why????

[WarStreet]

Believe me when I say i am holding my breath on such a camera. I have the funding set aside and while I would prefer to hold off until a 5d 3, if i dont see any camera POSSIBILITY within the next quarter, I may have to get a mark II and unload it when the mark III comes out...

Since I am not a pro I have the luxury to wait. In your case, you will have to do some gain/loss evaluations by getting the 5DII and sell it later. I doubt we will see a 5DIII in the next quarter, but we might get an announcement. Monitoring Nikon should help us find out more about the 5DIII expectations and release dates. I expect an announcement and maybe even a release of the D700 replacement within this year. But this is just an educated guess, nothing more.

 

[awinphoto]

Believe me when I say i am holding my breath on such a camera. I have the funding set aside and while I would prefer to hold off until a 5d 3, if i dont see any camera POSSIBILITY within the next quarter, I may have to get a mark II and unload it when the mark III comes out...

Since I am not a pro I have the luxury to wait. In your case, you will have to do some gain/loss evaluations by getting the 5DII and sell it later. I doubt we will see a 5DIII in the next quarter, but we might get an announcement. Monitoring Nikon should help us find out more about the 5DIII expectations and release dates. I expect an announcement and maybe even a release of the D700 replacement within this year. But this is just an educated guess, nothing more.

I do shoot professionally and as of right now, my 7D is quite serviceable for 99% of all my clients needs right now. Switching to the 5D would be more of a personal preference because of the full frame sensor and the little bit more ISO/IQ i'd get from such a camera. In the time being i also have CPS in my back pocket to get loaners of 5d's and 1d's if and when a shoot pops up in which i need that camera... I can wait longer if needed, I just wish canon will "show their cards" soon.

 

[AJ]

I agree with you, Unfocused, that APSC isn't going away. It's the new 35 mm. Quality is good enough for most folks including myself.

I'm generally a defender of Canon, but I am really having some doubts about their lens division. I'm just not sure it shares the same vision as the rest of the SLR unit. Seriously, look at the lenses they've chosen to introduce over the past few years: updates of massive supertelephotos that fill a tiny niche market, a nice quality 70-300 mm L zoom that the jury is still out on whether there is any market for it; a specialty fisheye zoom that also fits a narrow niche audience and which they can't even seem to bring to market anyway.

In the meantime the SLR division brought out the 7D and 60D, two higher-end APS-C bodies, and aside from the 15-85 mm zoom, there have been no corresponding lenses released.

Imagine the sales jump they'd have if they introduced an EF-S 100-400mm f4? Lighter, faster and about the same price as the current full frame 100-400. Sports and wildlife photographers would be lining up to buy that lens and 7D combination. (Now before all the nitpickers start picking away, this is only an example of the creative options that the lens division could be following if they were to get with the EF-S program like their SLR brethren have gotten with the crop sensor program.)

I have to wonder if the lens division needs more forward-thinking management.

Well they did put out a few consumer zooms like 18-135 and 18-200. Yawn. The 60/2.8 macro is pretty nice though. Goes to show that Canon aren't opposed in principle to EF-S primes.

Still sorely missing is a cheapo 30/1.8 Hello, paging Canon? Must counter Nikon on this??

17-55/2.8 IS is a nice lens but it's hideously overpriced. It should be around 700 bucks. I'm thinking about selling mine.

Now that Tokina and Sigma have discontinued their 55-135/2.8 and 55-150/2.8 respectively (OS version on the way supposedly) there's a gaping hole out there for a quality 55-something portrait zoom lens. IMO an EF-S 55-135/2.8 IS is sorely needed. And this lens shouldn't cost more than 1200 bucks.

FWIW, 100-400/4 would have a 100 mm front element regardless of its imaging circle. Huge size+price jump. Sigma's new 120-300/2.8 OS has more than a few folks salivating though. Now there's a sports+nature lens.

 

[Haydn1971]

The key advantage of crop vs full frame is the size of the camera product, the full frame currenly requires a larger body to accommodate in the larger sensor. I'm sure there are technical fixes to this issue as used in the M9, but will the Leica solution work in a Canon product with EF lenses ?

I'm half expecting a mix of full frame and crop products, I've said before that I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a high end 1.6x crop sensor 1D model, nor would I be surprised to see some form of tech cascade, drop a new sensor in the 1D/5D ranges, then perhaps a 9D with the current full frame sensor - why drop a successful sensor when it's possibly costing a fraction of the original amount to product after moving from say a 200mm wafer to a 300mm ?

I wouldn't be surprised either, if Canon introduced a smaller sensor format for the entry level rebels, 2x even 3x crop would yield many more sensors from a wafer. today's tech could well squeeze IQ to the levels of APS-C of just a few years ago - as said above, it doesn't have to be great at the entry level Rebel price, just good enough to match the competitors on IQ and price.

 

[Loswr]

The key advantage of crop vs full frame is the size of the camera product, the full frame currenly requires a larger body to accommodate in the larger sensor.

The key advantage of crop vs. FF is that the sensors are cheaper to produce, and thus the bodies are less expensive. My 5DII is pretty much the same size as my 7D.

I wouldn't be surprised either, if Canon introduced a smaller sensor format for the entry level rebels, 2x even 3x crop would yield many more sensors from a wafer.

With a new lens lineup, too - I propose EF-ES, for electro-focus even-shorter back focus.

 

[Haydn1971]

Now your just getting carried away ;-)

 

[Rocky]

Actually the $1000 FF DSLR can be built even Now. However, ALL DSLR company wants to keep the higher profit in the existing FF model and will not build a "Cheap"FF. just look at the following numbers: The cheapest Rebel is about $500 now. My previous tread calculated the difference of FF and APS-C sensor can be $500 (based on the white paper from Canon dated 2006, now the gap may be even smaller). So $500 (Cheap body)+$500(upgrade to FF from APS-C) that is $1000. Let us be generous, add $200 to additional feature and bigger body. That is a CHEAP $1200 FF right there.

 

[unfocused]

Now your just getting carried away ;-)

+1

I don't even know what this is such a sensitive subject. Are people that invested in their full frame cameras that they can't bear the idea that maybe Canon's lens division ought to do a better job of developing EF-S lenses?

That's all the OP suggested and it's a reasonable request.

eventually they will take control of the world, and enslave human beings

I don't know about taking over the world, but reading some of these posts it's pretty clear they've already enslaved a lot of human beings.

let's compare the Canon 300mm f/4L IS to the Pentax Pentax DA* 300mm f/4 (the latter being an APS-C telephoto lens with weather sealing, high-end coatings including fluorine on the front like the newest Canon lenses, low-dispersion glass, etc.).

As I expected, some can't resist arguing over a simple illustrative and hypothetical example.

So, I might counter with a question: Would that be the Pentax lens that is $400 less than the 100-400 Canon, about $200 less than the Canon 300mm f4 prime and $300+ less than the new Canon 70-300 zoom?

Or, instead let's compare Apples to Apples. 400mm on a crop sensor is 640 mm on a full frame. Canon's newest 600 mm f/4 full frame lens is $13,000. Sure seems like there is a lot of room for Canon to position a 400 mm APS-C lens that will produce images of comparable magnification.

FWIW, 100-400/4 would have a 100 mm front element regardless of its imaging circle. Huge size+price jump. Sigma's new 120-300/2.8 OS has more than a few folks salivating though. Now there's a sports+nature lens.

Okay, now that's a reasonable criticism. If my particular example is impractical I'll take your word for it. But, it was just an example. Although I can't help but think there must be some advantages to EF-S at the longer focal lengths.

IMO an EF-S 55-135/2.8 IS is sorely needed.

Well, Sigma's announced a 50-150 f2.8 IS for APS-C cameras. Of course right now it's just vaporware. But maybe they'll actually get it to market one of these days.

 

[Loswr]

Would that be the Pentax lens that is ... about $200 less than the Canon 300mm f4 prime

Yes, but the Pentax lens lacks image stabilization, for which Canon charges a hefty premium in it's white lenses...

FWIW, 100-400/4 would have a 100 mm front element regardless of its imaging circle. Huge size+price jump. Sigma's new 120-300/2.8 OS has more than a few folks salivating though. Now there's a sports+nature lens.

Okay, now that's a reasonable criticism. If my particular example is impractical I'll take your word for it. But, it was just an example. Although I can't help but think there must be some advantages to EF-S at the longer focal lengths.

Yes - there would be a slight savings on overall length and probably a minor weight savings, too. But it's a diminishing return - unless you're right and FF sensors go away, those minor differences don't justify the expense of R&D and production line setup for a lens that won't work on FF, when the lens for FF will work on APS-C (and can be marketed to consumers as longer than it really is, as Canon has done with the new 70-300mm L).

Are people that invested in their full frame cameras that they can't bear the idea that maybe Canon's lens division ought to do a better job of developing EF-S lenses?

That's all the OP suggested and it's a reasonable request.

I've got no issue with Canon developing EF-S lenses - it is pretty clear they they've prioritized those over non-L EF lenses. But they're certainly emphasizing the L series lenses, and going out of their way to promote some of those for APS-C (e.g. the 70-300mm L and the new 8-15mm fisheye zoom).

Could they do a better job? I do think that often people who state, 'Canon is not doing a good job of developing lenses' really mean 'Canon is not developing the lenses that I want.' Personally, I see about as much utility for a fisheye zoom as I do for the Flowbee, but Canon feels differently...and there's always a chance that the next niche lens will be useful for my niche (e.g. a TS-E 90mm f/2.8L).

In some ways, they are probably hitting a bit of a wall in terms of where they can go. That old Canon product manager quote about Canon eventually wanting to take all their cameras FF is something that's taken root in the prosumer consciousness, which is where those 'better' EF-S lenses are targeted (e.g. an f/2 zoom, or an EF-S telezoom with a fast/constant aperture and great IQ). Whether they actually ever will or not, most prosumers 'plan to go FF someday' and that colors their buying choices away from EF-S lenses and toward the EF lineup. Canon's R&D department doesn't function in a vacuum - their research is driven in large part by input from their marketing department. I'm willing to bet that that department has a very good idea of what consumers want, and know full well that in the main, consumers who drive their bottom line in the dSLR arena fall into two main camps - true 'consumers' who want inexpensive products, and 'prosumers' who wish to go FF someday. Pros are important for cache and prestige, but not really for the bottom line.

I will say that one obvious lack that Canon really should address is the Nikon DX-format 35mm f/1.8 - that's in the focal range that can really benefit from the smaller image circle, and Canon really should come out with a 'normal' prime for what is their biggest-selling sensor format.

But, to most directly answer the OP's question:

why does no one make say a 16-50mm f2.0 or something similar for crop cameras

I don't think anyone in this thread has yet brought it up, but Canon had a patent published for an EF-S 17-55 f/2 IS - may or may not become a reality, but it's clear that someone at Canon is thinking along the lines the OP is hoping.

 

[UncleFester]

Not to get too far off thread here, but wouldn't the loss of full frame sensors nudge the super tele users backward?

Sports shooters will have to take a giant step backwards? Some lenses are perfect for some sports, 400 for football, polo, baseball come to mind, with full frame (esp 21 megapix) and the 1.3 crops. But 1.6x it would seem a bit claustrophobic (in some areas,not just the sports I listed)and have to rework where photographers normally shoot.