Reading mode: Light Dark

Canon asleep at the wheel on EF-S lens designs

Go to last post
What's the problem? They do it today in a not so much different way for FF: 24-70L with f2.8 and 24-105L with f4. A smaller zoom range with higher speed, and a larger zoom range with lower speed. Perfectly reasonable!

So they could as well add a first class 4/15-70 to the first class 2.8/17-55.

I would consider these two lenses quite different, just like those two FF lenses. The 17-55 has speed, the 15-70 would have the better focal length range.

And, btw, a 4/15-70 would perfectly match to that half dozen of Canon tele zooms which all start at 70mm.

Anyway, they need a standard zoom starting at 24mm equivalent. Everyone has it - except Canon on their APS-C cameras.

I'm sure they will make a 15-xx lens before long. But I'm a bit afraid they make it a cheap one.
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.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
Click to expand...
 
I think this is where Canon is lacking.

Nikon 16-85 and 18-105 win Canon 17-85 easily in SLRGEAR and Photozone tests.

Lightweight, very good IQ, broad range IS zoom needed!

17-55 is a bit heavy, expensive and not enough wide focal length range. It must be a good lens but still not enough tele for me.
17-40 obviously not enough tele.

17-85 should have update for sharper and less distorted image.

Or maybe a completely new one like 17-105 or 15-85..?
12mm/f3.5 200g prime would be nice also.

Anyway sharp EF-S lenses needed: 50D is 15Mp already!
 
upnorthfar said:
I think this is where Canon is lacking.

Nikon 16-85 and 18-105 win Canon 17-85 easily in SLRGEAR and
Photozone tests.

Lightweight, very good IQ, broad range IS zoom needed!

17-55 is a bit heavy, expensive and not enough wide focal length
range. It must be a good lens but still not enough tele for me.
17-40 obviously not enough tele.

17-85 should have update for sharper and less distorted image.

Or maybe a completely new one like 17-105 or 15-85..?
12mm/f3.5 200g prime would be nice also.

Anyway sharp EF-S lenses needed: 50D is 15Mp already!
Click to expand...
I agree with everything you say here. Canon need a walk around with greater width, improved IQ, plus not as heavy as the 17-55 2.8.
 
pavel_k said:
The point of my post was that Canon doesn't have any high-end EFS
tele zooms. The Canon 55-250 can by no means be considered high-end,
unlike the 17-55. Saying to just use FF lenses is beyond the point of
this thread, we're discussing EF-S lenses. If there was no need for
EF-S lenses, we wouldn't have 17-55, 60mm, 17-85, etc.

The Zuiko lens I mentioned was an example of what other manufacturers
are doing and Canon isn't. Yes, Canon has a great APS-C sensor, but
EF-S lens lineup is limited. Just because Canon is doing a lot of
things well, shouldn't stop us pointing out the weaknesses.

Comparing DOF between APS-C, FF or 4:3 can be pro or con depending on
the use. Some prefer a crop fast lens with large DOF over slow FF
lens with the same DOF. Besides your average consumer, a lof of us
here obviously considered the impact of DOF when choosing APS-C, or
4:3 compared to FF.

Looking again at the Zuiko 50-200 example, I do not see an equivalent
in Canon EF-S lineup, do you? Something that has great IQ even wide
open, has such a zoom range and reach and is also weathersealed. The
Canon 100-400 L would be the closest FF equivalent, but it's a lot
larger and heavier than the Zuiko. If Canon made 100-400 L equivalent
or similiar in EF-S, I would be happy. Add to that something like
Sigma's 50-150 F/2.8 and it would be really great.

I do believe that Canon will eventually come up with a high end EF-S
tele zoom. They produced great EF-S lenses in the 10-22, 17-55 and
60mm, why not finish it of on the tele end and maybe throw in a quick
prime. It's just frustrating waiting so long and not knowing what is
Canon's roadmap.
Click to expand...
Because an EF-S tele-zoom would not provide a significant size/weight advantage over a regular EF tele-zoom of equivalent focal length. An EF-S 100-400 would be pretty much the same size and weight as an EF 100-400mm.

By the way, there is not a huge size/weight difference between the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and the Zuiko 50-200 considering that the Zuiko drops to f/3.5 on the tele end (and therefore can get away with a 67mm front element) while the EF maintains f/2.8 throughput the zoom range (and consequently has to use a 77mm front element.) One could argue that the EF 70-200mm f/4L would be to right lens to compare to the Zuiko as the APS-C sensor would give youat least 1 f/stop advantage in terms of high ISO noise.

The only missing link in Canon's tele zoom portfolio is a 70-300mm f/4L IS or a 100-300mm f/4L IS. Such a lens would probably be the same size/weight as the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, but would almost definitely provide better IQ than a 70-200 f/2.8L IS + 1.4x TC.
 
Us poor EF-S shooters have a poor lens selection from Canon, yes. FF have a terrific and cost effective solution with two great choices for UWA (16-35/2.8 and 17-40/4), two great walk arounds (24-70/2.8 and 24-105/4), and tele zooms up the wazoo. This is without going into the cheapo consumer lens category.

EF-S has only one of the two "high-end" walkaround options, and no compact f/2.8 IS tele zoom.
iMac said:
We're stuck with only the largest lens selection of any camera maker.
Boo hoo. I better call the whaaaaaaaambulance.
Click to expand...
 
And the Canon 60mm f2.8 vignets when used as portrait lens. The Sigma 70mm f2.8 does not do that.
 
only the 60 2.8 from canon and 30 1.4 from sigma that I know of. This could be a nice way to upgrade the 20-50 range for canon and add USM motors.
 
That there is no EF-S equivalent of the FF 24-105/4, that starts around 16mm and ends around 70mm. You know what - I'll make it easy for you to comprehend: make it an EF lens for all I care. Just give me that range for a crop camera. But of course, in EF it is impossible (17-40 is currently the max for f/4 FF starting at 17mm). But you're right, it's all in my mind... all imagined.... hallucinated in fact.
iMac said:
you don't HAVE to use EF-S lenses. The EF lenses work quite nicely on
crop cameras.

The shortcoming of lenses is in your mind, not Canon's lineup.

--
Some cool cats that can use your help
http://www.wildlife-sanctuary.org

Even if you can't donate, please help spread the word.
Click to expand...
 
I'm starting to sound like a broken record when I keep mentioning these lenses on threads like this:
  • EF-S 30mm f/1.4 USM (normal lens on croppers, with IQ same or better than the Sigma version)
  • EF-S 15-45mm or 15-60mm f/4 IS USM (3x or 4x standard zoom that starts at 24mm equivalent, with IQ same or better than 24-70/2.8L or 24-105/4L)
-maybe add in an FF UWA zoom that starts at 14mm or maybe even 12mm (so that it would be wider than 24mm equivalent when used with a cropper), say: 14-24/2.8L USM or 12-20/4 USM or something similar, with IQ same or better than the Nikon 14-24/2.8
 
Mokes said:
That there is no EF-S equivalent of the FF 24-105/4, that starts
around 16mm and ends around 70mm. You know what - I'll make it easy
for you to comprehend: make it an EF lens for all I care. Just give
me that range for a crop camera. But of course, in EF it is
impossible (17-40 is currently the max for f/4 FF starting at 17mm).
But you're right, it's all in my mind... all imagined....
hallucinated in fact.
Click to expand...
Yes it is all imagined because you tell yourself that you must have a 16-70 lens.... there is NOTHING magical about range. Frankly the 24-105 is a GREAT lens on a crop camera and couple that with a 10-22 EF-S, there's nothing better IMO. There's nothing magical about a 16mm wide end (or 15mm as others have mentioned), nor is there anything magical about a 70mm long end. Any limitations on lenses are those that user ascribes to them. As a Canon shooter there is no focal length that can not be shot from 10mm through 800mm - if that's too limiting, that's not Canon's problem.
 
another laughable thread.

"ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL ON EF-S LENS DESIGNS"

as already pointed out canon has a similar & reasonably priced EF-S 55-250 f4.5-5.6

they're not going make L f4 constant zooms for EF-S when that is a system that will sometime soon be limited to the cheapest Rebels and maybe one X0D model.
Mokes said:
The new Pentax 60-250mm f/4 looks gorgeous, weight-wise it's right
between the Canon 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8 (67mm front element as the
Canon f/4). Pentax also has a 17-70 f/4. Sadly Canon also has no
50-150 f/2.8 like Sigma (or similar lenses from Tokina/Pentax).
The only class-leading EF-S lens by Canon is the 17-55/2.8 IS - their
other EF-S offerings are either mediocre or matched by nice lenses
from other vendors (e.g. the 60mm and 10-22 which are fine lenses are
matched by lower cost lenses from Sigma, for the most part). Wake up
Canon! I never thought Pentax would be more innovative than Canon on
lens designs....
Click to expand...
 
Mokes said:
That there is no EF-S equivalent of the FF 24-105/4, that starts
around 16mm and ends around 70mm. You know what - I'll make it easy
for you to comprehend: make it an EF lens for all I care. Just give
me that range for a crop camera. But of course, in EF it is
impossible (17-40 is currently the max for f/4 FF starting at 17mm).
But you're right, it's all in my mind... all imagined....
hallucinated in fact.
Click to expand...
because to make a lens with the IQ of say the 17-55/2.8 with constant aperture and IS would cost more than the majority of the consumers that would be interested in the lens would pay for.

so it's not made, because there's no real point to it - how many consumers would spend 2K or so on a lens and an EF-S one for that matter.
 
Mokes said:
The new Pentax 60-250mm f/4 looks gorgeous, weight-wise it's right
between the Canon 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8 (67mm front element as the
Canon f/4).
Click to expand...
The only real reason to make an EF-S version of a lens is if it offers a sufficient size or weight advantage over the FF version. But as you've pointed out, Canon's 70-200/4L is just about the same size and weight as the 60-250 f/4. In fact, I bet Canon could expand the zoom range to 60-250, keep it FF, and still be only a bit larger than the APS-specific Pentax. That allows you to only use the central "sweet spot" of the lens when using it on an APS body, but also allows you to use it on a FF body. People just have to realize that it isn't necessarily a must to have an EF-S version of every lens. Depending on the focal length, the difference between an EF-S and EF version of a lens can often be minimal. At short focal lengths, like wide angle, the benefits of EF-S can be significant when it comes to the size of the lens. But at mid to longer focal lengths, the size and weight benefits of EF-S become diminished, even to the point of making no difference at all, especially at longer focal lengths.
 
Mokes said:
EF-S has only one of the two "high-end" walkaround options, and no
compact f/2.8 IS tele zoom.
Click to expand...
You assume a telephoto f/2.8 EF-S lens would be significantly smaller than a FF version. This is not necessarily the case. At longer focal lengths, making a telephoto "APS-specific" has little or no effect on the size or weight of the camera. Changing the focal length (as in giving a lens a shorter focal length, to which APS' multiplier is then applied to make it equivalent to FF focal lengths) does have an effect on size and weight, but you can still make those lenses FF.
 
iMac said:
Yes it is all imagined because you tell yourself that you must have a
16-70 lens.... there is NOTHING magical about range. Frankly the
24-105 is a GREAT lens on a crop camera and couple that with a 10-22
EF-S, there's nothing better IMO. There's nothing magical about a
16mm wide end (or 15mm as others have mentioned), nor is there
anything magical about a 70mm long end. Any limitations on lenses are
those that user ascribes to them. As a Canon shooter there is no
focal length that can not be shot from 10mm through 800mm - if that's
too limiting, that's not Canon's problem.
Click to expand...
They cost more, they weight more, the fl range is not as useful as it is on FF for which the lens is designed

Just compare 70-200/2.8 FF to sigma 50-150/2.8 to realize what a difference of these 3 factors you can get by making lens specific to aps, indeed EF-S is the subject of this conversation

True you can combine multiple lens but you have to swap more often and you carry more weight and you spend more money than having a single lens equiv to 24-105 for aps.

I agree with the OP but it's unlikely we'll see the lens invoked in this thread, Canon (and now also many others) is clearly concentrating on FF for high end lenses.
 
Mokes said:
That there is no EF-S equivalent of the FF 24-105/4, that starts
around 16mm and ends around 70mm. You know what - I'll make it easy
for you to comprehend: make it an EF lens for all I care. Just give
me that range for a crop camera. But of course, in EF it is
impossible (17-40 is currently the max for f/4 FF starting at 17mm).
But you're right, it's all in my mind... all imagined....
hallucinated in fact.
Click to expand...
Currently, Canon has the 17-55/2.8 EF-S IS. Buy that. Down the road, Canon will probably offer an f/4 version. You have to remember that for many, many, many years, FF users only had the 28-70/2.8L and 24-70/2.8L. It wasn't until fairly recently that Canon even offered the 24-105/4L. And other brands still don't offer such a lens. Sometimes, things don't necessarily come along exactly when we want them to. And sometimes, things come along first in other brands, and vice versa. But right now, Canon offers the 17-55/2.8 EF-S IS for serious users, and the 18-55/3.5-5.6 EF-S IS for casual shooters, and that covers a lot of ground.
 
Antonio_2 said:
I agree with the OP but it's unlikely we'll see the lens invoked in
this thread, Canon (and now also many others) is clearly
concentrating on FF for high end lenses.
Click to expand...
That's what people were saying right up until the moment Canon introduced the 17-55/2.8 EF-S IS. In fact, people were even saying that Canon would never produce a constant f/2.8 EF-S lens. I think Canon has every intention of meeting the needs of both APS and FF users. But things just take time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Upgrade camera or lenses? (Canon EOS 2000d)
Replies
13
Views
2K
Koensol
K
D
EF 70-200 f/4L IS ii vs EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L for 5D IV?
Replies
12
Views
4K
rsn
R
T
Too much overlap
Replies
8
Views
3K
Dave
Dave
Z
16+28-200 -> sony/canon + UWA (tamron 16-30, 17-50, sony 16-35, canon 14-35, 16-28)
Replies
10
Views
806
zalmanium
Z
R
Is the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 still worth getting?
Replies
5
Views
347
beagle1
B

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