New Lense Needed EF-S 55-155 2.8

Canon needs a lense to compliment the EF-S 17-55 2.8, an equivalent to the FF 70-200 2.8 or maybe a little longer.

Not going to lie but where did you come up with the "155" FL? The gap between 55mm and 70mm is not nearly wide enough to warrant a new lens. And why do they need to compliment an EF-S lens?

This would give crop users a fast 2.8 telephoto, that is significantly lighter and cheaper than the EF version.

There are currently no fast EF-S telephotos. Using the EFS 55-250 (the closest approximation companion tele for EFS) at the long end gives you a max aperture of 5.6.

I would say there's definitely a market for it - I want to upgrade my 55-250 for something faster - at the moment, my only options are really the 70-200 F4 (IS or non-IS), but an equivalent EF-S would let me get a 2.8 for probably roughly the same price as the EF 70-200 F4 IS... and less money and weight than the 70-200 2.8...

But there's a reason the 70-200 f/2.8 is much bigger and heavier than the f/4. Fast telephotos are going to be big and heavy. I suppose they could make a cheaper faster telephoto...but do they really want to do that?

Where did canon come up with 55? 155 1.6 is equiv of about 250 FF. They need the EF-S line because you get a lot more lense for the money. The 55-155 would be about the cost of the 70-200 F4 and weigh the same.

I tried out the T2i 18-55 and 70-250 kit from costco and returned it. The 55 to 70 gap was annoying and moved up to 7D. The 18-55 lense was cheap. I bought the 15-85 as I already own the 17-35L. I would have got the 17-55, if a long fast EF-S lense was available to fill the gap. It would make a perfect set of crop lenses...now if they would add the EF-S equivalents 35L, 85L, 135L lense to that...

eb314 wrote in post #11607863
But there's a reason the 70-200 f/2.8 is much bigger and heavier than the f/4. Fast telephotos are going to be big and heavy.

Exactly, hence the point of this post - EF-S lenses use less glass than EF lenses and so are both cheaper and lighter.

I agree that the 55-70 gap was annoying as it is right in the middle of the classic portrait range. My 70-200 f2.8 IS lens was often too long, so I used the 60mm macro a great deal of the time.

My solution- upgrade to full frame. Now my 70-200 (now MK II) is perfect for portraits. You would need to have an EF-S 44-125 f1.8 lens for crop to give you equivalent field of view and depth of field.

Tony_Stark wrote in post #11607740
Not going to lie but where did you come up with the "155" FL? The gap between 55mm and 70mm is not nearly wide enough to warrant a new lens. And why do they need to compliment an EF-S lens?

I would say EF-S is here to stay. If you look at Canon's current lens line up EF non-L lenses are going the way of the dodo. I fully expect the 28-135 to head out to pasture soon. So a I would think something like the 55-250, but constant aperture, is definitely in the works.

What I am about to say probably offers very little for this hypothetical post, other than a mathematical explanation for the 155mm focal length choice.

17-55 is equivalent to 27-88 ff. 88 is about 25% longer than the longest end of the most comparable L zoom, the 24-70. So if you extend the longest end of the 70-200 (200mm) by 25% you get 250mm. Now, when we convert the 250mm back to APS-C (divide by 1.6) you get about 155mm.

If you just simply tried to create an APS-C lens that was equivalent to 70-200, you would get 43-125. More than likely you would start such a proposed lens where the 17-55 stops (i.e. 55 instead of 43). So, to me a 55-125 makes very little since. A 55-155 makes a little more since.

FWIW, this proposed lens would be a 2.81x zoom and the 70-200s are 2.85x zooms. For this reason, maybe a 55-157 would be more appropriate.

On a serious note though, the lens does actually make some sense. I don't know about the logistics of lens size/diameter for the different aperture and focal length combinations, but I think there would be a market for it especially if it was f/2.8 and had IS. Surely it would be easy enough to make a 155mm lens f/2.8 and keep size down. Think about the size of the 135 f/2L. By keeping size down and build quality in line with the 17-55 (good but not great), Canon could also keep price down.

I would be interested if IQ was also on par with the 17-55.

Good idea camera dude!

Hmm. Yeah I could see this as being a desirable lens. I would buy into it. Don't know if it will happen any time soon though.

Next on my list is the 70-200 f2.8 IS mkII, I guess I'll just have to suck it up

i'm not sure if canon is going to be knocking down your door to get you to develop lenses for them anytime soon ...EF-S doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be smaller

why not just buy the sigma 50-150 f2.8 if that's what you want?

DreDaze wrote in post #11608673
EF-S doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be smaller

But as I understand that's entirely one of the reasons for developing the EF-S format in the first place - the ability to make smaller, lighter, more cost-effective lenses. For example, look at the difference in size between the 55-250 EFS and the 70-200 F4 IS - yes, the 55-250 is a variable aperture zoom but it's still pretty compact and lightweight.

In general, because EF-S lenses are designed for the smaller sensor, they require less glass and thus have less weight than an equivalent EF lens. There may be exceptions, but the general case holds I think...

talbot_sunbeam wrote in post #11608938
But as I understand that's entirely one of the reasons for developing the EF-S format in the first place - the ability to make smaller, lighter, more cost-effective lenses. For example, look at the difference in size between the 55-250 EFS and the 70-200 F4 IS - yes, the 55-250 is a variable aperture zoom but it's still pretty compact and lightweight.

In general, because EF-S lenses are designed for the smaller sensor, they require less glass and thus have less weight than an equivalent EF lens. There may be exceptions, but the general case holds I think...

what are you really basing all this on?...EF-S just means that the back of the lens is set farther in so it's closer to the sensor...the reason the 70-200F4IS is bigger, and heavier is because of the constant aperture...one stop= a huge difference in weight...

the 55-250IS, and 70-300IS are just about the same size...the weight is different because of the build on the 70-300IS is beefier...but the EF-S doesn't really make it any smaller...

look at the EF-S 17-55f2.8 compared to the EF 16-35L...they weigh about the same...

DreDaze wrote in post #11608952
what are you really basing all this on?

From Wikipedia:

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. The proximity of the rear element to the image sensor greatly enhances the possibilities for wide angle and very wide angle lenses, enabling them to be made smaller, lighter (containing less glass), faster (larger aperture) and less expensive. Most current Canon EF-S lenses are wide angle.

(of course, not sure where that info was from neither.)

Even if a 55-155 f2.8 is only marginally smaller than a 70-200 f2.8, it would be a more desirable portrait lens for APS-C owners than anything else currently available.

However, the Ideal APS-C portrait lens IMHO would be a 35-135 f2. This would probably be in high demand from FF users as well but might be so compelling that it cannibalizes some of Canons holy trinity of primes which are probably 90% margin for them at this point.