# Upgraded Pro Canon Lenses for Crop Bodies



## koolman (Aug 22, 2017)

As the crop cameras advance and have pro versions like the 7d + 80d - why is canon not producing pro level EFS lenses ? Like an upgrade to the ancient 17-55 ? or a wide angle prime say 15mm 2.8 ? Serious canon crop users are forced to purchase FF L lenses - and waste allot of money ?


----------



## Woody (Aug 22, 2017)

Many folks ask the same questions many times.

But Canon isn't the only guilty party. All the major players like Nikon and Sony are just as awful in this regard.

Sigh...


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 22, 2017)

Woody said:


> Many folks ask the same questions many times.
> 
> But Canon isn't the only guilty party. All the major players like Nikon and Sony are just as awful in this regard.
> 
> Sigh...


+1


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 22, 2017)

koolman said:


> As the crop cameras advance and have pro versions like the 7d + 80d - why is canon not producing pro level EFS lenses ? Like an upgrade to the ancient 17-55 ? or a wide angle prime say 15mm 2.8 ? Serious canon crop users are forced to purchase FF L lenses - and waste allot of money ?



How much cheaper do you think 'pro grade APS-C' lenses would be than FF equivalents?
Are you comparing FOV or absolute focal length?


----------



## Dvash7 (Aug 22, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> koolman said:
> 
> 
> > As the crop cameras advance and have pro versions like the 7d + 80d - why is canon not producing pro level EFS lenses ? Like an upgrade to the ancient 17-55 ? or a wide angle prime say 15mm 2.8 ? Serious canon crop users are forced to purchase FF L lenses - and waste allot of money ?
> ...



Exactly this. I had the 17-55mm and while it was an excellent lens, it's not on par with say the 24-70 f/2.8 II and it isn't cheap, either.
Would you pay over $1,000 for a top of the line EF-S lens that you then can't use if you ever decide to go FF or would you rather save a bit more and get L glass right off the bat?


----------



## koolman (Aug 23, 2017)

[How much cheaper do you think 'pro grade APS-C' lenses would be than FF equivalents?
Are you comparing FOV or absolute focal length?
[/quote]

Exactly this. I had the 17-55mm and while it was an excellent lens, it's not on par with say the 24-70 f/2.8 II and it isn't cheap, either.
Would you pay over $1,000 for a top of the line EF-S lens that you then can't use if you ever decide to go FF or would you rather save a bit more and get L glass right off the bat?
[/quote]

For Wide angle primes / and or fast zooms there would be a substantial difference in price - as the cost of producing the optics for FF is much more then crop - see the Fuji fast f/2 primes .


----------



## LDS (Aug 23, 2017)

koolman said:


> As the crop cameras advance and have pro versions like the 7d + 80d - why is canon not producing pro level EFS lenses?



Canon doesn't regard the 7D - and even more so the 80D, as "pro" cameras:

https://www.canon-europe.com/cameras/dslr-cameras/

whatever their specs are, and whoever uses them for 

Duplicating the high-end lens line would be expensive (for Canon, design/manufacturing/etc.), and would need to be justified by an increase not only in sales, but in profit. Actually, selling items with higher margins (FF L lenses...) is probably good for Canon. Manufacturing planning becomes also much more complex.

Increasing design/manufacturing/etc costs to sell lenses which could bring less profits from a business point of view doesn't make sense unless the increased sales offset these disadvantages. 

Would sales of "EF-S L" lenses would soar so much to make them a sound business case? Would 7D owners buy more lenses than those they actually buy? I don't think so, and neither Canon, I an afraid.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2017)

At a high level, generically speaking FF sensors produce better images than APS-C sensors. It makes more sense that the higher quality optics are designed for use with the higher quality sensors.


----------



## koolman (Aug 24, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> At a high level, generically speaking FF sensors produce better images than APS-C sensors. It makes more sense that the higher quality optics are designed for use with the higher quality sensors.



I understand that the FF line is a step ahead of the crop. However this advantage has been blurred over the past few years - and many high end /professional users - use high end crop camera systems. They prefer the lower weight / cost /size of the equipment. Today everybody extensively post processes - and that blurs the advantage of the FF sensor + optics even more. Digital Photography became less about optics and more about electronics.

I'm not in the camera sales business - but it seems to be a smart move for canon to offer a line of lenses for the type of user - who is migrating to fuji/sony/ etc. in search of a crop / high end option with fast primes zooms etc.


----------



## dak723 (Aug 24, 2017)

koolman said:


> I'm not in the camera sales business - but it seems to be a smart move for canon to offer a line of lenses for the type of user - who is migrating to fuji/sony/ etc. in search of a crop / high end option with fast primes zooms etc.



If it was a smart move for Canon they would - or will - do it. Obviously their market research tells them the the vast majority of Crop camera buyers are not in the market for expensive "pro" level EF-S lenses at this time. It seems as if many of the higher-end enthusiast or pro crop users are getting crop cameras for the "reach" advantage. They are more than likely buying "L" EF lenses in that case.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 24, 2017)

koolman said:


> I'm not in the camera sales business - but it seems to be a smart move for canon to offer a line of lenses for the type of user - who is migrating to fuji/sony/ etc. in search of a crop / high end option with fast primes zooms etc.



Again - what do you see as the advantage of this? Are Canon L lenses much more expensive than Fuji equivalents?Not from what I see. And Canon users are more likely I think to shift to Sony for their FF models. And the Sony lenses are more expensive.

How much cheaper do you think Canon 'pro grade' lenses will be than the L equivalents?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 24, 2017)

koolman said:


> I'm not in the camera sales business - but it seems to be a smart move for canon to offer a line of lenses for the type of user - who is migrating to fuji/sony/ etc. in search of a crop / high end option with fast primes zooms etc.



Well, Canon _is_ in the camera sales business, and their market share is solid evidence that they're pretty good at it. So far, they haven't thought your idea would be a 'smart move'. 

Although I'd have liked an L-level EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS when I shot with a 7D, but I recognize that my personal desire for something doesn't make it a smart corporate move.


----------



## LDS (Aug 24, 2017)

koolman said:


> They prefer the lower weight / cost /size of the equipment.



A 7D is not a small camera. The EF mount design and lens IS also means lenses can't be too small. 

"Cost" means different thing to different people.



koolman said:


> Today everybody extensively post processes - and that blurs the advantage of the FF sensor + optics even more. Digital Photography became less about optics and more about electronics.



In some market segments, maybe, but not all segments and not everybody. Digital processing can do a lot, but not everything - and often it just lead to too many "identical" images.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Aug 24, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> koolman said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not in the camera sales business - but it seems to be a smart move for canon to offer a line of lenses for the type of user - who is migrating to fuji/sony/ etc. in search of a crop / high end option with fast primes zooms etc.
> ...



If you look at what the entire system offers, i.e. canon versus Fuji, Sony, Panasonic, etc.. You just have to buy that equipment for what you need to shoot. All of the other systems are great but only for the general consumer. They are limiting in what you can do - i.e. focal range and special lenses. Now you can buy mounts/converters to add lenses - sure. But I think what needs to happen is canon comes out with a really really good aps-c mirrorless and FF. Those cameras can match the market of other companies. 

And I concur with the others here that have mentioned EF glass.. If you have used EF L lenses, personally it doesn't make much sense for canon to make glass that good specifically for aps-c cameras. I think it would be a waste of R&D. I have the 10-22mm EF-S lens and that's amazing but for all other applications, I've been investing in EF lenses - totally worth it.


----------



## 2n10 (Aug 24, 2017)

I would like to see an update to the EF-s 17-55 also as I love the lens. I would also love for it to have a "L" quality build. But, having the EF-s 10-22 the EF 24-70 f/2.8 would probably be a better fit in my lens arsenal for a relative fast lens although the price is a bit of a pain.

I know there have been discussions on this subject and one of the reasons calculated by this forum seems quite good for why the economics argument is sound besides the parallel lines cost. Most crop users tend to use one or two lenses and tend to not move to the higher quality lenses as the crop lenses more than meet their needs.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 29, 2017)

koolman said:


> many high end /professional users - use high end crop camera systems



How many? Numbers, please. Walk into Costco, Best Buy, Target, or any other big box store and look at the literal pile of crop bodies (Canon or anyone else) with one or two zoom lens kits. Ask yourself how many of those are going to people who will buy any additional lenses vs how many are going to soccer moms/ dads or people who want to take a camera on vacation. Note the comparatively small number of FF bodies at those same stores. Note the lack of additional lenses at those same stores (there may be a few, but not nearly as many as crop bodies).

Heck, what percent of Canon's crop body sales does the 7D2 make up vs all their others? It must be tiny.

People on this forum, and the people they know, are not a remotely representative sample of the camera market. Not realizing that causes a lot of these posts.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 29, 2017)

I know I know...
Canon prefers to sell "35mm F1.4 L ii" instead of an "EF-S32mm F1.4"
Canon prefers to sell "24mm F1.4 L ii" instead of an "EF-S22mm F1.4"
Canon prefers to sell "14mm F2.8L ii" instead of an "EF-S15mm F1.8"

However, in zoom lenses there are no EF lenses that replace well the 17-55mm and 10-22mm. I and thousands of users keep expecting updated models, something like:
EF-S 16-50mm F2.8 Nano Ultrasonic IS
EF-S 8-16mm F2.8-4 Nano Ultrasonic IS


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2017)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> I know I know...
> Canon prefers to sell "35mm F1.4 L ii" instead of an "EF-S32mm F1.4"
> Canon prefers to sell "24mm F1.4 L ii" instead of an "EF-S22mm F1.4"
> Canon prefers to sell "14mm F2.8L ii" instead of an "EF-S15mm F1.8"
> ...



And, Canon prefers to sell the FF camera to go along with those L lenses. 

But it may that we'll see an updated version of the 17-55/2.8. It still won't be a weather-sealed L lens, though.


----------



## littleB (Aug 29, 2017)

Woody said:


> Many folks ask the same questions many times.
> 
> But Canon isn't the only guilty party. All the major players like Nikon and Sony are just as awful in this regard.
> 
> Sigh...


Canon isn't the only guilty party, but only Canon is *******!
Because a lot of very vocal users here say so, it's their perception of lack of innovation that bothers them.


----------



## wsmith96 (Aug 29, 2017)

I'm a 17-55 owner and would like to see an update to this and the 10-22. In reality though, Canon has shifted their consumer marketing to DSLR's that do both stills and video well. Given that, I'm not sure we'll see an update to lenses like the 17-55, 10-22, or 15-85 any time soon. The population seems to be content with quiet lenses with enough zoom capabilities, ie 18-135, that also produce good quality pictures. As stated before, if someone is looking for the ultimate image quality, they are going to need to look at FF lenses for that.


----------

