Reading mode: Light Dark

What's the next EF-S Lens?

Go to last post
you won't find me arguing with you. with the recent releases of the 70-200L f4 IS and the 70-300 IS i just don't see a 50-150 coming.

ed rader

ed rader

--



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

-- Anonymous
 
Well, on the 30D/20D/10D/D60/D30 forum, it's been said (with source included) that an IS version of the 18-55 kit lens is due to be released with the 40D:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=24259505
oldboy said:
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!
Click to expand...
--
http://retroblader.smugmug.com/

If you like my photos, praise the camera. If you don't, blame me (but please tell me how I can improve my photos.)
 
You can shrink the image circle to cover the EF-S sensor, but then you will also change the focal length. What you will end up is most likely an f/2 lens that has FoV equivalent to 300mm (but focal length close to 200mm).
 
If Nikon can make the 55-200VR for US$250 (street), you can bet Canon has a way of introducing IS to the 18-55/3.5-5.6 without encroaching on the 17-85IS (which streets for US505). Even if Canon sells the 18-55IS at US$300-350, there is still enough separation from the 17-85IS.

I suspect Canon will continue to sell the non-IS 18-55/3.5-5.6 alongside the IS version. Just like now there are multiple "kits" available for each camera.

The "newer & better" 18-55IS will initially be bundled with the 40D as a way to show its "superiority" to the 400D. But later on, Canon will bundle the 18-55IS with the 400D, and even the 350D, in order to compete with other manufacturers' entry-level DSLRs.
skyliner said:
We've seen how much more expensive a lens gets when it
gains IS, and I'm not sure Canon would be able to price an IS kit
lens low enough to sell it given the price of the 17-85. Also, if the
current kit lens were to be discontinued with the introduction of an
IS version, it would raise the price of all the entry-level kits
(which I doubt Canon would be foolish enough to do). A kit lens
priced around $100 seems necessary for that reason, but that just
leads back to the question of how much demand there would be for a
slow 18-55 IS given the existence of the 17-85...
Click to expand...
--
http://retroblader.smugmug.com/

If you like my photos, praise the camera. If you don't, blame me (but please tell me how I can improve my photos.)
 
although the bestbuy leak post, if legit, seems to show the 40D bundled with 28-135IS. maybe the 18-55 IS to be bundled with 400D. or maybe it would cost too much to distinguish itself from 17-85 and it is all nonsense.
RetroBlader said:
I suspect Canon will continue to sell the non-IS 18-55/3.5-5.6
alongside the IS version. Just like now there are multiple "kits"
available for each camera.

The "newer & better" 18-55IS will initially be bundled with the 40D
as a way to show its "superiority" to the 400D. But later on, Canon
will bundle the 18-55IS with the 400D, and even the 350D, in order to
compete with other manufacturers' entry-level DSLRs.
skyliner said:
We've seen how much more expensive a lens gets when it
gains IS, and I'm not sure Canon would be able to price an IS kit
lens low enough to sell it given the price of the 17-85. Also, if the
current kit lens were to be discontinued with the introduction of an
IS version, it would raise the price of all the entry-level kits
(which I doubt Canon would be foolish enough to do). A kit lens
priced around $100 seems necessary for that reason, but that just
leads back to the question of how much demand there would be for a
slow 18-55 IS given the existence of the 17-85...
Click to expand...
--
http://retroblader.smugmug.com/
If you like my photos, praise the camera. If you don't, blame me
(but please tell me how I can improve my photos.)
Click to expand...
 
although a different source showed a photograph of an apparent bestbuy inventory sheet showing the 40D kit with the 28-135IS and available on sept 2nd.

of course they ight have more than one kit or the 18-55 may be meant ot be kitted with the 400D or it may all be nonsense.
RetroBlader said:
oldboy said:
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!
Click to expand...
--
http://retroblader.smugmug.com/
If you like my photos, praise the camera. If you don't, blame me
(but please tell me how I can improve my photos.)
Click to expand...
 
ljfinger said:
Steen Bay said:
Well, let's imagine a EF-S 70-300/2,8 IS. Wouldn't that be smaller
than a EF 70-300/2,8 IS because of the smaller image-circle?
Click to expand...
Nope...same size (well, there would be a very tiny reduction).

300/2.8 = 107mm - entrance pupil size regardless of image circle size.



That entire front section on the left would still be the same, and
the overall length would be the same. Some of those tiny elements on
the right could get very slightly smaller. Overall, no real change
in size.
Click to expand...
.. what you actually mean when you say "aperture". I've always taken for granted that you refered to the diameter of the diaphragm, but now it seems that you are talking about the "entrence pupil" or front element on the lens..

I'm also wondering... let's take a 100mm lens and a 100x cropped sensor. That gives us a 10.000mm equivalent FOV. An EF 100mm f/2 must have an aperture or entrence pupil that's at least 50mm, but it will have an image-circle with 100x bigger diameter than needed, and "total light" would be 10.000x bigger than needed for that tiny 100x sensor.

Why isn't it possible to reduce the entrence pupil 100x, and still get the intensity of light that "f/2" refers to, just on a 100x smaller image-circle?
 
Steen Bay said:
.. what you actually mean when you say "aperture". I've always taken
for granted that you refered to the diameter of the diaphragm, but
now it seems that you are talking about the "entrence pupil" or front
element on the lens..
Click to expand...
The aperture or entrance pupil diameter is the diameter of the entrance pupil as seen from the front of the lens, by definition. Colored in red here:


Steen Bay said:
I'm also wondering... lets take a 100mm lens and a 100x cropped
sensor. That gives us a 10.000mm equivalent FOV. An EF 100mm f/2 must
have an aperture or entrence pupil that's at least 50mm, but it will
have an imagecircle with 100x bigger diameter than needed, and "total
light" would be 10.000x bigger than needed for that tiny 100x sensor.

Why isn't it possible to reduce the entrence pupil 100x, and still
get the intensity of light that "f/2" refers to, just on a 100x
smaller image-circle?
Click to expand...
Because the entire aperture is used to illuminate each infinitesimal spot on the sensor. The focal point is illuminated by the entire aperture. Removing some of the aperture will remove light from that single point in the center of the sensor. The size of the focal plane or image circle is irrelevant as each individual pixel looks out at the scene through the entire aperture. I realize this isn't intuitive. Most people don't understand how lenses work.

From wikipedia:



--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
ljfinger said:
Token said:
Yes, anything over a specific focal length gains very little by being
an EF-S. Once you get over about 50mm there is only a very small
savings in weight or size that is possible with the EF-S over the EF
specification. But logic is not always the reason for a company to
market a product.

Take, for example, the EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro. It actually does NOT
benefit from the EF-S spec that allows the rear lens element to be
closer to the focal plane. There is a plastic baffle around the rear
lens that does occupy this area, but the lens itself does not. This
lens just as easily could have been built as an EF, but I believe
Canon wanted to show support for the new mount, and so they made it
an EF-S.
Click to expand...
Hmmm...this is the 100/2.8 macro:



This is the 60/2.8 macro:



It sure looks like the rear element is just slightly behind the
mount. Also, EF-s allowed them to "scale" existing lenses so they
didn't have to go through a full redesign, just a trimming of the
existing design. That certainly looks to be the case here.
Click to expand...
Sure, but what I said is the EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro did not take advantage of the EF-S spec allowing the rear element to be closer to the focal plane than with the EF spec. I did not say the rear element did not extend into the mount a little bit or more than the 100mm Macro. There are many EF lenses that place the rear element rather far back into the mount, significantly farther back than the 60mm Macro does, for example the 28-135 IS shown here:



Or this EF 80mm f1.8:



There are MANY other EF lenses that do this.

In fact, the EF-S spec does not really identify only lens elements, but rather how far into the body any part of the lens may extend. Baffles, light shields, lens elements, or anything else. As such, it is very obvious from the two images you linked to that the EF 100mm Macro extends FURTHER into the camera body than the EF-S 60mm Macro. Not a lens element, but the raised section of the base.

Again I say, there was little, if any, reason for Canon to release the 60mm Macro as an EF-S lens, it just as easily could have been an EF as it does not take advantage of any EF-S spec other than the need to illuminate a 1.6 crop sensor. I am pretty sure it would under illuminate a FF sensor as it currently exist, but if they had wanted it to illuminate a FF they could have made it do it easily without impacting weight or size more than a few percent at worst.

Canon wanted to show that they were dedicated to the EF-S mount. This meant they had to get a few lenses out there, and the rescaling of the 100mm f2.8 Macro made it an easy thing to get to market. Of course this is just a guess on my part, but it makes sense to me.

T!
--

 
Token said:
Baffles, light shields, lens elements, or anything else. As such, it
is very obvious from the two images you linked to that the EF 100mm
Macro extends FURTHER into the camera body than the EF-S 60mm Macro.
Not a lens element, but the raised section of the base.
Click to expand...
My bad here, I was looking at the picture wrong. The raised section of the 100 Macro does NOT extend further into the camera body.

But the other lenses I posted do seem to extend just as far into the mount as the rear element of the 60mm Macro.

T!
--

 
I thought the same thing, slept on it. The part of the image circle that is outside the sensor corresponds to a field of view that is wider than the 480 MM equiv. FOV. In short, you're throwing away the portion that corresponds to the 300MM FF FOV.

Look at it another way - a perfect lens will have a FOV that is inversely proportional to the sensor size. Taken to extremes, you could have a 300 MM telephoto converted to a 3 MM wide angle with a sensor that is 100 times larger than a FF sensor. So, an ideal lens is always "throwing away" light outside the angle of view determined by the sensor.

A pin hole is an example of such an ideal lens. Of course a real lens always has some limitation of the ultimate FOV it's capable of of. Might be due to optics, baffles, obstructions. I suspect it's mechanical in most cases, and hence arbitrary. Better to block and baffle the light not used that to let it through to create flair and all.

So, every lens ever made is "throwing" away light outside it's equivalent FOV. In most cases you don't even think about it because this extra light is mechanically blocked before it reaches the end of the lens. That's just good design practic.
 
That's why I brought one. Not to large, not to heavy, good intermediate zoom range, and it's not that bright white!
 
24MM equivalent (or wider) and tiny.

Well, maybe it's a personal wish, but what about a fast, wide prime, in a tiny pancake size like Pentax makes? Would make a great landscape lens, a great indoor family activity type lens (think kid's birthday party and cake, parties around the table), a good architectural lens, and a good carry it every where street photography lens.

Funny that the new Ricoh has a 24MM zoom built in, but w/a 1.6 crop you need a 15MM lens to get the same. How many good lens does Canon have in this range? The 10-22 is nice but it's F4-4.5.
 
Pancake form factor may not be practical for Canon as they have to put the AF motor somewhere in there...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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