# Why no APS-C "Holy Trinity"?



## gruhl28 (Feb 28, 2018)

Full frame has their 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200 f/2.8 and f/4 lenses, but there are no equivalents for APS-C. The closest is the 17-55 f/2.8 from Canon and some third party manufacturers, but the wide end is only 27 mm equivalent, and those 3 mm make a significant difference. I think this is the only fixed aperture zoom from Canon for APS-C. 

I realize the FF zooms are professional quality and expensive, and most pros don't shoot APS-C, but couldn't the APS-C focal length equivalents be made with decent IQ, but without making them bullet-proof like the L lenses to keep down costs, size, weight? And the smaller image circle requirement should also help keep down cost, size, and weight.

Sigma has their 18-35 f/1.8 and 50-100 f/1.8, but these have only a 2x zoom ratio, are heavy, have no IS, and the 18-35 doesn't go wide enough. APS-C may be a bit of a second thought for Canon, but other manufacturers seem to take crop more seriously, and even Canon have several crop prime lenses. Why no 10-22 f/2.8 (or f/4), 15-45 f/2.8 (or f/4), and 45-125 f/2.8 (or f/4)? The light-gathering and ability to blur on a crop f/2.8 would only be equivalent to f/4 on FF, but even f/4 versions would be preferable to the f/3.5 - f/5.6 zooms that we currently have for crop. I'm not asking for f/2.0 lenses, which are what would be necessary to get true equivalency to the FF f/2.8 lenses - those would be nice, but probably too big, heavy, and expensive.

Do these really not make business sense? I would think these zooms would be more popular than the 60mm and 35 mm EF-S macro lenses, and Canon thought there was a business case for these.

Is there some technical reason this can't be done practically? If Canon can make a 15-85 f/3.5 - 5.6, why not a 15-45 f/2.8? Or a 15-65 f/4 (24-105 FF equivalent)?


----------



## bholliman (Feb 28, 2018)

I would like to see more fixed aperture EF-S zooms as well, but I don't think its going to happen.

As you pointed out, the only fixed aperature zoom is the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, which is a nice lens, but getting a little long in the tooth. The APS-C UWA zooms and tele zooms are all variable aperture. Canon's EF-S 10-18 and 10-22mm are nice lenses, as is the EF-S 55-250 STM despite the lack of a fixed aperture, "L" quality build and USM focus motors. 

Based on what we have seen, I don't think Canon sees a market for professional quality lenses for APS-C. Thus what is available is consumer level glass. Probably makes business sense, as Canon apparently wants to push APC-S photographers who want to upgrade toward full frame, where they can make better margins. It also avoids the R&D expense of developing high end APS-C lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 28, 2018)

The APS-C trinity is the EF-S 10-18mm, EF-S 18-55mm and EF-S 55-250mm. Fixed aperture zooms cost more, and are larger. Neither of those (particularly the first one) appeal to the majority of APS-C camera buyers.


----------



## jolyonralph (Feb 28, 2018)

With current directions I think it's more likely we'll see such lenses in the future in the EF-M mount rather than EF-S.


----------



## gruhl28 (Feb 28, 2018)

"Based on what we have seen, I don't think Canon sees a market for professional quality lenses for APS-C."

bholliman, I agree, that's why I suggested lenses that weren't bullet-proof like the L lenses, good IQ but not professional grade in other respects.


"The APS-C trinity is the EF-S 10-18mm, EF-S 18-55mm and EF-S 55-250mm. Fixed aperture zooms cost more, and are larger. Neither of those (particularly the first one) appeal to the majority of APS-C camera buyers."

Neuro, I guess you're right. Even the crop primes are pretty inexpensive. The 15-85 and 17-55 aren't cheap, but I don't know how well they sell.


"With current directions I think it's more likely we'll see such lenses in the future in the EF-M mount rather than EF-S."

jolyonralph, I was wondering about that too.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 28, 2018)

Isn't part of the problem with expensive aps-c lenses that people willing to pay more are hoping to upgrade to full frame someday and not be stuck with a bunch of lenses they can't use?


----------



## wsmith96 (Feb 28, 2018)

gruhl28 said:


> Full frame has their 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200 f/2.8 and f/4 lenses, but there are no equivalents for APS-C.



To me the trinity for performance was the 10-22, 17-55, and 70-200 with the 10-22 being the only one without a fixed aperture. I can't explain why there isn't a f/2.8 version of a UWA zoom from Canon for APS-C. I just figure that's not their target market for such a lens. 

As previously mentioned, there is also the 10-18, 18-55, and 55-200 STM line for the entry level. Even then, the 10-18 and 55-200 do well within their specifications and will make many photographers happy.


----------



## SkynetTX (Feb 28, 2018)

Tamron has the 10-24 Di II VC HLM developed for APS-C cameras. So you can have the Tamron 10-24 and any of 24-70 and 70-200 you like and you have equivalent focal lengths from 16 to 320 mm.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 28, 2018)

SkynetTX said:


> Tamron has the 10-24 Di II VC HLM developed for APS-C cameras. So you can have the Tamron 10-24 and any of 24-70 and 70-200 you like and you have equivalent focal lengths from 16 to 320 mm.



That's right, and the 24-70 and 70-200 will also work on full frame. I just don't see the sense investing in more expensive lenses that only work on cropped.


----------



## bholliman (Feb 28, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> With current directions I think it's more likely we'll see such lenses in the future in the EF-M mount rather than EF-S.



+1, at least I hope so since my two cameras are full frame and EF-M mount.


----------



## slclick (Feb 28, 2018)

I wasn't aware that Holy has been slumming it. I'd use the term functional...Neuro nailed the zoom lengths.


----------



## mistaspeedy (Feb 28, 2018)

I believe there are a number of simultaneous reasons why we dont have a high quality 'trinity' for APSC.

1) It forces APSC users to buy more expensive full frame glass.
2) Even if the APSC lenses were the same price, full frame pro lenses allow you to upgrade your camera body to a more expensive full frame body.... if you had 3-4 expensive 'L' APSC lenses, you would probably never upgrade to full frame, or would make the move much harder.
3) It costs extra money to develop another line of L lenses for APSC when you can focus your efforts on full frame.


----------



## BillB (Feb 28, 2018)

mistaspeedy said:


> I believe there are a number of simultaneous reasons why we dont have a high quality 'trinity' for APSC.
> 
> 1) It forces APSC users to buy more expensive full frame glass.
> 2) Even if the APSC lenses were the same price, full frame pro lenses allow you to upgrade your camera body to a more expensive full frame body.... if you had 3-4 expensive 'L' APSC lenses, you would probably never upgrade to full frame, or would make the move much harder.
> 3) It costs extra money to develop another line of L lenses for APSC when you can focus your efforts on full frame.



and 4) there isn't much demand for expensive high quality aps-c glass. For better IQ, FF is hard to beat.. The crop factor takes its toll.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 28, 2018)

gruhl28 said:


> Is there some technical reason this can't be done practically? If Canon can make a 15-85 f/3.5 - 5.6, why not a 15-45 f/2.8? Or a 15-65 f/4 (24-105 FF equivalent)?



What is the advantage?
Price will be about the same. Size will not be much different.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 28, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> gruhl28 said:
> 
> 
> > Is there some technical reason this can't be done practically? If Canon can make a 15-85 f/3.5 - 5.6, why not a 15-45 f/2.8? Or a 15-65 f/4 (24-105 FF equivalent)?
> ...



How about a 17-55 F2.8?


----------



## slclick (Feb 28, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > gruhl28 said:
> ...



That was the single bone Canon threw to the 1.6 dog.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 28, 2018)

slclick said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



It is not a L lens, but it feels like one...

Once you start to go longer, there really isn’t a lot of weight savings between crop and FF lenses, and I suspect that’s why there is no offering of longer L glass for the crop line... I know a lot of crop shooters who have the FF 70-200 in some variation so that lens takes the top end of the crop trilogy..... but there is nothing of L quality at the wide end. It would have been nice to see something from Canon like a 10-17mm F2.8 lens, that is a hole in the lens lineup that Canon has left unfilled for a long time


----------



## slclick (Feb 28, 2018)

I liked my 10-22 when I shot crop, sure it needed a bit of correction in post but it was a very good value. Didn't need it to be faster, it was fantastic stopped down.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 28, 2018)

slclick said:


> I liked my 10-22 when I shot crop, sure it needed a bit of correction in post but it was a very good value. Didn't need it to be faster, it was fantastic stopped down.



I have one of those.... it is a nice lens, a great lens for the price. It eventually got replaced in the bag by a Tokina that was sharper and faster, but nowhere near as compact.

One of the big advantages of crop is smaller size, and fast lenses kind of ruin that advantage. I think that’s one of the reasons why there are a lot of F5.6 crop lenses, and also the reason why there are a lot of F6.3 M lenses....


----------



## brad-man (Feb 28, 2018)

The times they are a changing. EF-M 22, check. EF-M 32ish, soon. EF-M 50-something, we'll see...


----------



## stevelee (Mar 1, 2018)

slclick said:


> I liked my 10-22 when I shot crop, sure it needed a bit of correction in post but it was a very good value. Didn't need it to be faster, it was fantastic stopped down.



That has been my experience with that lens. I haven't needed that range much lately, though. Since I don't have anything wider that the 24mm on my kit zoom for my 6D2, if I do I will still get out the T3i and the 10-22. The realtor for whom I shot houses on occasion has retired, and I've not cultivated any more business. Sometimes, even with him, the staging company also did the interior photos. I may some day get the 16-35 for my FF, but would do it sooner if I had a project that would help pay for it. Right now, it makes more sense for me to get a better telephoto than the 75-300mm that I got along with the kit lens with my first Rebel.


----------



## Ah-Keong (Mar 1, 2018)

Judging from the Sigma 18-35mm f/1,8 and the 50-100mm f/1,8.

It is difficult in a non-linear fashion to develop glass for smaller sensor bodies.
Any further attempts would lead to a point of diminishing returns (i.e the size and weight of the 50-100mm f/1,8 is about the same as a 70-200mm with IS.) 

what would happen if the focal length is stretched to say 50-135mm f/1,8 and with OS?

Hope Sigma would introduce a say 10-18mm f/1,8 DC HSM glass for crop users....


----------



## KevinP (Mar 1, 2018)

The APS-C upgrade path has been maddening me this year too. It is that cost and size problem.

I've looked at the 11-20 f2.8 Tokina, 24-70 f4 macro, and 100-400 Sigma as another affordable-ish crop body trio. A Tamron 24-70 f2.8 (non G2) could be another good option to stay below $800 per zoom and get the faster aperture for the portrait range. 

For camera size, I like SL2 to 77D range. The size of current FF Canon is an instant veto for me, and even more for my wife. Big lenses don't change that the big cameras feel oversize to my hands. The A7III is an instant crush this week (give me eye AF and IBIS for my shaky hands). I'm just not ready for a full frame kit approaching 2x the cost. Eye or pupil AF in the new M50 is encouraging. 90D could be a really cool camera. For now, just waiting until I see a deal on a Canon crop body I can't resist.


----------



## mistaspeedy (Mar 1, 2018)

I am also at a point where I am considering upgrading my whole setup. I will make changes during the coming months, but I also need to decide between crop and full frame.
Currently I have a 1.3 crop camera which is the worst solution... going to full frame for quality and proper wide angles, or going to crop where I have some nice cheaper glass, is the way to go.

So far, the most likely upgrades will be:

1D mark II > replace with used Canon 6D
Tamron 28-75 F2.8 > get this lens serviced for its decentered element and see how it works with the 6D.
Keep 40mm F2.8 STM
Keep 50mm F1.4 USM

Then see what other glass I can add.


----------



## Talys (Mar 1, 2018)

KevinP said:


> The APS-C upgrade path has been maddening me this year too. It is that cost and size problem.
> 
> I've looked at the 11-20 f2.8 Tokina, 24-70 f4 macro, and 100-400 Sigma as another affordable-ish crop body trio. A Tamron 24-70 f2.8 (non G2) could be another good option to stay below $800 per zoom and get the faster aperture for the portrait range.
> 
> For camera size, I like SL2 to 77D range. The size of current FF Canon is an instant veto for me, and even more for my wife. Big lenses don't change that the big cameras feel oversize to my hands. The A7III is an instant crush this week (give me eye AF and IBIS for my shaky hands). I'm just not ready for a full frame kit approaching 2x the cost. Eye or pupil AF in the new M50 is encouraging. 90D could be a really cool camera. For now, just waiting until I see a deal on a Canon crop body I can't resist.



I would go 80D over 77D.

The Canon EF70-300 f4-5.6 USM (nano) is a pretty good bet. The image quality is good, the autofocus is fast and reasonably consistent considering the price, and it goes on sale for ridiculously cheap prices at times. It suffers from slightly soft corners, which you'll happily never see on a crop 

The alternative is the EFS55-250 STM, which is a great lens for the price, and not very big.

If it were me, the only other lens I'd need on a budget would be the Canon EFS18-135 USM (nano). That's an exceptional lens for the price, I think, with probably the fastest, quietest AF I've seen of any lens, ever. 

Sure, it's not amazing under 24, and isn't really that great over 100, but that leaves a pretty good range where it is perfectly sharp all around, especially stopped down to f/5.6. And even at the ends of its focal range, it's not a _terrible_ lens; it's just not as good as much larger, heavier and more expensive options.

If you want wide, I don't think that you can do better than the EFS10-18. That's spectacular image quality at a steal, though the lens doesn't "feel" very premium. 

So... there you go, that would be my crop trinity (10-18, 18-135, 70-300 or 55-250), though the 70-300 isn't EFS.

By the way, I really love the EF24-70L f4. However, on a crop, I find that 24 usually wide enough, but sometimes not quite. And, that leaves a big gap between 18mm - 24mm, which is an important focal range to me.


----------



## mistaspeedy (Mar 2, 2018)

The new M50 looks nice, but if you want an adapter to use EF or EF-S glass, you need to pay another $200... which just brings it back up to the price of an 80D.

If Canon really want mirrorless to take off, they should throw in an EF to EF-M adapter for free with mirrorless cameras above a certain price... say $750 or whatever.


----------



## Woody (Mar 2, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> The APS-C trinity is the EF-S 10-18mm, EF-S 18-55mm and EF-S 55-250mm. Fixed aperture zooms cost more, and are larger. Neither of those (particularly the first one) appeal to the majority of APS-C camera buyers.



Agreed. I own the aforementioned APS-C trinity. Awesome optical quality and lightweight. Love them!


----------



## Talys (Mar 2, 2018)

mistaspeedy said:


> The new M50 looks nice, but if you want an adapter to use EF or EF-S glass, you need to pay another $200... which just brings it back up to the price of an 80D.
> 
> If Canon really want mirrorless to take off, they should throw in an EF to EF-M adapter for free with mirrorless cameras above a certain price... say $750 or whatever.



That will come on the sales. Canon has included the adapter on M5's, often.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 2, 2018)

Talys said:


> mistaspeedy said:
> 
> 
> > The new M50 looks nice, but if you want an adapter to use EF or EF-S glass, you need to pay another $200... which just brings it back up to the price of an 80D.
> ...



+1. I now have 2 adapters. I got one for the original M (with tripod foot). I then got a free one with the M5 (without tripod foot). There is no reason to pay retail for the adapter - look for used for people who have multiple.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 16, 2018)

Ah-Keong said:


> Judging from the Sigma 18-35mm f/1,8 and the 50-100mm f/1,8.
> 
> It is difficult in a non-linear fashion to develop glass for smaller sensor bodies.
> Any further attempts would lead to a point of diminishing returns (i.e the size and weight of the 50-100mm f/1,8 is about the same as a 70-200mm with IS.)
> ...




would you be prepared to pay for expensive crop-only lenses that are big and heavy? 

Canon got it exactly right: 

1. it it is crop-only, make it compact, decent IQ and performance and inexpensive 
that's why all those Rebels + EF-S sold well in the past and EOS M + EF-M are selling well now ... while all the nice, fast, fat, aperture-ringed, retro-dialed, hipster-looks Fuji stuff is stuck at 5% market share or thereabaouts ... "too expensive for crop-only" 

2. if it is big and expensive, make it 100% FF capable with excellent IQ + performance (including fast glass) 

3. The third segment will be "mirrorfree FF without fast or long glass" in a compact, decent and affordable package.


----------



## KevinP (Sep 23, 2018)

Talys said:


> I would go 80D over 77D.
> 
> The Canon EF70-300 f4-5.6 USM (nano) is a pretty good bet. ... The alternative is the EFS55-250 STM, which is a great lens for the price, and not very big.
> 
> ...



It's been half a year since you wrote this, but I came to see it your way. I got a used 80D and 18-135 USM around the end of June. Weather seals, battery, and AFMA won me over. I'm pretty happy with that pair for most of my uses. The 18-135 is surprisingly nice for semi-macro shots. A Tokina 11-20 f/2.8 and Canon 55-250 STM cover my wide and narrow specialty uses. A cheap Yongnuo 35 f/2 and the Canon 50 f/1.8 II cover when I want narrower depth of field or indoor shots. 

I periodically daydream about getting a fancier macro, or portrait, or a 100-400 lens, but it's a hard sell for a budget rig. These are all "better" options, and they add up to about $1200+. Being patient with the limits of a $1700 kit is winning so far. Figuring out how to change lenses easier/faster will probably do me more good.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 23, 2018)

bholliman said:


> Based on what we have seen, I don't think Canon sees a market for professional quality lenses for APS-C..



Course they do. Just not at the short end...


----------



## Talys (Sep 24, 2018)

KevinP said:


> It's been half a year since you wrote this, but I came to see it your way. I got a used 80D and 18-135 USM around the end of June. Weather seals, battery, and AFMA won me over. I'm pretty happy with that pair for most of my uses. The 18-135 is surprisingly nice for semi-macro shots. A Tokina 11-20 f/2.8 and Canon 55-250 STM cover my wide and narrow specialty uses. A cheap Yongnuo 35 f/2 and the Canon 50 f/1.8 II cover when I want narrower depth of field or indoor shots.
> 
> I periodically daydream about getting a fancier macro, or portrait, or a 100-400 lens, but it's a hard sell for a budget rig. These are all "better" options, and they add up to about $1200+. Being patient with the limits of a $1700 kit is winning so far. Figuring out how to change lenses easier/faster will probably do me more good.


Cool, and congratulations!

I really like the combination of the 80D and 18-135 USM. Happy shooting!


----------

