Any new EF-S lenses rumored?

[jedwards]

Just wondering if anyne has heard any rumors about new EF-S lenses - maybe a compact fast Tele?

[fi20100]

Sounds unlikely. On the tele side, the EF lenses work just fine. It is the wide side where EF-S is really useful.

[ScottE]

Canon will have to respond to the Sigma 50-150/2.8 and the Sigma and Tamron 18-200/3.5-6.3 and 55-200/4-5.6 or they will start to lose market share on lens sales. Lenses designed specifically for a smaller sensor are going to out-perform lenses designed for a full frame sensor and costing the same.

It will be interesting to see if the other manufacturers start bringing out small sensor versions of their longer telephoto lenses.

[Tom W]

I doubt that Canon will respond to the 50-150 - it's just a shortened version of a 70-200, and doesn't really serve additional purpose over the slightly longer lens. The 18-200 super-zoom might get an answer, though like most super-zoom lenses, I don't expect excellence. Still, the versatality would be well-recieved. I don't expect USM on such a lens.

Canon already has a 55-200 lens.

[fi20100]

I would think getting 150-200mm is much more valuable than loosing 50-70mm... just my opinion.

[jedwards]

Canon already has a 55-200 lens.

I was hoping someone had heard about an EF-S replacement, or a 100-300 replacment, along the lines of the 17-55IS. Relatively lightweight, large aperature and non-L (white).

Maybe not.

[fi20100]

I was hoping someone had heard about an EF-S replacement, or a 100-300 replacment, along the lines of the 17-55IS. Relatively lightweight, large aperature and non-L (white).

Maybe not.


Lightweight and large aperature usually does not work.

[ScottE]

I would think getting 150-200mm is much more valuable than loosing 50-70mm... just my opinion.

I was shooting a cross country ski race last weekend. The 17-55 was not long enough and the 70-200 did not quite go wide enough. I ended up using the 50-500 Sigma on a tripod. On reviewing the EXIF data all the shots wer taken between 57 and 167 mm.

Canon has shown with the 17-55 that they can maintain image quality with an EF-S zoom of more than 3x. A 55-170 f/2.8 EF-S should be possible and would combine well with the 17-55. It would fill a similar role to what the 70-200 did when I shot film.

Also, I could have got by with the Sigma 50-150 and it would have been a lot more pleasant to carry in my pack than the 70-200/2.8 and 50-500 when I skied and walked out to the location on the trail where I was taking action shots.

I am considering both portability and better image quality when I look for more high end EF-S lenses.

[wsmith]

If Canon is serious (but it is not) about APS-C lenses, they should bring some fixed lenses, like a 17mm 1.2, 31mm 1.0, a 55mm 1.2 and a 100mm 1.2, all EF-S and quite lighter lenses.
How is that possible : optically it is quite equally hard to make an APS-C of x1.6 better aperture as long as the original lens is focuses narrowly by 1.6.
Canon has a already in its EF line a 28mm f/1.8, so an Ef-S of 17mm f/1.2 of the same size and price should be possible to build.
There is also a 15mm fisheye f/2.8 for a fisheye 9mm f/2, a 20mm 2.8 for a 14mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, giving a 31mm f/1.0, a 85mm 1.8 giving a 55mm 1.2 and the softfocus 135 f/2.8 giving a 85 f/2. These elnses could be a bit more weather proof not completely sealed as L series. That would make a good L equivalent at half the price or even less for the APS/C.
However, this is not goint to happen.

[davidseaton]

I am a big advocate of EF-S primes as well Wsmith! I backpack, so size and weight are important. They opened the door for this with the 60mm macro.

[Lostboy77]

I would buy an EF-S 50-150 2.8 IS (or 55-170) in a heart beat. Just think how nice the 17-55 2.8 IS is. The only thing keeping me from purchasing the 70-200 2.8IS is size and weight. Just imagin getting the lighter weight and smaller size of the EF-S build with the same quality optics that went into the 17-55 and you get a GREAT lens that would probablly sell for arount $1000.

It's like having your cake and eating it too.

[BigBlueDodge]

I would love to see Canon come out with an EFS competitor to Sigma's 100-300 f/4. It would be nice to have a EF-S 100-300 f/2.8 or f/4 IS with internal focusing. At a price of $1100 I would snap it up in a heart beat.

However the reality doesn't match my aspirations. Canon makes plenty of quality telephoto lenses. I just wish there was something to match the Sigma 100-300 f/4, that had IS.

[Billginthekeys]

Lightweight and large aperature usually does not work.
thank you

If Canon is serious (but it is not) about APS-C lenses, they should bring some fixed lenses, like a 17mm 1.2, 31mm 1.0, a 55mm 1.2 and a 100mm 1.2, all EF-S and quite lighter lenses.
How is that possible : optically it is quite equally hard to make an APS-C of x1.6 better aperture as long as the original lens is focuses narrowly by 1.6.
Canon has a already in its EF line a 28mm f/1.8, so an Ef-S of 17mm f/1.2 of the same size and price should be possible to build.
There is also a 15mm fisheye f/2.8 for a fisheye 9mm f/2, a 20mm 2.8 for a 14mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, giving a 31mm f/1.0, a 85mm 1.8 giving a 55mm 1.2 and the softfocus 135 f/2.8 giving a 85 f/2. These elnses could be a bit more weather proof not completely sealed as L series. That would make a good L equivalent at half the price or even less for the APS/C.
However, this is not goint to happen.
you do understand that just because u are making the lens an EFS doesnt mean it doenst need a lot of glass to provide a large aperture, the laws of physics still apply. making F1 lenses isnt easy in any size or right, they cant just pop out a half a dozen super fast lenses like that.

I would love to see Canon come out with an EFS competitor to Sigma's 100-300 f/4. It would be nice to have a EF-S 100-300 f/2.8 or f/4 IS with internal focusing. At a price of $1100 I would snap it up in a heart beat.
i dont have anything wrong with your lens suggestions.... but i doubt youll see anything with 300 and 2.8 in its name for near $1100.

[TTLImaging]

I am a big advocate of EF-S primes as well Wsmith! I backpack, so size and weight are important. They opened the door for this with the 60mm macro.

beauty of 60mm is that it is flat glass not aspherical.... I'd actually like to see this in the 100 ef which is aspherical.

[TTLImaging]

I would buy an EF-S 50-150 2.8 IS (or 55-170) in a heart beat. Just think how nice the 17-55 2.8 IS is. The only thing keeping me from purchasing the 70-200 2.8IS is size and weight. Just imagin getting the lighter weight and smaller size of the EF-S build with the same quality optics that went into the 17-55 and you get a GREAT lens that would probablly sell for arount $1000.

It's like having your cake and eating it too.

Great idea, but hold a 17-55IS (3.3" x 4.4") next to a 24-70(3.3" x 4.9") and there isn't much size or weight difference. I wonder how much difference there would actually be in a 50-150. IMHO it's time for a remake of 70-200 f/2.8 anyways. No haters please, but ergonomically I actually prefer the nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR AF-S in my hands. I wan't trying to offend anyone, my 70-200 (not IS) is my favorite lens, but hold the nikon one. Lighter and it feels good. I'd go for it tomorrow, trust me. I am about to get my right shoulder done (over 10 seperate cartlidge tears and a freyed tendon- surgery march 2). after 2hrs behind 1D and 70-200 I can't hold it steady enough to use anything less than 1/250th. 2yrs ago I could hold 1/60th after 5hrs.

sorry for the rant, the idea of a lighter set of high end lenses is sounding better and better as I write.

[breakdown]

I just want something to compliment the 17-55 that I'll be picking up soon. Make use of the smaller sensor so I can have an f/2.8 IS tele zoom that is smaller and lighter than the 70-200.

[manipula]

But the 17-55 f/2.8 isn't that much smaller than the 24-70 f/2.8, so why should an EFS version of the 70-200 f/2.8 be much smaller? It's pure physics isn't it? or am I missing somethign?

[Tom W]

Diminishing returns - the longer the focal length, the less difference between an EF-S and EF lens. Wide-angle lenses tend to have their diameter limits related to image circle and angle-of-view, whereas longer lenses tend to have their diameter related directly to aperture.

In other words, a 16 mm f/2.8 lens needs only a minimum aperture diameter of 16/2.8= 5.7 mm. The front lens diameter is bigger in this case to accomodate the very wide angle-of-view. On a full-frame camera, this angle-of-view is considerably wider than the same 16 mm on a 1.6X camera. So, the front elements of a full-frame capable 16 mm lens need to be larger in diameter than those designed only for an EF-S camera.

On the other hand, a 200 mm f/2.8 lens requires a minimum lens diameter of 71.4 mm - that is the limiting factor for a fast 200 mm lens. So a 200 mm lens that projects an EF-S image circle will be dimensionally nearly equal to a 200 mm lens that projects a full frame image circle. It will still require a 71.4 mm (minimum) entrance pupil diameter to accomodate the f/2.8 aperture.

[gameboy]

the 50-150 works with the sigma teleconverters to produce some interesting combos - snip from sigma website "The addition of the 1.4x EX DG APO or 2x EX DG APO Tele Converters (optional extras) produces a 70-210mm F4 AF tele-zoom lens and a 100-300mm F5.6 AF ultra-telephoto zoom lens respectively."

[ScottE]

So if Canon brings out an EF-S 55-165 f/2.8 they should also bring out EF-S 1.4x and 2x teleconverters.

[gameboy]

ScottE, good point - seems like a bit of overkill for a lens line that will probably be a dead end, and also lacks the enthusiast/professional backing that would actually use a TC

[MrChad]

So if Canon brings out an EF-S 55-165 f/2.8 they should also bring out EF-S 1.4x and 2x teleconverters.

Would that be a .9x and a 1.3x then? :p

[breakdown]

I really want to see a 17-85 f/4 IS. I would definately trade one stop for an extra 30mm of reach. I was out shooting quite a bit with my kit lens today and there were a few times when I wanted a bit more reach.

[Lostboy77]

Great idea, but hold a 17-55IS (3.3" x 4.4") next to a 24-70(3.3" x 4.9") and there isn't much size or weight difference. I wonder how much difference there would actually be in a 50-150. IMHO it's time for a remake of 70-200 f/2.8 anyways. No haters please, but ergonomically I actually prefer the nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR AF-S in my hands. I wan't trying to offend anyone, my 70-200 (not IS) is my favorite lens, but hold the nikon one. Lighter and it feels good. I'd go for it tomorrow, trust me. I am about to get my right shoulder done (over 10 seperate cartlidge tears and a freyed tendon- surgery march 2). after 2hrs behind 1D and 70-200 I can't hold it steady enough to use anything less than 1/250th. 2yrs ago I could hold 1/60th after 5hrs.

sorry for the rant, the idea of a lighter set of high end lenses is sounding better and better as I write.
I know that the 17-55 is not that much smaller than the 24-70 but it is a good deal lighter and a lot less front heavy, covers a slightly larger range, maintains the 2.8 constant aperture, AND adds IS, and is still cheaper than the 24-70. I’d take the plastic build any day if it saves me on cost and weight.

One of the main reasons why the 17-55 is not that much smaller than the 24-70 is that it requires more glass to go from 24 to 17. Any time you are moving in a direction away from 50mm there are build constraints that start coming into play. The difference becomes exponential when that number becomes greater or less than double or half 50mm (beyond the range of 25mm to 100mm). Try to imagine how big the 17-55 would be if it were an EF lens and not an EF-S

Getting back to the idea of an EF-S 50-150 2.8 IS. If you were to make a lens that was 50-150 2.8 but still an EF lens it, by that regard only, would be smaller and lighter than the 70-200 2.8 because you are moving the zoom range closer to normal (50mm). Consider for a minute the EF 85 1.8 and the EF 100 2.0. Both are small lenses with simple designs and yet perform amongst the top end of canon lenses. This is because telephoto lenses in this range are easier to design and produce as the focal length is closer to normal. Most people would tell you that there is not much of a realistic difference between 200mm and 300mm yet the size difference between the 200 2.8L and the 300 4L is huge, and don’t even consider comparing it with the 300 2.8L, that lens is twice as large in both dimensions and more than three times the weight. Another example would be comparing the 70-200 f/4L to the 100-400 f/4-5.6L. Both are L quality lenses and the 100-400 is much larger even thought it does not have a constant aperture. Another nice benefit of the EF-S design criteria is that it’s not an L lens, and therefore does not have to that classic L build. Don’t get me wrong, a metal frame is quite nice, but it does add weight and cost. Add to that the fact that the glass can be smaller and more compressed because of it’s EF-S design. Now if you don’t think that sensor size doesn't makes a huge difference in lens size take a look at the S3 IS. That camera has a 35mm to 420mm f/2.7-5.6 lens that is about 3” long and about 1.5” wide and compresses into itself for storage, and I don’t ever hear anyone complaining about it being front heavy when zoomed out. Oh and buy the way, it also has IS. Now I know that that lens isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed but you got to admit, that is pretty impressive. The closest thing to it in the EF world is the 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS, and that is a pretty large lens.

As for me personally I mostly use my 17-55 at 55 and one of my favorite and by far most used lens is my 50 1.4. Having a zoom that starts at 50mm would be far more useful for me than one that starts at 70mm and if I ever wanted 200mm, I just use my 200 2.8L which is a lens that I am continually impressed with.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE Canon make an EF-S 50-150 2.8 IS. :)

[ryleung]

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE Canon make an EF-S 50-150 2.8 IS. :)
Hear~ Hear~!!!

[Salleke]

... PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE Canon make an EF-S 50-150 2.8 IS. :)

L L L L L L ...


Good luck to all of us ...