What's the next EF-S Lens?

[oldboy]

We have the 60mm macro, the 10-22, the 17-85IS, the 17-55IS. What's next!?

Will Canon go long for EF-S next time around? I think so!

--
Aspiring to retire...
Lou

 

[Voyager13b]

Maybe the EF-S 10-2000 f/2.8 IS USM?

Just kidding.... I have the 10-22, 17-55, and the 60 f/2.8. They are awesome lenses, and I wouldn't ever think about trading them for any EF lens (which I probably also own anyway). Whatever Canon has in mind for the EF-S series in the future, if history is any indicator, I will likely be thrilled with it.

--
Voyager

 

[Lee Jay]

Will Canon go long for EF-S next time around? I think so!

Why in the world would they do that?

What they need is a 9.5mm fisheye.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Joe Photo Lover]

There isn't much benefit to EF-S going long. The physical properties of lense design prohibit making long lenses appreciably smaller than they already are. The longer lenses we have now are already quite capable and they already make three great quality EF-S lenses that offer improvements over earlier lenses, the 10-22mm, the 17-55mm IS and the 60mm Macro.

I doubt if they would do anything to improve the quality of the two kit lenses, the 18-55mm or the 17-85mm IS because they would only be competing with their existing products for the most part.

 

[Shan27]

i do have 17-55 as well as 60mm on EF-S range,
Probably go for 10-22 as well as my first L lens in 70-200 IS 4L.

This will cover my range quite well.

 

[Voyager13b]

The 10-22 is such a fine lens, and is so well corrected, that I can't imagine why anyone would prefer a fisheye version. If you like the fisheye perspective, convert the wonderful rectilinear 10mm image to a fisheye view in software. That seems to be much easier than correcting in the other direction.

Then again, if fisheye is your thing, why not just use a current FF fisheye lens?

I'm just asking, so don't take offense. I'd like to understand your reasoning.

Will Canon go long for EF-S next time around? I think so!

Why in the world would they do that?

What they need is a 9.5mm fisheye.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

--
Voyager

 

[Portola]

Canon is missing out on the big market for a 10x zoom--a highly desirable lens in the new-to-slr market. Nikon has one. The independents offer them. Canon needs one. I won't buy one, but I'm not exactly the market.

 

[mattr]

We have the 60mm macro, the 10-22, the 17-85IS, the 17-55IS. What's
next!?

What is IMO desperately needed is a very high quality and compact EF-S 30/1.8 or 30/1.4. More likely is probably a long range zoom, e.g. EF-S 18-200 IS, because Nikon has already one. Most likely is perhaps that there won't be another EF-S lens this year. Canon wants people to go full frame after all. That's where they unfortunately still have no competition and that's where the biggest profit margins are.

Will Canon go long for EF-S next time around? I think so!

It wouldn't make much sense because there are plenty of long EF lenses and the smaller EF-S image circle affects mainly the design of wide lenses. But something starting at 50mm like an EF-S 50-150/2.8 IS may be in the pipeline.

 

[Lee Jay]

The 10-22 is such a fine lens, and is so well corrected, that I can't
imagine why anyone would prefer a fisheye version. If you like the
fisheye perspective, convert the wonderful rectilinear 10mm image to
a fisheye view in software. That seems to be much easier than
correcting in the other direction.

A 9.5mm fisheye is MASSIVELY wider than the 10-22.

Then again, if fisheye is your thing, why not just use a current FF
fisheye lens?

I have one, but I also have a 5D. They should make an EF-s version for those with only crop cameras, like Tokina now does (10-17 zoom fisheye).

I'm just asking, so don't take offense. I'd like to understand your
reasoning.

This example is only to show the difference in angle-of-view. This is not the right subject for a fisheye.



Defished:



--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[oldboy]

What is IMO desperately needed is a very high quality and compact
EF-S 30/1.8 or 30/1.4. ....

Ah, that is actually a very good thought!

--
Aspiring to retire...
Lou

 

[bronxbombers]

rumors actually claim EF-S 18-55 IS kit lens so that they can match spec as having IS in stock kit to the manufacturers having built-in IS. obv doesn't do much for the avg user on this forum, but it actually might make some sense in a rebel, marketing sort of way. a really inexpensive IS kit lens.

of course the rumors may be daft, although the specs they list for possible 40D seem very reasonable and the two photos (of camera body, not lens) seem far more legit than most.

We have the 60mm macro, the 10-22, the 17-85IS, the 17-55IS. What's
next!?

What is IMO desperately needed is a very high quality and compact
EF-S 30/1.8 or 30/1.4. More likely is probably a long range zoom,
e.g. EF-S 18-200 IS, because Nikon has already one. Most likely is
perhaps that there won't be another EF-S lens this year. Canon wants
people to go full frame after all. That's where they unfortunately
still have no competition and that's where the biggest profit margins
are.

Will Canon go long for EF-S next time around? I think so!

It wouldn't make much sense because there are plenty of long EF
lenses and the smaller EF-S image circle affects mainly the design of
wide lenses. But something starting at 50mm like an EF-S 50-150/2.8
IS may be in the pipeline.

 

[Rowbear]

Based on a rumor, (and its just a rumour) the 18-55 kit lens might receive IS to answer those who complain that Canon doesn't have some form of in camera IS like Sony and all.

--
Robert
http://www.pbase.com/rgravel/mes_photos

 

[Lee Jay]

Here's a shot many people like from the 15mm fisheye on the 5D. You couldn't get this shot with the 10-22 (not nearly wide enough), and this is a good one for a fisheye because it keeps round things round. It was also taken at ISO 1600, and f2.8, 1/125th to freeze the fish.



--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[ed rader]

where canon is getting its bootay kicked by nikon....i think a superzoom might be next. other than that i really don't expect many -- if any -- more ef-s lenses.

i mean what's needed?

ed rader

--



'One often has mixed feelings about relatives, but few people could identify serious problems in their relationships with dogs.'

-- Anonymous

 

[Joe Photo Lover]

Hard for me to consider the 17-55mm f2.8 EF-S as an "entry level" lens considering the facts that it "ain't cheap" and there are so many "professionals" that earn money with it shooting weddings. LOL

 

[ed rader]

i recently used the 17-55 to shoot a wedding. i hurriedly bough the 17-55 and 20d because the shutter broke on my 5d.

i have to say that the 17-55 ain't a bad lens. very impressive wide open. i kept the 20d as a back-up and sold the 17-55 when i got my 5d back.

i figure the 5d would be preferred by more pros for weddings...at least the ones who can afford it .

ed rader

--



'One often has mixed feelings about relatives, but few people could identify serious problems in their relationships with dogs.'

-- Anonymous

 

[gml]

where canon is getting its bootay kicked by nikon....i think a
superzoom might be next. other than that i really don't expect many
-- if any -- more ef-s lenses.

i mean what's needed?

You are right, I'm afraid.

An ultrawide prime like a 12/2.8 wouldn't a bad idea. The truth is, though, the people that care about quality glass have already moved to the 5D.

 

[Nathan Yan]

Wow, impressive! How many pixels do you have left after you crop out the unusable portions of the rectilinearized version? I've been thinking of replacing my Sigma 10-20 with the 10-17 just for this reason.

The 10-22 is such a fine lens, and is so well corrected, that I can't
imagine why anyone would prefer a fisheye version. If you like the
fisheye perspective, convert the wonderful rectilinear 10mm image to
a fisheye view in software. That seems to be much easier than
correcting in the other direction.

A 9.5mm fisheye is MASSIVELY wider than the 10-22.

Then again, if fisheye is your thing, why not just use a current FF
fisheye lens?

I have one, but I also have a 5D. They should make an EF-s version
for those with only crop cameras, like Tokina now does (10-17 zoom
fisheye).

I'm just asking, so don't take offense. I'd like to understand your
reasoning.

This example is only to show the difference in angle-of-view. This
is not the right subject for a fisheye.



Defished:



--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Nathan Yan]

where canon is getting its bootay kicked by nikon....i think a
superzoom might be next. other than that i really don't expect many
-- if any -- more ef-s lenses.

i mean what's needed?

You are right, I'm afraid.
An ultrawide prime like a 12/2.8 wouldn't a bad idea. The truth is,
though, the people that care about quality glass have already moved
to the 5D.

I could think of a bunch of lenses that I'd love to see in EF-S. But I think you guys are right - unless a 1.6x 1-series comes along, I think the 20D/30D will see dwindling market share, as entry-level consumers stick with the Rebel series forever, and more advanced users go for 5D. A bit sad, as I think there would be a really big market for a 1.6x 1-series (from the few sports I've done, ISO3200 on the 20D sensor is not bad at all, and the 1.6x would be cheaper and appreciated by sports shooters).

But a few lenses I'd like to see:

A cheaper 25-35mm range f1.4, along the lines of Sigma's 30 f1.4.

An ultrawide prime - a 10mm f3.5 rectilinear (I think since most everyone shoots at 10mm anyway, might as wel make it a prime)

An 8mm fisheye

An 18-200 IS ultrazoom, and perhaps a more conservative 18-125 IS ultrazoom.

High quality (L build quality) standard zoom - 16-50 f2.8? 15-60 f4?

 

[ed rader]

the good news is canon has made some very fine ef-s lenses even if they make no more.

i mean if a guy had a 30d + 10-22, 17-55 IS and one of the 70-200Ls or the 70-300 IS he'd be set.

ed rader

--



'One often has mixed feelings about relatives, but few people could identify serious problems in their relationships with dogs.'

-- Anonymous