# Perfect first EF-S "L"



## bvukich (Sep 28, 2010)

We have an awesome crop camera in the 7D, is it too much to ask for awesome glass to go with it? If Canon were to finally come out with an EF-S "L" lens, what do you wish it would be? Try to make it plausible, and technically possible. Posting something silly like 4-800mm f/0.95 DO IS USM ABCDEFG is even more useless than any post of this type already inherently is.

The lens that would make me weak in the knees, tingly all over, and trip over my tongue while I run to the store...

EF-S 14-70mm f/2.8L H-IS USM
~$1699 List
~$1399 Street

Slightly more useful focal range than the current 17-55/2.8, 3-4 stop hybrid IS, weather sealing (no more sucking up dust while zooming). I honestly don't think I'm asking for too much. Am I?


----------



## Stone (Sep 28, 2010)

bvukich said:


> We have an awesome crop camera in the 7D, is it too much to ask for awesome glass to go with it? If Canon were to finally come out with an EF-S "L" lens, what do you wish it would be? Try to make it plausible, and technically possible. Posting something silly like 4-800mm f/0.95 DO IS USM ABCDEFG is even more useless than any post of this type already inherently is.
> 
> The lens that would make me weak in the knees, tingly all over, and trip over my tongue while I run to the store...
> 
> ...



I think you might be asking for a leeeeetle too much. ;D 

1st, it would make the 24-70 which is NOT a light lens by anyone's standards feel like a paperweight, that's a ton of glass you're asking for.

2nd, L lenses are strictly EF mount, they can be used on any body from a Rebel to a 1Ds. Making it EF-S means it won't mount up to the 5D or either of the 1D flagships, why build such a monster lens if the pros who would be more likely to buy it can't use it?

And finally, you will not get a constant 2.8, 5x, weather sealed, 4-stop IS USM L zoom for less than $2k. Hell, I don't think Canon would sell that lens for any less than $4K.

It would be a killer lens but it just ain't gonna happen.........


----------



## unfocused (Sep 28, 2010)

> I honestly don't think I'm asking for too much. Am I?



Maybe a little, but not as much as others might think. I really like my 15-85 EF-S lens, although I wish it were a little faster. Sharpness and build quality are both very good. An f2.8 might be too much to ask, but I'd pay a premium to have a constant f 3.5 and if I had to go down to 15-70, that wouldn't bother me much. 

I don't agree that "pros" wouldn't use or need "L" Quality EF-S lenses. That presumes that "pros" only use full frame or APS-H bodies. I suspect there are a lot of people out there earning their living from photography who are using 7Ds. And, as technology advances, I think you'll see more. 

The whole "L" lens issue is pretty murky in my opinion. Basically an "L" lens is whatever Canon wants it to be. Sometimes it represents better weather sealing, sometimes it represents a faster lens, sometimes it represents superior sharpness. But it's not always consistent. Ultimately, I don't care if Canon puts an "L" after the EF-S lens, I would just like to see them putting out more high quality EF-S lenses. 

There is a market for better EF-S lenses. In fact, one could argue that the new 70-300 "L" zoom is really an EF-S lens, in that Canon is clearly marketing it to crop sensor users as well as full frame users.


----------



## bvukich (Sep 28, 2010)

I honestly don't think the weight would be that bad. The front elements would still be monsters, but being an EF-S, the interior elements can be smaller than an otherwise identical EF. IS also adds weight, but I can't imagine the final lens being any heavier than the 24-70.

Discounting the "L" on the pro1, true there have been no non-EF "L" lenses. But who says that's set in stone? And in reality, I really don't care if the lens has a red ring or not, as long as the build quality and sharpness are there.

My dilemma is this; for the long end I can usually get away with f/4, making the logical choice for me the quite excellent 70-200/4L IS. That part's easy. On the short end I really need f/2.8. So now what? I can get the 24-70, and be at 24 and wanting wider 60% of the time, so I'll need to fill in the bottom end with a 10-22 or the 16-35 (preferably, since I spend most of my time from about 20-35). Or I can go with the 17-55/2.8 and be wanting a bit longer the other 40% of the time.

That's what brings me to my dream lens, 14-70/2.8. I think it would be the perfect walk around lens for 90% of mid to high end crop shooters, and an ideal upgrade path for xxD and 7D coming from a kit lens, or in lieu of the kit lens entirely. Yes, it would cannibalize sales of some of the current EF & EF-S lens lineup, but with it being a $1500-2000 lens I can't see how that would be that bad of a thing from Canon's perspective. More of an up-sell then true cannibalization. Plus it would be a serious draw to the Canon platform for mid market/pro-sumer/serious amateurs.

From what I read, crop is Canon's money maker. They either need to get serious about it, and build it into a complete 1st class platform, or finally bring some low price FF bodies (<$2K) to market so us low budget peons can play too. I just feel stranded where I am now with Canon, limited by current crop options, but the jump to FF is too big.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2010)

Stone said:


> L lenses are strictly EF mount...



Really? Tell that to this L lens with its red ring:


----------



## J (Sep 28, 2010)

I would get behind this, though in my head the successor lens I was picturing is slightly more modest:
EF-S 15-60mm f/2.8 IS USM

Actually, it could top out at the current 55mm and I'd be happy with that too. The difference between your range and mine is an extra zoom factor (4x vs 5x), which I think ends up being pretty important to the design of a constant f/2.8 lens (somebody correct me). I mean, if you think about it, f/2.8 zooms currently can only do about 3x or less, regardless of format:

Nikon 14-24 f/2.8, *1.7x*
Canon 16-35 f/2.8, *2.2x*
Canon 17-55 f/2.8, *3.2x*
Canon 24-70 f/2.8, *2.9x*
Canon 70-200 f/2.8, *2.9x*

An f/4 zoom is better, but still only the newest one hits your requested 5x ratio:

Canon 24-105 f/4, *4.4x*
Nikon 24-120 f/4, *5x*

Envelopes are meant to get pushed of course, but going straight from 3x to 5x for fast pro glass is asking too much at once, I think. I would imagine your lens to be closer to $2.5k than $1.5k even as a non-L because of all the large and exotic glass/fluorite elements you would need. Make it "L" and it balloons to $3k and gains another 500g at least. And who knows what kind of distortion and/or vignetting you would get anyway. And god forbid the flare resistance could be even worse.

The current 17-55 doesn't focus especially close IMO. If the MFD of the successor is similar (likely), I don't see much benefit for including an H-IS design. It would probably be even more expensive and fragile to boot. (You want another reason for repairs?) Even the new no-holding-back EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II doesn't bother having it. I don't think anything other than lenses designated as macro will ever get H-IS. Maybe if Canon gets a manufacturing breakthrough, but that's pure chance from our perspective as customers.

Now, if your 14-70 was f/4, though, then you have something there. It would be what I think the 15-85 should have been. I would have bought that in a heartbeat, even priced at the 17-55's level. f/4 vs f/5.6 is something I can really feel at the tele end. I can give up one stop for tele (and "get it back" from the 7D sensor), but not two.


----------



## Stone (Sep 28, 2010)

neuroanatomist said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > L lenses are strictly EF mount...
> ...



There are no EF-S L lenses


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2010)

Stone said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Stone said:
> ...



No, there aren't - but it's incorrect to state that all L lenses are EF mount. Not sure why my image is not showing up, but I was referring to the 7.2-50.8mm f/2.4-3.5*L* USM zoom lens on the PowerShot Pro 1. 

If Canon can put an L lens on a point-and-shoot camera, there's no reason they can't make an EF-S L lens. They just haven't done it yet...


----------



## imgrumpy (Sep 28, 2010)

I'm wanting a 50-150 f/2.8 ef-s lens to compliment the 17-55 f/2.8. I like Sigma's 50-150, but I want IS. The FF 70-200 f/2.8 is too big to carry around on a t1i all day and the 70mm length is too long. I find the 50-70 range to be much more usable than 150-200 on a crop camera.


----------



## Stone (Sep 28, 2010)

neuroanatomist said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Point taken, I've not seen that lens before so I'm definitely wrong on that point.

I guess what I'm trying to say is why make an EF-S L when every recent EOS body can mount EF lenses. Could Canon do it if they wanted to? Of course, but I see no financial reason for them to do so and I believe they would limit the market for such a lens by making it EF-S. The greatest consumer of L lenses by far are the FF & APS-H users.


----------



## JLN (Sep 29, 2010)

Stone said:


> Point taken, I've not seen that lens before so I'm definitely wrong on that point.



The belief that all L lenses are EF is actually a very common misconception.
L series lenses existed long before EF mount.
There are plenty of FD mount L lenses out there, e.g.:
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/fd_85_12l

And even for current production lenses, L lenses are available in bayonet mount for canon XL video cameras
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/464577-REG/Canon_1696B002_3_4_20mm_6x_XL_Wide.html#specifications

So really there's no reason a EF-S L lens cannot exist.

To the OP, consider the size of the current EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS, it is already reasonably large and heavy compared to other EF-S lenses.
Making it 3mm wider will add more bulk, making it 15mm longer will add a lot more bulk. More importantly (and less obviously) the increased zoom range will result in a lot more elements in the lens itself just to keep abberations under control and maintain a reasonable optical quality.
If a ef-s 14-70 f2.8 IS L were to exist, it'd be very large, very heavy, very expensive and likely quite mediocre optically. 
Didn't stop canon from making the 35-350L or 28-300L though, so who knows.
More realistic would be a 14-70 f4 IS


----------



## foobar (Sep 29, 2010)

EF-S 15-55 f/2.0 IS USM with weather sealing. That would be fantastic but probably unrealistic.

Don't care if they call it "L" as long as they build it like one.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Sep 30, 2010)

That powershot is a cheap shot; I've read the Wiki articles abck and front, seen that thing many times but could never remember it.

Anyway, back on point - Canon has all but said the new 70-300mm L is basically intended to be used as an EF-S lens, though it is full frame. It's not too heavy compared to other lenses of the type - I don't see that Canon would be served well to make an equivalent lens in EF-S just for the savings, since that would be another line, would probably cannibalize the sales of the more expensive full frame version, and not help induce people towards taking the upgrade path to 1.3x and full frame that owning full frame lenses encourages.


----------



## fman (Sep 30, 2010)

My dream lens: 30-60 f/2.0 IS USM.
I don't care if it's L or not. L is just a label and I don't care about labels, rather IQ.

An EF 24-70 f/2.8 mk II IS USM would be also great (for a reasonable price).

Canon seems to be in no rush introducing good fast lenses in the 30-60 range. A few good ones (like EF 35mm f/1.4) have a really big price tag. Others (like EF 50 f/1.4) could have some IQ enhancements. A fast lens that requires significant stop down for decent IQ is missing the point.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2010)

fman said:


> A few good ones (like EF 35mm f/1.4) have a really big price tag. A fast lens that requires significant stop down for decent IQ is missing the point.



A fast lens that _doesn't_ require significant stop down for decent IQ is expensive...



fman said:


> Canon seems to be in no rush introducing good fast lenses in the 30-60 range.



The 50mm f/1.2L? Granted, it's a bokeh-optimized portrait lens, primarily, but I think it fits the criteria of good, fast, and in the 30-60mm range.


----------



## fman (Sep 30, 2010)

> The 50mm f/1.2L?



Way too expensive for a single 50mm prime. (Isn't 50mm the easiest to manufacture?) But I'd pay even more for a 30-60 f/2.0 IS USM (and I'd be willing to trade IS for 1/3 of the price) that has decent IQ already from f/2.8.


----------



## kubelik (Sep 30, 2010)

I'm with those who believe it is unlikely that Canon will start to produce EF-S lenses with a red stripe. I get the point that the L designation has shown up on other items before; that alone is not sufficient indication that it will happen again, as that was very much an isolated occurrence.

however, this is a heck of an enjoyable thing to ponder, because what Canon HAS demonstrated is that they're willing to produce high quality EF-S glass (like the 17-55 f/2.8), even if it's not red-ringed.

I'd love to see some f/2 and wider glass that's optimized for APS-C bodies to conserve size and weight. 30-60 seems like a strange focal length though, maybe 35-70? that would mean linking up between the 16-35 and the 70-200's, and would cover 56mm-112mm equivalent, which is a fairly useful range for portraiture and even usable for a walkaround


----------



## missitnoonan (Sep 30, 2010)

What I really do not understand is the creation of the weather sealed 7D without the creation of a weather sealed standard zoom for APS-C. Call it L if you want, EF-S or EF, who cares, but a weather sealed lens that is wide enough (15 or 17mm) is a must. I don't really care if it is the 17-55mm 2.8 with weather sealing or a larger zoom range at F4, but there is a real need for a weather sealed standard zoom.


----------



## fman (Sep 30, 2010)

> I'd love to see some f/2 and wider glass that's optimized for APS-C bodies to conserve size and weight. 30-60 seems like a strange focal length though, maybe 35-70?



Would not mind 35-70 f/2 either (event though I consider it a bit long for APS-C as a general purpose lens).
Actually 35-70 f/2 has been rumored a lot already.

I'll stick for a long time with my EF-S 15-85 as walkaround. Many people asking already why isn't that an "L"? Who cares if IQ is fine? I wish Canon continues that kind of IQ lenses at an affordable price and if that helps without any kind of unnecessary labels.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2010)

missitnoonan said:


> What I really do not understand is the creation of the weather sealed 7D without the creation of a weather sealed standard zoom for APS-C. Call it L if you want, EF-S or EF, who cares, but a weather sealed lens that is wide enough (15 or 17mm) is a must. I don't really care if it is the 17-55mm 2.8 with weather sealing or a larger zoom range at F4, but there is a real need for a weather sealed standard zoom.



The EF 17-40mm f/4L is weather-sealed and starts at 17mm. IMO, it's not quite long enough for a standard zoom, but it comes close to what you're asking for.

Having said that, I'd certainly prefer a weather-sealed version of the 17-55mm f/2.8 or similar!!


----------



## missitnoonan (Sep 30, 2010)

neuroanatomist said:


> missitnoonan said:
> 
> 
> > What I really do not understand is the creation of the weather sealed 7D without the creation of a weather sealed standard zoom for APS-C. Call it L if you want, EF-S or EF, who cares, but a weather sealed lens that is wide enough (15 or 17mm) is a must. I don't really care if it is the 17-55mm 2.8 with weather sealing or a larger zoom range at F4, but there is a real need for a weather sealed standard zoom.
> ...



Yeah, forgot about that one, probably because the range is a too limited. I think the 17-55mm range is about the minimum necessary for my tastes, and the inclusion of IS would also be appreciated.

It's all just wishes for me, as I'm a long way from a new camera purchase anyway. Happy with my T1i and 15-85 as I learn more about DSLRs.


----------



## kubelik (Sep 30, 2010)

personally, I don't feel like 17mm cuts it on an APS-C. that only comes out to a 28mm equivalent, versus the standard EF L zooms that start at 24mm. it doesn't seem like a big difference, but I've found when shooting that having the extra 4mm actually amounts to an addition 8 degrees of FOV horizontally. it's a big difference, and we need to see APS-C standard zooms that start at 15mm.

a weathersealed EF-S 15-45mm f/2.8, aynone?


----------



## JLN (Oct 1, 2010)

a 35-70 f2 would be quite possible, canon use to make a 35-70 (albeit at f3.5-4.5) so it's not an unheard of length.

A 40-60 f2 IS usm wouldn't make as much marketing sense though, a lot of people will choose to forgo it to get a fast 50mm prime and take 1 step forward/backwards, especially if it has a very high pricetag.

I agree with kubelik that 17mm isn't all that wide on APS-C. 15mm zooms otoh are a very new tech for aps-c.
The 15-85 was only released a year ago bringing a equiv 24mm zoom to the masses effectively replacing the also popular 17-85.

I *expect* that there will be either a EF-S 15-55 2.8 IS, or 15-50 2.8 IS to replace the current 17-55 which is getting a bit long in the tooth now. While I don't expect this new lens to be fully weather sealed, i expect it to be better than the current 17-55 in keeping dust out.

This new lens will have the best shot of any EF-S lens of being designated L.

Aside from that, I hope that canon will release more ef-s primes, canon dominates the competition in sheer number of primes but for crop bodies, there are very few well priced options.
An ef-s 20 1.4 & ef-s 35 1.4 would do rather well as their respective FF cousins are just too expensive for most people.


----------



## fman (Oct 1, 2010)

> I expect that there will be either a EF-S 15-55 2.8 IS, or 15-50 2.8 IS to replace the current 17-55 which is getting a bit long in the tooth now.



That would be a quite logical step from Canon if they'd like to provide the same range for EF-S users as the EF 24-70 f/2.8 for FF.

However going towards the wide angle may not be the perfect lens for some (including me). The wide end has quite some perspective distortion that let alone artistic photos have more cons as pros.
Also variable aperture zooms are the fastest at the wide end (though e.g. the 15-85 is f/3.5 only between 15-17 and the f/4 range is also quite short) so that can be covered quite easily e.g. with the 15-85.

I'm actually happy that 17-85 was extended to 15-85 as if I don't have any other choice I can still use the wide end (though I'd rarely go less than 20-22).

The shallow DOF (that comes with the big aperture) combined with the wide angle can be almost as tricky to use as a tilt-shift without its advantages.

That's why I'd consider a decent fast zoom (can be also EF-S) in the range of 24-70 or 35-70 or around that as perfect candidate for EF-S "L".
That combined with the excellent EF-S 15-85 walkaround (the other EF-S "L" candidate)+ one of the new EF 70-200 variants (IS f/4 or f/2.8 II; zoom doesn't need to be EF-S) would very well satisfy most non-artistic needs.


----------



## nzmargolies (Oct 3, 2010)

missitnoonan said:


> What I really do not understand is the creation of the weather sealed 7D without the creation of a weather sealed standard zoom for APS-C. Call it L if you want, EF-S or EF, who cares, but a weather sealed lens that is wide enough (15 or 17mm) is a must. I don't really care if it is the 17-55mm 2.8 with weather sealing or a larger zoom range at F4, but there is a real need for a weather sealed standard zoom.



Couldn't have said it better myself


----------

