# EF-s prime lenses?



## dickgrafixstop (Nov 6, 2013)

With over 60% of Canon's DSLR line (by product count) and probably more in terms of revenue percentage, why
are there no EF-s mount "serious" lenses? I've heard the consumer market argument and feel it's incredibly weak.
Certainly some percentage of photographers using AFS cameras are serious enough about photography to seek
higher quality lenses than are currently available . I'd like to see several reasonable fast prime EF-s lenses - maybe not at the "L" quality level, but then again, why not? How about a 15mm f2.0, 22mm f2.0, 32mm f1.8
and 53mm f1.8 (23-35-53-85 equivalent)?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 6, 2013)

The EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro doesn't count?

The reality is, APS-C cameras are considered 'comsumer' cameras, and 'consumers' want zoom lenses.


----------



## chilledXpress (Nov 6, 2013)

dickgrafixstop said:


> Certainly some percentage of photographers using AFS cameras are serious enough about photography to seek
> higher quality lenses than are currently available .



That percentage is probably to small for Canon and they already made a line for those photographers... by the time most reach "serious" they already know where they have to go.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 6, 2013)

chilledXpress said:


> ...by the time most reach "serious" they already know where they have to go.



Whether _they_ know or not, Canon knows where Canon wants them to go...up to a FF camera. Since high-quality EF-S primes might be seen as a barrier to that move, I suspect Canon feels that it's not in their best (corporate) interests to develop them.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Nov 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> chilledXpress said:
> 
> 
> > ...by the time most reach "serious" they already know where they have to go.
> ...



The place I'd feel they'd need primes is on the super-wide for APS-C, otherwise you can just pick the 35mm instead of 50mm L to go on your APS-C camera. However even going for the 14mm, you're still barely into super-wide territory on APS-C. Otherwise, I wouldn't be surprised if Neuro is mostly right that it's a move to try and push people up to more expensive FF cameras. Although when the expected 7D2 comes out, that'll probably be the boosted high end crop APS-C that people have been waiting a long time for since they went FF on the 1D, and the 7D is so old.


----------



## distant.star (Nov 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro doesn't count?



That's the first thing that came to mind when I read the OP. My 60 is optically as good as anything I can put on the APS-C sensor camera I have.

I'd say there is at least one "serious" prime out there. And while as a "macro" it's considered a specialty lens, it does much more. I've especially liked the look it gives landscapes.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 6, 2013)

Mix of EF's and EF-s working fine for me.

It's a shame Canon didn't go down the 'DC' route in a way (by which I mean being able to mount and use the cropped sensor lenses on full frame bodies) that Sony and Nikon have, so that their DX or APS-C lenses at least have some life on a full frame, be it with the same field of view as on APS-C but at generally much lower resolutions.

In fact, the larger photosites of a full frame camera cropped to APS-C, may actually mean the images are better from a cropped full frame, than from a native APS-C. Lower resolution yes, but wider range of usable apertures, the DR and noise/iso dividends of the better sensors.

How about getting 12.5MP images from a DC lens on a 5D3? If you had previously spent a lot of money on say a 17-55 f2.8, you might be quite please with this arrangement.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 6, 2013)

It is quite clear that Canon has grudgingly users with APS-C when it finds only one prime lens EF-S.  Modern cameras like 70D (and the future 7D Mark II) need high quality lenses, and fast primes are lacking, especially wide angle. Although the new lenses 24, 28, 35mm IS are great, are not as light and cheap as can be EF-S lenses.  I must admit that in this aspect, Nikon and Sony treat their customers better by offering several options suitable for small cameras such as SL1, that is orphan of lightweight and fast primes.


----------



## Rat (Nov 6, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> It is quite clear that Canon has grudgingly users with APS-C when it finds only one prime lens EF-S.  Modern cameras like 70D (and the future 7D Mark II) need high quality lenses, and fast primes are lacking, especially wide angle. Although the new lenses 24, 28, 35mm IS are great, are not as light and cheap as can be EF-S lenses.  I must admit that in this aspect, Nikon and Sony treat their customers better by offering several options suitable for small cameras such as SL1, that is orphan of lightweight and fast primes.



This is weird reasoning and it is not clear to me that Canon is some sort of at fault here. 

Firstly, primes are not lacking. There is an abundance of them, and they're all versatile enough that you can use them on FF too. Fish goes down to 8mm, and 14mm rectilinear isn't too bad either. Actually, I think Canon is doing crop users a favor. Primes are much cheaper than zooms as it is; if Canon were to double their primes catalogue to accomodate EF-S, it would more likely than not *increase* prices. Regardless, if you're buying primes, you've likely invested more than zoom users. And it's not just Neuro's (very valid) point on that, but it is in your best interest too, if you're climbing the ladder of quality.

Because: what quality advantage would crop primes get you? The low light advantages are there, but the 70D is at 12k8 and following camera's will only fare better. That's pretty extreme already. Sure, wider aperture is better, but it's a relatively small advantage, and if you want better, again there's a slew of FF bodies waiting for you. I think it's very sensible of Canon not to allow you to buy (more than one) EF-S prime.

The most important feature of primes by far, if you ask me, is the DOF they deliver. And if you want maximum DOF, you must go FF. If memory serves, FF has more than a full stop advantage. So, if you're buying to get DOF, you can just see EF lenses as upgrade-proof. Whether that is because Canon wants it or because you want it, is immaterial. 

I admit that an approx. 10mm EF-S prime could find a niche, but everything else is covered. 

Oh, and other manufacturers are *not* being nicer; Canon makes lenses for smaller camera's where that is prudent (EF-M anyone?). And Nikon only has a lot of crop lenses because they forgot to even *make* FF dslr's for about a decade.


----------



## wsmith96 (Nov 6, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Although the new lenses 24, 28, 35mm IS are great, are not as light and cheap  as can be EF-S lenses.



What makes you think that a "quality" EF-S lens will be light and cheap? The 17-55 isn't light like the 18-55 and when I bought it, it was around $1000. Not sure I'd call that cheap, but I do agree that the quality is much improved over the 18-55 that came with my camera. I also really like my EF-S 60mm.

IMO, I think that if there is a superior lens out there, people will buy it whether or not it's EF or EF-S (assuming the camera is a crop camera). If canon made high-end EF-S lenses, then they would sell them and make money. If better quality is desired as one's skills progress, then canon can get even more $$ out of you as you move up to full frame and EF lenses. I believe the money is in the glass, not the camera, for the general public, and if canon made high-end EF-S lenses, they would make money off of them. There is a natural desire for people to get better/faster/smarter products - why not add a rung to that ladder and make some additional money along the way.

That is my opinion of course.


----------



## RobertP (Nov 6, 2013)

The existing Canon 50mm f1.8 is cheap enough and light enough already. I can't see any need for EF-S version.
If you want a fast standard lens you could try the SIGMA 30mm F1.4 DC HSM
I don't see a use for a 24mm prime. Its not wide enough on EF-S. I'd like something a little wider than 17mm for some of my photography but I've never wished my wide angle was faster than f2.8


----------



## Jura (Nov 6, 2013)

I'm going to Chime in on this one because I have a little relevant experience. 
A little over a year ago I decided to sell all of my camera equipment and step into the world of FF and L glass. the only problem with doing so was that I was living in China (where gear is even more expensive then the UK) and new that at some point I would be returning to the EU, probably the UK. I settled on buying everything I wanted (everything I could afford I should say) from B&H, having it shipped to a friends boyfriend who lived in Florida but would be coming to China a few weeks later and then waiting for my goodies to arrive. The process was made simpler by the fact that B&H were a genuine pleasure to buy from (even sent me back $100 a few weeks later after the price of one item dropped) and the whole process worked out as being a fair bit cheaper than digital rev etc.

my UK debit card went through no problems and as for waranty...well I have my fingers crossed and will cross that bridge when/if I come to it...I still have that friend in the US....


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Nov 6, 2013)

The original question should be modified to why canon is not developing any UWA prime for EF-S EOS cameras - something like a 8mm rectilinear or 10 mm or 12 mm. Especially given the claim that EF-S mount with its smaller mirror helps to engineer wide angle lenses. Above 20mm whether a prime is EF or EF-S only does not really matter - does it?

Regarding the UWA primes, my guess is Canon is thinking "if you want serious wide angle for whatever type of photography you do, you need to be "serious" and move up to Full Frame and make my profits larger. Others who use APS-C like you are happy with zooms and I am not going to structure a new production line just for you."


----------



## noncho (Nov 6, 2013)

I was waiting for wide EF-S prime like 12mm, but it does not looks like there will be such lens. Now I'm tired...


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 6, 2013)

RAKAMRAK said:


> The original question should be modified to why canon is not developing any UWA prime for EF-S EOS cameras - something like a 8mm rectilinear or 10 mm or 12 mm. Especially given the claim that EF-S mount with its smaller mirror helps to engineer wide angle lenses. Above 20mm whether a prime is EF or EF-S only does not really matter - does it?
> 
> Regarding the UWA primes, my guess is Canon is thinking "if you want serious wide angle for whatever type of photography you do, you need to be "serious" and move up to Full Frame and make my profits larger. Others who use APS-C like you are happy with zooms and I am not going to structure a new production line just for you."


I think canon 14mm F2.8 (about U.S. $ 2,360) is not appropriate for users of 70D for example. The Canon 24mm F1.4 (about U.S. $ 1,750) also seems disproportionate to APS-C cameras. And the wonderful TS-E 17mm f / 4 is not really very appealing to APS-C cameras, mainly because it costs $ 2500. I'm sure users of SL1 would appreciate lenses like EF-S 22mm F2, or EF-S 8mm F2.8 (rectilinear).


----------



## Pi (Nov 6, 2013)

Canon wants you to buy an FF body, and you should listen...


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Nov 6, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> RAKAMRAK said:
> 
> 
> > The original question should be modified to etc. etc......"
> ...



Of course you are right, but did you miss my second paragraph? I myself am an APS-C shooter (and shall remain so in the foreseeable future) and would immensely love a very wideangle (as you mentioned). But as my second paragraph in the earlier post "presumes" Canon is not interested in what me or (may be) you would like to have. We are not "serious enough" for them apparently.


----------



## chilledXpress (Nov 6, 2013)

RAKAMRAK said:


> The original question should be modified to why canon is not developing any UWA prime for EF-S EOS cameras - something like a 8mm rectilinear or 10 mm or 12 mm. Especially given the claim that EF-S mount with its smaller mirror helps to engineer wide angle lenses. Above 20mm whether a prime is EF or EF-S only does not really matter - does it?
> 
> Regarding the UWA primes, my guess is Canon is thinking "if you want serious wide angle for whatever type of photography you do, you need to be "serious" and move up to Full Frame and make my profits larger. Others who use APS-C like you are happy with zooms and I am not going to structure a new production line just for you."



Sigma makes a sweet selection of UWA for the APS-C format. People knocked them before they started up with the 35mm and new makeover but in the UWA offerings they have been very well received. When I used my 7D's the 10-20 and the 8-16 were perfect. I love my 15mm Rect Fish for the FF, using it on both the 1DX and 5D3.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 7, 2013)

I liked my Sigma 10-20, I liked my Sigma 12-24. I love my Tokina 11-16.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Nov 7, 2013)

chilledXpress said:


> Sigma makes a sweet selection of UWA for the APS-C format. People knocked them before they started up with the 35mm and new makeover but in the UWA offerings they have been very well received. When I used my 7D's the 10-20 and the 8-16 were perfect. I love my 15mm Rect Fish for the FF, using it on both the 1DX and 5D3.



Yes they do. But the OP was looking for "Canon" lenes. Good to hear good words about 8-16 from someone who have used it. I wanted to buy it but finally went with the Tokina 12-24 f/4 last year. May be in future I will go for the sigma 8-16.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Nov 7, 2013)

Pi said:


> Canon wants you to buy an FF body, and you should listen...



Correct, no matter whether one needs it or not..... go full frame...


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 7, 2013)

I'm toying with the 8-16 as a next purchase. Concenred about filtering (essential for my video work, perhaps not on a c100 if the budget ever gets signed off!, I miss built in ND's!) and the small max aperture...

But love the potential.


----------



## captainkanji (Nov 7, 2013)

I went full frame and will never go back. Curse you Canon! (shakes fist)


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 7, 2013)

RAKAMRAK said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Canon wants you to buy an FF body, and you should listen...
> ...


I think that companies should listen to their customers to not be beyond their expectations and make products that will be a failure (EOS M anyone?). Consumers should also listen to the companies? Of course you do! If a company demonstrates not believe in the future of a product line, we must be careful not to buy products that will serve only as a paperweight. To this day I wonder why stopped to manufacture DVD VIDEO RECORDERS household. Yes, now you can record video to hard disk for notebooks, but is not as immediate as practical and record your favorite programs directly to DVD. I know many people who have MINI-DV tapes, HI8, VHS, and can not find a device to copy to DVD. There is demand, but manufacturers have abandoned these consumers without offering a BLURAY VIDEO RECORDER that could satisfy them. Knowing that APS-C sells much more than full frame, does not seem a good idea to let your consumers abandoned. If Canon does not, sigma will do. Call me stubborn, but it is not true that one day all APS-C users will jump to full frame. This is not reality in my country, and in almost every planet. In the USA full frame is the rule, and Japan mirrorles is the trend, but the rest of the world APS-C is used by both advanced amateurs who prefer lighter equipment, and professionals who do not earn $ 100,000 per year....


----------



## candc (Nov 7, 2013)

to me aps-c is the one with the lens advantages, ff only takes ff lenses, aps-c takes both so there are more choices,


----------



## candc (Nov 7, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> I'm toying with the 8-16 as a next purchase. Concenred about filtering (essential for my video work, perhaps not on a c100 if the budget ever gets signed off!, I miss built in ND's!) and the small max aperture...
> 
> But love the potential.



the 8-16 is fantastic, the images it makes are better than 12-24 on full frame.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 7, 2013)

Would it be a huge ask to post a grab of a pic set at 8mm and a pic set at 11mm.

I'm really very delighted with my Tokina, but if the extra 3mm makes a substantial difference (which at this end of the FL's it is likely to) then I might be trying to convice Santa about my behaviour this year.


----------



## Pi (Nov 7, 2013)

RAKAMRAK said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Canon wants you to buy an FF body, and you should listen...
> ...



And when you need fast wide primes, stay with crop, because you "need" it.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Nov 7, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> RAKAMRAK said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...



You forgot that there is no other market or no other country.... only USA market... professionals and advanced amateurs in other countries!!!.... which species are they? How could they be professional if they do not use Full Frame and L lenses .... by definition professional = Full Frame + L Lenses.


----------



## candc (Nov 7, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Would it be a huge ask to post a grab of a pic set at 8mm and a pic set at 11mm.
> 
> I'm really very delighted with my Tokina, but if the extra 3mm makes a substantial difference (which at this end of the FL's it is likely to) then I might be trying to convice Santa about my behaviour this year.



it will flare shooting into the sun but i love how wide and sharp it is


----------



## candc (Nov 7, 2013)

2 more from same day


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 7, 2013)

Super stuff. would you have anything of the same scene just for a comparison for field of view?

Looks great! You live in a nice part of the world.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 7, 2013)

RAKAMRAK said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > RAKAMRAK said:
> ...


When I think of a better definition of "professional" remember the taxi drivers. They work with your car, which is not really different from an ordinary sedan. The Formula 1 drivers are also professionals and use a suitable car for your needs. I'm sure a Formula 1 car is wonderful, but it is not suitable for the work of the professional taxi driver. Can you imagine if car manufacturers try to force cabbies to buy Formula 1 cars as they are the best there is? Here at CR, I see people with similar thoughts. On another topic, a mother said to do photos and videos of the children, and someone recommended Canon 24-70 F2.8L + 70-200 F2.8L. For me, seemed a snobby comment, or sadistic.


----------



## candc (Nov 7, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Super stuff. would you have anything of the same scene just for a comparison for field of view?
> 
> Looks great! You live in a nice part of the world.



my daughter lives in perth au so when i go to visit her i always love taking photos. there is a good comparison tool at the digital picture which has a gizmo and review for the sigma as well as all the other ultra wides for aps-c. it helped me decide. you can click on lens, focal range, and aperature. all in a matrix of the same scene, your tokina is the sharpest of the bunch but i like the 8mm width.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-8-16mm-f-4.5-5.6-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Nov 7, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> .......On another topic, a mother said to do photos and videos of the children, and someone recommended Canon 24-70 F2.8L + 70-200 F2.8L. For me, seemed a snobby comment, or sadistic.



Actually this forum may not be a good place for such questions. Do not get me wrong, this is in itself a great forum with knowledgeable contributors about gear and rumors. Even for some technical stuff this is wonderful. But this is definitely not a forum where the photography part is the prominent element, the gear is more prominent element here. But that IS the characteristic of this forum. If someone here just recommended 24-70 F/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 to a mother for kids photography that is still fine - the recommender may have used that gear and is happy to recommend that. (For me at least) When such recommendation become sadistic and snobby is when the recommender tries to "prove" that there is no life/world/existence beyond those particular pieces of gear and anyone trying to work with lesser equipment has no idea about photography.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Nov 7, 2013)

candc said:


> 2 more from same day



That is wonderful stuff.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 7, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> I know many people who have MINI-DV tapes, HI8, VHS, and can not find a device to copy to DVD. There is demand, but manufacturers have abandoned these consumers without offering a BLURAY VIDEO RECORDER that could satisfy them.



And of course, the inverse. The curse of CR2. Buy a new Camera, prepare yourself for the adobe tax.
Will DNG remain free once they've figured out how to stop folk hacking the CC password databases?

Planned obsolesence.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 7, 2013)

RAKAMRAK said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > .......On another topic, a mother said to do photos and videos of the children, and someone recommended Canon 24-70 F2.8L + 70-200 F2.8L. For me, seemed a snobby comment, or sadistic.
> ...



+1.

I could say a lot more on this, but you know what, I'm not going to. Ok, just a little more then.. Suffice to say there would be a very different dynamic if status and kudos, nay sycophancy was proffered on photographic ability or merit of images.


----------



## pj1974 (Nov 7, 2013)

RAKAMRAK said:


> chilledXpress said:
> 
> 
> > Sigma makes a sweet selection of UWA for the APS-C format. People knocked them before they started up with the 35mm and new makeover but in the UWA offerings they have been very well received. When I used my 7D's the 10-20 and the 8-16 were perfect. I love my 15mm Rect Fish for the FF, using it on both the 1DX and 5D3.
> ...



------------------------



paul13walnut5 said:


> Would it be a huge ask to post a grab of a pic set at 8mm and a pic set at 11mm.
> 
> I'm really very delighted with my Tokina, but if the extra 3mm makes a substantial difference (which at this end of the FL's it is likely to) then I might be trying to convice Santa about my behaviour this year.



------------------------



candc said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > Super stuff. would you have anything of the same scene just for a comparison for field of view?
> ...



------------------------

I’ve been following this thread, and am writing a reply here. I’m currently at work, using a bit of my break to write a reply – so I can’t upload any of my photos as they are on my home PC. (As a note, I live in Adelaide.... Perth is indeed a beautiful city of Australia, and so is Adelaide, they're fairly similar in some aspects).

When I bought my first DSLR (Canon 350D), I bought the Canon 28-135mm which became my most used lens, but it obviously isn’t wide. I bought the 50mm as my prime lens / fast glass. I had also bought the Canon 18-55m kit lens, so I used that for most of my ‘wide angle’ landscape shots. After some time I wanted wider, so I looked at the current UWA zoom lenses available, and ended up buying the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6.

At that stage there were only 3 real options: Canon 10-22mm (expensive- nearly double the Sigma), Tokina 12-24mm (not as wide as I wanted) and Sigma 10-20mm (bit of an unknown back then). I read several professional reviews and user reviews and went with the Sigma. I was very happy with the quality of the Sigma, though there was a bit of an issue with my first copy (AF/decentring). But my second copy of the same lens was much better- AF sometimes got thrown, but it was sharp corner to corner – which was my main criterion. I often use MF mostly anyway.

A few years after that, I bought the Canon 15-85mm, a great all purpose lens (and sold my Canon 28-135mm – which served me well). The 15-85mm is a much more useful focal range, plus it was superior in terms of sharpness, contrast, and IS. Many more UWA lenses for APS-C cameras have become available in the last few years, eg Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Tamron 10-24mm, Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5, etc. (As a note – the EF-M Canon 11-22m IS for the EOM is a very interesting lens, as it incorporates IS… certainly can be helpful, even for UWA shots… let’s see if Canon or other manufacturers comes out with an ultrawide for APS-C or FF that has IS….)

This year I decided to buy the Sigma 8-16mm (mainly as 8mm is 20% wider than 10mm – and reviews indicated it had superior IQ than my Sigma 10-20mm). I bought a new Sigma 8-16mm for a good price, and it certainly is a fantastic lens. I’ve used the Canon 10-22mm, which is also great, but the Sigma 8-16mm really has the features that I am after. It’s IQ and AF are superior to my Sigma 10-20mm: it has less CA, is sharper and that 8mm is certainly very wide (I need to keep in mind not to include my feet, or shadow in many shots). I’ve had a good run from my Sigma 10-20mm, and sold it for half of what I bought it for, but seeing as I’ve had it for over 6 years, I’m very happy with that!

Now, back to primes… I don’t find I need any specific ‘prime’ for ultrawide. I enjoy having UWA zooms, though yes, most of the time I do use them at their minimal focal range – and my Sigmas have been (very) sharp corner to corner – even wide open. I know some people might find an UWA prime handy for certain applications – however I would encourage people to try / consider the Sigma 8-16- it’s also a great complement for my 15-85mm - and on the tele end of my 15-85mm, I have my Canon 70-300mm L to complement – which is a super sweet, high IQ lens… 

So for primes, I’m more interested in a new Canon 50mm prime, hopefully similar in specs to the latest Canon 35mm f/2 USM IS… So at 50mm, there is less difference if it’s a EF or EF-S lens. I enjoy the focal length of 50mm, for my style of photography (eg subject isolation, portrait photography, etc). I do at times use the 35-40mm focal range, but 50mm suits me better (when I have reviewed how I use my 15-85mm and 28-135mm lenses).

Finally, as a note - I use my Canon 100mm f/2.8 at times for non-macro applications (eg I’ve got some great outdoor portraits). I think the EF-S 60mm is also a great lens for lots of applications (actually can be ideal as a ‘semi-fast’ portrait lens on an APS-C too, but it’s not fast enough for me… and I don’t like the minimum (1:1) working distance … that’s why I went with the Canon 100mm USM instead. Let’s see what the future brings, but I think most people find EF primes do work for APS-C cameras.

PJ


----------



## chilledXpress (Nov 7, 2013)

RAKAMRAK said:


> chilledXpress said:
> 
> 
> > Sigma makes a sweet selection of UWA for the APS-C format. People knocked them before they started up with the 35mm and new makeover but in the UWA offerings they have been very well received. When I used my 7D's the 10-20 and the 8-16 were perfect. I love my 15mm Rect Fish for the FF, using it on both the 1DX and 5D3.
> ...



The OP was asking about quality primes for EF-s mounts. I think it's pretty obvious that Canon already has a wide offering of quality primes. Put them on which ever body you choose and they will work fine. Buy a 35L and put some gaff on it with a label calling it an EF-s 56mmL, it will work beautifully. Canon won't undercut their professional offerings by developing EF-s "L"'s or similar... it's like buying a 3 series BMW and then asking for a 7 series engine. You'd never lust for the 7 series if you could have a 3 with all (or most) the advantages of the higher end 7. If that were an option, you'd never have the development of a 7 series. Canon wants you to lust for their professional "serious" gear. It's marketing and done purposely. 

The complaint that there are not many Canon UWA's for an APS-C is somewhat true. There are a limited number of options if you have that body... but who says you need a Canon brand. My point was... there are plenty of 3rd party UWA lenses out there to chose from and they have been available for quite sometime. They are quite good. I love the Siggy UWAs for both crop and FF. Canon isn't shifting philosophy just because they are available and that should be a big indicator for most about their marketing strategy. It does no good to complain about what isn't available directly from Canon, their development path is influenced little by the average consumer and only slightly more so by the prosumer. Scream your disdain for a lack quality EF-s lenses with your dollars and go elsewhere, it's good for all. Canon might eventually hear your "scream" and Sigma will hopefully continue to kill it with their new revamped line. That gap in Canon's line leaves room for improvement by all and money available for other companies development... and I like it that way. I've never been bound to only one brand. For me, I don't really care if Canon can't or won't budge. It gives me incentive to explore other opportunities. Variety is the spice of life...

A couple from the Sigma 15mm Rect Fish, absolutely love this lens and use it on 7D's, 5D3's and a 1DX.



Palace of Fine Arts - San Francisco California by David.K.M, on Flickr



MotoGP 2012 - Laguna Seca, California by David.K.M, on Flickr


----------



## Rat (Nov 7, 2013)

chilledXpress said:


> A couple from the Sigma 15mm Rect Fish



The palace shot is something else, very nice* - but a 'rect fish'? I'd think a WA is either rectilinear OR a fish-eye, but not both  What did you mean?

*) No, the Laguna Seca one has reflections. I don't like those. Grab a rubber lens hood from ebay, put it flush against the window, and presto - gone are your reflections!


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Nov 7, 2013)

Rat said:


> sub]*) No, the Laguna Seca one has reflections. I don't like those. Grab a rubber lens hood from ebay, put it flush against the window, and presto - gone are your reflections![/sub]



Hey Thanks @Rat, good to know this technique...


----------



## Pi (Nov 7, 2013)

chilledXpress said:


> Buy a 35L and put some gaff on it with a label calling it an EF-s 56mmL, it will work beautifully.



It will work. Beautifully? Not really. It will be soft wide open, with noticeable LoCA. The reason is that it is designed for FF, as a WA lens. It needs to cover a larger circle, with decent performance near the edges. When you remove those constraints, the design could be more "normal" but still affected by the relative large flange distance. The lens would lose some weight, as well.


----------

