Reading mode: Light Dark

The missing Canon normal EF-S prime

Go to last post
zenit_b said:
Of course I agree with you on the missing lens issue mattr. I have the Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 and the EF 28mm f/1.8 but would still buy a proper EF-S standard lens if it was released. In fact since the last time we discussed this I have done just that - only its got a Nikon badge on it - the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX - and its really nice. Mine cost £160 discounted and a friend sold me his old Nikon d100 to put it on. I've got some great shots and am considering a more modern Nikon body now. C'mon canon !!!
Click to expand...
i have the nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX as well. now.

but when i shot canon, i had a 28mm f/1.8 USM.

minutes spent wishing i had an EF-S "normal" prime? zero.

the truth is nikon HAD to develop the 35mm DX because until it existed the only normal primes they had were AF-D. for those of you unfamilair with nikon, these were AF lenses where the AF was driven by a motor in the body. they didn't have in-lens motors like canon's EF lenses did.

now a lot of nikon SLRs have AF motors to operate these lenses. the D90 does. the D300s and D700s and professional bodies do. all film cameras do.

but nikon's lower end cameras... the D5000, D40, etc.... basically canon rebel cameras... did NOT have built-in motors.

they had no compatible lens, therefor nikon had to make one.

canon has compatible lenses. EF 35mm, EF28mm, etc. etc. there are 5-6 choices. just pick one and buy it and quit complaining
 
YHF said:
YHF said:
Now, again, why would you prefer a lens that is the same size, the same weight, but limits to APS-C use only? And in Nikon's case, a lens with more distortion and way worse CA?
Click to expand...
I don't care if it's APS-C only; I have an APS-C camera.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, why do you care that the EF 35mm f2 is full frame? It is the SAME size and the SAME weight as the Nikon.
YHF said:
The Nikon DX lens is also $100 cheaper than the Canon 35/2, has ring-type ultrasonic motor, and is a third of a stop faster.
Click to expand...
So, it apparently is cheaper where you live. $100, not earth shattering. But ok.
I know it has an AF-S motor. Why do you need your 35mm lens to have that?

Ard of a stop faster. you have to be joking if you think that actually is noticable.

But there you go... you like the non-important things about that Nikon (everything NOT to do with image quality). And that is fine. I on the other hand prefer better optics everytime, especially if such tiny differences in price are concerned.

Yes, I will not complain when Canon will decide to upgrade this 35mm f2 with an USM. And I won't complain either if a new version means a slight hike in price. I however will NOT like it when the optics will give the crappy bokeh and CA performance of the Nikon.

So there you have it. Two lenses of similar size and weight. One can be used on FF too, the other not really. One is a bit more expensive than the other. One focusses more silent. Both focus quickly and accurately. And one has better bokeh and CA performance (the Canon), and less barrel distortion.

I know which one I would prefer, as it is all about the image.
 
jitteringjr said:
Alastair Norcross said:
You forgot to mention the 12 Y/O 35/1.4L.
Click to expand...
I didn't forget the L. It is a $1400 lens so it is not relevant to the discussion of EF-S primes due to the cost. It is a fine lens, but incidently there is a 50/50 chance that it will be the next prime updated by Canon. It and the 135/2 are the 2 remaining L primes that haven't been updated in the past 4-5 years.
Click to expand...
I was not aware of the fact that there is a new EF 200mm f2.8 L USM III? ANd I am glad to hear that there is a new EF 400mm f5.6 L USM II! Does it include IS? ;)
jitteringjr said:
jitteringjr said:
You know, sometimes you don't need to update lenses, because they work perfectly well already. It's worth updating zooms or primes with IS, because IS technology is still improving, as is zoom manufacturing technology. Canon, and other manufacturers, have known how to make really good primes in the 24-50 range for quite a while now. If you really think the 28/1.8 just isn't good enough (but it is), that's fine.
Click to expand...
It may be good enough for you considering what is available now. However I doubt you would be saying that if Canon released a new EFS-35mm prime with optics as good as the only existing EF-S prime: the 60/2.8. Canon could make make something much better now.
Click to expand...
The current optics of the 35mm f2 are already as good as those of the 60mm f2.8 macro. Not sure why you think they are not?

Sure, Canon can make better lenses, usually that means higher priices for the costs of the glass elements and glass kinds used. If only Nikon could make lenses as good as the older Canon!
jitteringjr said:
The 70-200/2.8 IS L was the lens of choice amoungst pro sports photographers and there wasn't a lot of people complaining about its performance. Then II comes out and there is nothing but praise. There are just a lot of people, myself included, that want that kind of action in an affordable normal prime.
Click to expand...
What kind of action are you referring to?
jitteringjr said:
jitteringjr said:
But if you're stamping your foot and sulking just because Canon hasn't updated it for 16 years, that laughable. I've had both the 28/1.8 and the 35/1.4.
Click to expand...
I would love the 35L but I can't justify that kind of money so that doesn't count again. The 28/1.8 isn't bad, but I think the Sigma is better for me because of the 2/3 extra stop.

Sulking? Call it what you want, but what motivation does Canon have to update these if people keep buying these archaic lenses? If we don't express our frustration somehwere, how will Canon ever know?
Click to expand...
Huh? I bought it, as it is a fine lens. Nikon has introduced a 35mm with smaller image circle, and it does not perform as well as the older Canon with FF image circle. Imagine how frustrated the Nikon shooters must be then??
jitteringjr said:
jitteringjr said:
Both are excellent. I've never used the 35/2, but I've read great things about it, and seen great results from it. But, of course, it's old, so it can't be any good.
Click to expand...
Tell me, once you have had USM focusing on other lenses, could you be happy with the loud micro motor of that lens?
Click to expand...
Ah, my most used lens... 70-200mm f4 L USM.
Ask me how happy I am with my 35mm f2!
jitteringjr said:
jitteringjr said:
I mean, for all we know, the laws of optics have changed since 1990.
Click to expand...
No but the sensor size has and new element coatings are around that improve lens performance now.
Click to expand...
So the sensor size has changed. Why is the Nikon 35mm f1.8 lens not smaller and not lighter?

And what good do the coatings do? The old Canon 35mm f2 has BETTER CA performance than the new Nikon.
 
I agree mattr

I wonder how many people who dont like the idea of a dedicated EF-S lens are actually full frame shooters ? (poll ?) Perhaps you guys consider an EF-S lens a "wasted lens" as far as you are concerned ?

Ok the ef 35mm f/2 is a nice lens - I got mine originally for the same price as the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 sells for now - £160 - a bargain (but its pricier now of course).

As an EF-S shooter though I prefer my nikon 35mm f/1.8 because
  • no "wasp in a matchbox" focussing noise
  • better shielded front element
  • proper APS-C coverage lens hood
  • no "wasted resolution" projecting image data over bits of my internal light baffling.
I would rather all the resolution of the front elements was focussed on my APS sensor. Look at the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 lens resolution to see what would be possible for Canon to achieve if they wanted to. Something like that, but with a 35mm focal length would be great.

The ancient EF 35mm f/2 canon design is very good considering how old it is (23 years old) but Pentax, Sony, Nikon, Olympus and Panasonic all have dedicated small format primes now - its time Canon took us seriously. Or do I have to buy a D7000 / D90 to get the prime experience ? hmmm... :-)
 
zenit_b said:
I agree mattr

I wonder how many people who dont like the idea of a dedicated EF-S lens are actually full frame shooters ? (poll ?) Perhaps you guys consider an EF-S lens a "wasted lens" as far as you are concerned ?

Ok the ef 35mm f/2 is a nice lens - I got mine originally for the same price as the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 sells for now - £160 - a bargain (but its pricier now of course).

As an EF-S shooter though I prefer my nikon 35mm f/1.8 because
  • no "wasp in a matchbox" focussing noise
  • better shielded front element
  • proper APS-C coverage lens hood
  • no "wasted resolution" projecting image data over bits of my internal light baffling.
I would rather all the resolution of the front elements was focussed on my APS sensor. Look at the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 lens resolution to see what would be possible for Canon to achieve if they wanted to. Something like that, but with a 35mm focal length would be great.

The ancient EF 35mm f/2 canon design is very good considering how old it is (23 years old) but Pentax, Sony, Nikon, Olympus and Panasonic all have dedicated small format primes now - its time Canon took us seriously. Or do I have to buy a D7000 / D90 to get the prime experience ? hmmm... :-)
Click to expand...
The Nikon has poorer IQ. It is not sharper, it is not lighter, it is not smaller, it has crappier bokeh and it has worse CA.

Yes, get a D7000. Just for that lens. By all means. Do.

If you mean the Pentax 35mm f2.8, it is a macro lens. And nor more compact, not lighter. And you can buy it for Canon mount too. Only then, it is called Tokina.
 
brightcolours said:
And what good do the coatings do? The old Canon 35mm f2 has BETTER CA performance than the new Nikon.
Click to expand...
The coatings have nothing to do with CA. However, they can improve color/contrast, flare resistance, and overall light transmission.
 
brightcolours said:
On the other hand, why do you care that the EF 35mm f2 is full frame? It is the SAME size and the SAME weight as the Nikon.
Click to expand...
I don't; I would use an improved full-frame 35/2 or 28/1.8. People around here seem to think that improving these lenses would "cannibalize" the sales of the 35/1.4; Canon could easily preserve the market for this lens by making an EF-S "normal." I am using the Nikon DX-only 35/1.8 to point out that it's perfectly possible to have an expensive, fast full-frame, a less-expensive full-frame, and an APS-C only option.

What I'd like to see even more than an improved 35 or 28 would be a wide-angle suitable for APS-C sensors.
brightcolours said:
But there you go... you like the non-important things about that Nikon (everything NOT to do with image quality). And that is fine. I on the other hand prefer better optics everytime, especially if such tiny differences in price are concerned.
Click to expand...
Non-important to you. Consumers that bend over and take whatever they're given are the reason why companies don't improve products. You're right--the 35/2 produces nice images. An improved focus motor, better bokeh, and improved build quality would be nice improvements; there is no reason why consumers should not convey these desires to Canon.

And that "tiny" difference in price is 50% of the total cost of the Nikon.
 
YHF said:
What I'd like to see even more than an improved 35 or 28 would be a wide-angle suitable for APS-C sensors.
Click to expand...
What they should have offered many years ago already is an EF-S 30/1.8 and EF-S 15/2.8 to complement the 60/2.8 macro. All with USM and all around $400. That would be an excellent system for enthusiast photographers with high resolution crop cameras.
 
mattr said:
What they should have offered many years ago already is an EF-S 30/1.8 and EF-S 15/2.8 to complement the 60/2.8 macro. All with USM and all around $400. That would be an excellent system for enthusiast photographers with high resolution crop cameras.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree with you more. A 22/2 as a 35mm equivalent would be great too.
 
brightcolours said:
I was not aware of the fact that there is a new EF 200mm f2.8 L USM III? ANd I am glad to hear that there is a new EF 400mm f5.6 L USM II! Does it include IS? ;)
Click to expand...
I was talking the shorter ones, but to be precise, you are correct.
brightcolours said:
The current optics of the 35mm f2 are already as good as those of the 60mm f2.8 macro. Not sure why you think they are not?
Click to expand...
Thats funny, yeah not so much.
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/513-canon60f28apsc?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/157-canon_35_2_50d?start=1

Sorry but the 60 is much sharper.
brightcolours said:
Sure, Canon can make better lenses, usually that means higher priices for the costs of the glass elements and glass kinds used. If only Nikon could make lenses as good as the older Canon!
Click to expand...
I don't care about Nikon, I have a Canon system
brightcolours said:
What kind of action are you referring to?
Click to expand...
Keep up, we are talking about EFS normal primes did you miss that when you clicked on a thread titled "The missing Canon normal EF-S prime "?
brightcolours said:
Huh? I bought it, as it is a fine lens.
Click to expand...
Good for you that you can be satisfied with a 5 aperture bladed ugly Bokeh lens with a loud grinding micro motor focusing system that is older than college grads. Sorry, I want an upgrade.
brightcolours said:
Nikon has introduced a 35mm with smaller image circle, and it does not perform as well as the older Canon with FF image circle. Imagine how frustrated the Nikon shooters must be then??
Click to expand...
Why do we keep talking about Nikon?
brightcolours said:
Ah, my most used lens... 70-200mm f4 L USM.
Ask me how happy I am with my 35mm f2!
Click to expand...
If you can be satisfied with status quo, more power to you.
brightcolours said:
So the sensor size has changed. Why is the Nikon 35mm f1.8 lens not smaller and not lighter?
Click to expand...
It is 1/3 stop faster and it is still lighter by 10 grams (200g versus 210g)
brightcolours said:
And what good do the coatings do? The old Canon 35mm f2 has BETTER CA performance than the new Nikon.
Click to expand...
I really don't know why we keep talking about Nikon, but the Nikon is 45% cheaper than the Canon, so while that is only $110, it is a huge percentage jump. I am sure they had to cut corners to keep the costs down and it cost them in IQ.

Lets get back to Canon. Say how do those 35/2 CA numbers compare to the EFS-60?

I personally don't care if they come out with a $200 EFS normal prime, but I think it is a good idea for the Rebel shooters and it also may not be as good as the 35/2 in a lot of areas. I want better than that; a $500-600 EFS 35/1.4 USM.

As I said before I think there is a market for three 35mm lenses just like there is/was a market for three 50mm lenses. (The middle range one can be EF too for those who want to use it on FF btw but it probably wouldn't be 1.4 then maybe 1.6-1.8)
 
Member said:
brightcolours wrote:

The Canon has 5 sided highlights when closed down. I happen to like it, but others may find it a negative.



Click to expand...
I am curious here how did you get 5 sided pentagon highlights if you shot this wide open at f2 like you said?
 
jitteringjr said:
brightcolours said:
I was not aware of the fact that there is a new EF 200mm f2.8 L USM III? ANd I am glad to hear that there is a new EF 400mm f5.6 L USM II! Does it include IS? ;)
Click to expand...
I was talking the shorter ones, but to be precise, you are correct.
jitteringjr said:
The current optics of the 35mm f2 are already as good as those of the 60mm f2.8 macro. Not sure why you think they are not?
Click to expand...
Thats funny, yeah not so much.
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/513-canon60f28apsc?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/157-canon_35_2_50d?start=1

Sorry but the 60 is much sharper.
Click to expand...
A little sharper. The 60mm is a short tele macro, the 35mm is a wide angle. You can not expect them to behave the same MTF wise.

About the "much sharper"... the difference is small. As the tests you point to prove. I would say, try a 35mm f2 out at a store sometime. You will be surprised (foot in mouth surprised).
jitteringjr said:
jitteringjr said:
Sure, Canon can make better lenses, usually that means higher priices for the costs of the glass elements and glass kinds used. If only Nikon could make lenses as good as the older Canon!
Click to expand...
I don't care about Nikon, I have a Canon system
jitteringjr said:
What kind of action are you referring to?
Click to expand...
Keep up, we are talking about EFS normal primes did you miss that when you clicked on a thread titled "The missing Canon normal EF-S prime "?
Click to expand...
Again, what kind of action are you referring to? You can put the 35mm f2 on any Canon APS-C body. So you must be referring to a specific action.
jitteringjr said:
jitteringjr said:
Huh? I bought it, as it is a fine lens.
Click to expand...
Good for you that you can be satisfied with a 5 aperture bladed ugly Bokeh lens with a loud grinding micro motor focusing system that is older than college grads. Sorry, I want an upgrade.
Click to expand...
You have no idea what you are talking about. ugly bokeh? Do you actually knbow what bokeh stands for? And do you have any idea what bokeh of 35mm lenses looks like? Calling the bokeh of the 35mm f2 ugly is just nonsensical and proives you have little knowledge of the matter. 5 sided aperture, yes. Correct.
jitteringjr said:
jitteringjr said:
Nikon has introduced a 35mm with smaller image circle, and it does not perform as well as the older Canon with FF image circle. Imagine how frustrated the Nikon shooters must be then??
Click to expand...
Why do we keep talking about Nikon?
Click to expand...
Because it is Nikon who inspires weirdos like you in your rants.
jitteringjr said:
jitteringjr said:
Ah, my most used lens... 70-200mm f4 L USM.
Ask me how happy I am with my 35mm f2!
Click to expand...
If you can be satisfied with status quo, more power to you.
jitteringjr said:
So the sensor size has changed. Why is the Nikon 35mm f1.8 lens not smaller and not lighter?
Click to expand...
It is 1/3 stop faster and it is still lighter by 10 grams (200g versus 210g)
Click to expand...
Youy call 10 grams lighter? Right. funny chap ;)
jitteringjr said:
jitteringjr said:
And what good do the coatings do? The old Canon 35mm f2 has BETTER CA performance than the new Nikon.
Click to expand...
I really don't know why we keep talking about Nikon, but the Nikon is 45% cheaper than the Canon, so while that is only $110, it is a huge percentage jump. I am sure they had to cut corners to keep the costs down and it cost them in IQ.

Lets get back to Canon. Say how do those 35/2 CA numbers compare to the EFS-60?
Click to expand...
Very very well. 35mm is wide angle, the 60mm a short tele macro. You have NO idea what you are talking about.
jitteringjr said:
I personally don't care if they come out with a $200 EFS normal prime, but I think it is a good idea for the Rebel shooters and it also may not be as good as the 35/2 in a lot of areas. I want better than that; a $500-600 EFS 35/1.4 USM.
Click to expand...
Why not want that for $50? Equally silly!
jitteringjr said:
As I said before I think there is a market for three 35mm lenses just like there is/was a market for three 50mm lenses. (The middle range one can be EF too for those who want to use it on FF btw but it probably wouldn't be 1.4 then maybe 1.6-1.8)
Click to expand...
 
what makes you think its less sharp brightcolours ? Mine seems very sharp and all the lpm data I have seen indicates the nikon is the sharper lens. I would be interested in understanding why you think the canon is sharper ?
 
Brightcolours the pentax lens I am refering to is designed by pentax not tokina. I think you are refering to an older macro lens. I am talking about the the DA 35mm f/2.4. Optically its very similar to the classic and well regarded FA 35mm f/2 but has a reduced glass circle and is a "for digital" design regarding coatings etc. You can get it for £150 - which is spot on the money for the current climate. Initial indications regading image quality are very good.
 
... and although I don't have first-hand knowledge, it most likely focuses better as well.

It's not even close BTW-- the Nikon is far superior optically.
 
cheddargav wrote
cheddargav said:
They should make it if only for that name.
Click to expand...
:-) totally agree
Joe Photo lover said:
cheddargav said:
I still think that a $150 EF-S 30mm f/2.8 or better would have incredible sales volumes and should be reasonably profitable even at that price. I'm imagining a lens with a gaussian optical design, little to no aspherical glass, and a simple micro-motor focus mechanism - a "dirty thirty" if you would.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
:-) brilliant name - Joe you coined it first

its all about the "business case" or the "payback period" isnt it. Nikon have clearly decided they are going to be selling DX sensor cameras long enough for this "minority interest", low margin, prime lens to generate a decect return. sony and pentax have both just made the same comitment with their 35mm APS-C format primes as well (admittedly pentax just hacked down an old film era lens and put some new coatings on it, but for a company their size thats still a serious financial commitment).

Canon dont seem to be able to make the same commitment to APS-C. What does that tell you ? Ok maybe I am prone to conspiricy theories but it indicates to me that they think the af-s range is complete and its time to freeze it and look at other things. Less dramatically it could just be that designing L lenses is more profitable (higher margin) but either way its doesnt make me feel valued as an APS format user. Its a shame beause the Rebel cameras themselves are great value and one of the few small compact DSLRs that isnt dumbed down in some way - ideal for this sort of lens.
 
brightcolours said:
jitteringjr said:
I personally don't care if they come out with a $200 EFS normal prime, but I think it is a good idea for the Rebel shooters and it also may not be as good as the 35/2 in a lot of areas. I want better than that; a $500-600 EFS 35/1.4 USM.
Click to expand...
Why not want that for $50? Equally silly!
Click to expand...
If Sigma can do it for $400 the canon version has to cost at least $800!
 
keeponkeepingon said:
brightcolours said:
jitteringjr said:
I personally don't care if they come out with a $200 EFS normal prime, but I think it is a good idea for the Rebel shooters and it also may not be as good as the 35/2 in a lot of areas. I want better than that; a $500-600 EFS 35/1.4 USM.
Click to expand...
Why not want that for $50? Equally silly!
Click to expand...
If Sigma can do it for $400 the canon version has to cost at least $800!
Click to expand...
I think you are right unfortunately. $600 and I am jumping on it. $700 probably too if it gets great reviews. More than that and I will keep my Sigma 30/1.4
 
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