Counterpoint: if EF-S doesn't have what you want, why not just go FF?

[jitteringjr]

To be fair I like some of these lenses. I have the 55-250mm and I love it, and I'm planning to get the 24mm. But the problem is that Canon *_could_* make wider aperture EF-S lenses that could compare to full frame lenses on full frame bodies. Sigma proves this. They would cost similarly to full-frame lenses of course, but there's a lot of people that want to buy one or two big expensive lenses like this, while still having the option of using their cheap small aperture lenses and not having to buy an extremely expensive full frame body. Canon *_chooses_* not to offer this option for the single purpose of 'forcing' people to buy full frame. This is what p*sses so many people off

Completely agree with the part I bolded here.

Who told you full frame lenses are suboptimal on APS-C? They are just as good as APS-C lenses are for the most part.

Full frame lenses are made for a larger image circle than APS-C lenses. Look at the Sigma 30mm f1.4 ART. It costs 500 dollars. Canon have two similar focus length full frame lenses that are the same size and cost the same, a 28mm and a 35mm. But their aperture are f1.8 and f2. The point I'm making is that either you are paying for more glass than you use, or you're stuck with a larger aperture than it could have been if it were a crop lens. Lenses like the 18-35mm and 50-100mm would either have to be a smaller aperture, or much larger and more expensive if they were full-frame.

Another good comparison is the 18-35 and 24-35 from Sigma here since they were released about the same time in the grand scheme. The 24-35 has less wide end, is 2.0 vice 1.8, costs $200 more and still weighs 130 grams more than the 18-35.

Right now if money was no object, I would buy a 5D4 as it would fulfill my current wants, but I can't justify spending $3500 on a body for a hobby. The next best body for me would be the 80D at least specs wise. I can hope for a 6D2 with 80D specs to give me the FF lens advantage, but since the 5d4 only has 7 fps, I seriously doubt the 6D2 would have 7 FPS like the 80D and I highly doubt the 6d2 will have an AF system as good as the 80D. I am expecting something more like a 19 point system like in my 7D and the 70D.

 

[diness]

Canon makes many good APS-C lenses. The 10-18mm STM, 18-135mm STM, 55-250mm stm and 24mm stm are all really great lenses. Other than the pancake one, they don't have wide apertures, but they are great lenses.

While the lenses have good image quality their aperture is horrible! The 10-18mm is a 16-29mm f7.2-9 FF-equivalent! The 18-135mm is a 29-216mm f5.6-9 and the 55-250mm is a 88-400mm f6.4-9. Meanwhile the full frame Sigma 100-400mm f5-6.3 is being disparaged for having too small an aperture! Finally the 24mm is a full frame equivalent of 38mm f4.5. I wouldn't call that a wide aperture.

Yes, they are all variable aperture lenses that aren't the brightest in the world, but it seems a little unfair to compare them with their full frame equivalent apertures. That 1.6x equivalency is going to be true of ANY lens used on an APS-C body, INCLUDING faster aperture lenses, which then become not as fast. In the case of the 24mm, you're really just pointing out the full frame advantage more than anything.

diness, post: 59445442, member: 1682837"]
Who told you full frame lenses are suboptimal on APS-C? They are just as good as APS-C lenses are for the most part.

Full frame lenses are made for a larger image circle than APS-C lenses. Look at the Sigma 30mm f1.4 ART. It costs 500 dollars. Canon have two similar focus length full frame lenses that are the same size and cost the same, a 28mm and a 35mm. But their aperture are f1.8 and f2. The point I'm making is that either you are paying for more glass than you use, or you're stuck with a larger aperture than it could have been if it were a crop lens.

Yes, that has some truth to it. But, let's be honest, IF Canon made an f1.4 APS-C lens, it would likely cost more than the Sigma (just like their other lenses all do), so you could just buy a used Canon 35mm f1.4L and you'd have a great lens. I think the "extra glass" argument is overdone and it makes much less of a difference than people think.

Lenses like the 18-35mm and 50-100mm would either have to be a smaller aperture, or much larger and more expensive if they were full-frame.

Now you aren't comparing the aperture anymore? An 18-35mm f1.8 is a 28-56mm f2.88 full frame equivalent and the 50-100mm is an 80-160mm f2.88 full frame equivalent. So, basically, both of them are not quite as wide an aperture and not quite as big of a range as a 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8.

It comes down to this... if wide aperture is a big deal to you, no matter what Canon does, full frame is always going to be a better option, simply because the nature of the sensor itself.

I don't think Canon is trying to screw with or manipulate their customers. They have simply, so far, made a business decision that APS-C-only zooms with really wide apertures don't have enough buyers to make them worth the cost of producing. At this point, Sigma is the ONLY maker that is doing it. If it proves to be a move that makes them tons of money, you can bet that Canon will join in.
[/QUOTE]

 

[jitteringjr]

Now you aren't comparing the aperture anymore? An 18-35mm f1.8 is a 28-56mm f2.88 full frame equivalent and the 50-100mm is an 80-160mm f2.88 full frame equivalent. So, basically, both of them are not quite as wide an aperture and not quite as big of a range as a 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8.

I think we can just go ahead and call 1.8 on crop equivalent to 2.8 on FF the extra .08 here really doesn't mean anything.

There is no doubt the 24-70 and 70-200 combination on FF is better here if money is no object but we are comparing, in the latest 2.8 offerings from Canon, $4000 worth of lenses (minus the current instant rebates) to $1900 of lenses with the Sigma.

Now sure if Canon were to make the Sigma lenses with would be more expensive so I guess that is just why they don't make them. Its hard enough to justify spending $1100 on a 50-100 that I can't use on FF and I am sure if Canon made one, it would be $1600 so even worse and at that point you might as well just get the 70-200/2.8 II from Canon instead.

However, then you need to also consider the price of the body. Expect to pay about $1000 more for the 6d2 over the 80D. And do you think the 6D2 is going to have comparable specs to the 80D especially when the 5D4 has the same 7FPS as the 80D? The newest Rebel has 45 cross points while the current 6D has 1 cross point and 10 other non cross points. My bet is that the 6D2 will still not have as robust of an AF system as even the T7i

 

[p5freak]

Who told you full frame lenses are suboptimal on APS-C? They are just as good as APS-C lenses are for the most part. I really don't think Canon is trying to manipulate people that much.

Lenses are made for a certain image circle and pixel size. FF has much bigger pixel size than APS-C. Thats why (some) FF lenses are not as sharp as APS-C lenses. This, of course, depends on the quality of the lens. Most people use L glass, which is good enough for the smaller pixels of APS-C. And its (very) expensive.

I think it's really much simpler than you guys are making it out to be. If Canon makes an EF lens, it will work on all full frame AND APS-C bodies.

Sure, but you use only 40% of the glass you paid for, a wide angle becomes a normal. You pay for glass you dont use.

If they make an APS-C lens, it doesn't work for many of their bodies, and ON AVERAGE, full frame users most likely purchase more lenses than APS-C users.

It would work on most of their bodys, because most are APS-C. Maybe FF users buy more lenses, one reason is that there are much more FF lenses. APS-C photographers cant buy certain APS-C lenses, because they dont exist.

So, unless there is a large advantage to making a lens APS-C only... why would you?

Because its natural, its normal, to use a lens which has the same image circle as the sensor. Lets say Canon makes medium format lenses with AF, which would be be compatible with FF, would you use them ?? Most likely not. You would pick a FF lens for your FF camera. APS-C photographers cant do that, because Canon refuses to make those lenses.