Reading mode: Light Dark

Most Wanted/What should Canon make?

Go to last post
In your calculation on the size of the front element, did you consider the smaller image circle of the EFS lens? I guess that you probably did, because I kind of thought that a 50-150mm EFS f2.0 would be about the same size as a 70-200mm f2.8 full frame lens. And I do believe that the 70-200mm does take a 77mm filter.

I don't really see this size as a problem, as I currently use a Sigma 70-200 f2.8. It is just a little on the long side for most of what I do. When you consider that it was designed for a full frame field of view, it only makes sense that it would be a little long.

They have made other field of view equivelent lenses, but have not yet taken advantage of the smaller sensor, to make the lenses faster. The 17-85 IS = the 28-135mm full frame. The Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 would be about like a 28-80mm f2.8. Why not a fast zoom to approximate the 70-200mm on a 1.6 crop?

I believe Olympus has offered a f2.0 zoom, but their sensor is a 2x crop.

Probably just more wishful thinking.

Jim
 
--

When you earnestly believe you can compensate for a lack of skill by doubling your efforts, there's no end to what you can't do. - despair.com
 
I really do think an EF-S zoom to approximate the FoV of 70-200mm would be a great lens for 1.6x crop body owners. The focal length for such a lens would be 44-125mm. If it is based on the 70-200 F4L design, it would be a 44-125 F2.8, if it is based on the 70-200 F2.8L design, it would be a 44-125 F2.0! Since the area of the image circle for a 1.6x crop sensor is abotu 40% of the area of the image circle for a full size sensor, the EF-S version will easily gain at least one f-stop of speed even accounting for some efficiency loss. Even though such lenses are possible by making minor modifications to the rear elements of existing full-frame 70-200 lenses, Canon would have a lot of reservations about making such fast zoom lenses that will only work with the cheapest digital EOS bodies.

At least an EF-S 44-125mm f/2.8 IS that is smaller (and hopefully cheaper) than the EF 70-200L IS would be a very welcome addition to the EF-S family.
 
ljfinger said:
BillTSuperTester said:
Actually there are several:
1) It would presumably be smaller and lighter than an FF 500mm
which is a boon for us hikers and kayakers
Click to expand...
This is false. The weight savings are basically zero on lenses
longer than about 44mm.
Click to expand...
Assuming your logic is correct you are technically correct and I learned

yet another valuable piece of information. But, for an equiivalent given focal length the 1.6 crop system will still be lighter until FF matches
its pixel density.
Lee Jay said:
Lee Jay said:
2) To match the pixel density of the current 8.2 20d/350D an FF
camera would need to offer 1.6 * 1.6 * 8.2 = 20.9 megapixels. By
the time they do that the 30d will be out with > 10 megapixels which
will again put the
1.6 crop cameras in the lead for pixel density. I am pretty happy
with the noise performance I see out of the 12.7 megapixel Nikon
D2X and its
pixel density is 1.5 * 1.5 * 12.7 = 28.6 FF equivalent.
Click to expand...
I was only talking about the lens, not the camera. The D2x has
horrible high-ISO noise performance anyway.
Click to expand...
I guess I don't see that in the samples I have seen. It is not as good as the 20d or 5d but gives me hope that Canon can keep noise low for 12-14 megapixel 1.6 crop cameras. Remember that they improved noise performance in the 20d Vs 10d.
Lee Jay said:
Lee Jay said:
3) Based on what I am seeing for 20d noise Vs ISO compared to 5d I
am not convinced FF is necessary for low noise. I was expecting
much better
high ISO noise performance out of the 5D than it exhibits. By much
I mean
matching the 20d ISO 800 performance at ISO 3200. Not impressed thus
far. Even if FF pulls ahead decisively in noise Vs ISO I would be
willing to trade off lighter camera system for a given pixel
density for less high ISO capability.
Click to expand...
The 5D is drastically better than the 20D. See here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=16107908
Click to expand...
I see less improvement between the 5d and 20d than the 20d Vs 10d.
Don't get me wrong, the 5D is a step foward but a much smaller step

than I expected. To me lowering the noise for the 20d Vs the 10d was a much bigger step. Again, note that I said "for a given pixel density".

And I am totally happy with the 20d noise levels at ISO 1600. Properly exposed in raw and post processed I can make 13x19 prints without visible noise and with excellent detail at ISO 1600. Exposure is critical but
it is doable. Obviously less noise is always better but being able to
get the shot is what matters.
Lee Jay said:
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
Click to expand...
 
BillTSuperTester said:
Assuming your logic is correct you are technically correct and I
learned
yet another valuable piece of information. But, for an equiivalent
given focal length the 1.6 crop system will still be lighter until
FF matches
its pixel density.
Click to expand...
This is only true of long lenses but, yes, pixel density is important for resolving power when you are focal-length limited.
BillTSuperTester said:
BillTSuperTester said:
The 5D is drastically better than the 20D. See here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=16107908
Click to expand...
I see less improvement between the 5d and 20d than the 20d Vs 10d.
Click to expand...
Did you read that thread?

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
yes I would like to see someone make a 1.6x equalivlent to the 24mm 2.8, and a 20-60 or a 24-80 zoom. I already cover this range, but I wouldn't mind selling lens and getting new ones.

A very good scheme for me would be:
10, 12 or 14mm 2.8 (12 best compromise)

15-45 2.8-4.5 (more tele would be nice and const app, but I'm thinking reasonable)

I'm somewhat adicted to really wide angle at present, but 24mm is often called the widest 'easy' to use length so 14mm prime would be cool with me too as it might be more likely to happen.

For now its my Sigma 10-20, canon 28, 35 and 50 with the old kit thrown in for good measure, though when I move to my next body its going to go.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbryce/
 
don't worry, be happy.
 
The rumored 50 1.2 that would complement my 135L and a 24-105 2.8 (non IS) at a few hundred bucks less than the curent 24-105 IS. I would be very happy with 17-85L 2.8 full frame (non-apsc size)
just my 3 cents
Tim

--
if it aint shot, go shoot it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sinnbilder
What terrible decisions Canon marketing is capable of making
Replies
9
Views
383
Sittatunga
S
T
Making the switch to OM
2
Replies
35
Views
83
bluevellet
bluevellet
Handiworks
Your Most-Used Lens?
3 4 5
Replies
88
Views
89
Rod McD
R
J
Is this the pinnacle in sharpness, or more to go for??
Replies
14
Views
70
jgale
J
Myles Baker
RF lenses. What I have & what I'm looking at
2 3
Replies
47
Views
108
picturetime2
P

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top