# Give EF-S the L treatment?



## Sabaki (Aug 31, 2015)

There are some great EF-S lenses out there, like the 17-55, 10-22 and so on. 

But there are some concessions with EF-S lenses though:
• Cheaper build quality (cheaper plastics, buttons, knobs etc)
• Lens hoods & cases are optional extras
• Variable apertures
• Lack of weather sealing
• Lens coatings

I believe it's a given that the biggest reason for these concessions is cost, as the APS-C market is a gateway to DSLRs and not Canon's premium system. Certainly costing cannot be set aside but here's a theoretical poser to the forum:

Would you pay an extra say, 20% for an EF-S lens if they brought L series build quality, weather sealing etc? If this theoretical 20% price increase was levied, what features would you want?

This post is a flight of fancy, yet I'm very interested in hearing what people would want done differently with EF-S lenses.


----------



## 2n10 (Aug 31, 2015)

I think correcting the group you have listed is a perfect start. The only thing extra that comes to mind is a tripod foot for the long zooms. The variable aperture doesn't bother me that much though with the improved noise characteristics of the newest sensors.

I love that the 7DII can have an apparent improvement of up to 2 stops higher ISO after noise reduction. Granted not all shots/situations have this ability but it is an improvement that is noticeable to me.


----------



## jarrodeu (Aug 31, 2015)

If you really want an L lens why not just buy one? There is a large selection and if you upgrade to a full frame in the future you don't have to buy new lenses. I have a 7D and the 24-105 and 100-400II so if/when I buy a full frame camera I'm ready to go.

Jarrod


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 31, 2015)

jarrodeu said:


> If you really want an L lens why not just buy one? There is a large selection and if you upgrade to a full frame in the future you don't have to buy new lenses. I have a 7D and the 24-105 and 100-400II so if/when I buy a full frame camera I'm ready to go.
> 
> Jarrod


In many cases, the lenses "L" serve well in bodies like 7D Mark II, but not so with wide-angle zoom. Try 16-35 F2.8 in APSC, and you will see that the image quality is very limited (and zoom range too) compared to 24-70mm F2.8ii. The truth is that 24mm is not wide enough to APS-C.

EF-S 15-45mm F2.8L (with quality comparable to the current 24-70L) would be a much more appropriate option, even if the price is above US $ 1,200.

I agree that the tele side, there would be little benefit with EF-S lenses, but in wide angle zoom there is demand not met by high quality lenses for APS-C cameras. We must remember that many journalists who used 1D cameras in the past, today use 7D Mark II.


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Aug 31, 2015)

so your telling me a APSC tele-zoom lens isnt very good on 7D2 or 70D or etc
hmm please clarify what your trying too say
YESS WOULD BE GREAT TOO HAVE APS-C LENSES UPGRADED TOO FULL OR PARTIAL "L" LENS DURABILITY 
i honestly love my 24-105 stm lens i use it more then my 24-105 L lens


9W9A3605-1 by Bigz Ant, on Flickr
taken with a 55-250mm stm lens


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 31, 2015)

BigAntTVProductions said:


> so your telling me a APSC tele-zoom lens isnt very good on 7D2 or 70D or etc
> hmm please clarify what your trying too say
> YESS WOULD BE GREAT TOO HAVE APS-C LENSES UPGRADED TOO FULL OR PARTIAL "L" LENS DURABILITY
> i honestly love my 24-105 stm lens i use it more then my 24-105 L lens
> ...


I meant:
Create an EF-S version 70-300mm for example, would give very little advantage in size, weight and price on EF70-300L.

On the other hand, an EF-S16-50mm F2.8 would save a lot of size, weight and money on a hypothetical EF16-50mm F2.8. There are patents for a Canon EF16-50mm.

Congratulations make very good use of the great (but fragile) 55-250 STM.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 31, 2015)

This has started, I believe, with the Sigma 18-35 f/Art. They took a lens that would be 4 pounds (and who knows how much $, and how much higher an f/stop) in full frame and did something absolutely brilliant in APS-C. 

Whether Canon decides to follow the lead with their L program is less material for me. I'd certainly like them to. I'm more interested in seeing what Sigma comes out with now, however, as I suspect that more such glass will come out of Sigma than Canon in the next year or two. 

Canon deserves praise for the 7D2, still my favorite camera even after going full frame, because it showed a new philosophy of treating the crop sensor as a professional, L-level tool. You might think that this would bode well for their spending more attention to APS-C in the lens department, but we haven't seen any evidence of that. I will note, though, that Canon tends to take two or three years to react to market verdicts. That the 7d2 was a great hit might result in thinking about pro-quality APS-C lenses, but it would be unlikely to hit the shelves before 2017. My own suspicion is that they'll focus on full frame for the highest quality lenses anyway.

The Sigma 18-35 really did open all of our eyes to the sort of thing that hasn't been served to date. With Canon providing crop bodies that deserve it, like the 7D2, it's definitely a real market. Can you imagine the 600mm f/4 prime designed for a crop image circle? Might not be too crazy. We'll likely see that from Sigma or Tamron before Canon.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 31, 2015)

I want that lens as well, I do.

Not to be negative, but I think this won't happen for one big reason: money.

Canon makes very very very little money making crop folks happy with (for instance) an EF-S 15-45 f/2.8L lens. That's say that lens is offered for $1,250 - 1,500, b/c we know Canon will gouge those folks for 'an EF-S first'. But _that's all the money they'll get, _and those folks are almost guaranteed to _never_ go to full-frame because they'd be obsoleting a killer lens that they just paid a lot of money for!

Now compare that to the cost of an enthusiast migrating to FF to get an L standard zoom that works well on that sensor (i.e. slapping a 16-35L or 17-40L feels short on a crop, and putting a 24-anything on a crop isn't wide enough). Buying, say, a 6D + 24-105L costs about $1,800-2,000.

_And then there are the extra batteries you have to buy._

_And there is the need to buy a speedlite, b/c the 6D has no pop-up._

And then Canon's got you. 

If you want L quality in a standard zoom that does not handcuff you for focal length on either end, you need to go FF, and it's going to cost you. *And that's 100% by design.*

So this is where Sigma and Tamron have to swoop in to the rescue. That, or you can go for an aging EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS with a host of known drawbacks. And I doubt Canon will revise even a non-L version of that design as it (again) gives crop owners a reason to stay there.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 31, 2015)

My comments about the problems with it never happening notwithstanding, I love the idea. I've been asking about this for some time.

I only think it makes sense to go L (or non-L of very high quality / price) in two areas:



Ultra-wide zoom like a 10-22, 10-18, etc.



Standard zoom, like a 17-55, 15-45, 16-50, etc.

The second is needed much more than the first, I think. As much as the ultra-wide landscapers would love weather-sealed lenses, the much bigger pain point in my eyes is that the L standard zooms currently are either too wide or too short for EF-S standard zoom use.

Before I migrated to FF, I was using a 24-70 f/2.8L I on my old T1i. I constantly needed to switch that thing out for the EF-S 10-22 as 24 x 1.6 = 38.4mm is not wide enough for walkaround use for me.

So, if Canon only made one of these beastly EF-S lenses, I'd want to see 15-45 f/2.8 or something like it, which would roughly replicate the 24-70 sweet spot for walkaround use.

- A


----------



## ScottyP (Aug 31, 2015)

Where are we getting this hypothetical 20% premium? In the EF lenses the markup is more like 80% to 400% markup between the L and non-L versions?


----------



## NancyP (Aug 31, 2015)

Good weatherproofing would be nice in a general-purpose APS-C zoom. Pentax does it.


----------



## The Supplanter (Sep 1, 2015)

ScottyP said:


> Where are we getting this hypothetical 20% premium? In the EF lenses the markup is more like 80% to 400% markup between the L and non-L versions?



My thoughts exactly.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 1, 2015)

PA_phoxerballzz said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > Where are we getting this hypothetical 20% premium? In the EF lenses the markup is more like 80% to 400% markup between the L and non-L versions?
> ...



There's a ceiling to the price for a non-EF lens (i.e. EF-S or EF-M). 

Canon currently sells no EF-S lens for more than ~ $800 today. The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS was their last attempt at a higher performance / pricey EF-S lens -- it was at $1,149 at one point. One can only presume the price came back down to earth because it wasn't selling.

I just don't see Canon getting people to buy a > $1,000 lens that only works with crop. Such a lens would take too much potential FF conversion (i.e. pullthrough) profit off the table. So I think normal markup percentages between good and great lenses do not apply in EF-S. The math gets reversed to hit a *price point* instead of a target set of features: _How good of a lens can Canon make for the EF-S mount and keep it's sale price under $1,000?_

My guess is the answer to that is maaaaaaaybe a hybrid 17-55 f/2.8-4.0 USM like we've seen from the competitors, or a slower-but-everywhere-else-better 17-55 f/4 IS USM with internal focusing, weather sealing, better build, better IQ, etc. And let's face it, neither of those lenses are particularly sexy. 

- A


----------



## candc (Sep 1, 2015)

Its nice to have the lower price option of the ef-s lenses. If your $300.00 55-250 stm ever breaks (unlikely) then get another!


----------



## Ruined (Sep 1, 2015)

Honestly I'd say recently (past 5 years) Canon's EF-S lenses have been a perfect balance of quality, weight and price. I would not make any changes.

When I use an EF-S lens it is generally because I am willing to trade off a bit of quality for a reduction in size, weight and cost. If they started building them like L lenses it would add to size, weight and cost which defeats the purpose IMO.


----------



## RGF (Sep 1, 2015)

How about 1D caliber APS-C body?


----------



## Ruined (Sep 1, 2015)

RGF said:


> How about 1D caliber APS-C body?



The 7DII is pretty darn close to that frankly, aside from the lack of builtin grip... which again some would say goes against aps-c size/weight advantage.


----------



## Tinky (Sep 1, 2015)

+1

If you can't do it with a 7d2 then a 1d series isn't going to fix it for you, alusions to sensor size aside as thats kind of the point of the thread.

Maybe add a funky viewfinder blind?


In seriousness, my wife is using my old 10d to learn photography on, I do rather wish that more canon cameras were as confidence inspiring to handle. Known as the mini-1d in its day, and out-dated in every technical way, can still turn out a good image, and still feels like you could hammer in nails with it.


----------



## Freddy (Sep 1, 2015)

I've only joined recently and posted just a couple of comments, and they all seem to be on the same topic! It's been mentioned that if APS-C shooters want L quality then just buy them, maybe as a prelude to moving up to FF. However, I don't want to move to FF. I can't afford it and I really don't want the weight\size. I would DEFINITELY prefer to buy Canon EF-S glass, but if it is not available then I'll have no trouble buying the alternatives from 3rd. party manufacturers. As has been mentioned, the Sigma F1.8 zoom is very good, and I'm also interested in the WA tokina zoom. If someone came up with a 2.8 tele zoom, I'd probably be in the store the next day.


----------



## Sabaki (Sep 1, 2015)

Freddy said:


> I've only joined recently and posted just a couple of comments, and they all seem to be on the same topic! It's been mentioned that if APS-C shooters want L quality then just buy them, maybe as a prelude to moving up to FF. However, I don't want to move to FF. I can't afford it and I really don't want the weight\size. I would DEFINITELY prefer to buy Canon EF-S glass, but if it is not available then I'll have no trouble buying the alternatives from 3rd. party manufacturers. As has been mentioned, the Sigma F1.8 zoom is very good, and I'm also interested in the WA tokina zoom. If someone came up with a 2.8 tele zoom, I'd probably be in the store the next day.



There are some topics that circle without ever ending. We're a passionate lot when it comes to our hobby though and if we're not doing it, we're talking about it.

I see you're someone who keeps your options open and I guess that's what posts like these are about, talking about options, real or not. 

For the very least, I hope these posts entertain rather than irritate


----------



## Tinky (Sep 1, 2015)

It's around about this time of night I like to chuck another log on the fire, draw the curtains, top up my wee glayva, and throw a big old spanner in the works:

"L" doesn't mean anything tangible. It's marketing.

Here's some things that L does not mean:

-The very fastest autofocus (TSE 24 L)
-The very best optics (the 17-40 is shaded somewhat by the 18-55 IS)
-Weathersealed construction (loads of Ls aren't weatherproof rated)

Some of Canons best lenses aren't L lenses, or even all that expensive.

A look at Canons own recommended list for the 5DS reveals a few diamonds in the rough:

EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM
EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM
EF 35mm f/2 IS USM
EF 40mm f/2.8 STM (CHEAP)
EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
EF 50mm f/1.8 II (VERY CHEAP)
EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro
EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
TS-E 90mm f/2.8
EF 100mm f/2 USM
EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM

All except the 90 TS-E are everyday money.

I think rather than bemoan the lack of dedicated EF-S L lenses, why not decide what FL / aperture spec you require and see if theres a fit for it in the existing EF range? (gives you an eye to the future... which you must have according the the Full-Frame Fascists. 

If these lenses are good enough for the 5DS then they are good enough for the 24MP APS-C cameras.

And theres another couple can be added to the mix.. the new 24 EF-S is one and there are some great third party lenses for modest cost.

L doesn't actually mean anything other than an assumed set of values that rarely apply in entirity to any specific L lens. I'm being very pedantic. Point is, don't get hung up on it. Only M system users have more choice.


----------



## NancyP (Sep 1, 2015)

The 40mm and 24mm f/2.8 STM are GREAT lenses for the money.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 1, 2015)

Tinky said:


> I think rather than bemoan the lack of dedicated EF-S L lenses, why not decide what FL / aperture spec you require and see if theres a fit for it in the existing EF range? (gives you an eye to the future... which you must have according the the Full-Frame Fascists.
> 
> L doesn't actually mean anything other than an assumed set of values that rarely apply in entirity to any specific L lens. I'm being very pedantic. Point is, don't get hung up on it. Only M system users have more choice.


I do not care about the "L" designation, but I would have EF-S lenses with comparable quality to the Canon 24-70mm F2.8 II.

I'm sure the 7D Mark II users would like to have a EF-S15-45mm F2.8 with high image quality, and is not a dust sucking just like the 17-55mm. If the quality is very good, it would pay $ 1200 for this lens.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 1, 2015)

Tinky said:


> "L" doesn't mean anything tangible. It's marketing.
> 
> L doesn't actually mean anything other than an assumed set of values that rarely apply in entirety to any specific L lens.



Absolutely true. Even Canon admits that the "L" is for Luxury. Whatever the heck that means. In fact, to me that's kind of a downside. I'd never be caught dead in a luxury car for example. 



ajfotofilmagem said:


> I do not care about the "L" designation, but I would have EF-S lenses with comparable quality to the Canon 24-70mm F2.8 II.
> 
> I'm sure the 7D Mark II users would like to have a EF-S15-45mm F2.8 with high image quality, and is not a dust sucking just like the 17-55mm. If the quality is very good, it would pay $ 1200 for this lens.



I think that's very valid, but I'm not sure the market would support a lens like that. In fact I think it's even less likely today than it used to be. With the advent of the 6D, the price differential is no longer a big factor separating full frame and crop sensor users. At the high end, the 7D II seems to be marketed more as a niche camera rather than general all-around use (although it certainly is fine for all around use).

I suspect that many 7DII buyers (the most likely target market for the lens you mention) already own a full frame body and use the 7DII primarily for wildlife, birding or sports, where a wide to normal focal length is not as important. 

Those that use the 7DII or 70D as their primary camera may be more price sensitive than forum users are. 

Other than its relatively slow variable aperture, the 15-85mm EF-S is really a fantastic all-purpose lens. I personally think they should have made it a constant f4, but I have no idea what that would have meant in terms of cost and weight. 

The good news is that many third-party manufacturers have stepped up to fill in the gaps. Tokina's wide constant aperture f2.8 zooms are outstanding.


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Sep 1, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> BigAntTVProductions said:
> 
> 
> > so your telling me a APSC tele-zoom lens isnt very good on 7D2 or 70D or etc
> ...



fragile wast that an insult are u happy too carry that boulder bka ugly 1DX around and huge white spy lens that police across the usa hate


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 1, 2015)

unfocused said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > I do not care about the "L" designation, but I would have EF-S lenses with comparable quality to the Canon 24-70mm F2.8 II.
> ...



ajfotofilmagem is not alone -- a lot of folks want that lens, but I just don't think Canon will give it to them.

I believe that Canon is deliberately not offering pro-quality glass in the EF-S mount, and I doubt they ever will. With the exception of the 7D2 (whose owners often are tracking longer targets where slapping on EF glass is very, very common), Canon's entire APS-C strategy is get enthusiasts hooked on SLR image quality and constrain them with enough limitations...


Good but not great EF-S lenses
Using better EF zooms is handcuffing due to the 1.6x crop (i.e. a 24-something zoom is a PITA on crop for a walkaround)

...that they inevitably migrate entirely to FF. That's the black math of all of this. They don't want blissfully happy APS-C shooters*, they want slightly frustrated APS-C users that are one big payment away (be it their first L zoom or the big move to a 6D) from getting what they want.

(*again, 7D2 people with super whites are an exception. In fairness, they are _never_ happy as a rule, but Canon has nothing to do with that. )

- A


----------



## unfocused (Sep 1, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> ...that they inevitably migrate entirely to FF. That's the black math of all of this...



No black math involved as far as I'm concerned. For a long time I've figured that part of Canon's strategy to grow the market is to sell enthusiasts two bodies. Stagger the release dates so that each new version of the 6D, 70D, 5D and 7D has just enough features that their full frame/APS-C counterparts lack so as to encourage people to upgrade to one of each. 

Sure, you can get a 1D that does it all, but it's still more expensive than one each of the others and you have to lay out all the money at once. Of course, Canon would happily sell everyone a 1D if they could...but they know they can't.

What I am unsure of is the math of lens development and recovery. I suspect that lens development (being a much more mature technology) requires a larger up-front development cost and lower per-unit profits, but those profits can be spread out over a 5-10 year cycle, rather than the 2-3 years for bodies. That would argue for Canon being much more conservative in the lenses it releases, looking for lenses that will have a 10+ year lifespan when possible.


----------



## Sabaki (Sep 1, 2015)

unfocused said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > ...that they inevitably migrate entirely to FF. That's the black math of all of this...
> ...



Wow! You're smart! I wouldn't play black jack with you 

Question: EF-S 10-22 ($600) vs EF-10-22 L* ($900), which would you see as a more viable business decision for Canon over 8-10 years, if the profit margin is identical for either model?

*Yes, I do know that no such lens exists


----------



## Sabaki (Sep 1, 2015)

Did a quick Google search to see what the biggest selling EF-S lens of all time is but couldn't find an answer. 

I'd guess it's one of either the 18-55 or 55-250 kit lenses but I'm more interested in a number for a lens that is sold separately.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 1, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> Did a quick Google search to see what the biggest selling EF-S lens of all time is but couldn't find an answer.
> 
> I'd guess it's one of either the 18-55 or 55-250 kit lenses but I'm more interested in a number for a lens that is sold separately.


Excluding kit lenses on this count, the best-selling SLR lens ever is Canon EF50mm F1.8II.

From 2016 will be EF50mm F1.8 STM. The large volume of sales explains the ridiculously low price for a high quality lens (in its category).


----------



## RobertP (Sep 1, 2015)

I've sold my 50D and bought a Nikon D610. I could have got a good trade in for a 7D II but I ran out of lenses I wanted to put on it after the 17-55 2.8.

I could have gone for the 100-400 but I objected to paying the Full Frame tax. More importantly, for me, I wanted something wider than 17mm but I wasn't confident that the EF-S lenses could deliver wide open. 

I'd like to see a wide angle with IS, a 35mm f1.4 and an alternative to the 55-250. An EF-S 300mm f4 would be nice.


----------



## The Supplanter (Sep 2, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> I agree that the tele side, there would be little benefit with EF-S lenses, *but in wide angle zoom there is demand not met by high quality lenses for APS-C cameras.* We must remember that many journalists who used 1D cameras in the past, today use 7D Mark II.



Couldn't have said it better myself. Demand is there but companies just aren't recognizing it, and that makes me irritated. Maybe I should just get a full frame and the 16-35 f4 or Tamron 15-30? Just can't pull the trigger on Canon's UWA zooms, Tokina's, Sigma's, Tamron's, or Samyang/Rokinon's 10mm.


----------



## The Supplanter (Sep 2, 2015)

NancyP said:


> The 40mm and 24mm f/2.8 STM are GREAT lenses for the money.



+1
Every time I shoot with the 40, I'm surprised at how nice the photos are.


----------



## Tinky (Sep 2, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > "L" doesn't mean anything tangible. It's marketing.
> ...



Can you help me with what you mean here. I detect layers of irony, in that on the one hand I think you are agreeing with me, and then on the other hand I think you aren't.

I'm not sophisticated enough to understand the duplicity. You see I think of luxury as a generic concept, not as a specific. And when you throw in a car analogy, bam!, you just lose me. Whatever the heck that means. I'd never be caught being facetious about one marketing term by comparison to another.

It's just that cars are for taking journeys, cameras are for taking photos. Why are you taking about cars? Do you get L series cars?

Did you miss my point... i.e. don't get hung up on the marketing. There are some shit L lenses. There are some brilliant non-L lenses. The thread is entitled 'Re: Give EF-s the L treatment?" Agree? Disagree? Well, lets define what the L treatment is first, no?

And there's your cadaver being caught in it's eternal rest in a luxury car, whatever the Fork that has to do with anything.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 2, 2015)

Tinky said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Tinky said:
> ...



Waaaaaay back in the day, L series, as I understand it, meant 'Luxury'. But practically speaking, it just meant you got a lens that was about a stop faster than a non-L lens. That was it, I thought.

Over time, it became a platform for a more premium lens in general. Build quality, IQ, sealing, focus speed, etc. improved, and the marketing guys got clever enough to put a red ring on it, take sexy pictures of it and ask for a lot more money for it.

But the problem is that (as many will point out) a non-L lens from 2-3 years ago can circles around a 20 year old L lens. So I tend to view that red ring as a step in quality _vs. the peers of its era_ and not categorically the best option for that FL.

- A


----------



## The Supplanter (Sep 2, 2015)

Tinky said:


> And there's your cadaver being caught in it's eternal rest in a luxury car, whatever the Fork that has to do with anything.



Ok, now that's funny! ;D


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 2, 2015)

Every once in a while, the topic comes up again. Canon is doing right to manufacture both low cost cameras and lenses as well as expensive ones.

Generally, what you get with a "L" lens is wide apertures and rugged construction. 

A 55-250mm EF-s is a sharp lens, so no apology is needed for its use. A person could buy 10 of them in place of a similar "L" lens, mostly what is lost is durability and wide aperture. There may be a bit more distortion, but its not a big deal. You pay a huge premium for a relatively small improvement in IQ.

A ruggedized wide aperture EF-s telephoto will be the same price and about the same size and weight as a "L" lens, so there is a point where they are not going to sell.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 2, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> A 55-250mm EF-s is a sharp lens, so no apology is needed for its use. A person could buy 10 of them in place of a similar "L" lens, mostly what is lost is durability and wide aperture. There may be a bit more distortion, but its not a big deal. You pay a huge premium for a relatively small improvement in IQ.


The EF-S 55-250mm STM has image quality similar to Canon 70-300L when mounted on an APS-C body.

On the other hand, the humble 18-55mm STM surpasses the image quality of the Canon 17-55mm very expensive (except in 55mm). This is shameful for a lens that costs $ 1000, and does not even have a red ring on it.


----------



## bholliman (Sep 2, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > A 55-250mm EF-s is a sharp lens, so no apology is needed for its use. A person could buy 10 of them in place of a similar "L" lens, mostly what is lost is durability and wide aperture. There may be a bit more distortion, but its not a big deal. You pay a huge premium for a relatively small improvement in IQ.
> ...



The latest EF-S STM lenses are definitely great, and terrific values. I agree the 17-55 IS probably needs a refresh with current optics and coatings. However, the constant f/2.8 aperture is a big selling point over the variable aperture of the kit lens. Maybe not worth 10x the cost, but definitely worth something.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 2, 2015)

Tinky said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Tinky said:
> ...



Sorry to be so unclear. Yes. I am agreeing with you. I just wasn't being very articulate. 

I meant that the only defining factor that Canon uses to call a lens "L" is that "L" stands for luxury – which is nothing more than a marketing term and a vague one at that. As you correctly pointed out, there are no universal standards for "L" lenses. In fact, I would add to your list that "L" also does not mean constant aperture – the 70-300 "L" and the 100-400 "L" for example are both variable aperture zooms and included in the "L" designation.

My car reference is just a bit of reverse snobbery. I find the thought of spending more than what I paid for my first home to buy a car utterly appalling. In fact, I'm more than a bit turned off by anything that is marketed as a 'luxury,' hence I have to overcome my bias against luxury items when I buy an "L" lens. It doesn't stop me (GAS is a much stronger and more dangerous addiction) but I still feel like a little bit of my soul dies when I succumb to the purchase of anything deemed a luxury. That's all. 

As for being literally caught dead in a luxury car, that's better left to Willie the Wimp (obscure Stevie Ray Vaughn musical reference).


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 2, 2015)

EF L did used to have a three part shortlist that meant it 'qualified':-

1/ It fit all EOS cameras.
2/ It contained at least one flourite, or a ground and polished aspherical (as opposed to molded), or UD, or super UD, or other special optical materials.
3/ Meet stringent standards of performance (though as far as I know what that actually means has never been elaborated on).

Now some will say, _'but there was a Powershot with an L lens'_, the Pro1, yes but that wasn't an EF L lens, just like the myriad of FD L lenses weren't EF L lenses. talking of FD lenses, there were two versions of the 50mm f1.2 sold at the same time, one was an L the other not, also the 600mm f4.5 was not an L lens, but all the other white super teles from 300mm to 800mm were.


----------



## wsmith96 (Sep 2, 2015)

Does it really matter if the lens is an EF or EF-S lens, or if it has a red ring on it? After all of the review sites get a hold of a lens, you'll know if you want to check out. 

This thread is all over the board (which makes it fun). Get the lens you want, and go have fun with it. Do we have to have EF-S lenses exactly match up with their FF counterparts? And, why is it a tax to have an EF lens on a crop body? As for quality of lenses, after you pass 24mm I'm not sure it matters any more if it's EF or EF-S. It's more a question of if you need rugged, and are you shooting in sufficient light or not.

Regarding the 17-55, I have one and appear to be lucky as mine is not a dust hog. It's sharp and worthy of a L red ring, but it's not an L and I'm not losing sleep over that. It's been a great lens, but I do understand the desire to get just a hair wider with a 2.8 aperture.


----------



## RGF (Sep 2, 2015)

Ruined said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > How about 1D caliber APS-C body?
> ...



I want the same controls and menu structure, 12 FPS, ... A true 1D style model


----------



## Tinky (Sep 2, 2015)

RGF said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...



But you just don't want to have to pay for it? 

That'll work.


----------



## greger (Sep 2, 2015)

It isn't going to happen! If it did the post would read. Why did Canon make a 70-200 f2.8 EFS lens and charge as much for it as the 70-200 2.8 ll?


----------



## RobertP (Sep 2, 2015)

wsmith96 said:


> And, why is it a tax to have an EF lens on a crop body?


6D vs 7D II
Standard Prime 50mm f1.8 vs 35mm f2 IS - Crop equivalent costs 3 times as much
Fast wide angle prime 35mm f1.4 vs 24mm f1.4 - Crop equivalent weighs more and costs more
Fast wider angle prime 24mm f1.4 vs nothing - Crop not catered for at all.

The 7D II is a premium body but if you want to put a premium lens on it then you have to buy a FF lens. Canon's latest lens have been praised for their IQ right out to the edges. Crop cameras don't use those edges so crop owners buying FF lens are paying for the development and production of features they can't use.

The new 100-400 weighs at 1640g. If it was slimmed down to just cover a crop sensor the weight would be closer to 1000g. Even at 1200g that would be a saving worth making.

At the entry level I'm happy with Canon's EF-S lineup but the premium level is lacking.


----------



## Tinky (Sep 2, 2015)

greger said:


> It isn't going to happen! If it did the post would read. Why did Canon make a 70-200 f2.8 EFS lens and charge as much for it as the 70-200 2.8 ll?



Exactly. And why would anybody buy a lens that you can only use on some EOS bodies when there is and indentical spec lens you can use on all EOS bodies? The 18-55 EF-s isn't really any smaller than a 28-90 consumer zoom, the 55-250 isn't really any smaller than a 70-300 etc...

I think there is more mileage in canon making their own speedbooster... but even then when you add the cost of a 7D2 and speedbooster, why wouldn't folks just buy a 5D3?


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 2, 2015)

Tinky said:


> greger said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't going to happen! If it did the post would read. Why did Canon make a 70-200 f2.8 EFS lens and charge as much for it as the 70-200 2.8 ll?
> ...



I agree with you, it makes sense to make the largest investment of glass work on the most bodies.

But there certainly is a reason why you wouldn't want to do that: *size*. Canon EF-S lenses aren't tiny b/c there was no pressure for them to be tiny in 2003 when EF-S was rolled out. Canon didn't design EF-S lenses with a high priority on keeping them as small as possible, like Fuji and Sony (APS-C) have done. Imagine getting a f/1.4 prime in a small package -- that's impossible for EF-S users unless you go third party.

These two pictures are both APS-C sensored rigs with a 35mm f/1.4, for instance. Here is a 23mm f/1.4 against the EF equivalent. Night and day. These are the most stinging examples to be fair, but you get the idea.

- A


----------



## Tinky (Sep 2, 2015)

Okay, well lets see a 50mm comparison, or an 85 comparison. And lets use an SL1

Your example neglects the fact these rigs are not comparable.. One body produces a 70mm equivalent, the other a 56mm..

The 23f1.4 against the 35mm f1.4 would be a more real world comparison. And lets see it on an SL1.

Oh, and what if you actually want a mirror box?


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 3, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Okay, well lets see a 50mm comparison, or an 85 comparison. And lets use an SL1
> 
> Your example neglects the fact these rigs are not comparable.. One body produces a 70mm equivalent, the other a 56mm..
> 
> ...



Both sets of pictures were APS-C rigs with effectively the same FL at play. No, we should be comparing the _same_ FL/aperture combos and not comparing a 24 against a 35. (You weren't referring to the 1.5 (Fuji) vs 1.6 (Canon) crop multiplier, were you? That's a tiny difference, if so.)

But, if you want to see it on an SL1, it won't make the lenses any smaller, but here you go:
http://camerasize.com/compact/#520.408,448.484,ha,t
http://camerasize.com/compact/#520.422,448.16,ha,t

Your mirror box point is 100% valid -- I'm just saying, _look how small a lens can be when it isn't trying to gather light for an FF sensor_. They can get much, much smaller. Buying an EF lens and slapping it on an APS-C sensor will work fine, but it's unnecessarily oversized.

- A


----------



## Tinky (Sep 3, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> You weren't referring to the 1.5 (Fuji) vs 1.6 (Canon) crop multiplier, were you? That's a tiny difference, if so.



I absolutely was.

Doh!

Apologies. Had my MFT head on.


----------



## midluk (Sep 3, 2015)

When you are comparing "equivalent" lenses for FF and APS-C, make sure you take into account that you not only have to scale the focal length by the crop factor but also the f-stop. For an APS-C sensor a lens has to be one stop (or more exactly 4/3 stops) faster than for a FF sensor to be equivalent. That way you will not only have the same viewing angle, but also have the same absolute aperture diameter, and therefore the same depth of field and the same light per pixel (=>similar noise).
So for really equivalent lenses there is not that much weight and size advantage of EF-S (on APS-C) vs EF (on FF).


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 3, 2015)

midluk said:


> When you are comparing "equivalent" lenses for FF and APS-C, make sure you take into account that you not only have to scale the focal length by the crop factor but also the f-stop. For an APS-C sensor a lens has to be one stop (or more exactly 4/3 stops) faster than for a FF sensor to be equivalent. That way you will not only have the same viewing angle, but also have the same absolute aperture diameter, and therefore the same depth of field and the same light per pixel (=>similar noise).
> So for really equivalent lenses there is not that much weight and size advantage of EF-S (on APS-C) vs EF (on FF).



Yes, yes, of course. I'm just making a point that the upside of being able to slap an EF lens on an APS-C rig is not _all_ good. The lenses are far bigger than an APS-C rig needs them to be. 

I'm just furthering the argument than some purpose-built higher end APS-C lenses could have their advantages. You could have an EF-S f/1.4 lens at a much smaller size than an EF f/1.4 lens, that's all.

- A


----------

