# Why not EF-s "L" lenses?



## dickgrafixstop (Jul 26, 2011)

seeing the build quality of the 7d is up to 5d standards, why no super high quality lenses from 
canon to optimize the aps-c chip. Would love to see a ef-s 35mm f1.4 for example or an ef-s 75/80 f1 or
a ef-s 35-105 zoom.


----------



## Macadameane (Jul 26, 2011)

Someone with a good number of EF-S lenses will have to answer, but from what I understand, there are many high quality EF-S lenses that are optically on par with L lenses.

Otherwise, get L prime lenses and use them on your 7D.


----------



## thejoyofsobe (Jul 26, 2011)

because a red ring and a white square would look weird together.


----------



## dr croubie (Jul 27, 2011)

Macadameane said:


> Someone with a good number of EF-S lenses will have to answer, but from what I understand, there are many high quality EF-S lenses that are optically on par with L lenses.


The efs 15-85 and 17-55 f/2.8 are both very good, a lot of people say the 17-55 is better than the 24-105 f/4L for the same focal length, IS, and effective aperture.
But just being an 'L' doesn't especially mean it's flawlessly perfect, look at the corner softness of the 17-40L, 35/1.4L, 24/1.4L. Look at the field curvature of the 24-70/2.8L. Look at the barrelling of the 28-300L @28mm. Compare the MTF sharpness of the 50/1.4 and 50/1.2L (yes, the f/1.4 has its own problems though).
But then, look at the release dates of some of those lenses. Also, pushing the boundaries of useful lens design leads to compromises, like the ultra-fast apertures, or extreme zoom ranges. They'll get better with new revisions, and it's not like any other company can do any better (and make it affordable).

Some say the 17-55 f/2.8 should have been 'L' designated, for its quality. Maybe, but what's the difference? If it's L, that doesn't mean it will automatically be weather-sealed. And weather-sealing is probably the only L-feature that lens lacks. Adding a red-ring won't mean anything to anything except the price (and maybe the stealability).

Also consider, it came out before the 7D. Before the 7D, nothing APS-C was sealed (to that degree at least). 7D is a sports/wildlife camera, not landscapes. Buying a 7D for sports/wildlife generally entails a weather-sealed telephoto L lens, 70-200 IS, 70-300L, Big White Primes etc. Buying any less is a waste (i found that out with the 70-300nonL).

Sure, you _can_ use the 7D for landscapes, i've taken some good ones with my 15-85. But the 5D2 in the same spot will probably take a sharper shot in most circumstances (and i can't afford a 5D2). But still, the 7D is not a 'dedicated' landscaper, it has its specialties elsewhere...



thejoyofsobe said:


> because a red ring and a white square would look weird together.


Doesn't look so weird with my 70-300L on my 7D.
How about an EFs L with a white ring?



Macadameane said:


> Otherwise, get L prime lenses and use them on your 7D.


Yep, that's surely not a mistake by their marketing department, that's what they want us to do no doubt...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 27, 2011)

Simple logic: L-series lenses are pro lenses. 1-series bodies are pro bodies. A pro lens that does not mount on a pro body is a non-starter. 

Granted, they've made EF-S lenses with L-series optical quality. The could add the sealing to complete the package and give it a new designation (like the green ring for DO lenses). Buy why? Currently there's only one partially-sealed APS-C body, and there are current L lenses as wide as 14mm with sealing, or 8mm if you include the new fisheye. An EF-S lens that's functionally equivalent to an L lens is likely too small a market to be commercially viable. I think EF-S wide primes make sense, but EF-S L series - no.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 27, 2011)

We need some short focal length prime lenses for APS-C body. I do not care whether they are L lenses or not. As it is now, we are forced to use the EF prime lenses. That is a waste of weight, design and size of the lenses. I would like to see the following:
30mm, f1.8 or 1.4. This will make a good and smaller Normal lens.
21mm, f2.8 or f2.0. This will be a 34mm equilvalent lens.
17mm, f2.8 , this will be a 27mm equilvalent lens.
13mm, f 2.8, this will be a 21mm equilvalent lens.
I did not propose any really fast lens in consideration of size, cost and design.
Hope Canon is listening.


----------



## kawasakiguy37 (Jul 27, 2011)

This would be a huge waste of time for canon. Just use a full frame L lens. Its futureproof


----------



## V8Beast (Jul 27, 2011)

How Canon labels and markets a lens is irrelevant. Just get the lens that best suits your needs. Back when I was shooting with a 20D, I thought the 10-22 was pretty darn close optically to my 17-40L on my old 5D. The 10-22 wasn't that far behind the 16-35L, either. Canon makes plenty of EF-S lenses with outstanding optics, so who cares how they're labeled? 

Addressing your comment on the build quality of bodies, while I wasn't impressed with the 7D in terms of image quality during my brief time with it, I'd say the build quality was hands down superior to the 5D.


----------



## afira (Jul 27, 2011)

There is no reason to build EF-S style lenses with "L" standards.

A) Competition versus lenses already in the range
B) Cost, EF-S lenses are typically more cost efficient to purchase for APS-C users
C) No compatibility for FF users that might want the EF-S L Pro range
D) 7D still capable of using FF lenses and benefiting from full range of L series
E) Unique benefits would be limited to sealing, better materials/build and accurate focal range/crop, however, I do not believe any of these provide unique reasons to purchase given reason D
F) APS-C users are typically not "Pro" users (not always, but usually), L series marketed as "Pro"
G) Lens quality and sharpness on EF-S can be on par with L quality (My 10-22mm EF-S is amazing, hands down razor sharp)
H) Weight, most of your L series zooms are very very very heavy, in order to weight it properly on an APS-C you must cut down the build materials, otherwise you have a lens heavy set up which is harder to balance with the lightweight rebels


----------



## bycostello (Jul 27, 2011)

L lenes will fit your crop frame camera so tehy already do... but as it dosn't work vice versa i'd imagine economies of scale don't really warrant their production...


----------



## epsiloneri (Jul 27, 2011)

I agree, it would be nice to have EF-S lenses that better match the 7D in sealing and build quality. What they are called is of no concern to me. In particular on the wide end, there is no sealed lens that takes advantage of the EF-S more compact format. An EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 with the build quality/sealing of the EF 17-40/4.0L would be welcome. Both lenses are currently at about the same price. Higher up on my wish list, however, are fast, wide, and compact EF-S primes.


----------



## ecka (Jul 27, 2011)

There is no need for EF-S L lenses. I think that majority of the crop DSLR users agree that we need more, affordable (reasonably priced) fast EF-S primes from Canon. I don't understand why they (Canon) think that optically inferior EF 28/1.8USM covers that hole in their lens line-up. IMHO they should replace it with something like EF-S 28/1.4USM, because the old one is not good enough on FF to justify it's $500 price, or let Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM dominate.


----------



## moreorless (Aug 2, 2011)

epsiloneri said:


> I agree, it would be nice to have EF-S lenses that better match the 7D in sealing and build quality. What they are called is of no concern to me. In particular on the wide end, there is no sealed lens that takes advantage of the EF-S more compact format. An EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 with the build quality/sealing of the EF 17-40/4.0L would be welcome. Both lenses are currently at about the same price. Higher up on my wish list, however, are fast, wide, and compact EF-S primes.



I'm a bit supprized they didnt include some sealing with the 15-85 as that afterall launched with the 7D.

The 10-22 is getting on in age a bit by modern zoom standards but I don't see Canon updating anytime soon personally, its not been surpassed optically and still looks to be selling very well.

A 30mm 1.8 prime seems like the most realistic EF-S release to me, Sigma have afterall already got something on the market but I think Canon would look to beat them for price rather than quality with something around $200-300.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 2, 2011)

moreorless said:


> A 30mm 1.8 prime seems like the most realistic EF-S release to me, Sigma have afterall already got something on the market but I think Canon would look to beat them for price rather than quality with something around $200-300.



Strike that, reverse it. Canon would almost certainly look to beat them for quality, but even if not, it will almost certainly be priced higher than the Sigma version.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Aug 2, 2011)

A 30mm EF-S prime seems unlikely for a few reasons. First, it's a non-specialized prime - not a target for EF-S (there's the 60mm macro lens, and nothing else outside of zooms). On APS-C it also gives a field of view roughly equivalent to 50mm, which I keep reading has fallen from fashion somewhat...I wouldn't know about that but it has been a while since there's been a 50mm lens released (about 10 and 9 years from the f/1.2 and f/1.8 Mark II releases respectively). Additionally, there is at least one cheap 30/35mm option from Canon with a build quality similar to the 50mm f/1.8 II.

Sigma did release a 30mm f/1.4 for APS-C sensors and Photozone.de doesn't give it high marks due to bad vignetting characteristics and lower sharpness at the edges - not having used it, I still think their analysis is fair so perhaps this is a case of "be careful what you wish for" (there may be a trend of Sigma getting lower marks on that site due to lower resolution at frame edges, though, even when it's not an issue in normal use). I personally wouldn't mind getting a full format 30/35mm lens because there are some good performers in that range.


----------



## AJ (Aug 2, 2011)

Forget about Sigma. Nikkor 35/1.8 DX with AF-S autofocus is the competition that Canon will answer to. The Nikkor is a really nice lens. Hopefully Canon will match it, and hopefully they'll do it sooner rather than later.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Aug 2, 2011)

If Canon deems that a part of the lineup they need to flesh out, that is. Canon already has some pretty serviceable entries in the 35mm range and I think they just could use a TS-E there now (admittedly they chose more wisely to go with wider options and these lenses are expensive enough that people don't just buy focal other TS-E focal lengths unless they have a specific use for them).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 3, 2011)

A TS-E lens in between the existing 24mm and 45mm versions? Extremely unlikely. The only thing more unlikely is a TS-E-S lens of any focal length. Quite likely are L versions of the 45mm and 90mm TS-E lenses. 

The existing 35mm f/2 is very old and not a big seller, and as a non-L EF prime, it won't receive an update. The 35mm f/1.4L is a out of the consumer range (and also a likely update candidate). Nikon's DX 35mm f1.8 is pretty popular. Add that up, and I think that *IF* Canon produces a second EF-S prime, 30mm or 35mm f/1.8 (maybe f/1.4, probably not to keep the cost down and differentiate from the L) is the most likely candidate.


----------



## dr croubie (Aug 3, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Add that up, and I think that *IF* Canon produces a second EF-S prime, 30mm or 35mm f/1.8 (maybe f/1.4, probably not to keep the cost down and differentiate from the L) is the most likely candidate.



second that. Alternatively they could upgrade the EF 35 f/1.4L to EF 35 f/1.2L (or 1.3?) then introduce an EF-S 35 f/1.4 (or 1.6?)

But then again, there's nothing wrong with doubling up on L/nonL numbers, like the 100/2.8 macro vs the 100/2.8L macro, both have their own markets, features, uses, and price-points.
I don't think that an EF-S 35/1.4 wouldn't cut out too much market from the EF 35/1.4L (especially as the EF-S would probably be lower IQ, but cheaper, smaller, lighter), but canon marketers probably disagree there...


----------



## moreorless (Aug 4, 2011)

AJ said:


> Forget about Sigma. Nikkor 35/1.8 DX with AF-S autofocus is the competition that Canon will answer to. The Nikkor is a really nice lens. Hopefully Canon will match it, and hopefully they'll do it sooner rather than later.



Yeah thats the kind of 30-35mm EF-S lens I see Canon being most likely to come out with. The fact is that most of the market for primes on crops is as a specalist lens for users who mainly depend on zooms and that makes a lower price point much more attractive.


----------



## EYEONE (Aug 4, 2011)

dickgrafixstop said:


> Would love to see a ef-s a 35-105 zoom.



Why?? ???


----------



## Cropper (Aug 5, 2011)

I do think it would be a great idea for Canon to release a "Premium" line of EF-S lenses. 
A blue ring would look nice ;D

They could have three zooms (wide angle, general purpose and telephoto) and maybe three fast primes (f1.4) with focal leghts more adapted for the 1.6 crop factor.

They could price them somewhere along the 600-1000 price range.

I have a feeling that there is definitly a market for it. But is it big enough to generate good profit margins, considering the investment needed and allocation of resourses ? That I doubt. 

Good idea, IÂ´m all for it, but sadly it will probably never happen


----------



## dstppy (Aug 5, 2011)

Cropper said:


> I do think it would be a great idea for Canon to release a "Premium" line of EF-S lenses.
> A blue ring would look nice ;D
> 
> They could have three zooms (wide angle, general purpose and telephoto) and maybe three fast primes (f1.4) with focal leghts more adapted for the 1.6 crop factor.
> ...



Honestly, if they just slapped a red ring on the EF-S 15-85mm people might actually stop bellyaching about the price. Build quality and image sharpness on that and the 60mm macro are quite nice.


----------



## Rocky (Aug 5, 2011)

Cropper said:


> I do think it would be a great idea for Canon to release a "Premium" line of EF-S lenses.
> A blue ring would look nice ;D
> 
> They could have three zooms (wide angle, general purpose and telephoto) and maybe three fast primes (f1.4) with focal leghts more adapted for the 1.6 crop factor.


Canon already has 17-50mm and 10-20mm. both are 'premium priced" EF-S. As for telephoto, It is really a waste of resouce to do EF-S. There are hardly any size (weight ) and cost saving. We may just use EF lens instead.
However. I am all for standard and wideangle EF-S lense. These are where the better performance and smaller size will come in. I would like to see a 30mm f1.8, 17mm f2.8 to start with. I did not ask for fast lens due to smaller size and better performance can be obtained with a "not that fast lens".


----------



## moreorless (Aug 5, 2011)

Its probabley a fools dream but the EF-S prime I'd most like to see it an affordable wideangle TSE lens, something like 15mm. Obviously it would never be cheap but it does seem to me that Canon could potentially save alot on the production cost since the large amounts of glass probabley make up alot of what they charge for the FF ones.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Aug 6, 2011)

moreorless said:


> The fact is that most of the market for primes on crops is as a specalist lens for users who mainly depend on zooms and that makes a lower price point much more attractive.


To EF-S / APS-C users, not to Canon necessarily. The upside is a 30-35mm lens shouldn't be too hard to manufacture, so they wouldn't have to dump tons of resources into it. I'm sure they would rather sell 17-55mm f/2.8 lenses but that's not fooling anybody; a fast prime is still important. But, as I hinted before, they already have a few primes in this range - the "old" f/2 is still on sale and is around $370; the f/1.4 is about $1500, and you won't likely cut that price too much with a reduced image circle lens. Considering the decent range of affordable full-frame lenses (with reduced vignetting on APS-C) and the niche status of faster lenses, there doesn't seem to be a good argument for Canon to make the lens you're asking for.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 6, 2011)

dstppy said:


> Honestly, if they just slapped a red ring on the EF-S 15-85mm people might actually stop bellyaching about the price. Build quality and image sharpness on that and the 60mm macro are quite nice.



The EF-S 15-85mm (like the EF-S 17-55mm and EF-S 10-22mm) delivers optical quality on par with many L lenses (when the latter are used on APS-C). But, build quality of those EF-S lenses, while 'quite nice,' is definitely not L quality. 

To confess, I made similar comments about the excellent build quality of the 17-55mm after dropping a grand on it. But since then, I've bought several L lenses and the difference is evident. Comparing to the similarly-sized 24-105mm f/4L, the zoom and focus mechanisms on the L lens are much smoother and better damped, leading to a more solid overall feel. The 17-55mm feels a bit 'hollow' by comparison, especially the clunk as you hit the ends of the zoom range. So, nice, but not L. 



Edwin Herdman said:


> But, as I hinted before, they already have a few primes in this range - the "old" f/2 is still on sale and is around $370; the f/1.4 is about $1500, and you won't likely cut that price too much with a reduced image circle lens. Considering the decent range of affordable full-frame lenses (with reduced vignetting on APS-C) and the niche status of faster lenses, there doesn't seem to be a good argument for Canon to make the lens you're asking for.



Nikon has an 'old' 35mm f/2 and a pro-quality 35mm f/1.4 in FX format, which are very close in price to their Canon EF counterparts. What do you suppose was Nikon's rationale for the 35mm f/1.8 DX lens? It's worth noting that on Amazon's list of bestselling lenses, the Nikon 35/1.8 DX is ranked #5 and is Nikon's second-best selling lens.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Aug 7, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nikon has an 'old' 35mm f/2 and a pro-quality 35mm f/1.4 in FX format, which are very close in price to their Canon EF counterparts. What do you suppose was Nikon's rationale for the 35mm f/1.8 DX lens? It's worth noting that on Amazon's list of bestselling lenses, the Nikon 35/1.8 DX is ranked #5 and is Nikon's second-best selling lens.


I see - about $165 difference. Once again I'm totally wrong! I'm sure some of the savings are from the obviously reduced build quality (no distance scale window, notably smaller max magnification due to focusing a few inches farther than the f/2, but still the same weight) but (as I had hoped) Photozone's MTF charts (the APS-C 16mp D7000 results) show the DX format f/1.8 lens identical in corner sharpness but pulling far ahead beyond that. Outstanding! As for the f/2, from what I've been able to gather it was introduced around 2001, so not a particularly old lens - but perhaps not a modern classic either.

Since APS-C DSLRs are currently the mainstay in the market it does make sense to have a better, cheaper alternative to a full-frame lens whose image circle goes mainly unused (especially when it doesn't even give much better vignetting results than the lens, not to mention the apparently markedly worse resolution figures).

However, back to Canon lenses for a moment: The EF 35mm f/2 is $330, which seems a slight savings over the Nikkor lens ($360), so there is still an argument to be made that in terms of sheer price there could be an EF-S version made for substantial savings all around. The other side of the argument isn't as convincing - while the DX Nikkor 35 seems overall a much better lens (for its format) than the f/2 full format version, Canon's f/2 does not (again relying on Photozone's data) exhibit the marked resolution drop off beyond the centers. Still, I'll agree that cost is the primary consideration for many on the APS-C system. I wouldn't expect a EF-S version to get worse, but unlike the Nikkor side, I also don't expect it to get that much markedly better, either.


----------



## Rocky (Aug 8, 2011)

Edwin Herdman said:


> I wouldn't expect a EF-S version to get worse, but unlike the Nikkor side, I also don't expect it to get that much markedly better, either.


If it is done right, the 35mm EF-S can outperform a 35mm EF easily. The 35mm EF is a wide angle lens (to cover the FF sensor). While 35mm EF-S (with equilvalent focal length of 56mm) is slightly longer than a "normal lens". Anybody with knowledge in lenses knows that it is harder to design a good wide angle lens than a good normal lens for SLR or DSLR due to the flange focal distance (42 to 47 mm depends on the camera, for Canon is 44mm). If fact most the SLR had 55mm as "normal les until the mid 60's for the same reason. They just cannot make a good 50mm lens. Also 35mm EF-S just need to cover less than half of area of FF. If they cannot make the35mm EF-S better than the 35mm EF, something is really wrong.
That is the reason we are asking for some short EF-S prime lens. may be a 30mm f1.8 and a 17mm f 2.8 prime in EF-S mount.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 8, 2011)

Rocky said:


> If it is done right, the 35mm EF-S can outperform a 35mm EF easily. The 35mm EF is a wide angle lens (to cover the FF sensor). While 35mm EF-S (with equilvalent focal length of 56mm) is slightly longer than a "normal lens". Anybody with knowledge in lenses knows that it is harder to design a good wide angle lens than a good normal lens for SLR or DSLR due to the flange focal distance (42 to 47 mm depends on the camera, for Canon is 44mm).



It would certainly be possible for an EF-S 35mm lens to outperform an EF 35mm lens, but that would not be because designing a 35mm lens to cover an APS-C image circle is equivalent to designing a 56mm lens for FF. Focal length is the distance from the rear nodal point to the image plane, regardless of the sensor size. So, a 35mm lens for APS-C still must be designed with a 35mm focal length. The mirror on an APS-C camera is only ~9mm shorter (vertical dimension) than that on a FF camera, so an EF-S 35mm lens can would still require the retrofocus design you need for wide angle lens.

The real benefit to the EF-S format is that the image circle is smaller, which means the elements of the lens can be smaller in diameter. In the case of the inexpensive kit lenses, that usually just means less glass can be used, so the lens can be made more cheaply. But, it also means the for the same cost and lower total weight, they can include more elements in the lens design, or better-made elements (e.g. molded glass instead of a resin replica for aspherical elements), or both, and that increases the ability of the lens to correct for aberrations - i.e. better IQ.


----------



## Rocky (Aug 8, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> It would certainly be possible for an EF-S 35mm lens to outperform an EF 35mm lens, but that would not be because designing a 35mm lens to cover an APS-C image circle is equivalent to designing a 56mm lens for FF. Focal length is the distance from the rear nodal point to the image plane, regardless of the sensor size. So, a 35mm lens for APS-C still must be designed with a 35mm focal length. The mirror on an APS-C camera is only ~9mm shorter (vertical dimension) than that on a FF camera, so an EF-S 35mm lens can would still require the retrofocus design you need for wide angle lens.
> 
> The real benefit to the EF-S format is that the image circle is smaller, which means the elements of the lens can be smaller in diameter. In the case of the inexpensive kit lenses, that usually just means less glass can be used, so the lens can be made more cheaply. But, it also means the for the same cost and lower total weight, they can include more elements in the lens design, or better-made elements (e.g. molded glass instead of a resin replica for aspherical elements), or both, and that increases the ability of the lens to correct for aberrations - i.e. better IQ.


You are right. the reduction of 9mm between the back element of the EF-S lens and less than half of the covered area will definitely give the 35mm EF-S an edge to giveuis a better lens. It still needs retrofocus design as you mentioned. But the design should be a lot esier. Therefore the EF-S 35mm can be made better than a 35mm EF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 8, 2011)

Rocky said:


> Therefore the EF-S 35mm can be made better than a 35mm EF.



_Can_ be. But _will_ it be? Canon may very likely sacrifice IQ to keep cost low (Nikon's 35mm f/1.8 DX is $200). The current 35mm f/2 on APS-C is optically better than the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens, and actually delivers IQ similar to the excellent 85mm f/1.8. How much optical improvement do you expect from there? 

The main complaints about the 35mm f/2 are that the build quality is poor, no USM, etc., and if they release an EF-S version of the lens, I doubt the build quality will be all that much better (assuming their target market is similar to Nikon's for that lens, they'll price it accordingly, and it will end up with build quality closer to the 18-55mm kit lens than to the 60mm macro).


----------



## Rocky (Aug 8, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > Therefore the EF-S 35mm can be made better than a 35mm EF.
> ...


You are right again. 
May be Canon marketing have an idea that people like to think " Mine is bigger than yours". So APS-C user are forced EF prime lenses. For the deep pockets they go for BIG prime L lenses. For none deep pocket, they use non-L prime lenses.
Unfortunately, I am from a slightly old school . I like it small and good. That is why I am longing for good EF-S prime. As for the pricing, If the 7D user will spend $1600 on the body only, I am sure that they would not mind to pay for a EF-S good prime (optically and true USM) with the price close to the L lenses with smaller size and weight.
I know, I am the minority.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 8, 2011)

Rocky said:


> That is why I am longing for good EF-S prime. As for the pricing, If the 7D user will spend $1600 on the body only, I am sure that they would not mind to pay for a EF-S good prime (optically and true USM) with the price close to the L lenses with smaller size and weight.
> I know, I am the minority.



Unfortunately, you are. As a group, 7D users are in the minority - in the APS-C segment, Canon sells a lot more Rebel/xxxD cameras than xxD or 7D, or even the latter two combined. Canon's best selling lens is the EF 50mm f/1.8 II, which is similar in design to the 35mm f/2 (although even lower in build), and it's no coincidence that the nifty-fifty is also their cheapest lens outside of a kit purchase. My guess is that Canon's marketing department will try to capitalize on that, and an EF-S 35mm f/1.8 in the sub-$200 range would garner more profits from that segment.

You have a 7D...for better or worse (and it's definitely worse from the standpoint of a prosumer's wallet!), Canon wants you to buy the EF 35mm f/1.4L. Then they want you to buy a 5DII to use the full image circle of that fancy L lens. _Then_ they want you to buy the 50mm f/1.2L so you can get the same framing you liked with the 35L on APS-C. Etc. :


----------



## Freshprince08 (Aug 8, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > That is why I am longing for good EF-S prime. As for the pricing, If the 7D user will spend $1600 on the body only, I am sure that they would not mind to pay for a EF-S good prime (optically and true USM) with the price close to the L lenses with smaller size and weight.
> ...



+1 on this.... I'm making this exact journey - my 35mm f1.4L is arriving this week. Goddamn those cunning Canon strategists....


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Aug 8, 2011)

What is most immediately evident (even in the store) when you compare EF and EF-S is not that designation, or a reduced image circle, but all the small psychological boosts of the newer lens over the older. Again for the Nikkor 35mm lenses, over the f/2 version the newer DX version boasts stuff you might notice in a shop: Slightly wider aperture, newer (and better) focusing system, price. There are a handful of losses compared to the f/2 but most only become apparent on testing (DPR found a high degree of vignetting on the DX which makes perfect sense when you try to widen the aperture whilst keeping the front element about the same size).


----------



## WarStreet (Aug 8, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> You have a 7D...for better or worse (and it's definitely worse from the standpoint of a prosumer's wallet!), Canon wants you to buy the EF 35mm f/1.4L. Then they want you to buy a 5DII to use the full image circle of that fancy L lens. _Then_ they want you to buy the 50mm f/1.2L so you can get the same framing you liked with the 35L on APS-C. Etc. :



Funny. One of the reasons for me to go FF, is to use the full image circle, then I will need to get a standard zoom, and also a 135 to get the same framing of the 85. Seems Canon will achieve their aim !


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 9, 2011)

Freshprince08 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > You have a 7D...for better or worse (and it's definitely worse from the standpoint of a prosumer's wallet!), Canon wants you to buy the EF 35mm f/1.4L. Then they want you to buy a 5DII to use the full image circle of that fancy L lens. _Then_ they want you to buy the 50mm f/1.2L so you can get the same framing you liked with the 35L on APS-C. Etc. :
> ...



LOL. Been there, done that. 7D + 85mm f/1.8. Wanted more OOF blur, so got the 85mm f/1.2L II. Got 5DII. Then got 135mm f/2L. 

That first lens with a red ring is called a 'gateway lens' for a reason.....


----------

