference between 8mm and 10mm is quite noticeable, and although I would also like a 8mm F2.8, it seems that Canon does not plan to primes EF-S lenses. Also I think 16-55mm is a useful improvement over the current 17-55. My wish is that it would be 17-70mm F4, not F3.5-5.6 as the current 15-85. What we have seen is Tamrom Sigma and investing more in developing new lenses for APS-C, Canon while showing little interest in the area.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Its a one sided poll. I would not buy any because FF bodies are the up and coming thing. I've nothing against APS-C, I own one, but EF lenses work fine on them and can be used on my FF body as well.

In the case of prime lenses, a few millimeters not make much difference, because we will do the zoom with your feet. On the other hand, we need zoom lenses in situations where we can not or do not want to walk to get the required distance, as in a theater chair. In this case EF lenses do not always coincide with the range of zoom we need in APS-C.

 

[PVS]

As long as no one is complaining about lenses being weather-sealed L coated Canon already got you served.

Welcome to teh FF, now give them more money for the new set of lenses.

 

[papa-razzi]

Its a one sided poll. I would not buy any because FF bodies are the up and coming thing. I've nothing against APS-C, I own one, but EF lenses work fine on them and can be used on my FF body as well.

+1 I'm with Spokane on this one. The EF-S lenses exist to fill gaps where the EF lenses don't exist. For example the 15-85 and 17-55 cover the normal zoom on the crops where the 24-xx don't get wide enough. The 10-22 is the same - a wide angle for crops where the 17-40 wouldn't be that wide. The EF-S 60mm macro is another.

For most everything else, there is an EF lens that will do the trick nicely. We really don't need a horde of EF-S lenses. I think Canon has done a nice job on plugging the gaps for crop.

The rest of the EF-S lenses are consumer lenses for the entry level person.

 

[rs]

I doubt Canon/Nikon will ever go shorter than 10mm on DX camera because they don't want
competition with their Rectilinear widest angle lenses (Nikon 14-24) or (Canon 16-35)

17-55 2.8 is the best one lens on DX just like the 24-70 2.8 on FX imo.

The Canon 16-35 on FF has exactly the same angle of view as the EF-S 10-22 does on crop, so purely from the wideness point of view, it already is competition. About 90% of my shots taken with the 10-22 are taken at 10mm. If it went to 8mm, I'm sure that would be my most used focal length with that lens.

Regarding the normal zoom range, since moving to FF I find the 24-70 range much more useful that 17-55 is on crop. I'd therefore vote for a 15-44/2.8 IS as a replacement for the 17-55.

 

[Haydn1971]

Its a one sided poll. I would not buy any because FF bodies are the up and coming thing. I've nothing against APS-C, I own one, but EF lenses work fine on them and can be used on my FF body as well.

I don't really believe that crop sensors will ever go away now - the benefits are for too great for the manufacturers in the mass market - however here in lays the problem, the vast majority of crop camera owners will never own more than two lenses, many of these will stick with just the one "super zoom". However, looking at the options, the EOS-M 22mm f2.0 is nearly a third of the depth and weight of the full frame 35mm f2.0 (ok so this has IS) - so I feel that there is an opportunity to provide a small range of crop specific primes, which a widened range of FF pancakes wouldn't necessarily forfill.

Similarly with the crop zooms, the 15-85mm is a cracking lens, but crop users need more like it, the 17-55mm is getting old, it could be improved in a number of ways, there isn't a decent crop specific zoom to match the 70-200mm range (something like a 40-135mm f2.8 would be nice) - the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II just looks silly on a 700D, but as a starting camera, more serious users are likely to grab an extra lens or two and the 70-200 range is popular.

I'd love to know the breakdown of lens sales to users, whilst we speculate, I really do think that the crop user is underestimated by the minority FF buyer, especially in the UK where I live, you hardly ever see FF cameras other than in the hands of wedding photographers and even then it's just as likely to be a crop body.

 

[Woody]

My dream: EF-S 30mm f/1.4 USM

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

I doubt Canon/Nikon will ever go shorter than 10mm on DX camera because they don't want competition with their Rectilinear widest angle lenses (Nikon 14-24) or (Canon 16-35)

They already have competition with Sigma's 8-16mm lens, so it might make sense competing with it and getting some sales back.

 

[bardamu]

EF-S does need some development, badly. In primes particularly. Admittedly, the relatively recent 24 & 35 non-L rejuvenations mitigate that a little. EF 24mm IS can pinch hit as a 35 on crop, 35 IS as a 50. But it would still be nice to see:

EF-S 24mm equiv (16mm f/whatever IS)
EF-S 35mm equiv (22mm f/whatever IS)
EF-S 50mm equiv (31mm f/whatever IS)
and some more pancakes !!!

The FF options listed above are not cheap, EF-S equivs would surely be cheaper. There is a saying that if you don't cannibalise your own products then somebody else will - it seems odd for MFT and mirrorless systems to have a proliferation of primes whilst Nikon and Canon crops get nothing. Canon is not alone, this is the number one complaint from Thom Hogan in the last few months. The most logical explanation is that Canikon are trying to push more ambitious crop users into FF systems. But giving more lens options to crop would not take away some of the other attractions of FF like better high ISO performance and shallower DOF.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I doubt Canon/Nikon will ever go shorter than 10mm on DX camera because they don't want
competition with their Rectilinear widest angle lenses (Nikon 14-24) or (Canon 16-35)

17-55 2.8 is the best one lens on DX just like the 24-70 2.8 on FX imo.

The Canon 16-35 on FF has exactly the same angle of view as the EF-S 10-22 does on crop, so purely from the wideness point of view, it already is competition. About 90% of my shots taken with the 10-22 are taken at 10mm. If it went to 8mm, I'm sure that would be my most used focal length with that lens.

Regarding the normal zoom range, since moving to FF I find the 24-70 range much more useful that 17-55 is on crop. I'd therefore vote for a 15-44/2.8 IS as a replacement for the 17-55.

One thing we must remember is that the Canon APS-C is more croped than Nikon (1.6X to 1.5X), then using EF lenses, we always have less wide angle. If 17mm is wide enough for Nikon to Canon is not. Accept that is 10-22mm were extended to 8mm, most of the time would I 8mm. However, I know that a replacement 8-22mm would be too heavy and too expensive. Therefore Sigma 8-16mm is very successful. Yes, 15-44mm F2.8 would be great, but it should not cost more than $ 1000 to be worth.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Its a one sided poll. I would not buy any because FF bodies are the up and coming thing. I've nothing against APS-C, I own one, but EF lenses work fine on them and can be used on my FF body as well.

I don't really believe that crop sensors will ever go away now - the benefits are for too great for the manufacturers in the mass market - however here in lays the problem, the vast majority of crop camera owners will never own more than two lenses, many of these will stick with just the one "super zoom". However, looking at the options, the EOS-M 22mm f2.0 is nearly a third of the depth and weight of the full frame 35mm f2.0 (ok so this has IS) - so I feel that there is an opportunity to provide a small range of crop specific primes, which a widened range of FF pancakes wouldn't necessarily forfill.

Similarly with the crop zooms, the 15-85mm is a cracking lens, but crop users need more like it, the 17-55mm is getting old, it could be improved in a number of ways, there isn't a decent crop specific zoom to match the 70-200mm range (something like a 40-135mm f2.8 would be nice) - the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II just looks silly on a 700D, but as a starting camera, more serious users are likely to grab an extra lens or two and the 70-200 range is popular.

I'd love to know the breakdown of lens sales to users, whilst we speculate, I really do think that the crop user is underestimated by the minority FF buyer, especially in the UK where I live, you hardly ever see FF cameras other than in the hands of wedding photographers and even then it's just as likely to be a crop body.

I agree entirely with Haydn1971. Indeed, Canon needs to understand that in most countries, APS-C cameras dominate the market, even for professional use. Affluent consumers in rich countries do not care about APS-C, after they pay the value of a monthly salary for a full frame camera with a lens L. It turns out that most of the planet, the same full frame camera with a lens L costs three months' salary, perhaps up to five months. I think the blame for the Canon 17-55mm is so expensive is its Nikon equivalent cost $ 1300. Does not have options intermediate between Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm $ 600 and the original Canon and Nikon 17-55mm $ 1200? In my town, I watch dozens of weddings every year, and only see professional photographers using cameras full frame in 5% of the time. Why is it? It is because a Canon 6D with 24-105mm L costs $ 4,000 american dollars.

 

[Dylan777]

After jumping from crop to FF, EF-S is no longer on my wish list. Do wish for more PANCAKES though.

2005, I started with 40D + 17-55 + 50 f1.4

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

My dream: EF-S 30mm f/1.4 USM

Me too. Moreover, EF-S22mm F2, EF-S15mm F2.8, EF-S10mm F2.8(non-fisheye). When comes the long awaited 7D Mark II, which are the wide angle primes high quality for it? 24mmL U.S. $ 1550 and 14mmL $ 2100? That's it?

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

EF-S does need some development, badly. In primes particularly. Admittedly, the relatively recent 24 & 35 non-L rejuvenations mitigate that a little. EF 24mm IS can pinch hit as a 35 on crop, 35 IS as a 50. But it would still be nice to see:

EF-S 24mm equiv (16mm f/whatever IS)
EF-S 35mm equiv (22mm f/whatever IS)
EF-S 50mm equiv (31mm f/whatever IS)
and some more pancakes !!!

The FF options listed above are not cheap, EF-S equivs would surely be cheaper. There is a saying that if you don't cannibalise your own products then somebody else will - it seems odd for MFT and mirrorless systems to have a proliferation of primes whilst Nikon and Canon crops get nothing. Canon is not alone, this is the number one complaint from Thom Hogan in the last few months. The most logical explanation is that Canikon are trying to push more ambitious crop users into FF systems. But giving more lens options to crop would not take away some of the other attractions of FF like better high ISO performance and shallower DOF.

That's right. If Canon does not cannibalize their sales of lenses L, Sigma will. In fact, already doing. I also believe that Canon will not risk if Nikon does not. But already Nikon offers 35mm f/1.8 DX, 40mm f/2.8 DX Macro, 85mm f/3.5 DX Macro VR, 10.5mm f/2.8 DX Fisheye. And canon, offers only EF-S 60mm F2.8 macro. Nothing more.

 

[tiger82]

Wouldn't you prefer the flexibility to go FF without chucking all of your EF-S lenses or duplicating them? An EF-S 10-22 is equivalent to 16-35 when it reaches the sensor? A 16-35 EF would be a 24-55 equivalent on an APS-C. I guess my point is if you want to go wide or UWA then you should go FF. I bought a 5D to complement my 7D because it made more sense to buy a 16-35/2.8 EF for the 5D than a 10-22/3.5-4.5 EF-S for the 7D. When I need the extra reach, the 7D and 1D gives me a 1.6 and 1.3 crop factor on the long lenses.