Why no EF-S 10mm or 12mm F3.5 (or less) prime lenses?

[CanonByCanon]

I don't shoot landscapes a lot but I would like to have a light and not expensive (like 50mm F1.8 MKII) prime wide (not fisheye) lense in my bag.

:confused:

[thepepperman]

When shooting landscapes would you really want an aperature below ~3.5 (like most of the UW zooms have)?

[shutterfiend]

When shooting landscapes would you really want an aperature below ~3.5 (like most of the UW zooms have)?

Why not?

The good thing about such short focal lengths is that you achieve hyperfocus really close even with fast apertures.

If there was a 2.8 it would allow shooting even earlier in the morning or later in the evening.

That being said, I don't shoot landscape or have a UWA, so it's all hypothetical for me, anyway.

[BigBouncyBall]

i'd like to know this too

can we do a little better than the stock answer of "they would be huge/too expensive"

[_aravena]

There's no demand. A UWA prime for crop? Canon already has primes for non crops and a UWA @ 3.5 which is pretty wide open. Tokina is going to be the first with a fast UWA and while I want it for closeup/creative shots the need for a prime is not there.

No need = no lens

[bacchanal]

...a light and not expensive (like 50mm F1.8 MKII) prime wide (not fisheye) lens...

I'm assuming this is kind of the key, and I don't think it will happen for a couple reasons. 1) the 10-22 exists to fill most of the demand. 2) UWA EF primes are more expensive compared to WA and Standard primes.

The 50 1.8 is a "normal" lens used by many people and based on a very old design. I just don't see a newly designed niche prime being anywhere near the 50 1.8 in price.

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing a couple wide EF-S primes that are at the quality level of the EF-S 60 Macro (similar to the Sigma fisheyes that were just released).

[gjl711]

I’m pretty sure Canon has no EF-S primes. Maybe that’s a whole market segment they should explore. You could then get your 100mm EF-S prime and it would have the same FOV as a 100mm on a FF body. And be smaller and lighter to boot. Canon, are you listening? And if you are, how about a 100mm macro with IS. That would be more useful.

[_aravena]

There's something I am curious about. Why does Nikon have a VR macro lens but Canon does not?

[gjl711]

There's something I am curious about. Why does Nikon have a VR macro lens but Canon does not?Rant on:
Yet another example where Nikon beat Canon to the punch. A 105mm f/2.8 macro with image stabilization would be a great lens for any macro shooter. But I have a feeling listening to some of Canons recent excuse making speeches that as they have a great selling 100mm lens already, why upset that with another. It’s BS. Canon got smoked again. It’s been happening all to often in the last year. Wake up Canon, you have a loyal and educated customer base, don’t screw with us. :Rant off

[CyberDyneSystems]

I find the lack of a good UW Prime odd too.

If I'm going to shoot that wide, then that's what I'm going to do, no need fro a Zoom IMHO.

[_aravena]

^FF there is. Maybe they don't see a reason solely for a prime yet. I don't believe they think there's enough reason to extend there EF-S line that much. I see a 3rd pasrty company doing it first.

As for the IS macro, I can understand why there is none but it would be a convenience. Not something I'd want to pay for though possibly. For the price of the 100 macro with IS would be what? $500-$600 and in retail terms it'd be $800. Seems too much and most macrp enthusiasts use a tripod anyhow.

[Tom W]

A nice revamping of the 28/1.8 and 20/2.8 would be a good idea. They're both very useful focal lengths on both full frame and crop cameras.

Of course, there's always the 14/2.8 II....

[nureality]

My business mind says the reason for no UWA Primes is the lack of demand. That lack of demand stems from the fact that many people get upset when they try to go Wide or Ultra-Wide on a crop camera and realize they'd be better off with a film back (or FF dig).
But the lack of demand is not only crop shooters, theres been a lack of this demand for some time.

This was the sad realization I came to when I was looking at the 10-22 EF-S. Mind you, I still have my Elan 7e (which I still love) and habitually share my lenses between my 40D and the Elan 7e. So for me the choice was clear - SIGMA 12-24 DG EX HSM. Yes, 10mm even on crop is wider than 12mm on crop. BUT, 12mm on Film or FF blows the Canon 10-22 out the water - simply cuz you can't mount the 10-22 on FF or Film. And Canon's 16-35 L (which is the range they made the 10-22 to match on a crop), is 4mm tighter than the 12-24 Sigma... those are a big 4mm of length. Shoot for a single afternoon @ 12mm on a FF or Film Body and you will truly appreciate UWA lenses as they can be used for effect.

Consider for a moment that Canon only has what, 2 UWA Primes in its lineup? And those are from years back, this shows that the lack of demand is not a new thing. Hence, its unlikely to change. Furthermore, their UWA Prime - the 14mm is not as wide as the UWA zooms out there from SIGMA and Tokina... sure, they aren't 2.8's but, they handle the more pressing issue of what these special focal lengths are for - going wider.

The reason we're seeing primes from Sigma is that Sigma has the ability to market the same lens for multiple mounts... that equates to a larger target audience. Canon won't sell to anyone but Canon shooters.

[jorj7]

The 10-22 is a pretty sharp lens with not very much distortion and sells for around
$600. It's already a f3.5 at the wide end. For a prime to sell in that range it'd have
to be sharper, faster, cheaper (pick at least 2 of the 3), I don't think that people
would except anything less. Can it be done within those parameters? Would it
effect sales of other money making lenses? Is there really a demand? Landscape
photographers usually shot at higher f-stops to get the best DOF. Why make a
faster wide angle. The 10-22 is already as sharp (according to many reviews) as
a "L", so do you really need sharper? And if you did want it faster and sharper
would you be able to make and sell it for less then $600? Another thing, most people
in the EF-S world want zoom lenses. Once they figure out the advantages of a prime
(faster, sharper, smaller, lighter, sometimes cheaper), they also start to think about
getting a full frame or 1.3 crop camera, so why buy an EF-S prime? If Canon came out
with a EF-S 10mm f2.8 for ~$500, it might sell, but would it be enough to justify the
expense of production? Would it "steal" sales from the 10-22, or scare people out of
buying full frame cameras because Canon is "supporting" the EF-S line? It's a very
complicated question, with no simple answer. Anyway, I have a Peleng 8mm f3.5 fisheye,
a Sigma 14 f2.8, and a Sigma 20 f1.8, so I don't really care at this moment... :)

[DG_Canon]

I’m pretty sure Canon has no EF-S primes. Maybe that’s a whole market segment they should explore. You could then get your 100mm EF-S prime and it would have the same FOV as a 100mm on a FF body. And be smaller and lighter to boot. Canon, are you listening? And if you are, how about a 100mm macro with IS. That would be more useful.

Canon does sell a EF-S 60mm 2.8

[gjl711]

Canon does sell a EF-S 60mm 2.8Well I'll be. I never realized that the 60mm is an EF-S lens.

[nureality]

Canon does sell a EF-S 60mm 2.8

But you need to put that into the proper frame of mind. Canon makes EF-S lenses to match up as closely as it can to its FF/Film lenses. The EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM was released to fill the place of the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM. Its not like they are deciding "ahhh, you know what we need? a 60mm f/2.8 Macro for APS-C/EF-S". They are looking at their better lenses and see which are popular models and figuring the same framings that these lenses offer will be popular to crop shooters too. Hence they make a lens to match the framing of the FF on a Crop sensor... EF-S 60mm = 96mm equivalent - close enuff to the EF 100mm "big brother". The same is the case of the EF-S 10-22mm - it was built to match the focal range of the 16-35mm L lens.

The question that it brings to my mind is when, if ever will we see an EF-S 33mm f/1.4? I love my EF 50mm f/1.4, its probably my favorite lens when I'm shooting film. But its just way too tight on the 40D and 30D that came before it.

Canon, if you're listening, please release either an EF-S or EF 33mm f/1.4 lens.
Thank You. I'll be the first to buy it.

-Alan

[_aravena]

^Or you can buy the already existing Sigma 30 F1.4 or Canon 28 F1.8...I know, it makes too much sense.

But there are fast primes less than 10. Sigma just released some fisheyes. :p

[cdifoto]

i'd like to know this too

can we do a little better than the stock answer of "they would be huge/too expensive"

How about "they would be too huge/too expensive AND not enough people would buy them." :rolleyes:

[BigBouncyBall]

whats with the attitude? - this is why i don't bother coming into the lens forum any more.

why would not enough people buy them? plenty of people buy the EF primes

[_aravena]

^Not at $900 or so a pop. People with money maybe, but not most and landscape people wouldn't do it...most have 5D's so EF-S is out. The problem with this is that it's like why marijuana should be legalized. No one gives any answers for why except just cause and the people actually giving reasons why it shouldn't, get ridiculed for having opinions based on fact.

SO why don't ya'll give some marginally good reason as to why it should. It's quite obvious why they won't. There's no real money in it for them. Just learn some business and study the market.

BBB, would you buy one? Would it be your next purchase? For anyone, would you buy a fast UWA? Comsindering the Canon is already F3.5 @ 10 like the OP wanted. Tokina is coming out with a 11-16 F2.8. So to have a 10 F1.8 (aside from no one want a UWA that fast) it would cost...judging on other prices and the though of the Tokina being $800 a Canon prime would easily be between $800-$900. Let's not forget if they give it USM. Maybe $950. Even for $800 there are so many other options for people to buy first.

[CyberDyneSystems]

The other totally obvious "best use" of a the EF-S / DC sized lens would be to make a lighter weight lower cost fast long tele prime.

A $1,500.00 - $2,000 500mm f/5.6 Prime with IS ? with EF-s only image circle?
I'm thinking this would be portable and affordable.

[_aravena]

^You think it'd only be that much?

[cdifoto]

For anyone, would you buy a fast UWA?

Yeah as long as it wasn't EF-S or crop sensor limited. Or insanely priced. $1800 for a 14L doesn't work for me. Fast is relative tho. I'd be good with f/2.8. Wouldn't need f/1.2 or some crazy aperture. Basically, if Canon dropped their 14L price to a reasonable amount (1100 or so would be acceptable), I'd be pretty happy.

[jorj7]

Yeah as long as it wasn't EF-S or crop sensor limited. Or insanely priced. $1800 for a 14L doesn't work for me. Fast is relative tho. I'd be good with f/2.8. Wouldn't need f/1.2 or some crazy aperture. Basically, if Canon dropped their 14L price to a reasonable amount (1100 or so would be acceptable), I'd be pretty happy.


Cdifoto,

That's what people were say, why would Canon want to build and sell and
fast EF-S UWA prime... It would be crop sensor limited and be expensive.

[jorj7]

The other totally obvious "best use" of a the EF-S / DC sized lens would be to make a lighter weight lower cost fast long tele prime.

A $1,500.00 - $2,000 500mm f/5.6 Prime with IS ? with EF-s only image circle?
I'm thinking this would be portable and affordable.


CDS, This would be a great addition to the Canon lineup, as long as it was
as sharp as the 400 f5.6 wide open. They'd probably sell if for closer to
$2,000 so they wouldn't "steal" sales from the 300 f4LIS or 400 f5.6L,
and still be a lot less then the 300 f2.8LIS.

[cdifoto]

Cdifoto,

That's what people were say, why would Canon want to build and sell and
fast EF-S UWA prime... It would be crop sensor limited and be expensive.

Yeah my point too. I won't pay that kind of money for an EF version, let alone EF-S. I don't have any EF-S bodies or want to be locked into 'em anyway.

[BigBouncyBall]

^Not at $900 or so a pop. People with money maybe, but not most and landscape people wouldn't do it...most have 5D's so EF-S is out

How much is the 5D again??

Oh yeah and "most" people have them do they? :rolleyes:

[_aravena]

Pros that would pay for that. You'd pay $900 for a fast UWA prime over any UWA zoom lens? Even Tokina's 11-16 F2.8? It's not feasible for this to happen. Man people, it's simple business. There just wouldn't be enough interest for price.

At that price sell the EF-S camera and save a little for a used 5D. :rolleyes:

[CyberDyneSystems]

Yeah my point too. I won't pay that kind of money for an EF version, let alone EF-S. I don't have any EF-S bodies or want to be locked into 'em anyway.

Yeah but,. this was a thread about EF-S lenses! :lol:

You won't buy an EF-S so .. so what?


I know, don't bother you with the details, ... ;)

[gardengirl13]

Sorry to bring up an old thread, but as a sometimes landscape photographer who hates zooms I personally would love a U/WA prime. EF EF-S doesn't matter. I want some sharp and cheap. Doesn't have to be fast. f/4 would be fine. But I want something wider then the 20 (or maybe update the darn thing! and the 24 while they're at it! oh yeah and the 35 too)

And don't tell me that it wouldn't sell very well! Back in the FD days one of best lenses I owned was the 17 f/4. That damn thing is in hot demand even today. I sold mine to B&H for $400! And you know they don't give you crap when they buy your used stuff.

I would love to see that lens as an EF lens. And yes it would be my very next lens. It doesn't have to be L, even if they made another copy of the 14L and made it with nice USM and FTM and no red ring I'd be happy.