# Would Canon make a tele/super tele ef-s lens?



## jimmy156 (Nov 17, 2011)

Just a thought that occured to me last night...

With canon's new L lens' and super tele's all seeming to be in the stratospheric price range, and no replacements for the "consumer" L tele's iminent (apart from the 100-400 rumored recently, but with a price increase to $2800 to go with it!) What do you lot reckon the chances of Canon making longer, maybe prime, EF-s lenses are?

TBH i expect the chances are quite low, but it makes sense (as a consumer).

As an APS-c user (50d) and wildlife 'tog, and never likely to go beyond the 7d or its replacement in terms of camera bodies something like a 400 f/5.6 or 500 f/5.6, with an ef's mount would be very interesting. The inherent advantages of not making it compatible with FF would make it smaller and lighter then a FF equivilent lens. With optics similar in quality to those in the higher end USM lens' (17-55 etc) and a USM motor, plus IS it would make a very attractive (to me) package.

Maybe 400 or 500 would be too long realisticaly, but i could perphaps see them making a 300mm ef-s, if it was f/4 it would be intresting, but if it was f/5.6 and tack sharp it could be priced very reasonably.

Thoughts anyone?


----------



## MintMark (Nov 17, 2011)

I think that if you can get what you want with an EF lens then an APS-C user benefits from only using the centre of the lens. The edges and corners of the frame will be sharper than with a full frame sensor.

For 300mm you can try the 200 f/2.8 with a 1.4x converter. That gives you 280 f/4.0 with good quality.
I think if they made a 300 f/4.0 EF-S lens then either the corners would suffer, or the lens would be just as large (and expensive) as the EF equivalent.

Just my thoughts,

Mark


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 17, 2011)

jimmy156 said:


> With canon's new L lens' and super tele's all seeming to be in the stratospheric price range, and no replacements for the "consumer" L tele's iminent (apart from the 100-400 rumored recently, but with a price increase to $2800 to go with it!) What do you lot reckon the chances of Canon making longer, maybe prime, EF-s lenses are?
> 
> TBH i expect the chances are quite low, but it makes sense (as a consumer).
> 
> ...



Won't happen. _You_ might think it makes sense, but the reality is that there's no benefit for either Canon or the consumer. The real benefit to a short back focus / small image circle lens is with wide angles, and to a lesser extend, normal lenses. Take the 300mm f/4 lens you mention. Regardless of sensor, a 300mm f/4 lens needs an iris diaphragm that's 75mm wide. That makes it's image circle more than large enough to cover a FF sensor, let alone an APS-C sensor. So, making an EF-S 300/4 would not mean less glass was needed, so there's no cost savings.

One argument would be that a 188mm EF-S lens would give you the same framing on APS-C as a 300mm lens on FF. The extension of that argument is why P&S cameras have such small lenses, e.g. the SX40 HS which has a FF equivalent zoom range of 24-840mm, but needs a 4.3-150mm lens to get there because the sensor is small. But, that 188mm f/4 lens would need a 47mm iris diaphragm, which could still project an image circle large enough to cover a FF sensor, so again, no cost savings. That's why the EF-S 55-250 is practical - from 154mm on, it's f/5.6 so the image circle is _not_ big enough to cover FF, meaning smaller lens elements and thus lower cost.

Bottom line, for a telephoto lens, especially a telephoto prime, there's no advantage to the EF-S format, so don't expect to see one.


----------



## jimmy156 (Nov 17, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Won't happen. _You_ might think it makes sense, but the reality is that there's no benefit for either Canon or the consumer. The real benefit to a short back focus / small image circle lens is with wide angles, and to a lesser extend, normal lenses. Take the 300mm f/4 lens you mention. *Regardless of sensor, a 300mm f/4 lens needs an iris diaphragm that's 75mm wide. That makes it's image circle more than large enough to cover a FF sensor, let alone an APS-C sensor. So, making an EF-S 300/4 would not mean less glass was needed, so there's no cost savings.*



I didnt realise this. As this is the case then, as you say, i would expcet zero chance of seeing such a lens. Ah well it was only a though


----------



## TexPhoto (Nov 17, 2011)

I also think the answer is no, but I think the answer is in the Canon's approach. That is that Joe six pack consumer wants to buy a zoom, and canon fills that need quite well. Canon also has Sigma and Tamron to contend with in the consumer arena.

Also, super teles while awesome are made for a very small market. To make one for crop cameras only would be an even smaller market.

And last, I think the pro-sumer who will spend $$ on a lens, may be shooting 1.6 crop today, but has his/her eye on FF in the next camera or 2, so EF-S lens purchases, especially high $ ones are not likly.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 17, 2011)

The major difference in such a lens would be to substitute cheap plastic for metal in the construction. The money is in the glass, and it would be the same unless they were to downgrade it to have a lot more distortion, CA, ect. Saving $500 by using cheaper construction for a $7500 lens is really not all that compelling.

There are low cost long telephoto lenses that use inferior optics and get horrible images, only a few buy them, and then realize that you get what you pay for.

In a long telephoto lens, a mirror lens is probably the best buy of the low cost lenses. Bokah is strange, but if you can work around that, the lack of aperture control, and autofocus, you will have your low cost super telephoto.

Here is a image from a 600mm Sigma mirror lens that I took a few years back. The image is reasonably sharp, certainly not great, and the highlights in the background are distracting. Its a low cost lens, in the $150 range.


----------



## lol (Nov 17, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> But, that 188mm f/4 lens would need a 47mm iris diaphragm, which could still project an image circle large enough to cover a FF sensor, so again, no cost savings. That's why the EF-S 55-250 is practical - from 154mm on, it's f/5.6 so the image circle is _not_ big enough to cover FF, meaning smaller lens elements and thus lower cost.


Is there some guideline on estimating the image circle coverage a lens is capable of supporting?

I was wondering if some day Canon might replace the 55-250 with an EF-S 55-300 like Nikon already do. But I wouldn't expect anything longer in EF-S.


----------



## heavybarrel (Nov 17, 2011)

I think the EF-S telephotos are already being made... by Sigma.
They have an 800mm for $5k less than the Canon version and while the IQ is definitely worse, the gap would be significantly smaller in a crop sensor. Only problem is, it's even heavier (by a half pound), so you don't get the weight savings but you do save $5000. 

There's a $2800 savings between the Canon and Sigma 300s.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 17, 2011)

lol said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > But, that 188mm f/4 lens would need a 47mm iris diaphragm, which could still project an image circle large enough to cover a FF sensor, so again, no cost savings. That's why the EF-S 55-250 is practical - from 154mm on, it's f/5.6 so the image circle is _not_ big enough to cover FF, meaning smaller lens elements and thus lower cost.
> ...



A FF image circle is 43.2mm in diameter. For current telephoto lens designs, the iris diaphragm is usually the limiting factor. For normal and wide angle lenses, other factors dominate - obviously, a 14mm f/2.8 lens has an iris diaphragm much smaller than a FF sensor, yet has a large enough image circle. It all has to do with the lens design - check out the lens genealogy article reposted here on CR.

So, to estimate the 'break point' for element size reduction in a telephoto lens design with EF-S lenses, multiply 43.2 by the aperture, e.g. ~120mm f/2.8, 173mm f/4, or 242mm f/5.6. Anything lower than those focal lengths, an EF-S lens would represent a savings - obviously, it would have to be substantially lower to make a difference on cost (which is why the EF-S 55-250mm starts being f/5.6 at 154mm). So, would there be much interest in an EF-S 150mm f/5.6 lens, or an EF-S 135 f/4? Not likely.


----------



## lol (Nov 17, 2011)

I still don't follow... when you say "iris diaphragm" is that's what we'd also call the aperture itself? The aperture as in "aperture blades". I just can't see that directly relating to image circle, because if that did then stopping down would be a very different experience. The way you're using it sounds like the entrance pupil, which as far as I know isn't related to the image circle.


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 20, 2011)

EF-s prime only doesn't make too much sense unless it's the widest of angles, but really if that's the need just get a FF setup. A super-tele compact walk-around or telephoto dedicated super-zoom with L quality build and optics I've thought of before, in a package much smaller and lighter than anything currently in the EF-L series line-up (except for the 70-300 DO which I really have my eye on atm), would be desirable for me.

The way I shoot, if I'm going to want something like a 70-200 IS, I'm probably going to want either or both, more than 200 (aka 300-400) range and or a second body with wide angle/standard angle attached which starts to bring the requirements for smaller weight and size into serious consideration. So either a one lens does it all but smaller and lighter and designed for EF-S L quality version of the 28-300, or just equal quality but speed of 70-200 IS, both of which I guess they sort of have already, but not quite. They are definitely more consumer built than I would like.

It's a hard range to pick out and not a focal range I'm concerned with shooting most of the time, not buying one until I am spot on positive in what I need, or perhaps just get something used/cheap enough to own, and then rent specifically what's best when important events require it. Again I want the 70-200 IS II speed and IQ but I also want ability to get to 300mm and greater (so tele-extender..) but then I don't want the enormous bulk and weight it comes with. I also don't love the idea of running around with 2 cameras or switching lenses, so a walk-around super zoom becomes sensible for days when shooting at any focal length is a possibility, and still again, to do that currently in the highest IQ, requires that enormous 28-300, expensive push-pull back breaking monstrosity.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 20, 2011)

The 70-300L is a super compact tele and beats the 70-300DO in everthing except size - and there isn't much in that eiither


----------



## lol (Nov 20, 2011)

To me there's a significant difference in size between the 70-300 DO and L. I have owned both although not at the same time so can't do a side by side comparison, but I can store the DO on body in camera bag, whereas the L needs to be unmounted to fit. Unfortunately the image quality wasn't quite there on the DO, but if they were to do a II at the same size but better image quality, I'd certainly look at it again.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 20, 2011)

I guess you need to think about a 4/3 if that size difference is a dealbreaker. Or a slightly larger bag?

Incomparison to the EF-S 18-200 the 70-300L is comparible in length, in comparison to any 70-200 it is tiny. 

I hump around my 1D4 with the 400 f/2.8 attached without problems - the 7D with the 70-300L is my walkabout and it feels like a toy.


----------



## lol (Nov 20, 2011)

If I need to, I will "go large". Not a deal breaker, but certainly in the "nice to have" category. After all, I have the 100-400L and previously a 300/2.8 also. But sometimes smaller is better. The handling and tracking AF of the mirrorless systems so far haven't impressed although I am keeping an eye out on how the Nikon 1 does there.

I got the DO to replace the Tamron 18-270 (previously also had 28-300), which again were lacking on the long end. But that lens was similar in size to the DO. I know at the end of the day, a compact high quality 300mm zoom is probably too niche, but I can keep dreaming.

Swinging the thread back on topic, if making it an EF-S zoom could help in size, then I wouldn't object to that. As a further note, I have no objection to extending zoom lenses. I don't care how big it gets in use, as long as the minimum size is small for storage. The 70-200 class lenses do very badly on this measure.


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 20, 2011)

70-300 DO is 720g @ aprox 100mm long
70-300 L is 1050g @ 143mm long

That's a significant difference at least for my purposes. I'm actually looking at off brand super zooms and EF-s lenses super zooms as well, those are even smaller and lighter. It's a really hard thing to pick out though, and if done with a lot of thought is a highly personal decision to make. For some people the difference between the new 70-300L and the DO is insignificant, for my purposes (mobility and ability to carry extra equipment while still being fast and spry, every little bit counts).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2011)

I had the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS lens for a while, before the 70-300 L came out. I got it specifically for the reason stated above - compact size for easy carrying in a gear bag. I found that DO images could be coaxed into decent IQ with some TLC in post. I didn't care for the 'dreamy glow' in the OOF highlights, nor for the really bad zoom creep. If I decide I want a travel telezoom again (one would have been handy earlier today, in fact), I'll definitely get the L version. One other thing about the DO - only buy one new if you're darn sure you'll keep it - despite the new price of the lens, used copies go for $750-800 (which is what I both bought and sold mine for).


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 20, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> 70-300 DO is 720g @ aprox 100mm long
> 70-300 L is 1050g @ 143mm long
> 
> That's a significant difference at least for my purposes. I'm actually looking at off brand super zooms and EF-s lenses super zooms as well, those are even smaller and lighter. It's a really hard thing to pick out though, and if done with a lot of thought is a highly personal decision to make. For some people the difference between the new 70-300L and the DO is insignificant, for my purposes (mobility and ability to carry extra equipment while still being fast and spry, every little bit counts).



I suggest you buy a micro 4/3 if it is that important. Clearly IQ is not high on your list 

The only important dimension is the weight - 300g is hardly a back breaker or even enough to slow you down.


----------



## lol (Nov 20, 2011)

Clearly different people have different needs, so don't under-estimate them. Show me the m4/3 body with 7D level AF before it is an option. I can fit the 7D, 15-85 and 70-300DO into my smallest camera bag, an ability I have lost now I've got the 70-300L in its place. And while the DO isn't brilliant wide open, it is the match of most lenses at f/8. Before you ask, yes, I do have bigger bags, but it isn't the same...


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 20, 2011)

lol said:


> Clearly different people have different needs, so don't under-estimate them. Show me the m4/3 body with 7D level AF before it is an option. I can fit the 7D, 15-85 and 70-300DO into my smallest camera bag, an ability I have lost now I've got the 70-300L in its place. And while the DO isn't brilliant wide open, it is the match of most lenses at f/8. Before you ask, yes, I do have bigger bags, but it isn't the same...



So we are agreed it is the bag which is stopping you upgrading to the 70-300L then? Perhaps you need just an 55-250 and then you could have an even smaller bag?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> The only important dimension is the weight - 300g is hardly a back breaker or even enough to slow you down.



For me, as for lol, the ~1.75" difference in length is quite significant. From a convenience standpoint, when I had the DO lens, a great walkaround 2-lens kit was the 24-104mm and 70-300mm DO, carried in a Lowepro Toploader Pro 65 AW with a Lens Case 1W attached to the size. Either lens worked in both cases, perfect fits. The extra length of the L lens means if I get that, I'd need a Toploader Pro 70 AW for it, and a bigger lens case, and both would be oversized for the 24-105mm. I don't care about the weight difference, but the larger retracted size is a negative. 

Still, IQ trumps that, and if I get the 70-300 L at some point, I'll get the 70 AW. It's bigger than the 65 AW, but smaller than the 75 AW I'm using for my one of my current walkaround kits - gripped 5DII, 24-105mm, and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 20, 2011)

According to LOL's sig - he already ready has the 70-300L. Personally I have a stack of bags that cope with every need - I make sure I have an appropriate bag when I buy the lens. When you are talking of a $1500 lens then a cheap bag shouldn't be a big deal

I really dont see how, if you have the right sized bag, that 1-3/4 inches makes a significant difference in the normal run of affairs. If it does then we are talking of exceptional circumstances.


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 20, 2011)

i hardly ever sold a 70-300 DO and the appearance of the 70-300 L IS killed the DO lens completely.


----------



## lol (Nov 21, 2011)

Yes, I have the 70-300L, as well as the 100-400L too. I'm not afraid of a bigger size when the need is there. What I was saying, is there are times where I value the smaller size. The DO is that much smaller, and if they were ever to make a hypothetical EF-S ??-300mm lens with a small minimum size, I'd be all over that in addition to the 70-300L. A bigger bag isn't the optimal answer. Yes, I now use a bigger bag to accommodate the 70-300L, but it isn't "just right" like it was with the DO.

On the DO, I'm amazed they sold new at all, but obviously they must have otherwise there wouldn't be used stock around now. The current used prices I think are about the right ball park value for the lens overall. My other minor gripe with the DO is the small zoom ring which is close to the body making it a little fiddly to use at times. A physical refresh with a fatter ring like the 15-85 would be nice.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 21, 2011)

lol said:


> Yes, I have the 70-300L, as well as the 100-400L too. I'm not afraid of a bigger size when the need is there. What I was saying, is there are times where I value the smaller size. The DO is that much smaller, and if they were ever to make a hypothetical EF-S ??-300mm lens with a small minimum size, I'd be all over that in addition to the 70-300L. A bigger bag isn't the optimal answer. Yes, I now use a bigger bag to accommodate the 70-300L, but it isn't "just right" like it was with the DO.
> 
> On the DO, I'm amazed they sold new at all, but obviously they must have otherwise there wouldn't be used stock around now. The current used prices I think are about the right ball park value for the lens overall. My other minor gripe with the DO is the small zoom ring which is close to the body making it a little fiddly to use at times. A physical refresh with a fatter ring like the 15-85 would be nice.



I am all sure that we want is a 30-300, f/4 that weighs 300g and is 75mm long and fits a ff as well and up to L standard. I am sure that if that was possible Canon would have developed it by now. I think the closest you are going to get to the magic 100mm length is the 55-250 - I use this on my 7D when doing street photos as it is totally innocuous


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 21, 2011)

70-300 DO in the right hands is a good, usable lens, here's proof http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=420534 I don't see great artwork in the above thread, but I see technically use-able shots in about 1/2 of the small handful of pictures posted.

On top of other considerations people have already mentioned you also get a 70-300 range to take in situations where a Canon sized DSLR would not be alarming but carrying around a big white L tele-zoom would stick out. The EF-S and off-brand options might very well be even better, I'm considering them all. But I've decided if I'm going for the size of the 70-300L, that I might as well start considering going even a little bigger and just getting a 70-200 f/2.8 IS LII with extender(s). It's another length and size different (before the extender) that's similar between the jump from the DO to the 70-300L. I want a really un-assuming, light-weight tele-photo or all in one walk-around zoom with usable quality that doesn't stick out like a sore thumb in certain situations and doesn't look like I'm trying too hard when I don't want any unnecessary attention.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 21, 2011)

The 70-200 f/2.8 is significantly heavier and longer than the 70-300L. Especially when you add the extender.


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 21, 2011)

Yes, precisely, and before adding extender, near the same amount longer and heavier as the DO is to the 70-300L. So if I don't care about extra size and weight, as is being annoyed so clearly here, then why not make another equivalent jump to the 70-200 IS II or throw in an extender as well.

70-300 DO = 720g @ 99.9 mm
70-300 L = 1050g @ 143 mm
70-200 2.8 IS II = 1490g @ 199mm

1.4x Extender = 225g @ 27.2mm
2.0x Extender = 325g @ 52.7mm


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 21, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> Yes, precisely, and before adding extender, near the same amount longer and heavier as the DO is to the 70-300L. So if I don't care about extra size and weight, as is being annoyed so clearly here, then why not make another equivalent jump to the 70-200 IS II or throw in an extender as well.
> 
> 70-300 DO = 720g @ 99.9 mm
> 70-300 L = 1050g @ 143 mm
> ...



You chose to ignore my comment about the 55-250 which is about as inoccuous as you get, then suggest the 70-200 + extender. Your original requirement was just the length now you add the bit about not standing out in the crowd. Perhaps you are just jerking my chain :-[


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 21, 2011)

I did not. Re-read. Anyways, all done here, gl.

"The EF-S and off-brand options might very well be even better, I'm considering them all." -quoted from reply #25


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 21, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> But I've decided if I'm going for the size of the 70-300L, that I might as well start considering going even a little bigger and just getting a 70-200 f/2.8 IS LII with extender(s).



The 70-300 L will give you better IQ at 300mm than the 70-200 II + 1.4x TC, but you'll be at f/4 vs. f/5.6. Personally, I think if you frequently need a particular focal length, you should get a lens that reaches that focal length natively. TCs are best reserved for occasional, necessary use.


----------

