Any chance of an EFS version of 70-200/2.8 IS?

[bpcofny]

It would be ideal for non-professional to complement the 17-55/2.8 with a high quality EFS version of 70-200/2.8 IS. This white elephant is a very nice lens, but it is big, heavy and hard to carry around. Sigma has a 50-150/2.8 (no IS) lens with a 67mm thread vs a 77mm thread for the Canon's 70-200/2.8 IS. That would take some weight off the lens? and hopefully a little bit on the price as well.

Any way to get Canon interested to design and manufacture such a lens?

[tkbslc]

DO you mean a 70-200mm equivalent, so like a 45-125mm lens? Or an actual 70-200? Because even as an EF-S, the 70-200s can't get much smaller. As for the equivalent, yes I think it would be well received. I really like the range on my 50-135 tokina a LOT.

[Canonswhitelensesrule]

Why does everyone keep saying that the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L I.S. lens is so BIG and HEAVY? It is NOT heavy for goodness sakes! Maybe compared to a 50mm f1.8 it's "heavy", but overall, it is NOT heavy! JEEZ. People HANDHOLD the 300mm f2.8L I.S. all the time, they also hold the EF 500mm f4L I.S...heck, I've HANDHELD the 11.7 lb EF 400mm f/2.8L I.S. without breaking a sweat...sheesh!! HIT THE GYM or EAT YOUR WHEATIES!!

[tkbslc]

Why does everyone keep saying that the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L I.S. lens is so BIG and HEAVY? It is NOT heavy for goodness sakes! Maybe compared to a 50mm f1.8 it's "heavy", but overall, it is NOT heavy! JEEZ. People HANDHOLD the 300mm f2.8L I.S. all the time, they also hold the EF 500mm f4L I.S...heck, I've HANDHELD the 11.7 lb EF 400mm f/2.8L I.S. without breaking a sweat...sheesh!! HIT THE GYM or EAT YOUR WHEATIES!!

Wow, personal issues for you maybe? Are we to be impressed that you enjoy handholding heavy lenses? One time I leg pressed 620lb for 1 set of 10. Do I get a prize too? :rolleyes:

It is in fact a big lens for more casual usage. at 8" long, it will not fit in many normal sized camera bags and its size and weight would prevent a normal walk with a camera neck strap. Just because I physically CAN carry a lens does not mean I want to all the time.

For me, it is more about the range. 70-200 is a weird longish, but not that long telephoto on a crop camera. I want 70-200 equivalent (which is freaking awesome for almost every kind of portrait) for my crop cam. That's why I bought the Tokina 50-135. If Canon made a IS USM version I would be even more excited.

[krepta]

Why does everyone keep saying that the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L I.S. lens is so BIG and HEAVY? It is NOT heavy for goodness sakes! Maybe compared to a 50mm f1.8 it's "heavy", but overall, it is NOT heavy! JEEZ. People HANDHOLD the 300mm f2.8L I.S. all the time, they also hold the EF 500mm f4L I.S...heck, I've HANDHELD the 11.7 lb EF 400mm f/2.8L I.S. without breaking a sweat...sheesh!! HIT THE GYM or EAT YOUR WHEATIES!!I own this lens and use it frequently on long shooting days. While I personally find it "light" enough to handhold and not get too tired with it, I must say that it is a relatively heavy lens as far as hand-holdable lenses go in Canon's lineup. If you don't take in account the super-telephotos, which are usually used in combination with a tripod, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is among the heavier of Canon lenses. You're certainly entitled to your opinion that it is not heavy, but do keep in mind that how it feels for you may not feel the same to another user, so there is not need to bash on others like this.

To the OP, I don't see it happening, not anytime soon. As tkbslc stated, even if Canon made an EF-S version of this lens, it would be difficult to make it any smaller and lighter, due to the focal range and wide maximum aperture. If anything, some weight could be shaved off by reducing the build quality. But in the end, it comes down to whether there is a market for such a lens. This is a very popular lens that is used even among crop users, so I can't imagine Canon making an EF-S variant of it.

[cfibanez]

I own this lens and use it frequently on long shooting days. While I personally find it "light" enough to handhold and not get too tired with it, I must say that it is a relatively heavy lens as far as hand-holdable lenses go in Canon's lineup. If you don't take in account the super-telephotos, which are usually used in combination with a tripod, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is among the heavier of Canon lenses. You're certainly entitled to your opinion that it is not heavy, but do keep in mind that how it feels for you may not feel the same to another user, so there is not need to bash on others like this.

To the OP, I don't see it happening, not anytime soon. As tkbslc stated, even if Canon made an EF-S version of this lens, it would be difficult to make it any smaller and lighter, due to the focal range and wide maximum aperture. If anything, some weight could be shaved off by reducing the build quality. But in the end, it comes down to whether there is a market for such a lens. This is a very popular lens that is used even among crop users, so I can't imagine Canon making an EF-S variant of it.

Rumors have just gotten restarted...
http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/10/canon-ef-70-200-f2-8l-is-ii-cr1/

[krepta]

Rumors have just gotten restarted...
http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/10/canon-ef-70-200-f2-8l-is-ii-cr1/Yeah, I have seen this. But this is regarding a version II of the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens, not a EF-S version.

[KenjiS]

Eh I really really doubt it..

Theres no real -market- for it, I mean the 70-200 f/2.8L IS works on a 1.6x cam just fine, There might be a slight weight benefit, but I basically see it like this

EF-S is replacing Canon's consumer lenses, and supplementing their pro stuff...ie, 55-250 is good because it replaces the 70-300 IS, but a 45-135 f/2.8 IS isn't because it likely won't sell in enough numbers at the price Canon would likely put it at [Think $1200-1300]

People who need the 2.8 and IS deal with the weight and size of the 2.8 IS, For people who don't, theres the f/4 IS

Price an issue? Lose the IS...

Fact is, most 1.6x shooters either pony up for the size/weight of the 2.8 IS or they are happy with the 55-250, I'd say people that fal "in the middle" are rare..and for those people Sigma and Tokina both offer good alternatives [In fact only Pentax offers a lens like this in their lineup right now..]

I agree the 2.8 IS isn't light [Based on my 100-400 which weighs roughly the same] But I do use my 100-400 day in and day out and I'd probubly find the 2.8 IS a little easier because of the balance [All the elements are further back and the weight distribution doesn't change as you zoom]

[Stealthy Ninja]

I agree with KenjiS nothing more to say.

:)

[tkbslc]

the 70-200L's are great on a crop camera if you like 112-320mm equivalent. Personally, I like 50mm as a starting point so I can take portraits and/or use it indoors occasionally.

but, like Kenji said, I guess there is the Tokina and Sigma for me.

[Stealthy Ninja]

By 50mm, do you mean a true FF 50mm or 50mm on a crop?

I assume you mean 50mm FF, therefore something like the 24-70 or 24-105 would suit you then.

24-105 = 38-168mm Nice range, no f/2.8, but it's still nice.
24-70 = 38-112mm sort of lose that long end there, but it's a f/2.8

Going crop is all about compromise. :p

[cccc]

ef-s lenses use less glass than there respective ef counterparts. There is definitely a lighter variant possible...
Go look for yourselves; compare the image circles of a tamron 17-50 and a canon 17-40.

[amfoto1]

I can hear the Canon engineers meeting about this idea right now...

"Hey, let's make an EF-S version of our 70-200 lens."

"Yeah, that way it will only work on some of the cameras, rather than on all of them the way the four current 70-200 do. What a great idea."

????

[pio]

I wished canon would consider a 50-150mm f2.8 IS lens for about 1k. A whole stop faster than the 70-200mm f4 and shorter too. It would be perfect for portraits on crop cameras. That would keep a lot of people on crop because then the 17-55mm would be a natural addition.

[Stealthy Ninja]

I can hear the Canon engineers meeting about this idea right now...

"Hey, let's make an EF-S version of our 70-200 lens."

"Yeah, that way it will only work on some of the cameras, rather than on all of them the way the four current 70-200 do. What a great idea."

????

EF-S 43.75-125mm 2.8 IS.

That's a EF-S lens version of it. ;)

I agree though, no need for this when the current ones work fine on crop.

I don't understand people's incessant need for EF-S versions of stuff. If you want crap quality, go buy a 3rd party lens. :p :p :p

Don't tell Lightrules I said that. :lol:

[tkbslc]

By 50mm, do you mean a true FF 50mm or 50mm on a crop?

I assume you mean 50mm FF, therefore something like the 24-70 or 24-105 would suit you then.

24-105 = 38-168mm Nice range, no f/2.8, but it's still nice.
24-70 = 38-112mm sort of lose that long end there, but it's a f/2.8

Going crop is all about compromise. :p

I meant equivalent. 70-200 was a good range on film, not my fave on 1.6x crop.

Really, I am just being a whiner because I already own the Tokina 50-135mm (so 80-215 equivalent). That is what I want Canon to make with USM and IS, but then I would just whine that it cost $1000+.... :)

[Stealthy Ninja]

LOL. I love "whine", it goes well with "chicken".

There is no such thing as the perfect lens. Primes are sharp, but they don't move. Zooms never quite reach enough (or go wide enough). It's a struggle I tells ya.

Well I guess you gotta do all you can do, if that's even possible... ;)

[krepta]

LOL. I love "whine", it goes well with "chicken".

There is no such thing as the perfect lens. Primes are sharp, but they don't move. Zooms never quite reach enough (or go wide enough). It's a struggle I tells ya.

Well I guess you gotta do all you can do, if that's even possible... ;)Very simple solution:

1. Get rich, or marry someone who is rich (and loves to spoil you).
2. Buy all the lenses (for Canon EF mount) in existence from all the manufacturers, Canon, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc. (Of course, by this I mean buy one copy of all the varieties, don't buy every single unit... gotta leave some for the rest of the world, you know.)
3. Find something to complain and whine about in spite of having all the choices available to you.
4. Since you are rich (or have a rich spouse), switch to Nikon and repeat steps 2 & 3. Then, do the same with Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, and so on.
5. Finally, just give up on photography because you will never be fully satisfied with any of your gear.
6. Rejoice in at least being rich, or having a rich spouse, and hire a personal professional photographer to do all the dirty work for you.

7. Alternatively, you could also step-up to medium-format and waste even more money.

:lol:

[Stealthy Ninja]

Mmmm if I were that rich, I'd just pay people to stand still all the time. 3D "photography"... or is that live sculptures... :lol:

[krepta]

Mmmm if I were that rich, I'd just pay people to stand still all the time. 3D "photography"... or is that live sculptures... :lol:No more need for touch screens. Now you can touch live directly! Hmm... :shock::rolleyes::lol:

[shooter mcgavin]

Or just buy a Tokina 50-135 f/2.8. I know the AF isn't usm, and it doesn't have IS, but those two things I think are sacrifices worth taking when you gain great build quality, incredible sharpness (probably better than Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 in some cases) and a comparably tiny price. IMO, quick focus isn't really so important for portraits anyway. There are plenty of pro portrait photographers getting along just fine with the 85 f/1.2's slow focus anyway.

[Stealthy Ninja]

No more need for touch screens. Now you can touch live directly! Hmm... :shock::rolleyes::lol:

Only problem is I'm not too sure where the direct print button is located.

:lol:

[krepta]

Only problem is I'm not too sure where the direct print button is located.

:lol:In this Live mode, the direct print button is replaced with the belly button. :)

[Stealthy Ninja]

In this Live mode, the direct print button is replaced with the belly button. :)

Where do the prints come out? :shock:

[Village_Idiot]

Is that a ninja pony?

[footballdude2k3]

with the current ones working, why do you need an efs version? unless you are talking about an equivalent, this is a completely moot point

edit: sorry just saw your post about it being for an equiv. oh and i dont think its that heavy, i think you would get used to it.

[juanpafer]

I don't think the OP is out of his mind asking for an EF-S 50-135is USM. I have the Tokina and it is an outstanding lens. IQ is at least comparable with any of the 70-200 variants, excellent (for me) range, color, contrast, built... AF is fast even though it is not USM... BUT if Canon comes out with IS and USM on a lens with similar range, build and IQ it would be perfect.
Most of the people that shoot crop realize the compromise in the sensor, the crop factor etc, but value other things like price, size and weight. Canon has successfully marketed $700-1100 EFS lenses, so... who would buy this lens? The same people who bought the 10-22 and the 17-55.

[tkbslc]

I don't think the OP is out of his mind asking for an EF-S 50-135is USM. I have the Tokina and it is an outstanding lens. IQ is at least comparable with any of the 70-200 variants, excellent (for me) range, color, contrast, built... AF is fast even though it is not USM... BUT if Canon comes out with IS and USM on a lens with similar range, build and IQ it would be perfect.
Most of the people that shoot crop realize the compromise in the sensor, the crop factor etc, but value other things like price, size and weight. Canon has successfully marketed $700-1100 EFS lenses, so... who would buy this lens? The same people who bought the 10-22 and the 17-55.

Well put and nice comparison with the 10-22 and 17-55. There are lots of people with those lenses that could be shooting with Sigma, tokina and Tamron equivalents, so one could argue that Canon didn't need those either.

[Nathan]

Honestly... and maybe it's just me... but I don't notice much of a difference in size and weight between the 17-55 and the 70-200. They both make the camera a little more bulky and heavy...

[krepta]

Honestly... and maybe it's just me... but I don't notice much of a difference in size and weight between the 17-55 and the 70-200. They both make the camera a little more bulky and heavy...I own and use both, and I feel differently. The 17-55 weights like a feather compared to the 70-200 2.8 IS. Okay, maybe not a feather, but it is much lighter. At 645g for the 17-55 compared to 1470g for the 70-200, that is more than double the weight. Yes, the 70-200 is not really that heavy and is handholdable, but at the end of a long shooting day, the difference between the two lenses is significant. But that's good; using the 70-200 all day long is a pretty decent workout for me. :)

[Nathan]

I suppose where I'm coming from is that I used to shoot primes. I'd carry a 28, 50, 85 and 100 including the one attached to the body. It was a hassle switching, so I went the route of zooms. What I end up with are two lenses that I carry with me. Practically speaking, at least for me, I consider either lens to be a burden to carry. I've shot 4 hour event followed by walking a 5 mile parade (backwards, because I'm shooting) shooting with both lenses. I don't think I'd notice a difference if I was carrying two 70-200/2.8IS lenses.

[Stealthy Ninja]

You don't really need a 28, 50, 85 and 100 IMHO. Perhaps a 28, 50, 100. Or even the 28 and the 100.

Is that a ninja pony?

My Ninja Pony, My Ninja Pony...
I comb and brush her hair.
My Ninja Pony, My Ninja Pony
Tie a ribbon to show how much I care
My Ninja Pony, My Ninja Pony...
I take her wherever I go.
My Ninja Pony, My Ninja Pony...
Oh I love her so.
I love you, My Ninja Pony *kiss*

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=J9J2vF3Q3o8&NR=1

My Ninja Pony, each sold separately. Collect them ALL!

Other version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brhnzfWViqY&NR=1&feature=fvwp

[kestrel4]

I am dithering about whether to go crop (50D) or full frame (used 5D). And the main reason for full-frame is the ability to use the 70-200 2.8 IS. It is exactly right for a full-frame but loses its utility on a 1.6 crop. I think I will look at the Tokina and others before making the decision.

[krepta]

Ninja you are too much, lol! I can't access YouTube from work; can't wait to get home to see the links. But you're already killing me with the song, hahaha. I would call the TF on you, but how much more could she possibly do to you? XD

[ckfishel2001]

Eh I really really doubt it..

Theres no real -market- for it, I mean the 70-200 f/2.8L IS works on a 1.6x cam just fine, There might be a slight weight benefit, but I basically see it like this

EF-S is replacing Canon's consumer lenses, and supplementing their pro stuff...ie, 55-250 is good because it replaces the 70-300 IS, but a 45-135 f/2.8 IS isn't because it likely won't sell in enough numbers at the price Canon would likely put it at [Think $1200-1300]

People who need the 2.8 and IS deal with the weight and size of the 2.8 IS, For people who don't, theres the f/4 IS

Price an issue? Lose the IS...

Fact is, most 1.6x shooters either pony up for the size/weight of the 2.8 IS or they are happy with the 55-250, I'd say people that fal "in the middle" are rare..and for those people Sigma and Tokina both offer good alternatives [In fact only Pentax offers a lens like this in their lineup right now..]

I agree the 2.8 IS isn't light [Based on my 100-400 which weighs roughly the same] But I do use my 100-400 day in and day out and I'd probubly find the 2.8 IS a little easier because of the balance [All the elements are further back and the weight distribution doesn't change as you zoom]

ef-s 70-200 chances I'd say are between 0 and 0. Canon has 4 versions sigma and tamron have versions....and crops and full frame and 1.3'ers love 'em. The 17-55 is an awesome lens. The 7d is proof that Canon isn't looking to get 'out' of the crop camera lineup. What I think would be awesome would be a 18-135 or 18-150 that had USM and was getting the rave reviews of the 17-55. Since there was just an 18-135 released, not holding my breath on that update either.

[Village_Idiot]

I am dithering about whether to go crop (50D) or full frame (used 5D). And the main reason for full-frame is the ability to use the 70-200 2.8 IS. It is exactly right for a full-frame but loses its utility on a 1.6 crop. I think I will look at the Tokina and others before making the decision.

Works great at the local track days on a crop body.

[ckfishel2001]

Originally Posted by kestrel4 http://photography-on-the.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=8982852#post8982852)
I am dithering about whether to go crop (50D) or full frame (used 5D). And the main reason for full-frame is the ability to use the 70-200 2.8 IS. It is exactly right for a full-frame but loses its utility on a 1.6 crop. I think I will look at the Tokina and others before making the decision.


Works great at the local track days on a crop body.

I'm biased....but I'm voting for the 50D for your decision?:) and if you do....see my sig

[Stealthy Ninja]

Ninja you are too much, lol! I can't access YouTube from work; can't wait to get home to see the links. But you're already killing me with the song, hahaha. I would call the TF on you, but how much more could she possibly do to you? XD

Loosely based on these:
http://www.pbfcomics.com/archive_b/PBF222-Gamblin_Man.jpg
http://www.pbfcomics.com/archive_b/PBF103-Nice_Shirt.gif

[krepta]

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=J9J2vF3Q3o8&NR=1

My Ninja Pony, each sold separately. Collect them ALL!Alrite, finally saw this after getting back home. I remember this! I think my sisters had a few of these, haha. A Ninja Pony would be quite the toy, equally fun for both boys and girls!

Loosely based on these:
http://www.pbfcomics.com/archive_b/PBF222-Gamblin_Man.jpg
http://www.pbfcomics.com/archive_b/PBF103-Nice_Shirt.gifYou've made a few cartoons yourself before, right? Ninja Pony cartoon to come? Don't forget to throw in a mythical EF-S 70-200 in there to keep the relevance. Or I suppose you could post in the TF thread. :)

[TweakMDS]

I'd love a 50-150 2.8 IS (or 50-135, or anything near that).
I'm also fairly positive there's a market for it, just as there is for the many sales of the 17-55 and the likes.
For now, we can only hope :x

[Stealthy Ninja]

Alrite, finally saw this after getting back home. I remember this! I think my sisters had a few of these, haha. A Ninja Pony would be quite the toy, equally fun for both boys and girls!

You've made a few cartoons yourself before, right? Ninja Pony cartoon to come? Don't forget to throw in a mythical EF-S 70-200 in there to keep the relevance. Or I suppose you could post in the TF thread. :)

Mmm... that maybe a good idea, the search for the unicorn, 24-70 2.8L IS and other mythical creatures.

[Joaaso]

I don't think the OP is out of his mind asking for an EF-S 50-135is USM. I have the Tokina and it is an outstanding lens. IQ is at least comparable with any of the 70-200 variants, excellent (for me) range, color, contrast, built... AF is fast even though it is not USM... BUT if Canon comes out with IS and USM on a lens with similar range, build and IQ it would be perfect.
Most of the people that shoot crop realize the compromise in the sensor, the crop factor etc, but value other things like price, size and weight. Canon has successfully marketed $700-1100 EFS lenses, so... who would buy this lens? The same people who bought the 10-22 and the 17-55.
+1

for me the weight is not the biggest issue though, its the price.. I want a lens in this range with IS, USM and f2.8, around the same price as the 17-55, but with the current alternatives, I have to give up either IS or f2.8 for that.. But I want both of those features! what I dont need though is the build quality of those lenses, I would be totally fine with a lens built like the 17-55, if that would lower the price and weight.. but none of the current alternatives offers that compromise and thats where I think an ef-s equivalent fits in...

[Stealthy Ninja]

+1

for me the weight is not the biggest issue though, its the price.. I want a lens in this range with IS, USM and f2.8, around the same price as the 17-55, but with the current alternatives, I have to give up either IS or f2.8 for that.. But I want both of those features! what I dont need though is the build quality of those lenses, I would be totally fine with a lens built like the 17-55, if that would lower the price and weight.. but none of the current alternatives offers that compromise and thats where I think an ef-s equivalent fits in...

I want a 1DIV for the price of a 50D. Come on Canon do what I want. :p

Seriously though, EF-S is good for doing what you want.