# Why does not Canon have a 50-150 f.2,8 L is and a 150-300 f.2,8 L is lenses.



## Heidrun (Jun 5, 2011)

Because i would find it wery usefull if they did. I myself have a 17-40 and would find this zoom range 50-150 very useful indeed . So the next thing would naturally be a 150-300 f.2,8 L is zoom.
If they could make suche lenses. Im sure these two lenses would be very compact.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 5, 2011)

These focal lengths would make a lot of sense in a EF-S lens. (Although, it is questionable if a 150-300 f2.8 lens would be noticeably smaller than an EF lens?) Canon makes the 17-55 as an F2.8, but apart from this, they are lacking in fast EF-S lenses. Personally, I'd much rather see an EF-S 15mm f1.8 L. Especially if it is small, pocketable and takes regular filters. Other manufacturers seem to cater well for APS-C sensored cameras. With Canon, you sometimes get the impression that if you're not using a full frame camera, you are a second class citizen.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 5, 2011)

Also, I think a 150-300 F2.8 would be hideously expensive. Sigma make a 120-300 f2.8, which sell for just over $3k. A Canon lens would have a large premium in price over this. I'd suspect that Canon are regularly talking to the likely buyers of such lenses. The fact that it hasn't appeared would suggest that most people are happy with the 70-200 F 2.8 and the bigger prime lenses. There may not be much of a market for it.


----------



## lol (Jun 5, 2011)

An EF 50-150 f2.8L would be too niche I think. It isn't that much different from the existing selection of 70-200 lenses. The only way it could make sense is if was an EF-S "as good as L", where the cost, size and weight savings combined would be more significant if you take the Sigma lenses for comparison.

An EF 1xx-300 f2.8L (or wider) would be a very nice lens to have I think. It would cost in the ball park of the 300 f/2.8L regardless... maybe they could look at this once they're done with the 200-400 extender.


----------



## Flake (Jun 5, 2011)

A few weeks ago I posted a similar thread about a lens for FF which gave roughly the same field of view that a 24 - 105mm gives on a crop body (40mm - 170mm) no one responded, and that is probably the answer - no one is interested.

A 150 - 300mm f/2.8 is more interesting, but again it's a low volume sector and would undoubtably steal sales from the 70 - 200mm IS L f/2.8 and the 300mm L f/2.8, the current model cost a whopping Â£5600 so a zoom version would have to be priced higher than that. Having said that it looks like most of the big whites will soon break the Â£10K barrier, and it does make you wonder who on earth buys the things, I never have much call for super telephoto so I'd hire if I had to.


----------



## lol (Jun 5, 2011)

All the great whites are probably low volume sellers. Doesn't mean they are not profitable. I have a 300mm f/2.8 lens, but the lack of zoom is a big negative for me. The Sigma 120-300/2.8 was also tempting at the time, but I'd pay the Canon premium if they were to make one, particularly with IS. Having said that, the 200-400 extender would fill a similar role for me and that will do nicely when it comes out.


----------



## dr croubie (Jun 5, 2011)

wow, stop reading my thoughts, i was thinking exactly the same thing for the last few weeks, about the 50-150 f2.8.
personally, i don't see why people wouldn't love this one, it'd be the almost perfect 'all-purpose portrait lens', maybe 40-150 also possible. especially in a wedding or event, zoom to 150 to get fullbody shots of the happy couple from the back of the hall/church, out to 40 or 50 on a fullframe sensor for group shots. coupled with the 16-35 2.8 or just a 24/35 1.4 for the big group shots and you've got more versatility than the 24-70 + 70-200 2.8s (unless you have 2x FF bodies) imho.

150-300 would also be nice, but yeah, like everyone else has said it's gonna cost a packet, they've just gone and designed the 200-400 f4, and the 70-200s cover everything you can think of anyway.

i'm not in favour of making them efs only, frankly it doesn't make sense anyway, the only thing you need efs for is to get the rear element closer for ultra-wide angle shots. the only reason they made the efs 55-250 was to couple it with the 18-55 in dual lens kits (and make it lighter/cheaper).


personally, i'm still hanging out for the efs 30 1.4 as the 'aps-c nifty fifty' (maybe the 'dirty thirty'?)
and an ultrawide efs prime like the efs 15f2 or efs 11f2 (saw a patent rumour for one or the other here a month ago)


----------



## adamdoesmovies (Jun 5, 2011)

Hillsilly said:


> These focal lengths would make a lot of sense in a EF-S lens. (Although, it is questionable if a 150-300 f2.8 lens would be noticeably smaller than an EF lens?) Canon makes the 17-55 as an F2.8, but apart from this, they are lacking in fast EF-S lenses. Personally, I'd much rather see an EF-S 15mm f1.8 L. Especially if it is small, pocketable and takes regular filters. Other manufacturers seem to cater well for APS-C sensored cameras. With Canon, you sometimes get the impression that if you're not using a full frame camera, you are a second class citizen.



It does seem like that, which is curious given that they only really have one full-frame camera, and technologically speaking, their half-frame (or APS-C, or super35 sized) 7D, or their a-little-more-than-half-frame 1DmkIV are their most advanced cameras. Also, the vast majority of their sales are half-frame cams.


----------



## pgabor (Jun 8, 2011)

> "With Canon, you sometimes get the impression that if you're not using a full frame camera, you are a second class citizen."



Its all about money. Its a food chain. The whole point of this, that if you want to take photography seriously, you cant get stuck at APS-C. What do you think, why theres no weather sealed EF-S lens? For the same reason. If you want to go pro, you have to go fullframe.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 8, 2011)

pgabor said:


> > "With Canon, you sometimes get the impression that if you're not using a full frame camera, you are a second class citizen."
> 
> 
> 
> Its all about money. Its a food chain. The whole point of this, that if you want to take photography seriously, you cant get stuck at APS-C. What do you think, why theres no weather sealed EF-S lens? For the same reason. If you want to go pro, you have to go fullframe.



One of the silliest statements ever. Sensor size has absolutely nothing to do with how serious of a photographer you are. A talented photographer can make great images with a point and shoot. A 1D won't make a no-talent photographer good.


----------



## lol (Jun 8, 2011)

Both the previous posts I think miss the point. You need "good enough for the job". That may or may not be full frame, or weatherproofed. Doesn't matter if you're pro or not. Even the best photographer would struggle if they don't have the appropriate tools for the job.


----------



## pgabor (Jun 8, 2011)

unfocused said:


> pgabor said:
> 
> 
> > > "With Canon, you sometimes get the impression that if you're not using a full frame camera, you are a second class citizen."
> ...



I never said that he cant. I sad that doesn't matter how talented you are, you cant shoot a whole wedding in a downpour with a 7D + 17-55. But if you shoot nikon, you can do that with a D300 + 17-55, because the nikon version is fully sealed. Professional =/= someone who take great pictures. Professional = Someone who do photography for a living. (I think i was not too clear with the "if you want to take photography seriously" phrase)


----------



## unfocused (Jun 8, 2011)

> I think i was not too clear with the "if you want to take photography seriously" phrase



Okay, I won't quibble. If the point is that Canon has neglected the EF-S line, that's certainly true. And, really, it would be easy to fix. It doesn't require offering lenses through the entire range of focal lengths, just a better selection at the wide end would cover it. It is frustrating that Canon seems to have ceded much of the crop sensor lens territory to third parties.


----------



## 7enderbender (Jun 8, 2011)

Heidrun said:


> Because i would find it wery usefull if they did. I myself have a 17-40 and would find this zoom range 50-150 very useful indeed . So the next thing would naturally be a 150-300 f.2,8 L is zoom.
> If they could make suche lenses. Im sure these two lenses would be very compact.



Who would be the targeted audience for this? Let's stipulate that this is a useful range for people with crop sensors. But it would also be quite expensive. And then what? Do many people who buy a $1000 camera go out and add a $3000 lens to it? Probably not.

And for full frame it's just not a traditional range. I'm sure this could be a nice lens, no doubt, but what is the application? Maybe as a portrait lens it may be interesting to some degree, but still highly specialized. And in that price range with a main interest in portraits I would chose the 85L and the 135L (or so) over a zoom like this any day.

And for walk around all purpose or as general use tele it doesn't cut it, does it?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 8, 2011)

unfocused said:


> It doesn't require offering lenses through the entire range of focal lengths, just a better selection at the wide end would cover it. It is frustrating that Canon seems to have ceded much of the crop sensor lens territory to third parties.



True about concentrating on the wide end, simply because at the tele end there's very little benefit to designing a lens with a smaller image circle.

I don't agree that Canon has ceded the crop format lens territory, in terms of focal length. They've got the 10-22mm, 15-85mm, and 17-55mm as 'quality' lenses in that range, and the 17-85mm, 18-55mm, 18-135mm, and 18-200mm as consumer grade lenses. Of those 7 lenses, 6 of them cover the 18-55mm range, and to me, that doesn't seem like a poor selection.

Where they've left a substantial gap is APS-C format wide angle prime lenses, (the only EF-S prime is the 60mm f/2.8 Macro). On the other hand, for 3rd party vendors there are a couple of lenses from Sigma (30mm f/1.4 and 10mm f/2.8 fisheye). I do agree that since Nikon has a 35mm f/1.8 DX-format prime, it does seem that there's a gap in Canon's lineup.


----------



## Act444 (Jun 8, 2011)

Canon's 35mm 1.4L is excellent on a crop-camera because it gives you that approximate ~50mm natural view. But the cost ($1480) is quite prohibitive for anyone but the most serious photographers/professional photographers...I suppose the f2 version is cheaper, but that lens has been around for years and needs an update.


----------



## EYEONE (Jun 8, 2011)

Act444 said:


> I suppose the f2 version is cheaper, but that lens has been around for years and needs an update.



Desperately needs an update.


----------



## Blaze (Jun 8, 2011)

Heidrun said:


> Because i would find it wery usefull if they did. I myself have a 17-40 and would find this zoom range 50-150 very useful indeed . So the next thing would naturally be a 150-300 f.2,8 L is zoom.
> If they could make suche lenses. Im sure these two lenses would be very compact.



How in the world can you get fast tele-zooms that are "very compact"? A 150-300mm f/2.8 L would be a big white monster.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 9, 2011)

Blaze said:


> Heidrun said:
> 
> 
> > Because i would find it wery usefull if they did. I myself have a 17-40 and would find this zoom range 50-150 very useful indeed . So the next thing would naturally be a 150-300 f.2,8 L is zoom.
> ...



To Heidrun, a Hummer might be a small, fuel-efficient vehicle. It's all relative. :


----------



## adamdoesmovies (Jun 9, 2011)

pgabor said:


> > "With Canon, you sometimes get the impression that if you're not using a full frame camera, you are a second class citizen."
> 
> 
> 
> Its all about money. Its a food chain. The whole point of this, that if you want to take photography seriously, you cant get stuck at APS-C. What do you think, why theres no weather sealed EF-S lens? For the same reason. If you want to go pro, you have to go fullframe.



Then why is the 7D, which is the next best thing to the 1D's weather sealed?


----------



## dr croubie (Jun 9, 2011)

adamdoesmovies said:


> pgabor said:
> 
> 
> > > "With Canon, you sometimes get the impression that if you're not using a full frame camera, you are a second class citizen."
> ...



but then, the 7D is your sports and wildlife camera, typically with long focal range lenses (ie 70-200 2.8/4 is, 70-300L, and all the big white primes). bird/animal hunting and field sports especially don't get interrupted by a bit of rain, so you need a weather sealed body for that.

i've got a 7D, and i love my 15-85 for wide landscapes. but i also know in the back of my head, that if i was going to be more serious about landscapes and sweeping panoramas, then i'd be saving for a 5d2 + 16-35.ii. Panoramas tend to (ok, not always) look better when it's not raining. what else is the 5d2 good for? lowlight, ie weddings, indoors (start trails? yeah, when it's not raining...) and other things that don't need a weather sealed body.



or just look at the simple answer: the 5d2 is a year or two older than the 7d, and it takes a while to get new tech into cheaper things. yes, they had weather sealing already way-back-when the 1n and 3 film cameras were around, but digital has more buttons and plugs to seal up. adding weather sealing to the 5d2 at the time of release would have pushed back the release date and price up.
also, canon obviously knew the direction they were heading with the 550/60/600 all coming out with the same sensor, you have to make the most expensive model worth the extra money, so they sealed it up knowing the 60d would be coming out later and had to be justifiably cheaper.
and yes, by that logic the 5d3 should definitely be sealed, but you never know...


----------



## EYEONE (Jun 9, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> and yes, by that logic the 5d3 should definitely be sealed, but you never know...



I'm confused. You know the 5D2 is weather sealed right?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 9, 2011)

EYEONE said:


> I'm confused. You know the 5D2 is weather sealed right?



Yes...just not as well as the 7D. The rank ordering of weather sealing is: 1-series > 7D > 5DII = 60D/50D. Personally, I trust my 7D in the rain when a sealed lens is mounted on it, but I wouldn't trust the 5DII in anything more than a light drizzle.


----------



## jcns (Jun 9, 2011)

because canon has
24-70 2.8 not IS but rumor has it that it's coming, but I really don't see the point given that it's2.8 and with current ISO technology being so good - current MSRP $1,399
70-200 2.8 IS - MSRP $2,499
300 2.8 with a whopping MSRP $4,879. How much do you think a 150-300 2.8 would cost?!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 9, 2011)

jcns said:


> 70-200 2.8 IS - MSRP $2,499
> 300 2.8 with a whopping MSRP $4,879. How much do you think a 150-300 2.8 would cost?!



Agreed - I think the OP is pretty far off base (especially the comment about a 150-300mm f/2.8 being compact!). It would certaily be bigger and heavier than the 300/2.8, which is already 10" long and 5 lbs. If you think the MSRP of the 300/2.8 is 'whopping', check out the MkII price. A 150-300/2.8 would likely cost well north of the 300/2.8 II, probably in the $8-9K range. But it's a moot point, as I don't ever see Canon making a lens like this. 



jcns said:


> 24-70 2.8 not IS but rumor has it that it's coming, but I really don't see the point given that it's2.8 and with current ISO technology being so good



Given that f/2.8 speed comes at the expense of depth of field, I'd like the flexibility of being able to stop action with a combination of f/2.8 and high ISO, or get an increased DoF for a static subject with IS and a slow shutter speed.


----------



## adamdoesmovies (Jun 18, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> jcns said:
> 
> 
> > 24-70 2.8 not IS but rumor has it that it's coming, but I really don't see the point given that it's2.8 and with current ISO technology being so good
> ...



One thing everyone seems to forget about is that us video/film people have come to rely on IS when we're shooting, as it's pretty much the only way to use the 7D handheld for video.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 18, 2011)

adamdoesmovies said:


> One thing everyone seems to forget about is that us video/film people have come to rely on IS when we're shooting, as it's pretty much the only way to use the 7D handheld for video.



What's this video thing that everyone keeps mentioning? :


----------



## AJ (Jun 19, 2011)

I have a Tokina 50-135/2.8. Optically it's the perfect portrait lens. It's fairly big and heavy - perhaps slightly heavier than Canon 70-200/4L (both have a 67 mm front element) but way smaller than a 70-200/2.8

Problem with the Tokina is that AF is slow and hunts. Also there's no IS. It Canon came out with a ring-USM version plus IS, I bet it'd be popular. I paid 500 bucks for my Tokina, but a Canon lens with ring-USM and IS would probably retail closer to a grand, I speculate. Note, the Tokina has been discontinued. Sigma has a 50-150/2.8. Going out to 150 mm makes it bigger and heavier.

Sigma also has a 150-300/2.8 OS. It looks great. If this is the type of lens you want and you have the dough, then I say go for it:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/629-sigma120300f28oseos


----------



## Axilrod (Jun 19, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> adamdoesmovies said:
> 
> 
> > One thing everyone seems to forget about is that us video/film people have come to rely on IS when we're shooting, as it's pretty much the only way to use the 7D handheld for video.
> ...



The only IS that works really well with video is the 100 Macro, only one with Hybrid IS. But the 70-200, forget about it, way too much rolling shutter.


----------

