EFs 60, blah, blah, blah

[MDJAK]

Sorry for the crude topic, but I'm starting to get annoyed. Canon has come out (as has its competitors) with a bevy of lenses for the cropped cameras. What is the last new lens they came out with for the full frame sensors? When is the next one coming out? They've not shown one at any of the recent shows. There are people out there who do own these cameras, including those who own cropped models who aspire to full frame and don't want to spend the big bucks these "specialty lenses" command when one day they will not be useful if one upgrades.

How about it, Canon?

[tim]

There's probably more money in getting people on to the XT and 300D than getting pros into camera with full frame sensors. Money matters, they're a company trying to make money for shareholders.

[HJMinard]

I think a case could be made that Canon already has a very large, diverse, high quality selection of lenses for 35mm cameras - and therefore large sensor digital cameras. We all have a strong desire for something newer and shinier ... but Canon is attempting to fill holes in the lineup for APS-C sensor cameras, particularly at the wide end. (That doesn't explain the EF-S 60mm macro ... which I just don't understand.)

I'm probably in the minority when I say that I like the smaller sensor (the crop factor works well for what I like to photograph) ... and I appreciate Canon making lenses that let me get wide on the relatively rare occasions I need that capability. I'm guessing that it would be difficult and quite costly to make these super-wide lenses compatible with all camera bodies. (Wouldn't it? Or is the EF-S concept purely a marketing tool?)

[ssim]

I do believe that Canon has recognized that the area of growth in the market place is for those buying the 1.x factored sensor cameras. They will put their R&D and marketing efforts where there is the biggest return. Canon will continue produce camera bodies that will accomodate the EF-S series lenses. True enough, if one upgrades to a 1 series body, these will not work. Anyone upgrading to this type of body should be well enough informed to realize that there will be an incompatibility.

I'd be interested to know what you find wrong with the rest of the Canon lineup. I personally find that the selection of lenses that Canon offers is enough to serve just about every purpose. The only lens I see them updating is perhaps the 100-400 which is probably one of their better selling lenses and is within the price reach of a wide range of the marketplace.

[Adam Hicks]

I think the 60mm Macro makes sense, it's basically just the 100mm 2.8 Macro for 1.6x cameras. It's probably an excellent lens for portraits, and is the perfect focal length. ALTHOUGH... for less money I can use a brigher lens (50mm 1.4) that creeps right into the portrait range.

What I think they should have released first is a lightweight, affordable ~30mm 1.4 which would render the lens at 'normal' focal length on the 1.6x cameras (50mm.) This would be a staple in everyone's bag (with this sensor size!) if it were lightweight and sharp.

Adam

[pierrot]

Fully agree with Adam ;)

[DavidEB]

I also agree with Adam on need for an EF-S 30mm f1.4, provided it is high quality.

And I agree with Jay -- I like the cropped format. Not only does it lower my cost of entry into digital SLR bodies (compared to very expensive full-frame cameras), it also lowers my cost for telephoto lenses. I have a 70-200mm f2.8 on my rebel, if I tried to get a 110-320mm f2.8 for a full-frame camera it would break the bank and might also break my back trying to lug it around. The major tradeoff is difficulty in finding true wide-angle lenses, and a minor tradeoff is having to stand further back to get the same portrait with the same bokeh (or very similar).

But I don't agree on the 60mm macro. If the need is macro, eg filling the frame with a tiny object, then the only contribution of focal length is to increase the working distance. The 60mm lens only offers disadvantages over the 100mm macro. If the goal is to offer a portrait lens, then the aperature should be larger. So I, like others, don't get it (and won't get it).

David

[rdenney]

But I don't agree on the 60mm macro. If the need is macro, eg filling the frame with a tiny object, then the only contribution of focal length is to increase the working distance. The 60mm lens only offers disadvantages over the 100mm macro. If the goal is to offer a portrait lens, then the aperature should be larger. So I, like others, don't get it (and won't get it).

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I would like to point out that for copy work, there is such a thing as too long a working distance. When I was using my 50mm macro for reproducing a photo album, I was already at the limit of reach between viewing and adjusting the position of the copy, and my back was killing me after an hour of those contortions. If I owned a camera that accepted EF-S (which I don't), I'd be wanting a 30mm macro, and a 60mm/1.4 portrait lens designed for good bokeh.

Rick "who wonders why Canon thought macro was critically important for the small sensor" Denney

[Belmondo]

I think the handwriting is on the wall as far as the direction Canon is heading. Either one of two possible future developments will cement in my mind:
They bring out a professional body in the EF-S format,

--OR--

They bring out an EF-S lens that is L-quality.

If either of those two things ever happen, I think it will be fairly clear (to me) that very little development will be slanted towards EF lenses and the current 1.3X/full frame bodies.

I think they will limp along with the current catalog of EF lenses, occasionally improving existing items. One of the more recent offerings might be typical...the 28-300, a warmed-over version of the 35-350. I don't expect very much exciting from them for a while, if ever.

[cactusclay]

I vote for a 17 or 18 to 50 or 60 2.8, if they are going to make all these EFS lens. I can't believe they put out a 1400.00 semi pro cameras, then offer crap lenses for them. I know they have the 24-70, but I've yet to find one worth buying. Canon needs to pull their head out of their Arse and take a look around what Sigma is doing and produce and L version of the 18-55 or something simular.

[cactusclay]

I shouldn't say crap lenses, perhaps variable aparature would be better suited here. We need a 2.8, THAT'S A TWO POINT EIGHT, 17-60, CANON! Can you hear me now?

[rdenney]

I think the handwriting is on the wall as far as the direction Canon is heading. Either one of two possible future developments will cement in my mind:
They bring out a professional body in the EF-S format,

--OR--

They bring out an EF-S lens that is L-quality.


I hope not. Canon must know that the reason they own the DSLR market right now is because of all the hoopla surrounding the 1Ds and 1DsII with their full-frame sensors. It's their one big advantage over everyone else particularly Nikon.

My own prognostication is a little more hopeful: Canon will maintain a full-frame professional line and a consumer line with a smaller sensor. The question is where the prosumer line will end up. Thus, I think the consumer-level EF-mount lenses will migrate over time to EF-S, and both mount systems will offer prosumer mid-range lenses. If the prosumer camera bodies go full frame, the L's will stay in full frame only, but if it stays with the small sensor, they will introduce some L's (or some near L's) in EF-S. They already have two lines of L's developing in the lineup, between the 17-40/4L versus the 16-35/2.8L and the 70-200/4L versus the 70-200/2.8L.

But I think in reality Canon is hedging their bets. The cost (noting the difference between cost and price) on the large sensors is enormous, permitting it's application only in cameras with very high price points. I think they hoped costs would come down on the large sensors in time to migrate their whole DSLR line into the full frame. But costs are still high, and they are bringing out lenses for the small sensor to beef up that line and to avoid bleeding over to Nikon at the lower price points. Having done so, it makes sense for them to drive down the cost of small sensors to move the Digital Rebel line deeper into the consumer price points, while maintaining a full-frame professional line.

Rick "who thinks larger sensors are inevitable" Denney

[CyberDyneSystems]

What is the last new lens they came out with for the full frame sensors?

EF 28-300mmL IS (May 2004)
EF 70-300mmDO IS (May 2004)

Prior to those it was the 17-40mm f/4L and 24-70mm f/2.8L
in 2002

You see there are allready 50 plus EF lenses... so EF-S has some catching up to do.

My guess is that we will see more DO lenses before we see anything else :( Most likely zooms :(


Personally,. I don't see the interest in the EF-S 60mm Macro.. unless it is significantly lower in cost than the 100mm. As the 100mm is "better" on a 1.6 anyways, (You get nearly the focal equivelent of the 180mm L macro for 1/3rd the cost.)

[CyberDyneSystems]

--OR--

They bring out an EF-S lens that is L-quality.


They really did allready.. the EF-S 10-22mm is Pure L on the inside. Only the red stripe and weather sealing are missing.. (and weight) And it's price point is very similar to the f/4 L's as well.

But yes.. the introduction of a lens "labeled" as L will represent a arger commitment for sure.

[MDJAK]

Your replies were both thoughtful and insightful. I wasn't in any knocking Canon's lens lineup. That is precisely what caused me to dump my Ni*on stuff and make the switch a couple of years ago. But I like new stuff. Here's one that I think we are missing, though wildly expensive; perhaps a canon version would not be as much:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=300488&is=USA

[ScottE]

Yes, a 200-400 f/4 would be a nice addition to the Canon line-up.

If you really want to see some useful suggestions, have a look at the Sigma line.

100-300 f4, 120-300 f/2.8, 50-500 f/4-5.6, 300-800 f/5.6

I can think of lots of situations where a USM IS version of any of those lense would be ideal.

Incidentally, the EF-S 10-20 is the most useful lens I've bought in a long time. I finally have wide angle on my 20D.

Scott