Why not EF-s "L" lenses?

[EYEONE]

Would love to see a ef-s a 35-105 zoom.

Why?? ???

 

[Cropper]

I do think it would be a great idea for Canon to release a "Premium" line of EF-S lenses.
A blue ring would look nice ;D

They could have three zooms (wide angle, general purpose and telephoto) and maybe three fast primes (f1.4) with focal leghts more adapted for the 1.6 crop factor.

They could price them somewhere along the 600-1000 price range.

I have a feeling that there is definitly a market for it. But is it big enough to generate good profit margins, considering the investment needed and allocation of resourses ? That I doubt.

Good idea, I´m all for it, but sadly it will probably never happen

 

[dstppy]

I do think it would be a great idea for Canon to release a "Premium" line of EF-S lenses.
A blue ring would look nice ;D

They could have three zooms (wide angle, general purpose and telephoto) and maybe three fast primes (f1.4) with focal leghts more adapted for the 1.6 crop factor.

They could price them somewhere along the 600-1000 price range.

I have a feeling that there is definitly a market for it. But is it big enough to generate good profit margins, considering the investment needed and allocation of resourses ? That I doubt.

Good idea, I´m all for it, but sadly it will probably never happen

Honestly, if they just slapped a red ring on the EF-S 15-85mm people might actually stop bellyaching about the price. Build quality and image sharpness on that and the 60mm macro are quite nice.

 

[Rocky]

I do think it would be a great idea for Canon to release a "Premium" line of EF-S lenses.
A blue ring would look nice ;D

They could have three zooms (wide angle, general purpose and telephoto) and maybe three fast primes (f1.4) with focal leghts more adapted for the 1.6 crop factor.

Canon already has 17-50mm and 10-20mm. both are 'premium priced" EF-S. As for telephoto, It is really a waste of resouce to do EF-S. There are hardly any size (weight ) and cost saving. We may just use EF lens instead.
However. I am all for standard and wideangle EF-S lense. These are where the better performance and smaller size will come in. I would like to see a 30mm f1.8, 17mm f2.8 to start with. I did not ask for fast lens due to smaller size and better performance can be obtained with a "not that fast lens".

 

[moreorless]

Its probabley a fools dream but the EF-S prime I'd most like to see it an affordable wideangle TSE lens, something like 15mm. Obviously it would never be cheap but it does seem to me that Canon could potentially save alot on the production cost since the large amounts of glass probabley make up alot of what they charge for the FF ones.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

The fact is that most of the market for primes on crops is as a specalist lens for users who mainly depend on zooms and that makes a lower price point much more attractive.

To EF-S / APS-C users, not to Canon necessarily. The upside is a 30-35mm lens shouldn't be too hard to manufacture, so they wouldn't have to dump tons of resources into it. I'm sure they would rather sell 17-55mm f/2.8 lenses but that's not fooling anybody; a fast prime is still important. But, as I hinted before, they already have a few primes in this range - the "old" f/2 is still on sale and is around $370; the f/1.4 is about $1500, and you won't likely cut that price too much with a reduced image circle lens. Considering the decent range of affordable full-frame lenses (with reduced vignetting on APS-C) and the niche status of faster lenses, there doesn't seem to be a good argument for Canon to make the lens you're asking for.

 

[Loswr]

Honestly, if they just slapped a red ring on the EF-S 15-85mm people might actually stop bellyaching about the price. Build quality and image sharpness on that and the 60mm macro are quite nice.

The EF-S 15-85mm (like the EF-S 17-55mm and EF-S 10-22mm) delivers optical quality on par with many L lenses (when the latter are used on APS-C). But, build quality of those EF-S lenses, while 'quite nice,' is definitely not L quality.

To confess, I made similar comments about the excellent build quality of the 17-55mm after dropping a grand on it. But since then, I've bought several L lenses and the difference is evident. Comparing to the similarly-sized 24-105mm f/4L, the zoom and focus mechanisms on the L lens are much smoother and better damped, leading to a more solid overall feel. The 17-55mm feels a bit 'hollow' by comparison, especially the clunk as you hit the ends of the zoom range. So, nice, but not L.

But, as I hinted before, they already have a few primes in this range - the "old" f/2 is still on sale and is around $370; the f/1.4 is about $1500, and you won't likely cut that price too much with a reduced image circle lens. Considering the decent range of affordable full-frame lenses (with reduced vignetting on APS-C) and the niche status of faster lenses, there doesn't seem to be a good argument for Canon to make the lens you're asking for.

Nikon has an 'old' 35mm f/2 and a pro-quality 35mm f/1.4 in FX format, which are very close in price to their Canon EF counterparts. What do you suppose was Nikon's rationale for the 35mm f/1.8 DX lens? It's worth noting that on Amazon's list of bestselling lenses, the Nikon 35/1.8 DX is ranked #5 and is Nikon's second-best selling lens.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

Nikon has an 'old' 35mm f/2 and a pro-quality 35mm f/1.4 in FX format, which are very close in price to their Canon EF counterparts. What do you suppose was Nikon's rationale for the 35mm f/1.8 DX lens? It's worth noting that on Amazon's list of bestselling lenses, the Nikon 35/1.8 DX is ranked #5 and is Nikon's second-best selling lens.

I see - about $165 difference. Once again I'm totally wrong! I'm sure some of the savings are from the obviously reduced build quality (no distance scale window, notably smaller max magnification due to focusing a few inches farther than the f/2, but still the same weight) but (as I had hoped) Photozone's MTF charts (the APS-C 16mp D7000 results) show the DX format f/1.8 lens identical in corner sharpness but pulling far ahead beyond that. Outstanding! As for the f/2, from what I've been able to gather it was introduced around 2001, so not a particularly old lens - but perhaps not a modern classic either.

Since APS-C DSLRs are currently the mainstay in the market it does make sense to have a better, cheaper alternative to a full-frame lens whose image circle goes mainly unused (especially when it doesn't even give much better vignetting results than the lens, not to mention the apparently markedly worse resolution figures).

However, back to Canon lenses for a moment: The EF 35mm f/2 is $330, which seems a slight savings over the Nikkor lens ($360), so there is still an argument to be made that in terms of sheer price there could be an EF-S version made for substantial savings all around. The other side of the argument isn't as convincing - while the DX Nikkor 35 seems overall a much better lens (for its format) than the f/2 full format version, Canon's f/2 does not (again relying on Photozone's data) exhibit the marked resolution drop off beyond the centers. Still, I'll agree that cost is the primary consideration for many on the APS-C system. I wouldn't expect a EF-S version to get worse, but unlike the Nikkor side, I also don't expect it to get that much markedly better, either.

 

[Rocky]

I wouldn't expect a EF-S version to get worse, but unlike the Nikkor side, I also don't expect it to get that much markedly better, either.

If it is done right, the 35mm EF-S can outperform a 35mm EF easily. The 35mm EF is a wide angle lens (to cover the FF sensor). While 35mm EF-S (with equilvalent focal length of 56mm) is slightly longer than a "normal lens". Anybody with knowledge in lenses knows that it is harder to design a good wide angle lens than a good normal lens for SLR or DSLR due to the flange focal distance (42 to 47 mm depends on the camera, for Canon is 44mm). If fact most the SLR had 55mm as "normal les until the mid 60's for the same reason. They just cannot make a good 50mm lens. Also 35mm EF-S just need to cover less than half of area of FF. If they cannot make the35mm EF-S better than the 35mm EF, something is really wrong.
That is the reason we are asking for some short EF-S prime lens. may be a 30mm f1.8 and a 17mm f 2.8 prime in EF-S mount.

 

[Loswr]

If it is done right, the 35mm EF-S can outperform a 35mm EF easily. The 35mm EF is a wide angle lens (to cover the FF sensor). While 35mm EF-S (with equilvalent focal length of 56mm) is slightly longer than a "normal lens". Anybody with knowledge in lenses knows that it is harder to design a good wide angle lens than a good normal lens for SLR or DSLR due to the flange focal distance (42 to 47 mm depends on the camera, for Canon is 44mm).

It would certainly be possible for an EF-S 35mm lens to outperform an EF 35mm lens, but that would not be because designing a 35mm lens to cover an APS-C image circle is equivalent to designing a 56mm lens for FF. Focal length is the distance from the rear nodal point to the image plane, regardless of the sensor size. So, a 35mm lens for APS-C still must be designed with a 35mm focal length. The mirror on an APS-C camera is only ~9mm shorter (vertical dimension) than that on a FF camera, so an EF-S 35mm lens can would still require the retrofocus design you need for wide angle lens.

The real benefit to the EF-S format is that the image circle is smaller, which means the elements of the lens can be smaller in diameter. In the case of the inexpensive kit lenses, that usually just means less glass can be used, so the lens can be made more cheaply. But, it also means the for the same cost and lower total weight, they can include more elements in the lens design, or better-made elements (e.g. molded glass instead of a resin replica for aspherical elements), or both, and that increases the ability of the lens to correct for aberrations - i.e. better IQ.

 

[Rocky]

It would certainly be possible for an EF-S 35mm lens to outperform an EF 35mm lens, but that would not be because designing a 35mm lens to cover an APS-C image circle is equivalent to designing a 56mm lens for FF. Focal length is the distance from the rear nodal point to the image plane, regardless of the sensor size. So, a 35mm lens for APS-C still must be designed with a 35mm focal length. The mirror on an APS-C camera is only ~9mm shorter (vertical dimension) than that on a FF camera, so an EF-S 35mm lens can would still require the retrofocus design you need for wide angle lens.

The real benefit to the EF-S format is that the image circle is smaller, which means the elements of the lens can be smaller in diameter. In the case of the inexpensive kit lenses, that usually just means less glass can be used, so the lens can be made more cheaply. But, it also means the for the same cost and lower total weight, they can include more elements in the lens design, or better-made elements (e.g. molded glass instead of a resin replica for aspherical elements), or both, and that increases the ability of the lens to correct for aberrations - i.e. better IQ.

You are right. the reduction of 9mm between the back element of the EF-S lens and less than half of the covered area will definitely give the 35mm EF-S an edge to giveuis a better lens. It still needs retrofocus design as you mentioned. But the design should be a lot esier. Therefore the EF-S 35mm can be made better than a 35mm EF.

 

[Loswr]

Therefore the EF-S 35mm can be made better than a 35mm EF.

Can be. But will it be? Canon may very likely sacrifice IQ to keep cost low (Nikon's 35mm f/1.8 DX is $200). The current 35mm f/2 on APS-C is optically better than the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens, and actually delivers IQ similar to the excellent 85mm f/1.8. How much optical improvement do you expect from there?

The main complaints about the 35mm f/2 are that the build quality is poor, no USM, etc., and if they release an EF-S version of the lens, I doubt the build quality will be all that much better (assuming their target market is similar to Nikon's for that lens, they'll price it accordingly, and it will end up with build quality closer to the 18-55mm kit lens than to the 60mm macro).

 

[Rocky]

Therefore the EF-S 35mm can be made better than a 35mm EF.

Can be. But will it be? Canon may very likely sacrifice IQ to keep cost low (Nikon's 35mm f/1.8 DX is $200). The current 35mm f/2 on APS-C is optically better than the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens, and actually delivers IQ similar to the excellent 85mm f/1.8. How much optical improvement do you expect from there?

The main complaints about the 35mm f/2 are that the build quality is poor, no USM, etc., and if they release an EF-S version of the lens, I doubt the build quality will be all that much better (assuming their target market is similar to Nikon's for that lens, they'll price it accordingly, and it will end up with build quality closer to the 18-55mm kit lens than to the 60mm macro).

You are right again.
May be Canon marketing have an idea that people like to think " Mine is bigger than yours". So APS-C user are forced EF prime lenses. For the deep pockets they go for BIG prime L lenses. For none deep pocket, they use non-L prime lenses.
Unfortunately, I am from a slightly old school . I like it small and good. That is why I am longing for good EF-S prime. As for the pricing, If the 7D user will spend $1600 on the body only, I am sure that they would not mind to pay for a EF-S good prime (optically and true USM) with the price close to the L lenses with smaller size and weight.
I know, I am the minority.

 

[Loswr]

That is why I am longing for good EF-S prime. As for the pricing, If the 7D user will spend $1600 on the body only, I am sure that they would not mind to pay for a EF-S good prime (optically and true USM) with the price close to the L lenses with smaller size and weight.
I know, I am the minority.

Unfortunately, you are. As a group, 7D users are in the minority - in the APS-C segment, Canon sells a lot more Rebel/xxxD cameras than xxD or 7D, or even the latter two combined. Canon's best selling lens is the EF 50mm f/1.8 II, which is similar in design to the 35mm f/2 (although even lower in build), and it's no coincidence that the nifty-fifty is also their cheapest lens outside of a kit purchase. My guess is that Canon's marketing department will try to capitalize on that, and an EF-S 35mm f/1.8 in the sub-$200 range would garner more profits from that segment.

You have a 7D...for better or worse (and it's definitely worse from the standpoint of a prosumer's wallet!), Canon wants you to buy the EF 35mm f/1.4L. Then they want you to buy a 5DII to use the full image circle of that fancy L lens. Then they want you to buy the 50mm f/1.2L so you can get the same framing you liked with the 35L on APS-C. Etc. :

 

[Freshprince08]

That is why I am longing for good EF-S prime. As for the pricing, If the 7D user will spend $1600 on the body only, I am sure that they would not mind to pay for a EF-S good prime (optically and true USM) with the price close to the L lenses with smaller size and weight.
I know, I am the minority.

Unfortunately, you are. As a group, 7D users are in the minority - in the APS-C segment, Canon sells a lot more Rebel/xxxD cameras than xxD or 7D, or even the latter two combined. Canon's best selling lens is the EF 50mm f/1.8 II, which is similar in design to the 35mm f/2 (although even lower in build), and it's no coincidence that the nifty-fifty is also their cheapest lens outside of a kit purchase. My guess is that Canon's marketing department will try to capitalize on that, and an EF-S 35mm f/1.8 in the sub-$200 range would garner more profits from that segment.

You have a 7D...for better or worse (and it's definitely worse from the standpoint of a prosumer's wallet!), Canon wants you to buy the EF 35mm f/1.4L. Then they want you to buy a 5DII to use the full image circle of that fancy L lens. Then they want you to buy the 50mm f/1.2L so you can get the same framing you liked with the 35L on APS-C. Etc. :

+1 on this.... I'm making this exact journey - my 35mm f1.4L is arriving this week. Goddamn those cunning Canon strategists....

 

[Edwin Herdman]

What is most immediately evident (even in the store) when you compare EF and EF-S is not that designation, or a reduced image circle, but all the small psychological boosts of the newer lens over the older. Again for the Nikkor 35mm lenses, over the f/2 version the newer DX version boasts stuff you might notice in a shop: Slightly wider aperture, newer (and better) focusing system, price. There are a handful of losses compared to the f/2 but most only become apparent on testing (DPR found a high degree of vignetting on the DX which makes perfect sense when you try to widen the aperture whilst keeping the front element about the same size).

 

[WarStreet]

You have a 7D...for better or worse (and it's definitely worse from the standpoint of a prosumer's wallet!), Canon wants you to buy the EF 35mm f/1.4L. Then they want you to buy a 5DII to use the full image circle of that fancy L lens. Then they want you to buy the 50mm f/1.2L so you can get the same framing you liked with the 35L on APS-C. Etc. :

Funny. One of the reasons for me to go FF, is to use the full image circle, then I will need to get a standard zoom, and also a 135 to get the same framing of the 85. Seems Canon will achieve their aim !

 

[Loswr]

You have a 7D...for better or worse (and it's definitely worse from the standpoint of a prosumer's wallet!), Canon wants you to buy the EF 35mm f/1.4L. Then they want you to buy a 5DII to use the full image circle of that fancy L lens. Then they want you to buy the 50mm f/1.2L so you can get the same framing you liked with the 35L on APS-C. Etc. :

+1 on this.... I'm making this exact journey - my 35mm f1.4L is arriving this week. Goddamn those cunning Canon strategists....

LOL. Been there, done that. 7D + 85mm f/1.8. Wanted more OOF blur, so got the 85mm f/1.2L II. Got 5DII. Then got 135mm f/2L.

That first lens with a red ring is called a 'gateway lens' for a reason.....