Cheap prime!
The story goes a US tech rep said Canon was going to be putting out a lens to compete with Nikon’s popular 35 f/1.8 lens.
I’ve heard it from two places, one saying 30mm and the other 35mm.
It could be time for some new affordable primes.
thanks Edina
cr
|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
148 Comments
Hm, well beggars cant be choosers… i’ll take it.
Samyang whats the hold up
Long past time.
Canon should have an 50mm equiv. prime for APS-C users. I’m using an 50mm f/1.8 (80mm equiv) and its a tad tight on my 1000D.
30mm would be somewhat uncommon, but nice.
Let’s hope Canon comes with good primes soon, although the “very good” ones are not cheap/very affordable (especially if they are “L” series)
Yay! If it was available I’d preorder it today. A 30 or 35 Plastic Fantastic is desperately needed with the non-full-frame sensor digitals. I’m tired of a 50mm prime that is actually about 85mm..
50mm x 1.6 = 80mm exactly.
Why not try the 35mm f/2 or the 28mm f/1.8 USM?
This would be such a half-assed reactionary move. Canon needs to update and flesh out it’s non-L primes. The 20/2.8, 28/1.8, 85/1.8, and 100/2 all have decent build and optics, but the 50/1.4 and 35/2 really need an update to their build (and it wouldn’t hurt if they upgraded the optics with new coatings etc. too).
If canon is going to do EF-S primes, they should probably make them a 15/2 and a 21/2 (24mm-e and 35mm-e), there’s no need to make a specialized EF-S 30mm prime, an update to the 35/2 would take care of the APS-C 50mm equivalent.
Maybe I’m just bitter because I shelled out for the 28/1.8. Ah well, at least I can stil use it when I move to full-frame.
Is the existing EF 35mm f/2 not good enough? Is there really a need for another lens in between that and the EF 28mm f/1.8 USM?
I suppose it wouldn’t be a bad thing if Canon retired the 35mm f/2 in favor of a new 35mm lens with USM and seven or eight aperture blades (the 35mm f/2 has only five).
I’d likely get it. I hardly use my 50/1.8 because of the crop factor.
If is would be cheap and good I would buy it. And I already have the 35mm f/2.
But what I really want for EF-s is a high quality medium wide (28-35mm eqiv.). Something similar in quality and build to 60mm macro which I love.
That would be a handy lense for T2i for taking out to dinners, etc where low light is common and you don’t want something bulky. Also good for a compact backpacking landscape lense. I’d buy one.
Love this idea. I had a D90 for a while and used the Nikkor 35mm 1.8 and it never really left my camera. I really do hope this isn’t far off for Canon…
Both these lenses have their drawbacks – the 28 f/1.8 is quite soft and lacks sharpness, the 35 f/2 lacks corner sharpness and the bokeh of the 5 blade aperture is not ideal. I’d love to have an equivalent lens in the 30mm focal range that matches the IQ of say the 50 f/1.4 at a similar price, which i love on my APS-C camera.
y do companies make 21 24 28 kinda FLs
why not 20 25 30 ?
The current 35mm f/2.0 lacks full time manual focus, has a tiny focusing ring and so-so build quality, and is at best mediocre optically, especially at or near wide open. I recommend steering clear of that one unless you find it dirt cheap and really need f/2.0.
A 30/35mm 1.8 is not a lens I think I’d buy, certainly not if it’s EF-S since I still use a 5D Mark nothing. But there’s probably a market.
EF or EF-S?
As Tevye said in “Fiddler on the Roof” . . .
“TRADITION!!”
i love wide aperture
Even an updated 28/1.8 would be great, considering it’s only 1mm longer than the theoretical “normal” for EF-S cameras.
Oh, I’d get that lense without hesitation. Nice if true.
It is about time the 35mm f/2 is updated, with USM and better build quality. Once they are at it, why not make it f/1.8…
As it is today, the 35 f/2 is already very compact and light, so the gains in making it EF-S only will be minimal.
The same goes for the 28mm f/2.8, but there at least you have the option of going for the 28mm f/1.8 instead.
+ several million.
I use the 28mm f/2.8 which is pretty much identical in build quality and confirm all these issues – except maybe the optical quality, which IMHO is better than its reputation.
I had problems with focusing (AF and manual) with the 28. At some point it got stock and would neither AF nor could I turn the manual focus ring. It bounced around in the bag for a few days (I was on travel), and after that it worked again…. Never found out what the problem was.
Wow, that would be great!!! I would love to have a 35mm-ish prime lens in my bag.
Canon actually does make an EF-S prime already, the 60mm macro.
As much as I like the EF 35mm f/2, I would have taken a cheaper EF-S f/1.8 if there was one like in Nikonland.
As others have said, a refresh of the f/2 wouldn’t hurt. The first time I heard the AFD going on that I thought the world was ending.
I also wonder if there is room to move to a three tier prime at 35mm like at 50mm? That is a dirt cheap one (EF-S f/1.8), a regular one (EF f/2 refresh), and an expensive one (f/1.4).
Put $250 a month away under your pillow for 5 months and get the 35 F1.4 L. You will be happy for the rest of your life.
Developing such a lens would make a lot of sense, since actually the company that’s stealing sales from Canon in this type of lens is SIGMA with their 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM (not Nikon, since their 35mm f/1.8 can’t mount on a Canon anyways.)
Sure, Canon has the affordable EF 28mm f/2.8 and EF 35mm f/2.0, but both of these are older designs and really only cover the extreme ends of the “normal” prime range equivalents on cropped bodies (28mm on APS-C = 46mm on FF, 35mm APS-C = 56mm FF). Of course, it’s because both these lenses were originally meant for use on 35mm film cameras, and thus are not necessarily geared towards the cropped APS-C sensors of the Digital Rebels, XXD and 7D bodies.
A proprietary Canon EF-S 30mm (49mm equivalent FF) or EF-S 32mm (51mm equivalent) comes closest therefore to the ideal 50mm classic “normal” focal range, and with an at least f/1.8 max aperture (preferably f/1.4 to compete with Sigma), and USM to boot for around the $200-$350 range, it would be a great buy. IMO, such a lens would almost certainly have to be EF-S in order to keep the cost down and not cut into sales of the cheaper 28mm and 35mm meant for FF bodies, unless Canon phases out those two lenses altogether and restrict FF users to the more expensive 28mm f/1.8 USM and 35mm f/1.4L USM.
*correction 28mm = 45mm FF equivalent on cropped bodies*
agree with you for that … we need 24mm or 35mm prime equivalent for crop camera …
where is “so soon coming” 24-70 IS … In the hands of marketing department … ? which has gone “beyond difraction limit” :) … 1DS … as well ? long lens … This ruomours site is going through all the new versions of current lens … and nothing comes out …
Basically, Canon should provide their crop-frame body users an affordable, “normal” focal length (i.e. translates to 50mm on a full-frame) lens with a silent AF motor.
Nikon users have such an option with the Nikkor AF-S 35mm F/1.8G DX which was released just last year specially suited for their DX body cameras (D40, D5000, D90, D300, etc.) It’s equivalent to 52mm in full frame (FX), plus has a Silent Wave Motor, all for about $199.
Again, the real competition for Canon comes from Sigma, who make the 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM ($440) in the EF-S mount, effectively carving out the niche in the wide divide between Canon’s own 28mm f/2.8 ($260) and 35mm f/2.0 ($330). The Sigma 30mm thus offers a compelling choice, since for a little more money one gets in the Sigma better build quality (though still a 3rd party lens), bigger max aperture and a faster, quieter AF motor. The Sigma 30mm also undermines sales of Canon’s 28mm f/1.8 USM ($460), which is slightly more expensive despite having a fraction less light-gathering capability.
Canon therefore, to redress the inroads from Sigma and match the choice offered to Nikon users should develop a prime normal lens for APS-C bodies that has :
– 30mm or 32mm focal length (equivalent to 49mm or 51mm on a full-frame body)
– preferably f/1.4 max aperture
– USM
– EF-S mount (to keep cost down)
If they can develop such a lens that will sell in the $200-$400, they can trump both Sigma and match Nikon.
Therefore supposed new lens would be called :
” Canon EF-S 30mm f/1.4 USM ”
or
” Canon EF-S 32mm f/1.4 USM “
I don’t see a “three tier” thing happening. R & D for lenses is just too expensive and fixed lenses are too limited a market for that to work out from a business standpoint for Canon.
I don’t really see an upside for Canon to invest much in fast fixed length EF-S lenses either. If they see Nikon and Sigma are making bank on their 30mm/35mm lenses EF-S-type lenses, they may jump in. I can see them possibly doing a fast wide angle (10, 12 or 14mm) in EF-S. But that would be about it.
Zooms and fast L’s are where the money is, don’t hold your breath for them to spend the R & D and risk compromising sales on fast L’s with broad line of EF-S fixed lenses.
And I don’t think we’ll ever see L-glass in the EF-S line.
EF-S = economy.
L = opposite of economy.
They don’t mix.
As long as Canon can produce a lens in the 28-35mm f1.8-2.0 range with USM (I’ll take decent optics as read on a modern prime lens) for a price not exceeding $200 (£170 -see note 1), many people including myself will be happy to buy one. We may even stop complaining for a month or two (no guarantees there!).
Note 1 -sorry can’t convert to Euros until the Bundestag approves the Mediterranean bail out package; but hey look on the bright side, the Germans can finally settle terms for exclusive access to poolside sunbeds! :)
I agree with your statements!
I am currently using my 15 year old 50 1.8 (the mk 1 version) and I am very happy with it for a portrait lens. I am looking for a fast normal lens – your spec outlines pretty much what I would like to buy too. Best would be if we could get IS for the ultimate low light experience!
To the technicians: Is there any issue for integrating IS into lenses faster than f/2.0 ?
Hendric
IS isn’t really needed for primes until you get into the telephoto focal range (i.e. greater than 85mm). A telephoto lens is more likely to have blurring due to hand shake (same as zooms) and especially is stopped down to anything f/5.6 or higher.
Most wide and normal primes only show image blur if the aperture is stopped down (decreased), resulting in slower shutter speed and greater sensitivity to hand movement. Even then, most pics shot with a prime with the aperture stopped down is done with a tripod anyways, therefore another reason IS isn’t needed nor found on primes 50mm or less.
Plus, if you’re gonna be shooting in low light, you should have your aperture wide open (f/2.8 or less) anyways to allow faster shutter speeds and less blur.
One last reason IS isn’t really incorporated in wide/normal primes : those lenses are of simpler design (and usually shorter and smaller) than zoom lenses and telephoto primes. This means it can be held more stably than the bulkier zooms and telephotos.
those 3 lenses, from my perspective are not good enough. The USM is lacking and the one that has USM has lower optical quality than the other 2. I wanted to get the 28 1.8 but as far as other say it is not worth it agians the 28 2.8. I own the 17-55 2.8 Is so there is no gain for me with the 28 2.8. If no good, affordable wide prime appars I’ll have to save for the 24 1.4
if they release a lens like this but EF-S I am not going to buy
This rumor has been around for quite a while now. I hope Canon has EF(-S) 30mm f/1.8 that will sell for $200 on the market soon. I will buy it the moment it’s available.
I’d bag that in a second. Makes sense too, as the 35/2 is now unavailable here in Norway. Give me a lightweight 24/2 as well and I’m set.
It’s also worth mentioning that while Nikon also had a 35/2 lens before they introduced their APS-C format 35/1.8, their 35/2 wouldn’t autofocus on low-end Nikon bodies. The introduction of an APS-C prime for them was more about providing an inexpensive lens that can autofocus on cameras in its target market.
I was thinking of thee tier for 35mm only (not whole range), like there is already in the 50mm length.
Why? It could be argued Nikon have a more interesting budget lens line up than Canon, so budget concious starters might be tempted by that. Once you buy into a system you’re less likely to switch later, so get them in while you can. This lens would not be a direct money maker in itself, but can be used as a tool to get more body and future lens sales.
A dirt cheap EF-S 30 or 35mm like the 50mm f/1.8 would help there, leaving a space open for a nicer built standard model (refresh the 35 f/2 design with ring USM) and leave the L model at the top.
Personally I do a fair bit of low light indoor photography where flash or tripod is not an option. Stabilisation of a fast prime in that case does wonders. For example, on an E-P1 with 12.5mm f/1.3 lens I can handhold a sharp shot to beyond a second. I’d definitely pay for stabilised fast primes on Canon given a chance.
Dead wrong. Making it an EF-S lens can ensure that it is optimized IQ-wise for that format. Just imagine the IQ on the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS if it was actually EF. It would have lower IQ, more distortion, CA, etc. and would be heavier and cost more to build.
Yes, there has always been a need for a crop normal lens. The FF snobs should just steer clear aay from this thread. This rumor ain’t for you.
Uh, no. If you wanna be painfully exact, it’s 31.25mm. Assuming your idea of “theoretical normal” is the traditional 50mm on FF35.
Except the introduction of the 7D destroys your argument. No sense for a pro-build cropper if you’re not gonna get serious with its lens lineup.
Make it a 30mm f/1.4 with ring USM and price it around or even slightly higher than the Sigma and I’d be all over it.
Canon does not tell their Techs about new products in advance. There is absolutely no reason to do so. Canon keeps new product announcements very secret.
If a new lens is better than the 35mm f:/2, it will also cost a lot more. If its worse, who would want it.
This just sounds like another madeup story.
Yes Canon! Please!
Make it EF 35 /1.8 USM and I will be all over it!
Actually I have been looking for this for over two years but can´t find anytning except L-lenses (and they are too expensive for an amateur and a student).
The 35/2 and 24 / 2.8 are too weak (I wrecked my 50 /1.8 in a few mounths).
The 28 /1.8 USM will not be great on my next camera ( im saving up for 5D mkIII, and I would like 24 mm or 35 mm, not 28, I have tried them all back in the film days on FD).
The L:s are simply too expensive for me, and I don´t need glass that good. No, simply update the 35 /2.0 to have better bokeh, /1.8 instead of /2, USM focus and better build, and I will buy.
I wonder if someone at canon reads this?
Actually, the 28mm 1.8 is a very good lens. Give it a better look?
Oh, if only I knew the equipment I required made me a snob! That was the secret all along…
I just purchased the 35 f/2 lens and noticed the lens date code is a 2010- so they don’t seem to be phasing this lens out any time soon.
A 30 1.4 EF-S lens would make the most sense. I’d buy it too!
Some people mention that primes are too specialty for the mass/ consumer market- but I think there is a larger demand for affordable primes now that people are buying DSLR’s for video.
Short reply:
Nikkor Af-S 35mm f1.8 G DX -Street price: ~$200.
if this lens is real and is efs then don’t count on it being any more usm than the 50 1.8 –
I hope that it is not efs – as I’ve said before it’s just silly to build lenses (especially primes) designed for only one portion of your market. it would be nice to see them make a new lens to replace the 35/2 and have it aroudn 200 with usm. doubt it but it would be nice
Sorry to beat the dead horse but i agreed with the first part of your statement – just update and add to the existing primes. Don’t make EFS specific primes.
Update the 20, 24, 28,35,50 – add a 17 non l non tilt shift
the 85 and 100 are pretty nice already…
easy enough for me to say the crop sensor snobs want a lens just for them – you sound silly saying that. really. the ef lenses fit on everything. the efs do not – which is more snobbish?
which isn’t normal swannnnnnnnnn (my best billy madison voice)
normal would really be 43.3 mm (the diagonal of the frame is considered the non-image changing “normal)
That, and continuously saying ‘want want want’ is what’s snobbish. And really, I hear it more from low end users. They want f1.4 / IS everything. They want full frame xxD’s. They want ISO 25,600 to be clean.
Want want want.
Uh no, “Dead Wrong”. Using the corner to center conversion between a 5D II and 50D, it’s 30.9789mm to be exact. Also, did you account for averaging the focal shift during a full focus range?
…In case you want to continue being ‘painfully an annoying d!ck’.
since ef works on all cameras and efs only works on aps-c – then just who are the elitist snobs?
I hear this silliness all the time and wonder if it’s FF people that make you feel bad or if you are upset you couldn’t afford the camera you wanted? When I first shot digital i had a 1d – i wanted a 1ds but could only afford a 1d – that didn’t make me hate people that had 1ds’s
your statement is at least the third in this string alone that refers to “full frame snobs” but i’ve not seen anyone rip any of those cameras….
the whole myth of efs lenses (and afs for nikon) is made in order to sell more lenses. No one that shoots L on a 7d or t2i has ever wished that the lens was EFS because that would make it better and it would be more suited to their camera.
Making primes that are great and affordable is benificial to everyone as along as they are EF – if they are EFS they are only useful to small sensor shooters – that is the definition of snobbery
why would it necessarily cost more by beign better? the 50 1.8 mk 2 is sharper than the mk 1 but costs the same or less when inflation is taken into account…
new techs make things better. not always more expensive
I would expect a 35mm EF 1.8 and an updated 50mm EF 1.4 at some point.
Sounds like you were mugged by 5D Mark II. Maybe victimized by a 1Ds in a dark alley? I bet a bunch of Full Framers jumped you during a gang initiation. Good fun.
+1000
It’s a beast to carry around, but the images at 1.4 are like a dream.
I use my 50mm f/1.8 because of the crop factor. But then I use it for portraits & concerts & stuff like I did with my 85mm f/1.8 USM on my EOS1n.
But my “50” is a 35mm f/1.4 Zeiss Distagon
And my “35” is a 20mm f/3.5 Voigtländer Color Skopar
And the two of them together cost me less than a used 35mm f/1.4L :-).
If you’re taking pictures of still life maybe IS is of benefit, but for moving things (i.e. people photography) these fast primes wide open have such a narrow DOF that subject motion negates much of the benefit.
Perhaps the manual focus ring will be damped & geared for long-throw for the video folks? That would show us that they’re listening…
And the 7D is hardly a pro build. It’s an overshot 50D with a lost nikon canon lovechild mess of a body design, with an overrated ‘pretty good’ AF unit.
was considering to buy an 35 EF 2.0 – but now i´ll wait
RE: “EF-S = economy, L = opposite of economy.”
Tell that to the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.
At >$1K not even including the hood, it’s not exactly ‘economical’. Don’t get me wrong – I love the lens and it is worth the cost – BUT, I paid less for three of my L lenses…
I really don’t get your point, and I guess you’re not getting mine. I’m only looking at a revamp of affordable budget to mid range lenses.
My thought is there could be three 35mm (ish) lenses:
EF-S 30mm or 35mm f/1.8, maybe with micro-USM. Priced low like 50mm f/1.8 (but probably still a bit higher)
EF 35mm f/2 (or faster) with ring USM, replaces existing version at slightly higher price
EF 35mm f/1.4L – already exists
Thinking a bit more, maybe they’ll do the lowest one at 30mm to be a little different, so it wont appear to cramp the 35mm line up too much.
I think this best explains the phenomenon
Then why was the aps-c sensor invented?
Aps-c lenses are smaller, lighter and cheaper, that’s enough reason.
Make it EF since some people own FF AND APS-C bodies.
Both have their advantages!
And the 7D really needs sharp pro glass to support the 18mp sensor.
I would have thought Canon would redo all the f/2.8 primes in f/2.0 primes, all very sharp at f/2.0.
Those photographers who like the f/4 zoom, would get the f/2.0 primes. (a 2 stop difference)
Those photographers who like f/2.8 zooms would get the f/1.4 primes (or f/1.2 primes) (a 2 stop difference or more)
Yeah, and a 1DMk4 can do anything a 550D can, so why would anyone get the 550D?
Oh, wait….
I’d welcome such a lens, but the IQ and build quality would have to be at least as good as that of the Sigma 30mm f1.4
Yeah, and you just bought two manual-focus lenses for your AF camera. :P
M0rons. Can’t you read? That is why the phrase “assuming your idea of “theoretical normal” is the *traditional 50mm* on FF35.” Stop confusing being exact in terms of the discussion at hand with being unimaginatively literal. Now go back to grade school both of you.
M0rons. Can’t you read? That is why the phrase “assuming your idea of “theoretical normal” is the *traditional 50mm* on FF35.” Stop confusing being exact in terms of the discussion at hand with being unimaginatively literal. Now go back to grade school both of you.
Dumba$$. Read up a little before you post. It’s build is the same as an EOS-1N; it’s certainly better built and weather-sealed than a more expensive 5D2.
If being overrated means being better than a D300s or 5D2, then that’s good enough. :P Overrated are for the Nikon cams, not Canons. :P
ROFL…Right
I have repeated this many times in other threads. A normal lens design is simpler than a WA lens design; that is the reason why it should be EF-S: it should be cheaper and easier to optimize for IQ. Just compare the optical formula of the 35/1.4L to the 50/1.4 to understand the difference in design between a normal lens and a WA one.
Except you’e dead wrong again. Both 50/1.8s have the exact same optical formula, the Mark II was made into a plastic el cheapo so that Canon can upsell you the better-built 50/1.4. That is the reason why the metal Mark 1 sells for 2-3x the price of the plastic Mark II on the used market and auction sites.
Abret just 0wnzor3d all the ignorant FF snobs. Hats off to you.
Huh? Uncommon compared to what?
Read up on the DPR intro for the 7D please before you embarrass yourself further. It seems you can’t accept the fact that the more expensive 5D2 has inferior build quality to the cheaper 7D even though Canon has already clearly stated as such. A pity.
If someone makes their decisions based on rumors, they deserve to wait around lensless IMO. Why pick on the messenger?
Yawn. How about another freaking Rebel to spice things up.
any 60d rumors?
should be better than sigma
Yeah, and you just need AF for your pictures.
Maybe they didn’t know the difference between facts and rumors!
the quality of this website has improved a lot over the last months. Just why the hell has the quality of the comments detoriated that much ? Was it 10% crap in the past – it is 80% in this thread here (include mine if you want)
Of course CR guy is lacking good rumors at present and people are upset that he cannot announce at least one Camera/month- however those who have nothing better to do than writing crap and offend people should be banned from here.
Perhaps if we ignore them they’ll no longer continue to get a rise out of agitating people here and go bother Sony users.
Or something.
A 30/1.8 for the APS-C cameras will sell like mad, and will be a terrific lens for that format. Field of view is equivalent to about 48mm on a full-frame camera, so it’ll be the fast, light, inexpensive “normal” lens for the APS-C line. Everyone using one of those cameras (millions of people) should own one of these.
say what?
So true! These forums would be a lot friendlier if people imagined they were speaking to each other face to face. On the other hand, it would remove the schoolboy pleasure of watching a good scrap. A suggestion for the Canonrumors guy -put a button on the comments section labelled “FIght, fight, fight” so that we can all offer baying encouragement when a good one breaks out! :)
In no way does either of our comments disregard that the assumed normal is 50mm.
In fact, your remark hardly makes sense if you understand what we’re talking about.
Dear morons;
You’re reuther reading reviews, or the 7D is the best camera you’ve owned. Just like everyone said the 5D II was as water resistent or better than 1 series?
My ass. I own all of the above. The 7D is barely a pro camera, and the 5D II isn’t waterproof one bit.
The 7D is nothing more than a great upper range entry level camera, and the 5D II is as wonderful portrait / commerial camera.
On the otherhand, I can literally crush all of my other cameras in the raid with my 1Ds III, and still use it the next day. And for the next 300k shutter cycles in days after that.
*either / *commercial / *rain. Typing on phone.
Well I’ve had my 20D that wet. And my 30D. Three or four times. …like many others. The idea is to have had it actually built to take the weather, not able to sustain it a few times.
What’s better? 18 AF points that most 5D users won’t use? Is that worth soft / grainy images? Especially since the worlds best crop camera won’t offer the depth of field and combination of lens compression at a given field of view, that a larger sensor would.
So I guess it is better. For amateurs.
And to everyone:
Why the F! would canon improve their efs line? To keep everyone hooked on cheap cameras after their lens commuted with a bucket of glass that only works on their cheap cameras?
Hence, the 7D is a crop camera. Every entry camera will always be, to keep a clear pathway to expensive glass AND the subsequent bodies.
They were invented because it is difficult and more expensive to make larger sensors than smaller ones.
To make an EF-S lens for APS-C that is as good as EF on FF is more complicated, and more expensive.
I guess you haven’t been around very long. The comments are actually pretty tame right now – you should have been around for the JS incident.,,
Not to mention 18 AF points which are still tightly clustered around center frame..
What he said.
The current “affordable” primes are all junk by modern standards and the ancient L series aren’t much better IMO. Few can come close to resolving what modern sensors can achieve until they’re stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8.
How many of you realize that you have 15 or 18 MP cameras with lenses that can only resolve 6 or 7 MP? Precious few lenses can resolve 9 or more MP today on APS-C.
We need better IQ, especially at wide apertures to take advantage of hi-res APS-C sensors:
– greatly improved sharpness across FF sensors, capable of 40MP resolution, ~20MP APS-C.
– much less CA
– much less vignetting
– better contrast
– and better bokeh.
– USM across the line with full time manual focus on a well damped ring.
– f/ 1.4, 1.8 and 2.0 speeds.
– A minimum of 6 aperture blades, 8 or 9 preferably, all curved please, and the best coatings available today.
– solid build quality, whatever the materials, with metal mounts.
– No IS on these either, please; a waste of engineering and can compromise overall IQ at these short FLs. That’s what good hi-ISO performance and tripods are for.
– they should all be EF. If they’re made to perform very well there, they’ll suffice on EF-S too and that’s gonna be a tall order with the ever-increasing resolution of APS-C sensors!
– Focal lengths of, 16mm, 20, 24, 28, 30, 35, 50, 80-85, maybe the 100 and longer ones as well. In order of preference and need; 30, 24, 16, 28, 35, 80-85, 50. Current 50s may lack a little but at least they can be pretty sharp.
– and my last Christmas wish list item, keep them AFFORDABLE, under $500 up to the 50mm.
Canon, those are your challenges. Do it well and you’ll sell millions of them for years to come and also show what the latest hi-res bodies can really do with some room to grow yet.
sigh… I’m not holding my breath, this could take a few years.
yes, Sigma’s 30’s lovely sharp, but only in the very center, about the size of the partial-metering circle, otherwise it’s horrid unless all your shots are subject-centered with nothing of interest within the DoF surrounding that.
the sigma 30mm 1.4 is a great lens and i know 3 people that own it for their APC cameras. but they all would have bought a canon version had it existed, myself included.
One of the reason why people are buying APS-C sensor body is the smaller size and weight. We all know that It is easier to design a short focal length lense with EF-S mount than the EF mount, due to the shorter distance between the rear element of the lens and the sensor. So the only way to have an excellent ” standard” lens that can resolve 18 MP and still keep it small and light weight is to be in EF-S mount. I think it is time for the APS-C sensor user to have a good standard lens instead of using a 28mm FF lens as a standard lens.
I would love to have 35mm 1.8
That Nikon lens plus new 50mm 1.4G is what makes Nikon great in my eyes.
Hope Canon can keep up..
Uh, no. Take a look at the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS and compare it to the 24-70/2.8L non-IS. It beats the L on IQ while still being lighter and cheaper.
Huh??? Was this supposed to be witty? :P
No, no one understands your trying-hard, pedantic, literal remarks. 50mm is the traditional “normal” lens on FF35, there is no “43.3mm normal lens” nor ” 30.879mm normal lens” anywhere I’ve seen. So stop introducing factoids that do not serve to illuminate the specific discussion at hand, which is normal lenses on FF35.
J’s arrogant, ignorant a$$ just got 0wnz0red massively. Lulz.
You obviously have no idea how AF submirrors are designed. It can never completely cover the same area as the main reflex mirror, dumba$$ Noink. Having said that, 18 all-cross type AF points are waaay better than the single cross-type on the 5D2 or the pathetic, unusable 5×3 center column arrangement of the cross-type points on the D300/D3/D700/D3X…
Sure man, whatever floats your anonymous boat. Your “personal impression” has no credibility compared to the professional reviews and articles on the 7D. Delude yourself all you want, you obviously have trouble accepting facts contrary to your beliefs. Lulz. 0wnz0red again.
For your edification: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/page4.asp
0wnz0red like J. Again. Lulz.
Well, that’s it, you just confirmed what camera you really own, a mere celcam. 0wnz0red.
0wnzored again! :P
Wait, there are people who actually bought Sony cameras???
If you don’t require AF, have a look at the 20mm Voigtländer Color Skopar “pancake” in native EF mount. It’s beautifully made, smaller than any of the archaic Canon micromotor lenses, and less than half the price & weight of the Zeiss ZE ultrawides (although the Ziess’ are better optically, on APS-C you really hit the “sweet spot” of the Color Skopar).
I’ve had mine for a month & I’m in love. I use it at the hyperfocal distance at f/5.6 about half the time. It’s like I’m back on my T90 again. It also has the advantage of being a mid-ultrawide that fits in a shirt pocket if you ever move up to FF. It fits perfectly between my Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and the 24-105L.
Yeah, exactly the same hoity-toity fruitcake attitude that MF digital back cameras have on your pathetic, tiny 36x24mm sensor cameras. :P 0wnz0red some more! :P
Yes, hah and J are saving their pennies to be able to afford it by the time it gets obsolete in 2012. :P
My wish-list for the 30mm-ish prime:
– make it EF-S if it’s f/1.4 to reduce the weight
– make it EF if it’s f/1.8 or f/2
My thinking, though, is that the mantra at Canon these days is “EF users want L primes, EF-S users want zooms”.
– – – – – – – – –
Q: Not counting macro lenses, what is the most recent non-L prime lens?
AFAICT from this, it was the 28mm f/1.8 USM, released in September 1995. 15 years ago! The guy that designed it is probably retired by now, along with most of the tools he used to design it.
I’m not betting on us seeing a new one any time soon.
Before Canon “had” to develop & release a new DSLR in each market segment every ~two years or so (because film cameras were much simpler and stayed on the market a lot longer) they were doing a lot more development work on lenses. For the most part, with film the image quality depended on:
– the lens
– the film
The camera was a light-tight box that kept the film flat. The only really technology-intensive bit in the camera body was the AF & metering (& to a lesser degree, the motors).
Since most camera companies didn’t make film, and you could use any film in any camera, the primary factor in image quality as far as the camera company was concerned was therefore:
– the lens.
Just look at the flurry of lenses that Canon released
Now, of course, there’s the lens, the sensor, the image processor, and the post-prod software. Not to mention video and all the other stuff the marketing dept crams in there.
Add to that the fact that sheer production numbers of lenses assembled today is close to an order of magnitude higher than that of even 10 years ago, and don’t forget the havoc that the global banking fiasco wreaked on consumer demand and supply-chain management, currency instability, and more agressive competitors.
You can bet that whatever lenses Canon releases in the future, they will fall into two classes:
– sold in huge quantities, mostly bundled in kits or promotions.
– low volume, high quality, and high margin.
They just won’t make the RoI on anything else.
What this means is that the next FF 50mm f/1.4 will probably be an “L” (or L-like) and cost upwards of $500. Same goes for the other old nags in the stable.
EF-S 30mm? Maybe, but it won’t be cheap.
Count me in on that list… I also finally faltered and bought the Sigma last year after getting sick of waiting for Canon to counter Nikon’s 35 1.8.
Images turn out really nice — if the AF hits, that is. So I too would have preferred a Canon version of that lens.
Grab a Sigma 30 1.4 and call it a day. Worst case scenario you have to send it to Sigma for a week to get it calibrated properly, but the IQ is top notch. I don’t see Canon making their EF-S lenses TOO good otherwise you wouldn’t drool over the L glass there’s a reason EF-S primes don’t get larger than 1.8…
It’s true that the EF-S lens beats the EF lens when both are mounted on APS-C, but I was comparing EF-S on APS-C with EF on FF. If you do that comparison, the lenses are not even close to be equivalent.
Look at it like this: What is important is the number of photons and solid angle (field of view) captured. The number of photons depends on the aperture: for the 17-55/2.8 @ 55 it corresponds to an aperture of 55/2.8 = 19.6 mm, while the 24-70/2.8 @ 70 has an equivalent aperture of 70/2.8 = 25.0 mm.
To capture the same number of photons over the same solid angle as a 70/2.8 on FF, the equivalent APS-C lens would have to have a) the same aperture (25.0 mm) and b) 70/1.6 = 43.75 mm focal length. A 43.75 mm lens with 25 mm aperture corresponds to 43.75/25 = 1.75.
I thus maintain that it is easier and less expensive to make a 70/2.8 lens for FF than the APS-C equivalent 44/1.8 lens of the same quality (angular resolution etc).
BTW, the f-number is also the source for the misconception that larger sensors are less noisy. They are not, it’s just that with the same f-number you throw more photons on them. Haven’t you ever wondered why FF sensors can go so high ISO-wise? It’s because of the definition of the ISO number they get a (1.6)^2 = 2.56x illumination advantage compared to APS-C, NOT because the sensors are more sensitive. What really counts is the quantum effiiciency (QE), how many photoelectrons are generated per photon.
Stop using the 17-55IS as an example; it`s a wide to standard zoom and thus is indeed suited to be APS only. A 30ish prime doesn`t have the inherent issues that a wide-standard zoom has to deal with, so won`t be any better or smaller or lighter if made for APS. Look at the Canon/Nikkor 35/2 lenses: they`re both the same size and optical performance as the DX35/1.8. A new USM 35/2 or f/1.8 would be perfect, as it would be popular with both APS and FF users (not to mention those who have both).
“I don’t see Canon making their EF-S lenses TOO good otherwise you wouldn’t drool over the L glass there’s a reason EF-S primes don’t get larger than 1.8…”
um, Canon doesn’t have any EF-S primes right now (other than the 60mm macro), certainly not anything with an f/1.8 aperture. But one thing I’m currently drooling over is an EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS.
There are plenty of very high resolution non-L Canon lenses, but none of them are made of metal or weathersealed.
Why not? EFS cameras are the bigger chunk of canon sales, So it wouldn’t suprise me that they start to bet on EFS lenses.
Why would you expect the sharper primes to be a stop wider as well ?
Canon might sell more APS-C bodies than APS-H & FF bodies, but still …
(a) Sell more EF lenses than EF-S lenses.
(b) Make more profit from selling EF lenses than from selling EF-S lenses, either of A or because there’s more profit in a sale of an EF lens.
The Canon EF-S sensor diagonal is 26.8mm
That is the focal length of a “theoretical normal” on this format, just as 43.3mm is on 135.
EF-S lenses were invented because they had all that old tech sitting around when they made advantix dslr’s in the late 90s. I had an advantix Canon Eos IX lite, it used the APS format: http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=1105&pq-locale=en_US
http://photo.net/equipment/canon/eos-ix
APS-C, EF-S and cropped sensors exists because of advantix film.
lmao…
so, finally… who’s toy is bigger?
The only difference between men and boys is the cost of their toys. ~Author Unknown
I think you’re right, but simplifying it a bit.
Looking at non-L 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, and 50mm, those are nearly 20 years old lenses, some of them performing worse than L zooms.
I would (naively ?) think it should be cheap enough to design f/1.4 versions of those lenses that would perform well (doesn’t need to exceed the 10+ years old 24mm f/1.4L or 35mm f/1.4L), and that those primes would sell well.
(Come on, the f/2.8 versions of the lenses are no better than L zooms at their focal length, and the f/1.8 primes are not much better. With the high ISO range in today’s sensors, the extra stop and a quarter is no longer such an attraction).
i want to see something in the 20-22 mm range. There ought to be a decent, fast prime for crop sensors that gets close to a 35mm field of view. The 20mm 2.8 could be faster and have better IQ. The 24L is too expensive for mere mortals. So there is room there (for either an EF or EF-S prime).
I’d probably skip a “normal” 50mm field of view and go with something like a 22mm (1.4, 1.8, or 2), 50mm 1.4 (maybe updated soon?) and a 85 1.8 for a nice lineup of fairly inexpensive, decent primes for ef-s cameras.
I should add that 35mm is a poor choice on EF-S. Look at how popular 55 and 58mm were on 135 once shorter “normal” lengths became available.
same here — the Sigma 30/1.4 is the only non-Canon lens I have, for lack of decent alternatives (the IQ of the 28/1.8 is not comparable and it’s a 1.8 instead of 1.4, and the 35/1.4 is in another price league).
+1. I only want to buy Canon lenses but that Sigma does seem to be a really sweet lens.