Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 10 Jul 2013 (Wednesday) 11:56
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Cost of Wide lenses

 
KirkS518
Goldmember
Avatar
3,983 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Central Gulf Coast, Flori-duh
     
Jul 10, 2013 11:56 |  #1

For this exercise, we'll use the kit EF-S 18-55mm lens.

It's a cheap (affordable for everyone) lens with good+ IQ. No matter how we look at it, it's an 18mm lens on the wide side. Even though it's made for crop bodies, the lens is an 18mm lens. As it's built for crop bodies, it gives an efov (effective field of view) of a 28mm on a 35mm format (aka full frame). Not so wide anymore. But even still, it's an 18mm lens. Everyone agree so far? Good.

So my question is, to get an 18mm fov on a 35mm format, you have to buy something for 4 times the cost (at least) of the 18-55mm. Yes, I realize those are L lenses, and that there are other aspects of those lenses that contribute to the cost factor. But, why doesn't Canon (and other manufacturers) just make the 18-55mm (or similar) in an EF mount, rather than the EF-S mount? I would think the optics would be the same, just maybe different spacing inside the lens body, and probably need some other engineering adjustments to make it work for a full frame, but IMO, the price shouldn't have to be 4x as much, or even 2x as much.

As I don't build or design lenses, I'm hoping someone here can explain why a lens like the 18-55mm isn't made for FF at a reasonable price point.

Back in the days of film, there was (essentially) one mount made for a brand's current body line-up. And lenses of 24mm or wider were always at a premium. But Canon/Nikon/etc., by producing the 18-55mm line has proven that that premium was really just marketing. If it wasn't, the kit lens would be a EF-S 28-70mm (non-L), and the 18-55mm would be $800+.

It seems that the manufacturers are trying to carry through with the 'wider than 28mm premium', while showing us the premium is unnecessary.

What say you?


If steroids are illegal for athletes, should PS be illegal for models?
Digital - 50D, 20D IR Conv, 9 Lenses from 8mm to 300mm
Analog - Mamiya RB67 Pro-SD, Canon A-1, Nikon F4S, YashicaMat 124G, Rollei 35S, QL17 GIII, Zeiss Ikon Ikoflex 1st Version, and and entire room full of lenses and other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
30,140 posts
Gallery: 246 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 7438
Joined Dec 2006
     
Jul 10, 2013 12:00 |  #2

Once you go from a crop to a FF lens anything wider than 24 is an ultra wide and it becomes a bit of a specialty lens. Certainly back in the film days you didnt see a lot of them in use. Keep in mind for a full frame format you have to have a bigger lens circle and more good glass inside so the cost increases.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sapearl
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
16,342 posts
Gallery: 152 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1424
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Jul 10, 2013 12:01 |  #3

What about the 10-22; wouldn't that provide the solution for a number of situations? Granted it doesn't have he extended range but its a start.


GEAR LIST
MY WEBSITE (external link)- MY GALLERIES (external link)- MY BLOG (external link)
Artists Archives of the Western Reserve (external link) - Board

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KirkS518
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,983 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Central Gulf Coast, Flori-duh
     
Jul 10, 2013 12:11 |  #4

gonzogolf wrote in post #16107974 (external link)
Once you go from a crop to a FF lens anything wider than 24 is an ultra wide and it becomes a bit of a specialty lens. Certainly back in the film days you didnt see a lot of them in use. Keep in mind for a full frame format you have to have a bigger lens circle and more good glass inside so the cost increases.

Yes, I understand that, but the manufacturers have now shown that even as wide as 18mm is no longer a specialty lens - it's a kit lens.

Lens circle was taken into consideration when I said

I would think the optics would be the same, just maybe different spacing inside the lens body, and probably need some other engineering adjustments to make it work for a full frame,

but should it increase the cost by 4x?

sapearl wrote in post #16107978 (external link)
What about the 10-22; wouldn't that provide the solution for a number of situations? Granted it doesn't have he extended range but its a start.

That was the lens I used for price-pointing. MSRP on the 18-55 is $199.99, 10-22mm is $859.99.

I would think an 18-55mm for use on 35mm format bodies should be somewhere around $400-600, don't you? The 10-22mm UWA I can see as a truer specialty lens, and I can see the price justification.


If steroids are illegal for athletes, should PS be illegal for models?
Digital - 50D, 20D IR Conv, 9 Lenses from 8mm to 300mm
Analog - Mamiya RB67 Pro-SD, Canon A-1, Nikon F4S, YashicaMat 124G, Rollei 35S, QL17 GIII, Zeiss Ikon Ikoflex 1st Version, and and entire room full of lenses and other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KirkS518
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,983 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Central Gulf Coast, Flori-duh
     
Jul 10, 2013 12:15 |  #5

I also find it interesting that Canon lists the 17-40mm as an UWA, whereas they list the 18-55mm as a standard zoom (obviously they're taking EFOV into account), because last I checked, 18mm was considered UWA, and 40mm was considered a standard focal length. See it HERE (external link)


If steroids are illegal for athletes, should PS be illegal for models?
Digital - 50D, 20D IR Conv, 9 Lenses from 8mm to 300mm
Analog - Mamiya RB67 Pro-SD, Canon A-1, Nikon F4S, YashicaMat 124G, Rollei 35S, QL17 GIII, Zeiss Ikon Ikoflex 1st Version, and and entire room full of lenses and other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
joeblack2022
Goldmember
3,005 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Sep 2011
Location: The Great White North
     
Jul 10, 2013 12:19 |  #6

^ They're also taking into account that the 18-55mm is an EF-S lens and will not physically mount on a full frame or 1.3x crop camera.


Joel

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hecto
Member
46 posts
Joined May 2013
     
Jul 10, 2013 12:24 |  #7

The EF-S 18-55mm can be smaller because it's designed around projecting the image on a smaller sensor. Supporting a larger sensor requires more glass, and a bigger body to support it, thus the greater cost. There may be marketing and/or sales reasons why they don't have a consumer grade UWA lens for EF.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JRET
Senior Member
261 posts
Joined Feb 2009
     
Jul 10, 2013 12:26 as a reply to  @ KirkS518's post |  #8

IF the 17-40 had been designed as a 17-55 the argument could be made that the lens was an excellent solution for both FF & crop.
IF the EF-S 17-55 had been designed as an EF lens (for FF & crop) then the same argument could be made.

As mentioned in earlier posts, the design requirements for each platform dictate somewhat the nature of the lens ... I can only imagine that a 17-55 lens built like a 17-40 would be huge & heavy and then add the 2.8 that most would want, it would be incredibly expensive ... and so on and so on.


Canon 6D | 50D | EOS M1 | EOS M2 | S-90 | EF 28 f/2.8 IS | EF 40 f/2.8 | EF 50 f/1.4 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 100 f/2.8 macro | EF 24-105 f/4L IS | EF 70-200 f/4L IS | EF-M 22 | EF-M 11-22 | EF-M 18-55 | EF-M 55-200

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KirkS518
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,983 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Central Gulf Coast, Flori-duh
     
Jul 10, 2013 12:27 |  #9

hecto wrote in post #16108043 (external link)
The EF-S 18-55mm can be smaller because it's designed around projecting the image on a smaller sensor. Supporting a larger sensor requires more glass, and a bigger body to support it, thus the greater cost. There may be marketing and/or sales reasons why they don't have a consumer grade UWA lens for EF.

I think that's the only reason. But what do I know. ;)


If steroids are illegal for athletes, should PS be illegal for models?
Digital - 50D, 20D IR Conv, 9 Lenses from 8mm to 300mm
Analog - Mamiya RB67 Pro-SD, Canon A-1, Nikon F4S, YashicaMat 124G, Rollei 35S, QL17 GIII, Zeiss Ikon Ikoflex 1st Version, and and entire room full of lenses and other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
2ndviolinman
Senior Member
346 posts
Likes: 4
Joined May 2011
     
Jul 10, 2013 12:32 |  #10

I think the difficulty of covering the larger image circle without aberration goes up exponentially.


David
5Dc, 5Dii, Canon 16-35 f/4L IS, 40/2.8 Pancake, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 Macro, 135/2.0L, 200/2.8L, converted 35mm TS, Sigma 50/2.8 Macro, 70/2.8 Macro, Zeiss ZE 21/2.8, Zeiss Contax 28/2.8, 50/1.7 & 85/2.8, Jena 135/3.5, Voigtlander 90mm f/3.5 APO, Canon 28-135.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sapearl
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
16,342 posts
Gallery: 152 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1424
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Jul 10, 2013 12:34 |  #11

KirkS518 wrote in post #16108019 (external link)
I also find it interesting that Canon lists the 17-40mm as an UWA, whereas they list the 18-55mm as a standard zoom (obviously they're taking EFOV into account), because last I checked, 18mm was considered UWA, and 40mm was considered a standard focal length. See it HERE (external link)

I would tend to agree that they are considering he EFOV on that 17-40. I have that lens and it is definately an UWA for what it can do.


GEAR LIST
MY WEBSITE (external link)- MY GALLERIES (external link)- MY BLOG (external link)
Artists Archives of the Western Reserve (external link) - Board

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KirkS518
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,983 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Central Gulf Coast, Flori-duh
     
Jul 10, 2013 12:35 |  #12

JRET wrote in post #16108053 (external link)
IF the 17-40 had been designed as a 17-55 the argument could be made that the lens was an excellent solution for both FF & crop.
IF the EF-S 17-55 had been designed as an EF lens (for FF & crop) then the same argument could be made.

As mentioned in earlier posts, the design requirements for each platform dictate somewhat the nature of the lens ... I can only imagine that a 17-55 lens built like a 17-40 would be huge & heavy and then add the 2.8 that most would want, it would be incredibly expensive ... and so on and so on.

I'm not talking about a fast 2.8. I'm talking about producing a lens for the masses that is under $1000 that can go UW.
As for huge and heavy, if that was the case, wouldn't all of the currently available UWA's be huge and heavy? They aren't. The 16-35mm 2.8 is only 3.5 oz (100gr) heavier then the 28-135mm 3.5, so I would think this hypothetical EF 18-55 would be somewhere in that weight range.

Sorry, but I can't see the cost justification because of a mount. If that was the case, EF-S lenses would be more expensive, as it's the newer mount, and required additional R&D from the EF which has been around for 25+ yrs., and the new STM's would be even more.


If steroids are illegal for athletes, should PS be illegal for models?
Digital - 50D, 20D IR Conv, 9 Lenses from 8mm to 300mm
Analog - Mamiya RB67 Pro-SD, Canon A-1, Nikon F4S, YashicaMat 124G, Rollei 35S, QL17 GIII, Zeiss Ikon Ikoflex 1st Version, and and entire room full of lenses and other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MotorPro
Member
30 posts
Joined Jun 2012
     
Jul 10, 2013 12:40 as a reply to  @ JRET's post |  #13

I know I am going to flamed for this but the fact is that Canon has no reason to make a $300.00 equvalent (they could). But they are selling to a market that can and will pay thousands for a body. They know they will also spend thousands on a lens.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,867 posts
Gallery: 98 photos
Likes: 1124
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Jul 10, 2013 12:45 as a reply to  @ joeblack2022's post |  #14

The optics are not the same. Not even close. Otherwise if they can make a 6mm-20mm f2-f4.9 rectilinear zoom lens for my S95 which must cost what, $80 max, why can't they make the same for FF? Camera phone cameras probably have something like a 3-4mm focal length. Any you have no idea why once cannot make a 4mm lens for a full frame camera?

Or for that matter, why not a 17mm for medium or large format? Hell for lager format a 50mm is wide angle - so 50mm is easy to make right - why aren't they cheap? It's just a different mount right?

MotorPro wrote in post #16108096 (external link)
I know I am going to flamed for this but the fact is that Canon has no reason to make a $300.00 equvalent (they could). But they are selling to a market that can and will pay thousands for a body. They know they will also spend thousands on a lens.

Right. Anyone will a FF camera is not going to want to buy a lens like the 18-55.

And as mentioned above UWA for a crop is the same price as for FF and sure the competition makes cheaper lenses, but Canon isn't going to make every variable of lens design and build quality just for the sake of it.


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, 35 f2 IS, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,867 posts
Gallery: 98 photos
Likes: 1124
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Jul 10, 2013 12:52 |  #15

KirkS518 wrote in post #16108085 (external link)
I

Sorry, but I can't see the cost justification because of a mount. If that was the case, EF-S lenses would be more expensive, as it's the newer mount, and required additional R&D from the EF which has been around for 25+ yrs., and the new STM's would be even more.

Well you go tell Canon that, I'm sure they will listen. Seriously though, we don't get to set their pricing or margins, so cost justification has nothing to do with anything on this forum, or anything Canon is interested in discussing - I've not seen anything on the margins they make on particular lenses. They question is what are you willing to buy? and if you do not like Canon's offerings, you are free to go elsewhere.

Seriously 2K posts and you're asking questions like this? What are you up to? Seems like more of a troll post than anything to me.


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, 35 f2 IS, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,376 views & 0 likes for this thread
Cost of Wide lenses
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is tyzzex
881 guests, 267 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.