why????

[recon photography]

why does no one make say a 16-50mm f2.0 or something similar for crop cameras sure it would be expensive but i think people would be willing to pay for it, i would pay 70-200mm is f2.8 is money for it.

On a side not canon should make an L-s range for good crop for lenses like this. i aim fairly certain within a few years full frame will be less popular with the ridiculous iso performance of new crop cameras and the possibility of photo binning (don't ask me about it i'm a noob but basically you have option to reduce megapixels to get better iso performance)

 

[Canihaspicture]

Why not use the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS like everyone else who needs that range. One stop is not going to make that much difference in your photos especially at wide angles and using a crop sensor.

If you want something better for low light and wide angle then you should be using a prime EF 24 f/1.4L II on a full frame.

Personally I am of the opposite opinion. I think in the next few years we will see full frame gain more popularity simply because it's better in every way except cost.

 

[motorhead]

recon,

I tend to think that crop will fade as full-frame begins to regain it's natural place in the scheme of things. For that reason I would not be tempted to spend large sums on lenses that will only fit crop framers. I currently use a 30D, but all my lenses are "L" EF for that reason. Even a "35mm" full frame is tiny compared to "proper" medium or large format cameras.

 

[recon photography]

there is really very little IQ difference between a t31/600d and 1ds with the same lens and look at the price difference. iso is very important to me i like stars and hope to shoot some mma in the future but with what i heard to expect from the next version of the 7d 60d etc its looks to be pretty impressive i do like the 1.3x crop and i'll be sad to see that go i really feel like that is the perfect sensor size but ultimately the price difference with the 5d and the t3i or 600d is almost is a little IQ and some iso if the gap is closed again with this next line-up i really cannot see the point in full-frame unless you are peter lik or a model photographer but for me this is just a hobby

 

[NormanBates]

given nobody makes such fast zooms, it must be difficult to get decent image quality out of them, even with a smaller (APS-C) sensor

what I'd want is EF-S fast and cheap primes, like a 35mm f/1.4 with the same quality as the L version but only covering APS-C, and for $600 to $800; it is much cheaper to design and build lenses for smaller sensors, so this must not be THAT difficult

@motorhead: I think aps-c or similar will be with us for a long, long time
no matter how much technology improves, building a full-frame sensor will always be much more expensive than building an APS-C one, precisely because it takes up a bigger area so you get fewer of them from each silicon wafer
given yields also fall exponentially with die size, my guess is a full-frame chip will always be about 3 times as expensive as an APS-C chip
and Moore's law won't help you here: it will make both APS-C and full-frame sensors better (less noise, higher Mpix, higher DR) but it won't hake full-frame sensors any cheaper compared with equivalent APS-C sensors
that's why I think it's foolish not to put more effort into delivering good APS-C glass (as, as I said before, designing a lens for a smaller sensor is much easier and cheaper; that's the reason a $400 camcorder can have a 6-34mm f/1.8-3.1 (for a 6x crop sensor)

 

[dr croubie]

given yields also fall exponentially with die size, my guess is a full-frame chip will always be about 3 times as expensive as an APS-C chip

I can't find the link, but i read very recently that a FF sensor actually costs 20x an APS-C sensor because of the yield and possibility of defects...

As for the OP, i've always wondered why they can't do a smaller f/2.0 zoom, even a f/2.0-3.5 variable-aperture zoom would be nice (i think sigma did this, but it went 'slow' fairly early in the zoom range).

But the marketing department obviously has strong opinions or reasons, canon are among the last hold-outs not producing an APS-C prime lens yet.
Their thinking is probably going along the lines of only producing/updating L-primes for FF, we APS-C users haven't spent enough on a camera so we don't care 'that' much about IQ, so we're content with our current range (efs 10-22, 17-55/2.8, and 15-85 being the only standout-IQ designs in the efs range, still nothing's sealed).
(and the sooner they realise that's BS the better for all of us, the more people shout in places like this the sooner it might come, we can only hope )

 

[DJL329]

If you consider the fact the widest EF lenses (14mm, 15mm fisheye and 16-35mm) are all f/2.8, not 2.0, and I think you will find your answer.

 

[Loswr]

But the marketing department obviously has strong opinions or reasons, canon are among the last hold-outs not producing an APS-C prime lens yet.

EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro?

 

[aldvan]

there is really very little IQ difference between a t31/600d and 1ds with the same lens and look at the price difference. iso is very important to me i like stars and hope to shoot some mma in the future but with what i heard to expect from the next version of the 7d 60d etc its looks to be pretty impressive i do like the 1.3x crop and i'll be sad to see that go i really feel like that is the perfect sensor size but ultimately the price difference with the 5d and the t3i or 600d is almost is a little IQ and some iso if the gap is closed again with this next line-up i really cannot see the point in full-frame unless you are peter lik or a model photographer but for me this is just a hobby

That a crop sensor has very little IQ difference versus an 1Ds Mk3 or also a 5D Mk2 sensor is less than an urban legend. And I'm considering, here also the top of the APS-C sensor camera, the 7D. You can love the 7D for many reason but not for the IQ, if confronted with a FF. I sold the really nice 7D after few months since whenever I took a picture with it, instead of the 5D Mk2, I had to regret in terms of IQ. For every enhancements that APS-C will get, the same enhancements transferred on a FF will be amplified...
Furthemore, I think that to be a pro or an amateur is insensitive if you aren't taking just birthday pictures. If IQ is not important for you, a bridge camera is just enough. In my opinion, my free time (i.e. time spent in no business activities) is more precious than my business time and I pretend the best from that...

 

[NormanBates]

given yields also fall exponentially with die size, my guess is a full-frame chip will always be about 3 times as expensive as an APS-C chip

I can't find the link, but i read very recently that a FF sensor actually costs 20x an APS-C sensor because of the yield and possibility of defects...

well, it depends on the yields

my guess was based on an assumtion of 90% yields on APS-C sensors, which would lead to a 71% yield on full-frame sensors

20x cost is what you get if yields are below 70% for APS-C, and thus below 10% for full-frame

initially that would sound too low to my ears, but maybe you're right: with such low yields, each full-frame chip would cost around $500 just for the chip (ten working chips out of a $5000 wafer), which would be outrageous for a PC processor (which is where my limited knowledge about yields and wafers comes from), but wouldn't be a huge problem on a $3K to $8K camera

and that would mean $30 per APS-C sensor (166 working chips out of a $5000 wafer), which sounds pretty reasonable, and tells me this format is not going away anytime soon

 

[Flake]

Contrary to what seems to be popular opinion Full Frame is definitley not better in all ways than Crop. Problems with Vignetting and edge & corner softness exist even in the most expensive lenses, they are much much less of an issue with crop bodies.

Then there's the Field of view bonus which makes longer lenses into much longer telephotos without the phenomenal cost FF demands. Or Macro where it's much easier to fill the frame and there's a depth of field bonus equivalent to the crop factor.

Flash sync is faster too at 1/250th compared to 1/200th sec maybe not much but it is better.

Full frame scores in brighter viewfinders, better low light performance, lower noise & higher dynamic range (not as much as you might think). Depth of field is much more controllable, it's easier to blur backgrounds, and personally I think wide angle is better, although crop wide angles have become much better.

FF is not a panacea for perceived camera shortcommings, there are positives & negatives to both & to be honest I think it's worthwhile having one of each body to get the best out of both systems.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'd say it is a matter of price. A person can step up to FF for less money than the lens might cost, and the better ISO performance would give you a stop or even more advantage.

 

[UncleFester]

Contrary to what seems to be popular opinion Full Frame is definitley not better in all ways than Crop. Problems with Vignetting and edge & corner softness exist even in the most expensive lenses, they are much much less of an issue with crop bodies.

I'm surprised that this is such a big issue with a lot of full-frame users. Maybe it's more apparent on landscapes with dark, polarized skies, but then that is already pushing the limits of ff.

 

[Flake]

Contrary to what seems to be popular opinion Full Frame is definitley not better in all ways than Crop. Problems with Vignetting and edge & corner softness exist even in the most expensive lenses, they are much much less of an issue with crop bodies.

I'm surprised that this is such a big issue with a lot of full-frame users. Maybe it's more apparent on landscapes with dark, polarized skies, but then that is already pushing the limits of ff.

It's apparant on nearly every shot! Architechture is particularly susceptable - skies on the other hand are not. The 5D MKII has peripheral illumination control, and the sensible do enable that!

 

[aldvan]

Contrary to what seems to be popular opinion Full Frame is definitley not better in all ways than Crop. Problems with Vignetting and edge & corner softness exist even in the most expensive lenses, they are much much less of an issue with crop bodies.

Then there's the Field of view bonus which makes longer lenses into much longer telephotos without the phenomenal cost FF demands. Or Macro where it's much easier to fill the frame and there's a depth of field bonus equivalent to the crop factor.

Flash sync is faster too at 1/250th compared to 1/200th sec maybe not much but it is better.

Full frame scores in brighter viewfinders, better low light performance, lower noise & higher dynamic range (not as much as you might think). Depth of field is much more controllable, it's easier to blur backgrounds, and personally I think wide angle is better, although crop wide angles have become much better.

FF is not a panacea for perceived camera shortcommings, there are positives & negatives to both & to be honest I think it's worthwhile having one of each body to get the best out of both systems.

I'm sorry to say that the so called FF defects are a typical Internet forum hyperbole. Comparing a FF image with a APS-C image is an easy test, that everybody owns both the worlds can easily perform. I own just L series lens, now, and two FF bodies. Until few weeks ago I owned also a 7D and one year and half ago, I owned a 50D with many EF-S lenses. Comparing my FF and APS-C pictures (thousands and thousands of both) is something that leaves me regretting for all the pictures not taken by the FF camera, unless you don't limit yourself to watch your pictures in a small monitor and without magnification.
Vignetting (also at 16mm on FF) is something happening just under particular situations, and in a way easily eliminated in PP (RAW+PP is my only way). By the way, my old 50D+EF-S 10-22, for obvious reasons, had the same chance to vignet. The same apply for telephoto lenses. My illusion to gain focal lenght applying the same lens to an APS-C body, immediately disappeared when I compared a cropped FF picture to a full APS-C. The IQ quality was, in the worst case, the same. The pixel sharpness of a FF is uncomparable. And if I had the right budget,I would pass to a medium format, without any esitations...

 

[lol]

given nobody makes such fast zooms, it must be difficult to get decent image quality out of them, even with a smaller (APS-C) sensor

Kinda - if you go to the slightly smaller sensor FourThirds world, they have two f/2 zooms: 14-35mm and 35-100mm. Sit down before you look at the price though.

I've also seen some long f/1.4 or was it f/1.8 zooms in C-mount (think it was a Sony 18-100mm) which was tempting me but someone else beat me to it. They cover an even smaller image circle than 4/3 though.

I think f/2 zooms in APS-C are very possible, but they would be of even shorter range than existing f/2.8 zooms and the price would be rather insane. So overall you might as well stick to the f/2.8 zooms or get the faster primes.

As for the long term survival of APS-C DSLRs, that depends entirely on what happens with mirrorless systems. Can they gain enough traction to displace APS-C DSLRs, leaving only full frame DSLRs taking a niche at the high end. Or will mirrorless fail to make an impact, where APS-C DSLRs will remain a sweet spot for a long time? We'll have to wait and see.

 

[Rocky]

why does no one make say a 16-50mm f2.0 or something similar for crop cameras sure it would be expensive but i think people would be willing to pay for it, i would pay 70-200mm is f2.8 is money for it.

On a side not canon should make an L-s range for good crop for lenses like this. i aim fairly certain within a few years full frame will be less popular with the ridiculous iso performance of new crop cameras and the possibility of photo binning (don't ask me about it i'm a noob but basically you have option to reduce megapixels to get better iso performance)

The lens that you want is an excellent walk around lens. However, it may be a monster in size and weight. just look at the 17-50 f2.8 EF-S. It is 4.4 inches long, using 77 mm filter and weights 1.4 lbs. If it was f2.0 and 16- 50 mm, it might be using 90mm filter or larger and weighed over 2 lbs easily. The 16-35 already uses 83 mm filter. How many people will like to have a monster like tah tas a walk around lens and can be spotted from far away???

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

why does no one make say a 16-50mm f2.0 or something similar for crop cameras sure it would be expensive but i think people would be willing to pay for it, i would pay 70-200mm is f2.8 is money for it.

On a side not canon should make an L-s range for good crop for lenses like this. i aim fairly certain within a few years full frame will be less popular with the ridiculous iso performance of new crop cameras and the possibility of photo binning (don't ask me about it i'm a noob but basically you have option to reduce megapixels to get better iso performance)

The lens that you want is an excellent walk around lens. However, it may be a monster in size and weight. just look at the 17-50 f2.8 EF-S. It is 4.4 inches long, using 77 mm filter and weights 1.4 lbs. If it was f2.0 and 16- 50 mm, it might be using 90mm filter or larger and weighed over 2 lbs easily. The 16-35 already uses 83 mm filter. How many people will like to have a monster like tah tas a walk around lens and can be spotted from far away???

Since he is rerferring to APS-C, I assume he means EF-s, which would be about the size and weight of a 16-35, but it would likely cost more.

 

[Rocky]

and that would mean $30 per APS-C sensor (166 working chips out of a $5000 wafer), which sounds pretty reasonable, and tells me this format is not going away anytime soon

You must have been using the number from the white paper by Canon. the APS-C potential site is REALLY wrong. My estimate is that there may be only 75 sites for the 8 inch wafer for APS-C sensor. Let us assume the yield for APS-C is 75 %, then we will have 56 sensor per wafer, $5000 per wafer, that will be $90 per sensor. Assuming the yield for FF is 25% (1/3 of the yield of APS-C, being pressimistic ). then each wafer will yield 5 FF sensor. that will be $1000 per sensor. That seems about right. If wecompare the price of &D to 5D MkII, It is about $800 difference.
My personal opinion is that the Canon white paper is used to justify the high price of the FF body. The site of the FF sensor on the wafer may be 22 to 24. That will bring the yield up to be 6 sensor per wafer. and the difference in cost will be $770 instead of $1000.We are assuming that the wafer cost is $5000. Which is extremely high for a CMOS process. What if the wafer cost is $2500, than the difference of FF sensor and APS_C snesor will only be $450 or even $370.

 

[Canihaspicture]

Canon uses 300mm wafers