EF-S L lenses

MattPharmD wrote in post #12964334
So I have two questions, Do you think that there would be any benefit (to users and to canon) in a similar designation for the highest quality EF-S lenses?

And- What lenses would you expect to get this designation?

Another designation for high quality EF-S lenses would benefit only Canon. If they can distinguish those lenses from the rest, they will mark up the price more than currently. We the buyers would pay more for the same thing.

hairy_moth wrote in post #12967832
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.

WRONG. Both the nikon D3(x/s) and the Sony A900/850 take crop series lenses. Ohhh and their chipsets automatically crop.


It's canons laziness.

pyrojim wrote in post #12968332
WRONG. Both the nikon D3(x/s) and the Sony A900/850 take crop series lenses. Ohhh and their chipsets automatically crop.


It's canons laziness.

It's Canon's ingenuity! Utter genius really, thinking outside of the box (or in this case, in-side the box) when they realized that they can make less expensive, wide angle lenses by putting glass in space that is otherwise reserved for the mirror of a FF camera!

That's what the S signifies! It doesn't mean smaller circle, but in some cases (i.e., focal lengths) , there is.

amfoto1 wrote in post #12968363
Canon has defined "L series" lenses the same since the first were introduced in the FD line in the 1980s or 1970s...

"L" stands for "Luxury".

If I ever question Canon's naming choices, it is the 'L' for Luxury.

When I think of Luxury, I think of fluff. There is nothing 'fluff' about the Ls. It is all about Quality and Durability. P for Professional would have been better.

Canon has defined "L series" lenses pretty much the same since they were first were introduced in the FD line in the 1980s or late 1970s...

"L" stands for "Luxury". But, hey, the marketing people are Japanese and it might lose something in translation.

For EOS/EF Canon has defined L-series as...

1. The name reserved for lenses possessing a level of quality sufficienly high to be called professional and stringent standards of performance (this is pretty wide open to interpretation, depending upon how one defines "top quality" and "standard of performance").

2. Lens must use optical elements of exotic glass (UD, Super UD, Fluorite, aspherical or other special optical materials, etc.), optical design without compromise, cutting edge optical theory and engineering.

3. Lens must fit and be compatible with all EOS cameras past, present and future.

The last item is the reason that no EF-S lens has been labelled an "L" or gotten a red stripe painted on it. It doesn't mean that EF-S lenses aren't equally capable as L-series lenses in many respects. They might have great build quality, exotic glass. Might even have sealing... Though none do that I'm aware of... But not all L-series are fully sealed, either. Also note that sealing is not one of the features that Canon cites as a mandatory feature for L-series.

There are EF lenses that equal L-series in all respects, but just don't need exotic glass to get the job done so don't get a red stripe. The EF 100mm f2.8 USM macro is an example (recently discontinued and replaced with the 100L macro)... It's build is identical to the 180/3.5L macro. Among the TS-E lenses there have been identical build lenses some of which were L and others not, purely because of the glass used in them. In this case, the prices were even the same!

But no EF-S lens can be fitted to film, full frame or APS-H DSLRs.... So Item 3 above has prevented any of these lenses from being labelled an "L", no matter how good they are.

However, maybe this will change.... I notice in the latest edition of Lens Work III that item #3 above is no longer part of the description of L-series!

OTOH, by not labelling a lens an L, Canon gets to withhold the lens hood and sell it to us separately!

HAVEN'T YOU HEARD???

Canon will come out with a new designation for the 17-55mm f/2.8 and there other superb EFS lenses. They expect to call the designation "AL" for "Almost Luxury".

JonK wrote in post #12967680
So make a 17-55 L and instead of $1100 make it $1600. What good would that do?

Just wait a short while... The way the Canon prices are rising, the 17-55mm lens will soon cost $1,600 and then everyone will be happy...

DreDaze wrote in post #12968091
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...

Canon 70-200 F4 non-IS is $674 on BH
Canon 70-200 IS is $1349 on BH
Difference is $675

Right now the older MKI 70-200 2.8 non-IS is $1420 on BH
The MKI 70-200 2.8 IS was $1899 when in stock on BH last which means that the price hasn't been inflated to that of the other lenses given the canon price hike recently. That's $480 comparing the non-recent $1899 price.

Same story with the older non IS 300mm / 400mm lenses.

But you seem to be confused with what dictates the aperture. Where is the aperture? The aperture blades are at the back of the lens. The front element diameter is the least of the issue. Look at the 16-35 MKI its a 77mm lens. Look at the 16-35 MK II its an 82mm lens. Both are 2.8.

The aperture gets bigger and thus needs more glass in the back of the lens to allow for the larger opening. That means more glass in the lens, not just the outter element. The whole point behind the EF-S design is to avoid large amounts of glass, cutting cost of production.

JonK wrote in post #12969525
Canon 70-200 F4 non-IS is $674 on BH
Canon 70-200 IS is $1349 on BH
Difference is $675

Right now the older MKI 70-200 2.8 non-IS is $1420 on BH
The MKI 70-200 2.8 IS was $1899 when in stock on BH last which means that the price hasn't been inflated to that of the other lenses given the canon price hike recently. That's $480 comparing the non-recent $1899 price.

Same story with the older non IS 300mm / 400mm lenses.

But you seem to be confused with what dictates the aperture. Where is the aperture? The aperture blades are at the back of the lens. The front element diameter is the least of the issue. Look at the 16-35 MKI its a 77mm lens. Look at the 16-35 MK II its an 82mm lens. Both are 2.8.

The aperture gets bigger and thus needs more glass in the back of the lens to allow for the larger opening. That means more glass in the lens, not just the outter element. The whole point behind the EF-S design is to avoid large amounts of glass, cutting cost of production.

like i said before...the IS isn't the only thing that's upgraded in those differences...the 70-200's have other differences besides just IS...one is weather sealing...


i still think the aperture is decided a lot by the size of the front element i mean that's where the light is coming in from...it's not coming in from the back of the lens...yeah that's where it ends up...but it originates from the front, and is directed to the back...

if your theory was true wouldn't the 17-55IS be noticeable smaller than the 16-35mm? and not practically the same size, like they are?

i think the reason for EF-S lenses is to get farther back into the camera to allow for wider angles

Again, the IS is what adds expense. The 300 2.8 and 300 2.8 w/ IS both are weather sealed, prices differ greatly. The rubber gasket is hardly expensive, the IS motor and floating center section is.

Its a simple math problem. Aperture is measured by the focal length over the size of the entrance pupil (pupil meaning the bladed area, NOT the entrance of the lens frontal element).

JonK wrote in post #12969992
Again, the IS is what adds expense. The 300 2.8 and 300 2.8 w/ IS both are weather sealed, prices differ greatly. The rubber gasket is hardly expensive, the IS motor and floating center section is.

it's also a newer lens so it'll have other improvements...just like the 500f4IS, and 500f4IS II...it's more expensive also...

i'm just saying the fact that it's a newer lens with other features aside from just IS needs to be factored into the price difference...in both of your examples it still wasn't a difference of $700-1,000...you think it's all IS related, i beg to differ...we'll have to agree to disagree there...

again if the Ef-S cuts down on the size of the glass...why's the 17-55 as big as the 16-35mm...

Does an L actually mean anything?

I mean, it has a lot of emotional value for photographers/gear collectors, but it assures nothing.

It doesn't imply weathersealing, it doesn't imply top-class optical quality.

The only thing it does assure is price.

DreDaze wrote in post #12970085
it's also a newer lens so it'll have other improvements...just like the 500f4IS, and 500f4IS II...it's more expensive also...

i'm just saying the fact that it's a newer lens with other features aside from just IS needs to be factored into the price difference...in both of your examples it still wasn't a difference of $700-1,000...you think it's all IS related, i beg to differ...we'll have to agree to disagree there...

again if the Ef-S cuts down on the size of the glass...why's the 17-55 as big as the 16-35mm...

It was a $675 price difference and the other lens is no longer available to be subject to canon's price hikes.

The EF-S lens are smaller because they placing the rear element close and covering less sensor. No sense in making an affordable design less affordable.

JonK wrote in post #12970129
The EF-S lens are smaller

they're not smaller though...

Here is a snippet from a 2005 thread that describes why EFS lenses...

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=123259

Tom W wrote in post #1027911
Scottes is right, and I'll add a little.

People will ask why does the lens protrude into the camera more than a standard EF lens? Here's why:

On the Canon EOS mount, the distance from the front flange of the lens mount to the sensor/film plane is 44 mm. One might wonder then, how a camera maker can create a lens with a focal length shorter than 44 mm given that the distance from the rear principal point to the film plane is what defines the focal length of the lens. In ordinary 50 or 85 mm lenses, the principal point resides within the lens. In telephoto designs, it can be in front of the lens, allowing a lens length shorter than the actual focal length. But wide-angle lenses are a different problem requiring a different solution.

There's two parts to the solution. One is the optical design. Wide-angle lenses are designed as an inverted telephoto lens to allow this. The first part of the lens, as the image light rays enter the lens, is essentially a reverse-telephoto lens (Canon refers to it as a negative lens) that sits in front of the main portion of the lens to allow a rear principal point that resides between the rear of the lens and the sensor/film plane. Of course, this approach requires more bending of the light to create an image, and as we bend light more while trying to maintain a rectilinear image, distortion and abberations increase. Generally, the wider the lens, the more bending must occur and thus the more distortion and abberation is introduced to the image.

The other part of the wide-angle solution on regular EF lenses is that the lens protrudes into the camera, a few mm beyond the lensmount flange. The farther into the camera the rear of the lens can protrude, the less alteration or bending of the light must take place before the main lens. But that distance is limited to a couple of mm due to the fact that the mirror is in the way.

But on smaller-sensored cameras, the mirror can be smaller since it doesn't have to project a full-frame image to the focus screen, pentaprism, and eyepiece. It only needs to project the cropped image matching the size of the sensor. So, the mirror can be smaller. And since it is smaller, the lens can protrude deeper into the camera before interfering with the reflex mirror.

The EF-S mount allows a few more mm of lens penetration into the camera body, and thus reduces the required strength of the front retrofocus (reverse-telephoto) lens assembly since the rear of the lens is closer to the rear principal point. But that deeper penetration into the camera would interfere with or damage the mirror in a full-frame camera. So, Canon gave the EF-S a unique mount to prevent use on larger format cameras.

Of course it would have been possible to build a lens within the constraints of the normal EOS-EF mount and still provide the ultra-wide angles. Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron do it. But those lenses are more complex and more prone to abberations and distortion than is the Canon EF-S design. There's a reason that the 10-22 excels in its class.

A couple other interesting old EFS threads, some of them are very funny given the assumptions made about the future, 6 years later:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=122664
http://photo.net …gital-camera-forum/007dlx