# New EF-S Lenses on the Horizon? [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 16, 2015)

```
We’re told that new “prosumer” EF-S lenses will be introduced in early 2016, and at least one current lens may be replaced. We think the most likely lenses for replacement would be the EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 or the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS.</p>
<p>We weren’t told which lenses would be coming, only that Canon remains committed to EF-S, which is something Canon has said themselves.</p>
<p>More to come…</p>
```


----------



## Nininini (Nov 16, 2015)

"Canon remains committed to EF-S, which is something Canon has said themselves"

why wouldn't they be, APS-C outsells full frame by a massive margin


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2015)

I'd bet on a 17-55/2.8 replacement, direct or close (15-55/2.8, perhaps).


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 16, 2015)

Top of the list, and easily so: an f/2.8 EF-S standard zoom that doesn't straddle useful focal lengths.

Sure, you can slap a 24-70 f/2.8L II on a crop camera, but you'll often get frustrated on the wide end, which is too long for a traditional 24-70 FF walkaround range. You'd end up frequently swapping out that lens for the 10-22 / 10-18 lenses.

So replacing the 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM for around $800-1,000 seems about right.

I know people want native APS-C primes, but a proper zoom will definitely sell better.

- A


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 16, 2015)

Yes, EF-S 17-55mm is quite dated and needs improvement in the mechanical part (sucking dust) and optics.


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 16, 2015)

I'd love to see another pancake in the 24-28mm equivalent range. The 24mm f/2.8 STM pancake is great, but I like to shoot wider.


----------



## Proscribo (Nov 16, 2015)

Improved 17-55mm/2.8 *drools*



ajfotofilmagem said:


> Yes, EF-S 17-55mm is quite dated and needs improvement in the mechanical part (sucking dust) and optics.


I think it's quite stellar optically, of course better is better + I'd like to see it go all the way to 15mm. Mechanically it could be improved in other aspects too, not just fixing that dust problem (which isn't actually that big of a problem). More modern IS would also be welcome.


----------



## Etienne (Nov 16, 2015)

I owned the 17-55 f/2.8 IS years ago. Good lens, and it should get the L treatment: dampened zoom and focus, high build quality, fix the nervous bokeh, get rid of the zoom creep (add a lock?), make it a 15-55 .


----------



## chmteacher (Nov 16, 2015)

Sounds like everyone's content with marginal improvements. How about a contender to the Sigma 18-35 f 1.8 with IS and broader focal range?


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 16, 2015)

Etienne said:


> I owned the 17-55 f/2.8 IS years ago. Good lens, and it should get the L treatment: dampened zoom and focus, high build quality, fix the nervous bokeh, get rid of the zoom creep (add a lock?), make it a 15-55 .



Whoa -- love the ambitious thinking, but you might want to keep your feet on the ground. 

We'll probably only get a 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM II that's slightly sharper and has the dust issue fixed and that's it. :

+1 on going down to 15mm though. It should shoot a 24-something FF FOV. Going down to 15mm on crop is vital for a walkaround, IMHO.

- A


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Nov 16, 2015)

I would like to see a new 10-22. Even more so if they made if f2.8 at 10mm.

The current version is not very sharp at 10mm and has horrendous chromatic aberrations. The CA is so bad, that even correcting in software does not do an adequate job. Otherwise, a really good lens though!


----------



## wsmith96 (Nov 16, 2015)

a 15-55 would be nice to see. I've been happy with my copy of this lens, so I would be interested to see how Canon would improve upon it.

An improved 10-22 would be great too. Now a 7-22 would be awesome (but wishful thinking  )


----------



## Xenol (Nov 16, 2015)

I think we'd be more likely to see an improved 17-55 than a new 10-22. With Canon sticking with having a professional crop camera a high quality standard zoom is really wanting. As for the 10-22 - personally It'd take a BIG improvement for me to want to replace my 10-18. An 18mm f2.8 prime on the other hand...


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 16, 2015)

Xenol said:


> I think we'd be more likely to see an improved 17-55 than a new 10-22. With Canon sticking with having a professional crop camera a high quality standard zoom is really wanting. As for the 10-22 - personally It'd take a BIG improvement for me to want to replace my 10-18. An 18mm f2.8 prime on the other hand...



Sure, but that sharp 10-18 is sharp for landscapers only -- if you shoot events, sports, astro, etc. you'll find that max aperture is too slow.

I think an astro UWA zoom, an EF-S 10-22 f/2.8 USM would sell very well. Canon needs to show the world it can really chase away coma and deliver sharpness on a fast UWA lens -- they absolutely slay things with their f/4 UWA zooms, but get faster than that and coma and corner sharpness tends to die a horrible death.

- A


----------



## Etienne (Nov 16, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > I owned the 17-55 f/2.8 IS years ago. Good lens, and it should get the L treatment: dampened zoom and focus, high build quality, fix the nervous bokeh, get rid of the zoom creep (add a lock?), make it a 15-55 .
> ...



Things have changed quite a lot since the original 17-55 came out. We're at the 7DII crop camera, and the C100 / C300 are both crop. Although I use the 5D3 right now, these cameras deserve a really good standard zoom, and since I'm hoping for a really good C100 mk III, I hope they go to town on a 15-55 f/2.8 IS


----------



## Luds34 (Nov 16, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > I owned the 17-55 f/2.8 IS years ago. Good lens, and it should get the L treatment: dampened zoom and focus, high build quality, fix the nervous bokeh, get rid of the zoom creep (add a lock?), make it a 15-55 .
> ...



+2

15mm on the wide end should be the goal. That would really give current owners of the 17-55 a reason to upgrade. That and I agree that a normal zoom should go to 24mm FF equivalent on the wide end.


----------



## sgs8r (Nov 17, 2015)

Proscribo said:


> Improved 17-55mm/2.8 *drools*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, I also think that the optics were already very good and the main issues were with build quality. After a few years the IS & focus would go haywire at times (a common problem) and I had to send it in for repair. No problems since then, but I'm also more careful. Dust didn't bother me in practice (though it was there). Anyway, making the build match the optical quality, and updating the IS would probably be enough. This is the crop equivalent of the 24-70 2.8 on FF, so pretty much an essential lens for APS-C bodies.


----------



## Marauder (Nov 17, 2015)

I'm inclined to think the 17-55 replacement is more likely--the 10-18 renders a 10-22 less likely. Definitely like the idea of it going down to 15 though! I use my 15-85 a great deal and I love it, but something faster, but still with IS.


----------



## veng (Nov 17, 2015)

As long as we're wishing, let's wish. EF-S 15-55 f/2 IS. Have to imagine it would be cumbersomely heavy and likely only go 18-50/55 instead of all the way down to 15. Oh well, for now I'll have to get a sigma 18-35 I suppose.


----------



## rcouttolenc (Nov 17, 2015)

I have used the 17-55 f2.8 for many years and it is still a great lens, my primary one. I would rather see a 17-70mm lens as I have a 70-200mm f2.8. Then the middle gap is fully closed. It will be more in line with the EF 24-105 f4L.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 17, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> I'd love to see another pancake in the 24-28mm equivalent range. The 24mm f/2.8 STM pancake is great, but I like to shoot wider.



+1

I wouldn't get my hopes up that a wide angle pancake is possible on an SLR, but if it is I would love to see a 15mm Pancake.

Even if it's f4 or f5.6, if they can fit a wide angle prime into that form factor (with good IQ, specifically low distortion), I would have to buy it.


----------



## Bennymiata (Nov 17, 2015)

Whatever it is, I hope it has the BR filter in it as I think this is a big selling point for Canon, and I'm sure it doesn't cost much to add.


----------



## pj1974 (Nov 17, 2015)

Ok… about EF-S lenses… this has me somewhat excited, as I have 2 APS-C Canon DSLRs, the 7D and 350D. 

I have the Canon 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 USM IS and really love tat lens. I have used the 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS, and indeed it’s great – the f/2.8 an obvious advantage. Though when I want ‘fast glass’ – I typically want faster than f/2.8 (e.g. f/1.4 – f/2).

Realising the physical compromises (i.e ‘laws of physics’), I would prefer a 15-55mm to a 17-70mm in a f/2.8. I just find the focal length of 17-55mm limiting for a ‘walk around / travel zoom’. Hence I deliberately chose the 15-85mm over the 17-55mm. My 15-85mm gives good to great IQ at all mm / aperture settings.

The 15-85mm has 4 stop IS, and great USM focus, and is built well. The size is ‘just right’ on my 7D (a tad smaller or larger would still be ok). I have a number of 72mm filters, so staying with 72mm would be a bonus!

From the UW perspective, I have the Sigma 8-16mm.. previously I had the 10-20mm Sigma. The extra 2mm (down to 8mm) really is a huge bonus. I really love my Sigma 8-16mm, it’s sharp, contrasty and handles flare quite well. Also good size and built well. AF adequate for what it is. If Canon can pull of an amazing EF-S UWA, like a 8-15/20mm – something sharp, contrasty, great detail into the corners, that would be awesome.

But I would only likely swap if it also had IS. It seems Canon is getting more 'keen' to use IS on UWAs, which I'm very happy about... e.g. they have on their EF-S 10-18mm, or EF-M 11-20mm or their EF 16-35mm f/4. I don’t need a fast aperture in an UWA, f/4 would be awesome, but f/4-5.6 is adequate too.

Then I do want a new 50mm from Canon (doesn’t HAVE to be a EF-S…), I have the 50mm STM, and really like this lens, got a good copy for a very good price just when it became available. Wide open it’s reasonable (really quite good from f/2.2) – if Canon make any good sharp, contrasty USM 50mm (whether EF or EF-S) – I’m ‘in’, especially if it has IS.

Paul 8)


----------



## Videoshooter (Nov 17, 2015)

I'd have to go against the grain here - I think a little more on the long end would be more valuable. a 17-70 f/2.8 would be great. 

My reasoning is that:
a) It bridges the gap up to the 70-200
b) The long end goes into a useful range for portraits/CU shots, necessitating the need for event shooters to swap lenses as often
c) It will be a great lens for the C100/C300, which currently lacks an ideal-general purpose lens (55mm is just a bit to short for video work)
d) Even going out to 15mm wouldn't make a substantial difference for people who really _need_ to use wide angles - which is why:

I'd also love to see a cheap, wide, prime - something akin to an APS-C version of the 20mm /2.8. Not necessarily a pancake like many people are wanting, just an option to go wider than the standard zooms without having to pay as much as you did for your camera body. An EF-S 12mm f/3.5 would be really handy for a lot of people who only need a UWA on the odd occasion.


----------



## whothafunk (Nov 17, 2015)

If 17-55 f2.8 IS USM II comes out, I'll be the first to order it. Bump the IS from 3 to 4 stops, a bit sharper and fix the goddamn focusing on 7D2.. a dream come true. And to make it look a bit more smooth or modern.


----------



## 3xposure (Nov 17, 2015)

15-55mm f/2.8, 4 stops IS, improved optics and a full L treatment please, I am missing a red ring 
That would *definitely* make me upgrade my old faithful...


----------



## axtstern (Nov 17, 2015)

Using the chrystal ball to predict EF-S lenses is more cumbersome than anything else.

As the only people whose buying behaviour I predict to more than 50% are me, myself and I my guess is a little biased.

My GAS was running on full throttle already before this Forum made me abandon reason.
Currently i used a 5dIII and and MIII. 
Somehow the 7 D never apeal to me and after selling my 60D I wait now for either a compelling SLII or a compelling 80D.

The EF-S or in any other way digitaly crippled lenses I own used to be

Sigma 50-150
Sigma 30
Sigma 17-50
Canon 17-55 
Tokina 11-16
Sigma 18-200 OS
Tamron 18-270 VC...
Sigma 18-35

I got rid of the Sigma 18-200 because of the lousy IQ
I got rid of the Sigma 17-50 because of the lousy build
I got rid of the Tamron 18-200 because once I go for Crop again I want the 16-300
I got rid of the Sigma 50 150 with a bleeding heart because it is soft and has no OS
I got rid of the 30mm because it was a mistake to buy it. Should have taken the Canon 28mm not limiting myself to crop

So what is left in my crop bag is the Canon 17-55, The SIgma 18-35 and the Tokina 11-16

The Sigma 18-35 is one of my most sexy lenses. The Canon 17-55 would be in most of the situations the more versataile lense but it stayed in the bag since i have the Sigma. A better 17-55 would trigger my GAS only if it becomes solid as the Sigma or fast as the Sigma or both.

With Tamron now competing against the Tokina in the Ultra wide area and with my M covering the Ultrawide area from a different direction it is the TELE area which would lure me.

The old Sigma 50-150 (not the new one which they blundered into the 70-200 Chassis) was a beautyfull solid and very compact design. That size with Canon typical optical Quality and IS and 2.8 Speed would be a feast.
Make it STM to diferentiate it from the big sister and with the Adapter it would be serving me well on the M as well.


----------



## aj1575 (Nov 17, 2015)

I also think it will be a 17-55 f2.8 replacement. maybe something like a 15-55 or 16-60 f 2.8, I think 17-70 is a bit a long shot for a f2.8.
I do not think that the 10-22 will be replaced. The 10-18 has to do the job for a while. 

What I like to see is a APS-C semipro telezoom, a better version of the 55-250. The zoom range of the 55-250 is actually quite nice. Making such a lens that is on L-Level in IQ and build quality would be great. The price point should be below 1000$, that is a bit less than the street price of a 70-200 f4 IS or a 70-300 f4-5.6 IS. I'm just not sure if this market is big enough, since many people with APS-C cameras are buying L-telezooms. So it will be difficult position such a lens.


----------



## whothafunk (Nov 17, 2015)

3xposure said:


> 15-55mm f/2.8, 4 stops IS, improved optics and a full L treatment please, I am missing a red ring
> That would *definitely* make me upgrade my old faithful...


You must be delusional to think EF-S lenses get the red ring (L). L is reserved for "best" of EF.


----------



## Proscribo (Nov 17, 2015)

whothafunk said:


> You must be delusional to think EF-S lenses get the red ring (L). L is reserved for "best" of EF.


Well there's one powershot with L-lens so I don't think all hope is lost.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 17, 2015)

Proscribo said:


> whothafunk said:
> 
> 
> > You must be delusional to think EF-S lenses get the red ring (L). L is reserved for "best" of EF.
> ...



There are also L-series binoculars. But I don't believe we'll ever see an ILC L-series lens that doesn't work on FF bodies.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 17, 2015)

3xposure said:


> 15-55mm f/2.8, 4 stops IS, improved optics and a full L treatment please, I am missing a red ring


If someone wants a red ring on ALL your lenses, it is very simple. Just follow the tutorial video below. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLcbKBhQ-M0


----------



## noncho (Nov 17, 2015)

17-55 2.8 should be replaced.
I would love to see some nice walkaround telephoto like 40-125 2.8 IS (should be smaller & lighter than 50-150).


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 17, 2015)

noncho said:


> 17-55 2.8 should be replaced.
> I would love to see some nice walkaround telephoto like 40-125 2.8 IS (should be smaller & lighter than 50-150).



The 17-55 f/2.8 Canon will begrudgingly update because a platform needs a standard zoom It just has to have it. 

But a useful 50-150 or 40-125 f/2.8 lens is a major threat to folks moving to FF. Why go to FF if you just bought a $1,500 short tele that only works on EF-S? That's an easy lens for Canon to skate right by and let Sigma or Tamron make for us.

- A


----------



## Haydn1971 (Nov 17, 2015)

A nice new trinity zoom set is really needed.

- 10-22mm replacement with IS, f3.5-4.5 is fine by me if it's got IS
- 15-55mm definitely f2.8 and IS
- 45-135mm f2.8 IS in a compact package not dissimilar in size to the current 17-55/15-85 lenses

I'm also very sceptical of the rumour of the 7DII being the last "pro" crop camera.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 17, 2015)

Haydn1971 said:


> I'm also very sceptical of the rumour of the 7DII being the last "pro" crop camera.



Agree 100%. 

Were it true, such a comment would smack of desperation from Canon to either sell more of 'the last pro APS-C rig' or to tell us to avoid buying EF-S lenses altogether as _your next 7D-like camera will be FF because high-end APS-C is going away_. 

Make fun of Canon's culture all you want, but they never panic and they never telegraph an exodus from a market segment. Not buying this.

- A


----------



## Eclectik (Nov 17, 2015)

Why not a constant F2 aperture ? It should make sense for APS-C sensors: smaller image circle, worse behavior with high isos, equivalent bokeh?. I never understood why the pancake EF-S 24mm is only F2.8, when there is an EF-M F 2.0. I think Canon totally missed that. Not Fuji.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 17, 2015)

Eclectik said:


> Why not a constant F2 aperture ? It should make sense for APS-C sensors: smaller image circle, worse behavior with high isos, equivalent bokeh?. I never understood why the pancake EF-S 24mm is only F2.8, when there is an EF-M F 2.0. I think Canon totally missed that. Not Fuji.



"Constant" f/2 seems out of context for pancake primes. You mean an f/2 _zoom_, right?

In that case, the short answer is "Because physics is a jerk." Ask Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 owners. Optically it's great, but that lens weighs nearly two pounds and it has a limited zoom range. It's a niche lens for enthusiast APS-C owners, likely 70D or 7D2 owners who do not want to migrate to FF. Canon will not make a dime with such a lens.

If you want small DOF / large aperture, that's kind of what FF shines at, right? Besides the FF sensor upsides over crop, there also are a boatload more native fast prime lenses for FF.

- A


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 17, 2015)

Eclectik said:


> Why not a constant F2 aperture ? It should make sense for APS-C sensors: smaller image circle, worse behavior with high isos, equivalent bokeh?. I never understood why the pancake EF-S 24mm is only F2.8, when there is an EF-M F 2.0. I think Canon totally missed that. Not Fuji.


The short distance between the lens mount to the sensor on Fuji cameras (and other mirrorless) allows small wide-angle prime lenses such as EF-M 22mm F2. It would be perfectly possible to have done canon EF-S 24mm F2, but would not be as small as a pancake.

I would have preferred an EF-S 24mm F1.8 weighing 300 grams and costing $ 350.


----------



## NancyP (Nov 17, 2015)

I might consider a weather-resistant standard zoom update to the 15-85 or 17-55 f/2.8. With a "home position" lock - the current 15-85 droops a bit when camera is on a neck strap (ok, the lens is 5 years old).


----------



## Eclectik (Nov 17, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Eclectik said:
> 
> 
> > Why not a constant F2 aperture ? It should make sense for APS-C sensors: smaller image circle, worse behavior with high isos, equivalent bokeh?. I never understood why the pancake EF-S 24mm is only F2.8, when there is an EF-M F 2.0. I think Canon totally missed that. Not Fuji.
> ...



Right, I'm not focused on pancakes, neither on primes. Although no EF-S primes (except 60mm macro), now, from Canon. I thought that providing a stop less, was a way to compensate the weaknesses of the APS-C format (I do not want to migrate to FF). This market is a small niche maybe, but I'm considering Fuji or Sony, and I know 4 people that made the switch. In a few months... 
I'll do the switch for short focals. For tele, I'll keep my 7D & Canon glasses. 
BTW, sigma lenses are always heavy.


----------



## kaptainkatsu (Nov 18, 2015)

Please make it weather sealed!


----------



## ritholtz (Nov 18, 2015)

They need to combine both 17-55 and 15-85 and create one lens. Something like 15-80 f2.8-f4 or something. Make it STM to keep price reasonable.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 18, 2015)

Thinking a bit more, forget regular zoom lenses, just give us a high end 10-22mm EF-S zoom, f4 or IS, ideally both.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 19, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Haydn1971 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


The Amazon link shows that the second best-selling camera is the Lytro ILLUM 40. No one could believe that it is representative of the market reality. Probably this ranking, refers to the best-selling cameras in the last 60 minutes or so.

For a more realistic sample I prefer to watch the amount of REVIEWS in BH and Adorama stores, considering the time a camera model is available for sale. Canon 7D Mark II has 233 reviews (body only) from October 2014 until November 2015. On the other hand, Lytro ILLUM 40 has only 3 reviews at the same time. Sony A77 II has only 74 reviews from June 2014 until October 2015.


----------



## Proscribo (Nov 19, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Or maybe Canon figures that if you're "pro" you should be buying a 1D/5D series camera and buying EF, not EF-S glass to go with it.


I feel like it's more "buy this 7DII and couple L-teles", like 100-400mmII, it's quite heck lot of cheaper than a 1DX with same focal range and 1DX+lens combo gets quickly ridiculously expensive if you go after same effective focal length.
However as you said, for regular shooting (for "pros" at least) you're much better with especially with 5D. Let's hope it won't be last "pro" APC-S camera from canon, after all, you're getting really nice top-level features for quite small amount of money (although it has crop sensor).


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Nov 20, 2015)

I like the ef-s format I used to have the 60mm macro wonderful lens also got the 24mm pancake and the 10-22 lens all 3 are very well made lens. only reason I got rid of my 60mm I went to the 100l for more reach and portraits. a 15-85 ef-s will be very nice to round out the range with a 135 prime ef-s


----------



## WIDEnet (Nov 21, 2015)

Personally, for both event/PJ shooting stills and for my upcoming (hopefully) Ursa Mini 4.6K EF (1.45x CF sensor) I'd kill for a 15-60/70 f/2.8. The wider range isn't isn't quite a as critical for me on the 4.6K as on the C-series since with the wider field of view and much higher resolution, I have basically a 2x built in TC and a 0.85x wide angle adapter when delivering in 1080p if the lens is sharp, and still at least some wiggle room in 4K/UHD, but its still pretty handy for doc and run and gun like I'll be doing. For event and PJ work its just killer, and in many cases might let me haul out only one 7D instead of two. 

The biggest thing I'd want outside of more range is easily mechanical/build quality; something on par with the 18-35 would be ideal and would put it head and shoulders above all the other crop midrange fast zooms which match up very closely with the current 17-55 on pretty much everything. Specifically, a large, longer throw, damped, front mounted focus ring, solid finish (despite its more than adequate optical quality, both the 17-55 and sigma 17-50 don't exactly send a strong professional vibe to clients, nor to me with regards to their durability), and being roughly parfocal and with lower focus breathing is what I'm after. 

After that would be a stop or two better IS and a little sharper wide open with better coatings for better transmissions, but those are all minor compared to the mechanical quality and range. Right now for me its down to keeping my current 17-50 or switching out for the 17-55, bascially all on the merits of focusing--basically whether to plunk down ~$200 net to trade up to the 17-55's with almost double the throw and smoother operation (plus a little better build quality and range and more reliable focus for stills), relative to my current 17-50 which though has hard markings and stops, is a tad wider and properly front mounted. But both pale in comparison to that of the 18-35, so I'd rejoice if Canon gave us something on a similar level just for that.

The physical limitations would preclude a reasonably sized and priced 17-55 (or more) f/2+ with IS, as much as I'd like it, so I'd be content with the greater range to give me more of a reason to have both the f/2.8 and the sigma in my arsenal, or maybe even just the former for now. A good while back Tamron came out with a 28-105 f/2.8 which is the rough equivalent of a 17-70 on crop, so if Canon could make something like that a bit wider (and sharper obviously) with IS and 18-35-level mechanics, I'd buy it in a heartbeat even if it was fully $1000.


----------



## MYB (Nov 23, 2015)

15-85mm is sharp but it must be F/4.


----------



## WIDEnet (Nov 23, 2015)

MYB said:


> 15-85mm is sharp but it must be F/4.



Not sure what you mean by that...they could make a constant f/4 version of the current 15-85 which would probably satisfy some folks, but for cinema on s35 (APS-C) I'm not sure most would want to give up the DoF and low light advantages of f/2.8 for not that much more range. For stills there's less even advantage given the constant aperture is less of an issue since only at longer focal lengths do you gain up to a stop (losing a bit on the wide end), and the current version is already pretty good, so I hear.

If you mean its realistically impossible to make a 15-85 f/2.8, I would dispute that claim. A good while ago now Tamron made a fairly cheap 28-105/2.8 (for full frame, ofc) which a crop equivalent would be ~17-65/70, and given the generally longer focal length ranges/larger apertures one can get away with on crop for equivalent cost and lens size, plus significant advances in technology and the greater Canon R&D budget (and likely lens price), a 15/16-70/80 is far from out of the question. With how much sharper lenses have gotten even in the years since the 17-55 was released, performance would likely not suffer too much, and it would certainly be more than adequate for 4K. Furthermore, Canon really does need a good entry level starter zoom with enough range for basic docu for the C series, along the lines of Sony's 28-135/4, and this would do quite nicely indeed.

Of course, this may not be at all what you are saying haha.


----------



## MYB (Nov 23, 2015)

WIDEnet said:


> MYB said:
> 
> 
> > 15-85mm is sharp but it must be F/4.
> ...



No, i'm not expecting a 15-85mm F/2.8 it would be big and expensive. I mean 15-85mm don't need to be replace but canon can make a 15-85mm F/4 like 24-105mm F/4 on FF.
Sorry for poor English


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 23, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> ...the most likely lenses for replacement would be the EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 or the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. ...


If it's the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 ISto be replaced , will/should it stay *USM *or will/should it become *STM*?
According to Canons philosophy it could get STM (see 24-105 STM). Is STM good enough for that lens?

What do you guys think?


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 23, 2015)

MYB said:


> ...
> No, i'm not expecting a 15-85mm F/2.8 it would be _(edit too_ big and expensive
> _(edit to get reasonable sales numbers _.


+1 

Hi MYB!
Totally agree, and edited the reasonse therefore in your post.


----------



## WIDEnet (Nov 23, 2015)

MYB said:


> Sorry for poor English



No problem, just trying to make sure I understand what you mean.



MYB said:


> No, i'm not expecting a 15-85mm F/2.8 it would be big and expensive.



A 15-85/2.8 would be a little much, true. But given the precedents I stated previously, something like a 16-70/2.8 or even a little more would not be out of the question, and would still be near the price and weight range of the current 17-55.



MYB said:


> I mean 15-85mm don't need to be replace but canon can make a 15-85mm F/4 like 24-105mm F/4 on FF.



It would replace the 17-55, not the 15-85, as stated previously, filling the same niche with a little expanded range for event shooters, PJs and video (run and gun). But I really don't see a clear market opportunity for a 15-85 f/4 on crop, since you lose a stop or more of light over FF the actual equivalent would be something like a 15-70/2.6. Anyone caring enough about a constant aperture for stills would likely want f/2.8 anyway to get close to what the 24-105 provides on full frame. For video, the added range over the 17-55 just isn't enough, at least for me, to justify the stop of light I'd be losing unless I was shooting on a FS7 or C-series, in which case I'd likely be looking at much more expensive glass anyway.


----------



## Proscribo (Nov 23, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > ...the most likely lenses for replacement would be the EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 or the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. ...
> ...


I don't think it would have STM, you know unlike 24-105L the 17-55 isn't a "kit zoom" but more like the pro option for crop.

However who knows what they (canon) will come up with...


----------



## WIDEnet (Nov 23, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> If it's the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 ISto be replaced , will/should it stay *USM *or will/should it become *STM*?
> According to Canons philosophy it could get STM (see 24-105 STM). Is STM good enough for that lens?



No question it will and should be USM. As a semi-pro level lens, the 24-70 equivalent for crop and bread and butter for all manner of demanding shooters, anything less than the speed, silence, and true MF of USM is unacceptable. For video, while STM may claim to be a bit smoother and more accurate, the folks using this lens rather than the lesser models will be mostly/entirely pulling focus with it anyway, nullifying any advantage and making the focus by wire system an impediment rather than an asset. Unless Canon has completely given up on crop for serious shooters (which so far they haven't with the 7D2 and new lens announcements) and forgotten about all the people using the original for video, there is little doubt it will be USM.


----------



## WIDEnet (Nov 24, 2015)

macVega said:


> I have used both focusings systems enuff to know that USM stands for "Ultra Sonic Motor" and STM stands for "Slow Terrible Motor"... ???



Haha so true, though I would argue Slightly (less) Terrible Motor (relative to MM) since its at least a little quieter and maybe a little smoother from the little I've used it, though really no faster and the FTM is really just a FBW system. Then again, that's essentially what I've had to live with on handheld camcorders up until this point, with the VX-2100/PD-170 through the DVX100 and the AC130A I just sold to save up for the 4.6K...but those systems were obviously much better tuned and more responsive relative to consumer technology designed for folks who don't have to rely on it to get critical focus, like STM.


----------

