Canon asleep at the wheel on EF-S lens designs

simon65 · Sep 23, 2008

It's the difference between a 24-120 mm (35 mm equivalent) and 28 - 88 mm (35 mm equivalent).

That's a lot of difference in a walk around lens. I particularly value the extra width at the wide end in a 24 mm zoom.

slydog said:
Also if you change a 17-55 to
a 15-70 the image quality will most likely suffer, and it'll be
bigger and heavier.

If Olympus can produce an excellent 12-60 mm I really don't see why a Canon 15-75 mm should automatically have poor IQ. However if it is the case that a decent high IQ 24-120 mm equivalent lens is impossible in a 1.6 crop then Canon have blundered badly in selecting the 1.6 crop in the first place. 24-120 mm equivalent zooms are the most favoured zooms for good reason, they're the most useful.

simon65 · Sep 23, 2008

ljfinger said:
simon65 said:

Your answer please Canon???

Click to expand...

24-105/4L IS - a stop faster at the wide end, two stops faster at the
tele end when on a full-frame camera, optically excellent, and with
optical IS. When bought with the 5D, it's $600 - $200 less than the
Olympus 12-60 is by itself.

Yes but we're discussing Canon's 1.6 crop lens range, not it FF line.

Lee Jay · Sep 23, 2008

Mokes said:
Actually Canon can make it even smaller since EF-S lenses are closer
to the sensor than 3rd party "crop" lenses that are not proper EF-S.

That is not so. Getting closer doesn't help with lenses that are longer than about 44mm at the wide end.

Look at the EF-s 55-250IS. Look where that rear element is relative to the mount. Moving that mount back didn't help one bit on this lens.

On the other hand, look at the 10-22, where this does help:

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Mokes · Sep 23, 2008

ljfinger said:
simon65 said:

Your answer please Canon???

Click to expand...

24-105/4L IS - a stop faster at the wide end, two stops faster at the
tele end when on a full-frame camera, optically excellent, and with
optical IS. When bought with the 5D, it's $600 - $200 less than the
Olympus 12-60 is by itself.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Mokes · Sep 23, 2008

The Sigma 50-150/2.8 has elements that sit right up on the lens mount. All this is highly dependent on the specific lens construction. In any case my point is that a crop sensor in general enables a compact f/2.8 telephoto zoom with a very useful range (80-240mm equivalent). Sigma & Tokina have shown it's possible.

Lee Jay · Sep 23, 2008

Mokes said:
The Sigma 50-150/2.8 has elements that sit right up on the lens
mount. All this is highly dependent on the specific lens
construction. In any case my point is that a crop sensor in general
enables a compact f/2.8 telephoto zoom with a very useful range
(80-240mm equivalent). Sigma & Tokina have shown it's possible.

Sure - just not any smaller than it would be for full-frame.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Lee Jay · Sep 23, 2008

5D - $2200
5D + 24-105 - $2800 - a $600 difference
12-60 - $800

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

slydog · Sep 23, 2008

It's not that it would necessarily have poor quality, but it would have to be worse. You can't get something for nothing is all I'm saying. Just as every 1mm makes a big difference in shooting, it also makes a difference to the quality in manufacturing. The 17-55 is such a sharp lens for a zoom.

As someone pointed out, 28mm was the standard kit lens starting point on FF, so it's the same.

I agree that an extra couple of mm would be fantastic, but where do you draw the line? 17mm is already well into the wide range. If they gave us 15mm, you can be sure there'd be people here wishing it were 12mm and so on.

I just think if you want wider than 17mm, then you're obviously very into wide angle and the 10-22 is a fine lens for that.

I know everyone's needs are different, but that's just my view.

Mokes · Sep 23, 2008

I don't care about FF, I care about EF-S.... for EF-S 50-150/2.8 is a sweet lens... a dream lens if it has IS...

Lee Jay · Sep 23, 2008

Mokes said:
ljfinger said:

I seriously doubt they'll make one now that they
have three zooms in that space - 17-85IS, 17-55/2.8IS, 18-200IS. The
17-55 should have started at 15.

Click to expand...

The 17-85 can now be officially "retired". Who buys this lens
nowadays? The 18-200 IS eats its lunch, the Sigma 17-70 is much
better optically, and let's not even compare all the 1x-5x/2.8 lenses
to the 17-85. Canon should produce a constant f/4 EF-S starting at 15
or 16mm, up to 70mm or however high they can make it, and stop
producing the 17-85 IS. The 17-85 IS served its purpose in its time,
it's obsolete now.

They can't do that, because then their mid-range zoom would be wider than their top-range zoom. It would be like the 24-85 versus the 28-70L. They'd have to do the same as they did and replace the 17-55/2.8IS with something that started at 15, just like they replaced the 28-70L with the 24-70L.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Lee Jay · Sep 23, 2008

Mokes said:
I don't care about FF, I care about EF-S.... for EF-S 50-150/2.8 is a
sweet lens... a dream lens if it has IS...

I prefer my 70-200/2.8L IS, which I use more often on my 20D than my 5D.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Mokes · Sep 23, 2008

ljfinger said:
They can't do that, because then their mid-range zoom would be wider
than their top-range zoom. It would be like the 24-85 versus the
28-70L. They'd have to do the same as they did and replace the
17-55/2.8IS with something that started at 15, just like they
replaced the 28-70L with the 24-70L.

One is f/2.8, the other would be f/4 - different strokes for different folks.

Mokes · Sep 23, 2008

ljfinger said:
Mokes said:

I don't care about FF, I care about EF-S.... for EF-S 50-150/2.8 is a
sweet lens... a dream lens if it has IS...

Click to expand...

I prefer my 70-200/2.8L IS, which I use more often on my 20D than my 5D.

Unfortunately I don't pump iron. Of course the 70-200 range is even better, but that monster is too large and heavy for me. Why don't you go for the Sigma 120-300/2.8? I would prefer that even more.... except that it weighs 2.6kg....

Brian Lund · Sep 23, 2008

Mokes said:
I never thought Pentax would be more innovative than Canon on
lens designs....

I have never thought of Canon as being innovative when it comes to lenses..?
Okay they were and are the greatest when it comes to IS, but apart from that?

Sigma on the other hand...
12-24mm that fits fullframe, 200-500 f/2.8, DC fisheyes, the 30 f/1.4 DC...

--

Brian
http://www.pbase.com/thelund

Lee Jay · Sep 23, 2008

Mokes said:
ljfinger said:

Mokes said:

I don't care about FF, I care about EF-S.... for EF-S 50-150/2.8 is a
sweet lens... a dream lens if it has IS...

Click to expand...

I prefer my 70-200/2.8L IS, which I use more often on my 20D than my 5D.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately I don't pump iron. Of course the 70-200 range is even
better, but that monster is too large and heavy for me.

Everyone who says that receives this image from me:

Mokes said:
Why don't you
go for the Sigma 120-300/2.8?

No IS.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Mokes · Sep 23, 2008

I wasn't given a 70-200/2.8 to hold when I was a toddler... never got used to it.... Buy him a 120-300/2.8 as his first tele zoom ;-)

mattr · Sep 23, 2008

Mokes said:
One is f/2.8, the other would be f/4 - different strokes for
different folks.

Exactly.

What would be the problem if they offer a 17-55/2.8 for people who want speed and a shallower DOF with a longer tele end and a 15-45/4 for people who prefer a shorter wide end and (hopefully) smaller size for example for landscape and architecture?

I would certainly get the 15-45/4 - for me the perfect walk around lens for a 50D.

People were asking for such a lens for years. There is probably a reason why it doesn't exist yet. The optical design must be difficult for the relatively long backfocus distance in EF-S specification.

jrynash · Sep 23, 2008

and the Canon 10-22 is unmatched too.

Mokes · Sep 23, 2008

See the reviews on Fred Miranda.

And the Sigma 10-20 has very similar IQ to the 10-22, with better build quality, and much lower price that includes a hood.

jrynash said:
and the Canon 10-22 is unmatched too.

iMac therefore iAm · Sep 23, 2008

We're stuck with only the largest lens selection of any camera maker. Boo hoo. I better call the whaaaaaaaambulance.

Canon asleep at the wheel on EF-S lens designs

simon65

Guest

simon65

Guest

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts