# Patent: Lots of small, light and fast EF prime lenses



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 4, 2019)

> Canon is obviously still doing development on the EF lens mount. As the mount is likely going to live on for both DSLR users as well as cinema applications, as Canon’s cinema cameras also come in EF mount. That will likely continue for years to come, as the transition to the RF mount will likely take 5-10 years for mass acceptance.
> From US Patent US Patent Application 20190101732:[/b]
> 
> Canon EF 16mm f/1.4
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## uri.raz (Apr 4, 2019)

Maybe the patent behind the CN-E 20mm T1.5 FP?


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 4, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> Maybe the patent behind the CN-E 20mm T1.5 FP?



Possible.


----------



## aceflibble (Apr 4, 2019)

Obligatory reminder, before people get carried away, that patents =/= products definitely in production.

Looking through the patents there's nothing to suggest these would be "small" if they were to enter production. You're looking at a minimum filter thread of 62mm, for example. Given the size of existing Canon primes of similar focal length but smaller maximum aperture, and the measurements outlined in the patent, one would expect these to be quite large. Of course it could be that they are reusing an RF design and have simply made a duplicate patent with the EF mount for the sake of ensuring they have the rights to the design for all mount sizes, but then that would mean there would be no such lenses being made in an EF mount at all. (And therefore nothing to get excited about, since we know fast wide primes are headed to RF anyway.)

I'd certainly like a new Canon EF prime in the 18-21mm range, of any aperture, but there's too much in this patent to suggest that these lenses aren't going to progress beyond the paper stage.


----------



## Sparky (Apr 4, 2019)

I’d still like a replacement for the 50 1.4, like a 50 1.4L IS. That would be nice...


----------



## Wy Li (Apr 4, 2019)

Hmm, 14, 16, 17, 19mm f1.8. Seems like I could just take a step forward or backwards and get the same "zoom".


----------



## pixel8foto (Apr 4, 2019)

Wy Li said:


> Hmm, 14, 16, 17, 19mm f1.8. Seems like I could just take a step forward or backwards and get the same "zoom".


I don't think anyone imagines they'll all be released as part of a single range at the same time. Moving isn't zooming, is it? You assume you have the facility to take a step forward or backwards every time and that you're not fussed about the different perspective that moving rather than changing focul length will bring. The difference between 14 and 16mm is significant. Apart from that, yes.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 4, 2019)

A lot of glass and therefore optical effort included in these patents.
If - yes, if - any of those comes true this pretty surely will be an L lens, also when you look at the max. aperture.
I haven't seen a (non-L) WA/UWA lens with f-numbers smaller than 2.0 for years.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 4, 2019)

Funny, I was under the impression from some posters here that EF was dead and nothing more would ever be coming.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 4, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> Funny, I was under the impression from some posters here that EF was dead and nothing more would ever be coming.


I guess Canon doesn't read this forum.


----------



## victorshikhman (Apr 4, 2019)

Has anyone heard of new EF-S glass? Much of what's out was built for late-2000s 8-18 megapixel Rebels and could really use a refresh. The 17-55 f2.8 is as good a place to start as any. It's a safe bet Canon sells a lot more crop bodies than all the full frame DSLR and mirrorless put together.


----------



## deletemyaccount (Apr 4, 2019)

It's still a wait and see game on EF mounts & DSLR's. There hasn't been anything released to speak of since the 2 ML's have been released along with RF glass. There's talk about 1Dx Mark III but otherwise, all has been VERY quiet.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 4, 2019)

Wy Li said:


> Hmm, 14, 16, 17, 19mm f1.8. Seems like I could just take a step forward or backwards and get the same "zoom".


Not with UWA lenses you can't. Huge framing difference between 14mm and 16mm. Besides, how will one step back if there's a wall in the way?


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 4, 2019)

victorshikhman said:


> Has anyone heard of new EF-S glass? Much of what's out was built for late-2000s 8-18 megapixel Rebels and could really use a refresh. The 17-55 f2.8 is as good a place to start as any. It's a safe bet Canon sells a lot more crop bodies than all the full frame DSLR and mirrorless put together.



My bet is the fact that most EF-S buyers buy the kit and could weld on the lens makes it hard to justify the development expense. The fact that the next-biggest group is likely the sports/ wildlife shooters who can use FF glass makes it even harder. The steady march downwards of the price of FF might just make it unviable - is the "step-up" purchase from a T7i going to be an 80D + 17-55 instead of a 6D2 (or RP) + 24-105? Yes I know there's a price difference there, but the smaller that price difference is, the fewer people who will be there to amortize the development cost across. The RP will in all likelihood get price cuts, and when a 24-105 3.5-6.3 is available as a kit...


----------



## victorshikhman (Apr 4, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> My bet is the fact that most EF-S buyers buy the kit and could weld on the lens makes it hard to justify the development expense. The fact that the next-biggest group is likely the sports/ wildlife shooters who can use FF glass makes it even harder. The steady march downwards of the price of FF might just make it unviable - is the "step-up" purchase from a T7i going to be an 80D + 17-55 instead of a 6D2 (or RP) + 24-105? Yes I know there's a price difference there, but the smaller that price difference is, the fewer people who will be there to amortize the development cost across. The RP will in all likelihood get price cuts, and when a 24-105 3.5-6.3 is available as a kit...



You might be right, but there must be a ton of people on 80d's with an EFS lens collection, and many of them would get a 90d/7dIII and upgrade their glass if this were an option.

I had a T2i for 7 years and just last week picked up a refurb 80d from canon for $700. I was really thinking about getting into full frame, a 6d or d750, or another system altogether, Fuji xt-30 looks great, but it's so hard to justify, even with my basic EFS lens collection (10-18, 18-50, 55-250, 24mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.8, all STM). To recreate the range of these lenses on full frame would take a couple thousand dollars more, on top of a $1200-2k body, and their resale value wouldn't even get me 25% of the way there. So I bit the bullet on an 80d and I have to say, it's very solid. Plenty there for me to work with to develop my skills, especially in video. Would really like to stay with Canon glass, but I think I'll be picking up a Sigma 18-35 sometime soon.


----------



## Wy Li (Apr 4, 2019)

pixel8foto said:


> I don't think anyone imagines they'll all be released as part of a single range at the same time. Moving isn't zooming, is it? You assume you have the facility to take a step forward or backwards every time and that you're not fussed about the different perspective that moving rather than changing focul length will bring. The difference between 14 and 16mm is significant. Apart from that, yes.



Well, I'd walk instead of buying 4 closely spaced focal length lens. I'd get the 14mm and walk forward or crop. Of course, I'm the frugal type.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 4, 2019)

Sounds like the lenses could be good for night sky pictures.


----------



## Yasko (Apr 4, 2019)

Did I miss the 15 mm?


----------



## flip314 (Apr 5, 2019)

victorshikhman said:


> You might be right, but there must be a ton of people on 80d's with an EFS lens collection, and many of them would get a 90d/7dIII and upgrade their glass if this were an option.



The 80D is only 3 years old. I know that lately the xxD series has refreshed every 3 years or so, but nobody who owns an 80D should really be desperate to upgrade to a 90D. The 7dIII may be arguable, if they did want the higher FPS/better AF spread. But I can't imagine what a 90D could have that would be revolutionary over the 80D


----------



## David - Sydney (Apr 5, 2019)

Wy Li said:


> Hmm, 14, 16, 17, 19mm f1.8. Seems like I could just take a step forward or backwards and get the same "zoom".


yes, walking works for close up but not for astro/wide angle nightscape photography. 200mm-> 300mm is 4 degrees difference in angle of view but 14-16mm is 7 degrees.... fitting in a lot more sky/stars. Sigma is the only 14mm f/1.8 available and is ~USD1600. Be good to have some competition assuming that the coma is well controlled. Canon's closest is 14mm f2.8L (from 2007) and it is hard to imagine that the F1.8 would be cheaper than the f2.8's USD2k let alone competing with the Sigma


----------



## victorshikhman (Apr 5, 2019)

flip314 said:


> The 80D is only 3 years old. I know that lately the xxD series has refreshed every 3 years or so, but nobody who owns an 80D should really be desperate to upgrade to a 90D. The 7dIII may be arguable, if they did want the higher FPS/better AF spread. But I can't imagine what a 90D could have that would be revolutionary over the 80D



Oh, there's plenty to improve, and three years is a long time. The 80d was never class leading, even when it came out. New sensor for better dynamic range, improved high iso, 4k, 1080p at 120fps, more and better distributed autofocus points with improved DPAF and face/object tracking, etc. 

But as @QuisUtDeus said, in a few months the RP will be on sale for what a 90d would be priced at. It's too bad, really. If they had spec'ed the RP just a little better they could have pushed most of the 80d/7dii owners into full frame, the rest could be funneled into EF-M, and killed off the EF-S line. Maybe they still will, depending on how RP sales go.


----------



## jvillain (Apr 5, 2019)

victorshikhman said:


> Has anyone heard of new EF-S glass? Much of what's out was built for late-2000s 8-18 megapixel Rebels and could really use a refresh. The 17-55 f2.8 is as good a place to start as any. It's a safe bet Canon sells a lot more crop bodies than all the full frame DSLR and mirrorless put together.



Take a look at this list.









カテゴリ別 ランキング（月次） - BCN＋R


「BCNランキング」にもとづき、注目ジャンルの売れ筋ランキングを毎月更新中！




www.bcnretail.com





Canon crop bodies every where. The R doesn't show up until 34th place. Maybe the RP will move the needle next month. Fuji mentioned that crop + M4/3 make up about 2/3s of ILC market. But that doesn't stop the big boys from treating it like the ugly step child. If you want good EF-S glass go third party.


----------



## Policar (Apr 5, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> My bet is the fact that most EF-S buyers buy the kit and could weld on the lens makes it hard to justify the development expense. The fact that the next-biggest group is likely the sports/ wildlife shooters who can use FF glass makes it even harder. The steady march downwards of the price of FF might just make it unviable - is the "step-up" purchase from a T7i going to be an 80D + 17-55 instead of a 6D2 (or RP) + 24-105? Yes I know there's a price difference there, but the smaller that price difference is, the fewer people who will be there to amortize the development cost across. The RP will in all likelihood get price cuts, and when a 24-105 3.5-6.3 is available as a kit...



That's a good point about EF-S owners and EF-S lenses, but it's also difficult to separate causation from correlation. Is it a lack of EF-S glass that leads Canon users to ignore the EF-S ecosystem or is it a lack of enthusiasm for the ecosystem that results in less glass being manufactured for it?

Fuji manufacture a lot of compelling crop glass, so clearly there's a market, but they cater to an upscale market and have the advantage of a smaller focal flange distance. I wonder how big a factor that is. Their fast wides look nice. If I were starting over, I suspect I'd start with Fuji.

Regardless, the RP seems to indicate that Canon's interest lies in affordable FF options, and why not? That caters to their strength, FF lenses. I'm more worried about the future of the M line....

And furthermore, the 24mm STM EF-S is #2 in Amazon's sales rank and the 40mm EF STM is #68... despite it being a useful focal length on both crop and FF. And I thought the 17-55mm IS f2.8 was a nice lens (I owned two of them).

I'm in the minority here, my primary dSLR body (selling my SL1 since it's not enough of an upgrade) is a Rebel XT. And I have, other than the kit lens, the 10-18mm STM, 18-35mm f1.8 Sigma, 50mm f1.8 STM, 24mm STM, 40mm STM, 85mm f1.8, 70-200mm f2.8 II IS, 4.5mm Sigma f2.8, and I'm selling my 55-250mm STM only because it's redundant with the 70-200, but it's a great lens.

And this is after selling a lot off. Canon definitely hooked me to the ecosystem with a crop body. (I did briefly upgrade to a 5D Mark III and loved it, but it was overkill for my needs.)

Edit: Amazon's sales ranks disagree with me. EF-S lenses seem to sell well.


----------



## degos (Apr 5, 2019)

stevelee said:


> Sounds like the lenses could be good for night sky pictures.



I can't think of any Canon lens that is recommended for astro use, except the 300mm f/4. It's just not of interest to them, unlike Samyang and Tamron etc who can obtain useful sales from targetting that market.


----------



## PerKr (Apr 5, 2019)

Fuji on the other hand only produce APS-C cameras in their X-mount and have decided that two separate mounts for APS-C and small MF is the way forward rather than using one mount for two different sensor formats.
With Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax having both APS-C and "FF" sensors using the same mount the only reason to buy APS-C specific lenses is where there is no reasonable FF alternative or if you know you are never going to a larger format sensor. Or if you desperately need that last bit of image quality over the FF version (but then making the lens better would also increase the price so...)


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 5, 2019)

I think the 16mm f1.4 wll keep the Astro boys happy. The 19mm will keep the Range Finder boys happy and the 14mm will keep the architecture boys happy. None of these lenses are mass consumption wide appeal (sorry for the pun) lenses...but ultra specialist lenses. It's also an indication that the EF mount isn't done...as some seem to think, but a pointer to the two formats running in parallel.
If the 14mm or 16mm are light and small enough...I may well consider one of these myself. It would be nice to see a small and light 11mm prime at some point.


----------



## victorshikhman (Apr 5, 2019)

Policar said:


> And I thought the 17-55mm IS f2.8 was a nice lens (I owned two of them).



If you are using an XT (350d), the 17-55 2.8 is a great lens, resolving 6 out of 8 megapixels (dxomark). You're getting most out of your sensor. This is what the lens was designed for.

Compare that to the 24 megapixel 760d, where the 17-55 resolves just 10 megapixels. The Sigma 18-35 does 16 megapixels. I can't seem to find Canon glass, EFS or full frame, that will resolve more than 14 on an APSC.

Of course, there is more to an image than resolution, etc.


----------



## victorshikhman (Apr 5, 2019)

victorshikhman said:


> If you are using an XT (350d), the 17-55 2.8 is a great lens, resolving 6 out of 8 megapixels (dxomark). You're getting most out of your sensor. This is what the lens was designed for.
> 
> Compare that to the 24 megapixel 760d, where the 17-55 resolves just 10 megapixels. The Sigma 18-35 does 16 megapixels. I can't seem to find Canon glass, EFS or full frame, that will resolve more than 14 on an APSC.
> 
> Of course, there is more to an image than resolution, etc.



In case anyone is interested, from my searching, the lens that gets the highest resolution out of the 760d's 24mpx sensor (which I assume is equivalent to all the Canon 24mpx sensors), is the Sigma 85mm 1.4 Art, at 18mpx resolved.


----------



## jedy (Apr 5, 2019)

Policar said:


> That's a good point about EF-S owners and EF-S lenses, but it's also difficult to separate causation from correlation. Is it a lack of EF-S glass that leads Canon users to ignore the EF-S ecosystem or is it a lack of enthusiasm for the ecosystem that results in less glass being manufactured for it?


I would have thought most Canon crop users are either non-professional who would own the kit lens and maybe one or two others (or perhaps upgrade the kit lens for a better EF-S zoom) and the other being more professional, like a 7DII user who would opt for L glass. It doesn’t seem likely an EF-S user, bar the 7DII, would own a lot of glass like a professional owning a lot of L glass would.

Right now, with two DSLR and two mirrorless lines, Canon do have too many cameras and I would bet EF-S would be the first to go in favour of the EOS-M. I do know a few photographers who abandoned the EF-S line in favour of a smaller EOS-M body and lenses. It would make sense to put more R&D money in the EOS-M line and eventually retire EF-S.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 5, 2019)

jedy said:


> I would have thought most Canon crop users are either non-professional who would own the kit lens and maybe one or two others (or perhaps upgrade the kit lens for a better EF-S zoom) and the other being more professional, like a 7DII user who would opt for L glass. It doesn’t seem likely an EF-S user, bar the 7DII, would own a lot of glass like a professional owning a lot of L glass would.
> 
> Right now, with two DSLR and two mirrorless lines, Canon do have too many cameras and I would bet EF-S would be the first to go in favour of the EOS-M. I do know a few photographers who abandoned the EF-S line in favour of a smaller EOS-M body and lenses. It would make sense to put more R&D money in the EOS-M line and eventually retire EF-S.


It's all down to shooting needs and features. The pro end of the DSLR market is still growing slightly, unlike the bottom end of the market which is rapidly falling off. So yes i would agree that the 1.6x crop at the bottom end of the market had limited life expectancy.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 5, 2019)

victorshikhman said:


> You might be right, but there must be a ton of people on 80d's with an EFS lens collection, and many of them would get a 90d/7dIII and upgrade their glass if this were an option.
> 
> I had a T2i for 7 years and just last week picked up a refurb 80d from canon for $700. I was really thinking about getting into full frame, a 6d or d750, or another system altogether, Fuji xt-30 looks great, but it's so hard to justify, even with my basic EFS lens collection (10-18, 18-50, 55-250, 24mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.8, all STM). To recreate the range of these lenses on full frame would take a couple thousand dollars more, on top of a $1200-2k body, and their resale value wouldn't even get me 25% of the way there. So I bit the bullet on an 80d and I have to say, it's very solid. Plenty there for me to work with to develop my skills, especially in video. Would really like to stay with Canon glass, but I think I'll be picking up a Sigma 18-35 sometime soon.


You are right, I think. When I had EOS crop cams (XSi, T5i, 70D) I had a bunch (8?) of EFs lenses. Resale was horrible. Now run EF "L" glass. Wouldn't think of selling.


----------



## victorshikhman (Apr 5, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> It's all down to shooting needs and features. The pro end of the DSLR market is still growing slightly, unlike the bottom end of the market which is rapidly falling off. So yes i would agree that the 1.6x crop at the bottom end of the market had limited life expectancy.



Except, they're probably still selling 50 crop bodies for every pro full frame. Not to mention how many higher end Rebels and 70D/80D/7DII's and mirrorless with EF-S adapter are out in the field. There are a ton of creatives using these cameras who end up going to Sigma for higher end lenses. Because the L glass is very nice, but not designed for APSC and mostly doesn't deliver great resolution out crop sensors, where the pixels are much more tightly packed.

If they release a 90d/7DIII, we might see a new lens to go with it, and you'd think it would be a no brainer. The 80D is huge in the vlogger community, and the 7D is a mainstay of sports/animal photography. They're not going to the RP, which doesn't give vloggers the video features they want, or the speed/reach/durability that the action shooters want. It is odd that no one seems to bring up crop sensor cameras during all the interviews that Canon execs and engineers are giving these days.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 5, 2019)

victorshikhman said:


> Because the L glass is very nice, but not designed for APSC and mostly doesn't deliver great resolution out crop sensors, where the pixels are much more tightly packed.



Um.... this statement here is not true.


----------



## Policar (Apr 5, 2019)

victorshikhman said:


> If you are using an XT (350d), the 17-55 2.8 is a great lens, resolving 6 out of 8 megapixels (dxomark). You're getting most out of your sensor. This is what the lens was designed for.
> 
> Compare that to the 24 megapixel 760d, where the 17-55 resolves just 10 megapixels. The Sigma 18-35 does 16 megapixels. I can't seem to find Canon glass, EFS or full frame, that will resolve more than 14 on an APSC.
> 
> Of course, there is more to an image than resolution, etc.



Is that wide open or stopped down? I found it pretty soft in the corners wide open (compared with the Sigma I replaced it with–so yes, that is sharper), but found it pretty good around f4. I even compared it with a $50k Angenieux zoom on a video shoot, and that did much better wide open lol, but the Canon is pretty nice. The 18-35mm is very sharp wide open.

I mostly shoot cat photos and family photos and print at 8X10 so it takes a really horrendous lens for me to get worked up about resolution, but I could notice the difference with the 18-35mm, which is a remarkable lens for the money.



jedy said:


> I would have thought most Canon crop users are either non-professional who would own the kit lens and maybe one or two others (or perhaps upgrade the kit lens for a better EF-S zoom) and the other being more professional, like a 7DII user who would opt for L glass. It doesn’t seem likely an EF-S user, bar the 7DII, would own a lot of glass like a professional owning a lot of L glass would.
> 
> Right now, with two DSLR and two mirrorless lines, Canon do have too many cameras and I would bet EF-S would be the first to go in favour of the EOS-M. I do know a few photographers who abandoned the EF-S line in favour of a smaller EOS-M body and lenses. It would make sense to put more R&D money in the EOS-M line and eventually retire EF-S.



Maybe. As I mentioned, Amazon's sales ranks show cheap EF-S lenses as being the most popular and Canon crop dSLRS dominate the body sales rank, too. Amazon sales data doesn't tell the full picture, but I doubt Canon would abandon their best-selling market segment in favor of its least successful major product launch in years (the M series). I say this as someone who would love a 32mm f1.4, I just wish it were available on EF-S. (The Sigma is too heavy for my taste.) Probably going to have to get a 28mm f1.8 or something...

But yeah, there's almost no "professional" EF-S glass, it's like Canon abandoned that market around the same time as the 17-55mm (which, I agree, is long in the tooth compared with newer FF options), while the 32mm f1.4 indicates they do have an interest in higher end M lenses. I don't understand that at all but it does hint at no more high end EF-S lenses being produced I think.


----------



## jedy (Apr 5, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> It's all down to shooting needs and features. The pro end of the DSLR market is still growing slightly, unlike the bottom end of the market which is rapidly falling off. So yes i would agree that the 1.6x crop at the bottom end of the market had limited life expectancy.


The DSLR pro end is still healthy because the mirrorless technology at the pro end isn’t good enough yet and the smaller, lighter argument is irrelevant anyway. There are plenty of small, lighter mirrorless cameras at the consumer level that are fast making consumer crop DSLR’s a less attractive option.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 5, 2019)

jedy said:


> The DSLR pro end is still healthy because the mirrorless technology at the pro end isn’t good enough yet and the smaller, lighter argument is irrelevant anyway. There are plenty of small, lighter mirrorless cameras at the consumer level that are fast making consumer crop DSLR’s a less attractive option.


Except that sales at the high end (why people call it the "pro" end is a mystery to me) are carried by non-professionals. There are far more of us out here than professionals making their living at it. Far larger market (non-professionals). Then there is the assumption that we are all clamoring for mirrorless. Not true either. Some of us actually prefer the advantages of the mirror box, like an optical view finder and longer battery life. Same thing for crop DSLRs. I have a small mirrorless Olympus (M4/3). Hate the EVF. Hate the 2x crop. Hate the ergonomics. Hate the short battery life. A Canon R or RP would be much better for my uses. Since I don't do video, an RP would be great. At the high end, it isn't only about fast frame rates.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 5, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> It's all down to shooting needs and features. The pro end of the DSLR market is still growing slightly, unlike the bottom end of the market which is rapidly falling off. So yes i would agree that the 1.6x crop at the bottom end of the market had limited life expectancy.





CanonFanBoy said:


> Except that sales at the high end (why people call it the "pro" end is a mystery to me) are carried by non-professionals. There are far more of us out here than professionals making their living at it. Far larger market (non-professionals)....



Hah! You beat me to it. I think it would be more accurate to say that the "enthusiast" (not pro) end of the DLSR market is still growing slightly. Aging baby-boomers with disposable income is a bigger market than actual professionals. Plus, it is a market that is not price sensitive or even that sensitive to economic conditions. The downside is that it is a market that will die off eventually, and even if we live into our 90s, we will stop buying cameras of any type at some point in the not too distant future.

That said, I don't disagree with GMC's basic premise about 1.6 crop lenses. I would add though that the 1.6x crop market in lenses has always been limited, as once you get into the telephoto range, there's little reason for manufacturers to product crop lenses. (Okay, the recent Sigma 100-400 is an exception) But that's been the case since well before full frame became "affordable."


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 5, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Hah! You beat me to it. I think it would be more accurate to say that the "enthusiast" (not pro) end of the DLSR market is still growing slightly. Aging baby-boomers with disposable income is a bigger market than actual professionals. Plus, it is a market that is not price sensitive or even that sensitive to economic conditions. The downside is that it is a market that will die off eventually, and even if we live into our 90s, we will stop buying cameras of any type at some point in the not too distant future.
> 
> That said, I don't disagree with GMC's basic premise about 1.6 crop lenses. I would add though that the 1.6x crop market in lenses has always been limited, as once you get into the telephoto range, there's little reason for manufacturers to product crop lenses. (Okay, the recent Sigma 100-400 is an exception) But that's been the case since well before full frame became "affordable."


The beautiful thing is how FF has suddenly seemed to be more affordable. As far as crop lenses: When I had a crop Canon DSLR I learned too late that I should have been buying EF lenses all along. I couldn't see how EFs was any advantage. Maybe on price? I can't remember.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 5, 2019)

Policar said:


> But yeah, there's almost no "professional" EF-S glass, it's like Canon abandoned that market around the same time as the 17-55mm (which, I agree, is long in the tooth compared with newer FF options), while the 32mm f1.4 indicates they do have an interest in higher end M lenses. I don't understand that at all but it does hint at no more high end EF-S lenses being produced I think.



Come to think of it, almost all of the money I have made off photography in the last ten years (while not a lot) was from pictures I made with the EF-S 10–22mm lens. Now that I have a 6D2 and the 16–35mm f/4L lens, I no longer do any of that work. It would be a matter of semantics to say which for me was a "pro" lens.


----------



## Policar (Apr 5, 2019)

stevelee said:


> Come to think of it, almost all of the money I have made off photography in the last ten years (while not a lot) was from pictures I made with the EF-S 10–22mm lens. Now that I have a 6D2 and the 16–35mm f/4L lens, I no longer do any of that work. It would be a matter of semantics to say which for me was a "pro" lens.



Yeah, I think the irony is "pros" want to spend less and "enthusiasts" want to spend more. I did a little work briefly with a super high end pro and he often shot with the 50mm f1.8. :/

Assuming you were shooting landscapes?

My dream landscape camera is still an Arca tech camera with a MFDB lol. But I don't make any money off that. I think most pros shoot dSLR.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 6, 2019)

Policar said:


> Assuming you were shooting landscapes?


No, interiors. Homes for realtors and settings for a designer. The 10–22mm did great for that, except when space was so limited that I had to use the wide end, and it looked a little phony because of perspective. I mostly just rearranged how I was shooting to avoid that. I would photograph the master bath from just outside the doorway, and used the mirror to show areas not seen directly, sometimes into a connecting walk-in closet. They were fortunately good sized and had separate tubs and showers. The pictures for the designer were more straightforward, and therefore easier to set up. The T3i had plenty of resolution for what they needed. Pictures were destined for the web and brochures.

Before I had that lens, my house was under construction. I'd come over about once a week and take pictures on the progress. Once the walls were in place, I never got a decent shot of my bathroom, even though it is large, because I did not have that lens yet. Once they installed the mirror, I could give a sense of the space. Maybe that helped me later in devising work-arounds. 

I've never made any money off of landscapes. I do have some nice landscapes on my walls, including the panorama over my mantel of glaciers in the Canadian ice fields. None of them were made with my DSLRs, however, just my travel cameras, the G7X II and before that the S120. They look fine printed on 13" x 19" paper when you view them from normal distances.


----------



## Policar (Apr 6, 2019)

Makes sense, I think I'm selling off my 10-18mm because it's too wide for anything I would use it for, but it's a great lens and would be perfect for real estate, being similar to the 10-22mm.

I think in good light (or with a tripod) P+S can be good for landscapes. No need for shallow depth of field and you can shoot at high ISO. I currently use a high end P+S for landscapes so I can travel light.


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 6, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Except that sales at the high end (why people call it the "pro" end is a mystery to me) are carried by non-professionals. There are far more of us out here than professionals making their living at it. Far larger market (non-professionals).



Exactly. A camera shop employee told me to look at what wedding photographers use every time I go to a wedding. I was surprised to see a wedding photographer use an EF 28-80mm f/2.8-4L, but it does the job, and is cheap to buy (= quick return on investment), and if broken it would probably be cheaper to buy a used one on eBay than fixing a modern EF 24-70mm f/2.8L.


----------



## tron (Apr 7, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I think the 16mm f1.4 wll keep the Astro boys happy. The 19mm will keep the Range Finder boys happy and the 14mm will keep the architecture boys happy. None of these lenses are mass consumption wide appeal (sorry for the pun) lenses...but ultra specialist lenses. It's also an indication that the EF mount isn't done...as some seem to think, but a pointer to the two formats running in parallel.
> If the 14mm or 16mm are light and small enough...I may well consider one of these myself. It would be nice to see a small and light 11mm prime at some point.


This is good news but do not expect them small and light. Small and light is my EF14mm 2.8L II. But the Sigma Art 14mm 1.8 is neither small not light so I do not expect a similar Canon to be any different in size and weight. But as I mentioned: Good news.


----------



## David - Sydney (Apr 8, 2019)

degos said:


> I can't think of any Canon lens that is recommended for astro use, except the 300mm f/4. It's just not of interest to them, unlike Samyang and Tamron etc who can obtain useful sales from targetting that market.


Although I tend to use my 14mm Samyang for astro, the 8-15mm fisheye can be fun even though it is f4


----------



## kai.schwab (Apr 8, 2019)

Sparky said:


> I’d still like a replacement for the 50 1.4, like a 50 1.4L IS. That would be nice...


Sparky, you are SO right!
I'd love to get a Canon EF 50mm f/1.4L IS USM.

*Canon please please please!!!*

Cheers
Kai


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 8, 2019)

David - Sydney said:


> Although I tend to use my 14mm Samyang for astro, the 8-15mm fisheye can be fun even though it is f4


Yes I agree, the 8-15L fisheye is very underrated for astro work, although only f4...it can go so wide (wider than any rectilinear lens) that a longer shutter speed can be employed.


----------



## victorshikhman (Apr 8, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Um.... this statement here is not true.



Resolved resolution a 24MP 760d... (just a random sampling)

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM: 5MP (!!!)
Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM: 10MP
Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM: 11MP
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM: 10MP
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM: 12MP
Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM: 11MP
Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM: 9MP
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM: 14MP
Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM: 14MP
Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM: 17MP
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM: 12MP

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM: 9MP
Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM: 13MP
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM: 14MP

Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM A Canon: 16MP
Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM A Canon: 15MP
Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM A Canon: 16MP
Sigma 85mm F1.4 DG HSM A Canon: 18MP


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 8, 2019)

victorshikhman said:


> Resolved resolution a 24MP 760d... (just a random sampling)
> 
> Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM: 5MP (!!!)
> Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM: 10MP
> ...



DXO 
Your links DO NOT show superiority of EFS lenses over L lenses on crop cameras. In fact, I see only two EFS lenses on your list. "Because the L glass is very nice, but not designed for APSC and mostly doesn't deliver great resolution out crop sensors, where the pixels are much more tightly packed." Where's the rest? You pull only two EF-S lens examples to bolster your claim? Then those two examples suck as examples. The EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM (Prime lens), according to DXO, resolves at 13MP? The EF 24-70 f/2.8L II resolves at 14MP? It's a got dang zoom and resolves better. The Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II (14MP) also out resolves the EFS 24mm. Again, according to DXO. According to DXO the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II (17MP) out resolves the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM (15MP). Canon 16-35 outresolves the EFs 18-55mm. What was your point again?
Anyway, your hypothesis is false. EFS lenses on crop are not superior to L on crop.
Blanket statements are almost never true.
Explain the design differences that you think make EFs superior to L on crop. You made the claim, now give the science as to why your claim is true. Or did you just repeat something you read somewhere? How does pixel density affect lens resolution?
I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong, if I am. So far, it doesn't look like I am wrong.


----------



## scottkinfw (Apr 9, 2019)

Wy Li said:


> Hmm, 14, 16, 17, 19mm f1.8. Seems like I could just take a step forward or backwards and get the same "zoom".


I was wondering why a lens needs to be made for seemingly each mm?


----------



## stevelee (Apr 9, 2019)

scottkinfw said:


> I was wondering why a lens needs to be made for seemingly each mm?


Just because they patent them all doesn’t mean they will make them all.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Apr 9, 2019)

There is no way that retrofocus ultrawides are going to be "small, fast, and light."


----------

