EF-S L lenses

Canon has 3 "L" EF-S lenses, not in the name, but by build quality, IQ and price... 10-22 USM, 17-55 IS USM and 15-85 IS USM... Those 3 lenses are the cream of the crop...

mguffin wrote in post #12965767
Canon has 3 "L" EF-S lenses, not in the name, but by build quality, IQ and price... 10-22 USM, 17-55 IS USM and 15-85 IS USM... Those 3 lenses are the cream of the crop...

Please define *build quality* and what L lens they come close to in that regard? I agree on price

Andrew_WOT wrote in post #12965828
Please define *build quality* and what L lens they come close to in that regard? I agree on price

I have to agree with that. The 10-22 isn't too bad, but it is still not quite as well built as the 17-40 or 16-35.

The 17-55 must be the most cheaply built >$1000 Canon lens. The zoom ring has a huge torque hump around 24mm and the focus ring is especially crappy.

BrickR wrote in post #12964428
L prices for lenses that only work on crop bodies? Personally, I wouldn't buy one but that's because I know I'll get a full frame and I want lenses I can use on both cameras. I do wonder how many folks out there would fork over the extra money for that.

Everyone that has bought the 17-55 would, not for the L, but because they are willing to pay for quality in an EF-S. By the time you add the hood, which doesn't come with the 17-55, the lens cost nearly as much as a 24-70; at least it did when I was pricing them. (edit: I priced them at B&H today and the 24-70 is almost 20% more than the 17-55 w/ hood; if you add a soft case to the 17-55, which is also included with the L, the difference is even less.)

But personally, I don't care about red rings, L designations, etc. I want a good lens. The 17-55 is that, though the build quality is not on par with the 24-70.

pyrojim wrote in post #12965611
That did NOT stop nikon from weather sealing their 17-55mm DX


Ahhhhhh

I should have gone nikon.

I'm sure that you can change teams without taking a bath on the sale of your Canon gear.

WhyFi wrote in post #12965934
I'm sure that you can change teams without taking a bath on the sale of your Canon gear.

not going to happen. already jumped in the pool. the parents helped out with a college graduation present. NOT being sold ever-they would kill me.


at the point, the only thing Id want from nikon is a D3s, and a 50mm


but canon has the ultra fast auto focus 50mm lenses.

Canon needs to treat their 'loyal' EF-S users better.

pyrojim wrote in post #12965611
That did NOT stop nikon from weather sealing their 17-55mm DX

... Neither did it stop them from putting a gold ring on it as well.

tempest68 wrote in post #12965603
They won't make an EF-S an "L" because then they'd have to consider adding weather sealing and they'd include the hood and a case/bag with the lens. Without the "L" designation, they can skip the weather sealing and happily sell you the lens hood separately!

Not all l lenses are weather sealed btw ; -)

pyrojim wrote in post #12966147
Canon needs to treat their 'loyal' EF-S users better.

Don't you think that creating a balls-to-the-wall EF-S offering might alienate their non-EF-S shooters? At least with the EF, there's across-the-board compatibility.

There's also something to be said about the cost-effectiveness in the simplification of manufacturing - doubling the number of lenses, one for each mount, means increased cost in designing, tooling up the machinery and manufacturing runs. This may make more sense with zooms, where crop factors can give you some awkward FoV ranges, but with primes, it is what it is.

Another factor that I may get flamed for voicing - we all know that the population of POTN is not representative of Canon owners, as a whole, and I think that a subset is being way over-represented in this thread. I'm talking about shooters that:

a) are shooting on a crop
b) are really knowledgeable enough to distinguish the qualitative differences between lenses
c) have no desire to eventually migrate to FF
d) will make noise about having to foot increased material cost because the lens was optimized for a larger image circle

...yeah, I think that that's a rather small population. "You can't please all of the people all of the time," indeed, but if you're going to leave a group out in the cold, make sure it's a small one.

EF-S is designed to produce cheaper lenses by making the glass only cover the aps-c sensor, meaning less glass in the lens. L lenses are professional series lenses. So you are suggesting producing "affordable" "professional" lenses? Fundamental flaw in logic!

I love my 7D but some day I might step up to a 1D4. Its not a full frame body, but it won't take EF-S lenses. That'd stink.

Lets get back to the point though - what would an "EF-S L" lens do? Its still a FOV crop on the lens, its still going to be restricted to the same apertures as current EF-S lens offerings... better glass? So make a 17-55 L and instead of $1100 make it $1600. What good would that do?

JonK wrote in post #12967680
EF-S is designed to produce cheaper lenses by making the glass only cover the aps-c sensor, meaning less glass in the lens.

That is a great conclusion, but it is wrong. EF-S lenses are made to take advantage of space inside the APS-C camera that would otherwise be reserved for a larger swinging mirror. And, that space is only advantageous to the lens design for shorter focal lengths. The "S" in EF-S stands for "short back focus", which means that the rear element of the lens is closer to the image sensor than on regular 35 mm SLR cameras.

Have you seen a EF-S 17-55? It has a lot of glass!

If what you are saying were correct, IMHO, Cannon would have marketed the old 75-300 lenses (whose clarity dropped off to pure cloudyness near the edged) as EF-S lenses. Sure, the image circle was large enough to cover a FF sensor, but it was useless.

Right but you're missing the point. They move the rear element inside the body to cover the sensor while using small diameters of glass. It is cost savings first and foremost. Sure it allows for a 10mm lens, but its a 16mm field of view. You can make a 14mm lens for full frame... so it doesn't offer anything in terms of technological ability, it allows for a 17-55 2.8 IS to be rather light, compact, and affordable as compared to say a 24-70 2.8 without IS. IS usually chips on another $700 - $1000 or more on lenses with the option, and yet the 17-55 IS is ~$1100 and the 24-70 is $1400 without IS and is technically not as wide. Do the math - the EF-S is done for affordability, which Canon even claims. It would make no sense to make an affordable-form-factor lens a "professional" series.

Andrew_WOT wrote in post #12965828
Please define *build quality* and what L lens they come close to in that regard? I agree on price

I think those 3 lenses are built better than the other EF-S lenses, maybe not a good as the "L" lenses.

Hey, did you guys know these things can be used to take photos? Found that out myself last week, pretty amazing!

JonK wrote in post #12967854
Right but you're missing the point. They move the rear element inside the body to cover the sensor while using small diameters of glass. It is cost savings first and foremost. Sure it allows for a 10mm lens, but its a 16mm field of view. You can make a 14mm lens for full frame... so it doesn't offer anything in terms of technological ability, it allows for a 17-55 2.8 IS to be rather light, compact, and affordable as compared to say a 24-70 2.8 without IS. IS usually chips on another $700 - $1000 or more on lenses with the option, and yet the 17-55 IS is ~$1100 and the 24-70 is $1400 without IS and is technically not as wide. Do the math - the EF-S is done for affordability, which Canon even claims. It would make no sense to make an affordable-form-factor lens a "professional" series.

IS doesn't usually chip on an extra $700-1000 it's usally packaged with other upgrades...the 24-70L isn't just more expensive because of the glass

if your theory is correct then i think there'd be a few faster EF-S lenses available using the large sized glass...

but the bottom line is for a 17-55mm f2.8 lens will need a front element that is a set size regardless of the format of the camera it is mounted on...