# New Canon EF-S Wide Angle Prime Announcement Coming April 5



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 10, 2017)

```
We <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/the-next-lens-from-canon-will-be-an-ef-s-prime/">told you back in January</a> that Canon would be announcing a new EF-S prime lens soon.</p>
<p>We now know the lens is expected to be announced on April 5, 2017 in North America and that it is indeed a new wide angle EF-S prime lens.</p>
<p>Unfortunately we’ve been told two different focal length for this lens and we’re trying to confirm which is correct. We’ll let you know as soon as we know. We’re hoping for a lens around 10mm for APS-C cameras (though that’s highly unlikely).</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 10, 2017)

That would be certainly useful, 24/28mm equivalent pancake lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 10, 2017)

Hmmm... Do we think wide or ultrawide here? 15mm crop --> 24mm FF equivalent, or a 10mm crop --> 16mm FF equivalent?

Unless Canon wants to build a crop astro kit bundled with a wide prime, I have to wonder who was asking for such a lens versus other (presumably larger) groups like those wanting a 32-ish mm nifty 50 FF equivalent or possibly a lifestyle macro (i.e. food) lens like the EF-M 28mm Macro.

- A


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Mar 10, 2017)

A well priced 10mm 2.8 would be amazing


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 10, 2017)

Also, to CR guy -- an isolated lens announcement for crop seems oddly timed. Any chance this might be announced alongside something else that it might go with? The Rebels just got a refresh and an 80D or 7D2 replacement isn't the right timing, so I can't think of anything 'crop-appropriate' off hand... unless it's an 80Da or something, and that seems a reach.

- A


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Also, to CR guy -- an isolated lens announcement for crop seems oddly timed. Any chance this might be announced alongside something else that it might go with? The Rebels just got a refresh and an 80D or 7D2 replacement isn't the right timing, so I can't think of anything 'crop-appropriate' off hand... unless it's an 80Da or something, and that seems a reach.
> 
> - A



There is no other DSLR coming in 2017 other than the 6D2 and SL2, we don't have an announcement date on either of those.

Canon in the past has done a camera announcement and then relatively quickly after, a lens announcement. This lens will be good for buyers of the 77D and T7i.

I'll try to get the SL2 announcement date asap.


----------



## SkynetTX (Mar 10, 2017)

An EF-S 10-18mm f/2.8-4 IS USM with real FTM support would be better.


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 10, 2017)

My bet is EF-S 15mm f/2.8 IS USM


----------



## sama (Mar 10, 2017)

May be a 18mm F2.8 STM.


----------



## slclick (Mar 10, 2017)

This would be exciting!

A small form factor body like the SL2 (or an M5) with 3 pancakes with an effective focal length range of say 18-64mm or 24-64 would be a sweet kit.


----------



## DaveN (Mar 10, 2017)

15/2.8 STM for 24 equivalent. Low distortion and CA. $300-350. Will sell like crazy.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 10, 2017)

I've nailed down the speed of the lens and other features. I think I know the focal length... I just want to [CR3] it.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 10, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> My bet is EF-S 15mm f/2.8 IS USM



This would make sense. A 24mm equivalent is a good general purpose wide angle.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Mar 10, 2017)

sama said:


> May be a 18mm F2.8 STM.


While that's a very pragmatic suggestion, if you consider the Stigma 18-35mm f/1.8 then perhaps 18mm f/2.8 is not optimisitic enough... I would think at least 15mm or 16mm.


----------



## Policar (Mar 10, 2017)

StudentOfLight said:


> sama said:
> 
> 
> > May be a 18mm F2.8 STM.
> ...



Not to mention that the kit lens is already an 18mm f2.8 IS STM.... only have a stop slower and it zooms. But that would be cool still, as a pancake.

I'd hope a lot wider.


----------



## Azathoth (Mar 10, 2017)

Something between 10 and 18 mm, a price below 200 € and Canon can take my money. I love the EF-S 24 for its saturated colours and microcontrast:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ricardopestana2012/29693588973/in/photolist-MeVpuz


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 10, 2017)

I just think about how an average crop user (i.e. next to no one on this forum) sizes up buying a prime and it's a pretty tough sell. Average users don't care that much about gaining a stop or being marginally sharper -- the presumably care much more about large FL ranges their kit zoom doesn't cover, so an UWA zoom or tele zoom would be a much more likely 2nd (or 3rd) lens they'd buy.

But if I had to sell a prime to a soccer mom / hockey dad / vacation photographer, my angle would be:


Get a massive upgrade to small DOF work for portraiture --> the 50 f/1.8 STM immediately comes to mind as it's over three stops quicker than an 18-55 kit lens on the long end. This is where a prime just mops the floor with a kit zoom.


Enjoy a macro lens as it unlocks an entire style/form of photography for you --> EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM


Make your rig smaller to tote around --> get a pancake

So I'm a little surprised Canon would go with a WA or UWA prime. Let's say it is in fact a 10mm f/2.8 STM or 15mm f/2.8 STM. Unless it's a pancake for the size-obsessed, _what large chunk of the crop community has been lobbying for this?_ It would only be a stop (or so) faster than two very serviceable UWA crop zooms.

I'm not shooting this new lens down -- hell, I very well might buy it! But I also recognize that I am not the market, so I'm curious where Canon is seeing the interest here.

- A


----------



## Crosswind (Mar 10, 2017)

Yaaay! Now this headline made my heart smile... and because of this I've just canceled my ordered lens; the Samyang 10mm 2.8.

Hopefully it is somewhere between 10-15mm... and at least f/2.8. Such a lens might be the perfect "filler" for the gap between my 8-15L and 24IS. I'm so excited. Cannot wait for the official announcement!


----------



## Azathoth (Mar 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> I just think about how an average crop user (i.e. next to no one on this forum) sizes up buying a prime and it's a pretty tough sell.



Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM #4 on popularity on this online shop:
https://www.cameranu.nl/en/c1622/objectieven/canon

Which is quite popular in Europe.


----------



## anden (Mar 10, 2017)

EF-S 8/1.8 USM would be cool. Like UltraWide GoPro and EF 14 on FF.

EF-S 15/1.2 USM would also be welcomed.

Wouldn't any f/2.8 be quite boring?


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 10, 2017)

Azathoth said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I just think about how an average crop user (i.e. next to no one on this forum) sizes up buying a prime and it's a pretty tough sell.
> ...



Indeed, that's my point from the prior post -- I think a prime in crop sells itself on one of three things: bokeh, macro or pancake-size.

So, presuming this prime isn't macro or bokeh-oriented, one might assume this ought to be a pancake. 

- A


----------



## LonelyBoy (Mar 10, 2017)

Policar said:


> Not to mention that the kit lens is already an 18mm f2.8 IS STM.... only have a stop slower and it zooms. But that would be cool still, as a pancake.
> 
> I'd hope a lot wider.



Isn't it f/3.5 at the wide end?

Of course, that's still not much difference. I'm going to guess it's wider, though not all the way to 10mm.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 10, 2017)

anden said:


> EF-S 8/1.8 USM would be cool. Like UltraWide GoPro and EF 14 on FF.
> EF-S 15/1.2 USM would also be welcomed.
> Wouldn't any f/2.8 be quite boring?


Just because many people would pay more than a thousand dollars for an EF-S lens, which is heavier than their 7D Mark II body, right? ??? : 8) 

But you can count on me for a couple of more realistic primes:
EF-S 8mm F2.8
EF-S 15mm F2


----------



## anden (Mar 10, 2017)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> anden said:
> 
> 
> > EF-S 8/1.8 USM would be cool. Like UltraWide GoPro and EF 14 on FF.
> ...


You are probably right. They are stretches if affordable, but Canon seem to haven't tried hard with crop lenses for a long time so I figured if they now have, then who knows.


----------



## vangelismm (Mar 10, 2017)

USM? Give up.

I think we will never see again a non L USM lens again.


----------



## Policar (Mar 10, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > Not to mention that the kit lens is already an 18mm f2.8 IS STM.... only have a stop slower and it zooms. But that would be cool still, as a pancake.
> ...



It is, as I wrote, "a half stop slower," f3.5 being a half stop slower than f2.8. But then I think I mistyped and it autocorrected to "have."

Curious what the f stop of this new lens is at least, as it sounds like that has leaked. Hoping it's an ultra wide, I figure it must be to differentiate itself from the pack, but the 10-18 is already excellent. Maybe it's a fast ultra wide? Or just a very wide pancake, but I'm not sure if that's possible with a mirror box and the EF-S flange focal distance.


----------



## Woody (Mar 10, 2017)

Wide angle? Not standard? Sigh... disappointed


----------



## IglooEater (Mar 11, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Also, to CR guy -- an isolated lens announcement for crop seems oddly timed. Any chance this might be announced alongside something else that it might go with? The Rebels just got a refresh and an 80D or 7D2 replacement isn't the right timing, so I can't think of anything 'crop-appropriate' off hand... unless it's an 80Da or something, and that seems a reach.
> ...



Ef-s and prime give the potential of very small. Sounds like an awesome lens to put on an SL2 and throw in a pack for hiking.


----------



## illadvisedhammer (Mar 11, 2017)

re ahsanford's thoughtful post, I'm a crop sensor user (M2 and 80D), and kind of EF-S lensed out (10-18, 24, 35+50 [EF], 55-250, 15-85). I feel the wide zooms (11-22 and 10-18) give me all the wide angle I need and I don't need wide aperture on those. My favorite/best lens outside the bug hunters (60, 65, 100) is the 35 f/2 IS. It is sharper than the 50 1.8, either because of optics or IS, but more importantly it is an indoor/outdoor lens, okay to snap across a restaurant table or living room in a way the 50 can't on APS-C. An EF-S 30-35 1.8 IS if it's light and high quality would probably get me to trade the 35f2, and probably the 24 2.8, since the EF-M 22 gets all the pancake work anyway. The 35 f2 is so good that I'd probably be happiest to buy a 30 1.8 EF-M and keep the 35, if they released one. If feels like that might be the future anyway.


----------



## Crosswind (Mar 11, 2017)

anden said:


> EF-S 8/1.8 USM would be cool. Like UltraWide GoPro and EF 14 on FF.
> EF-S 15/1.2 USM would also be welcomed.
> Wouldn't any f/2.8 be quite boring?



Hey, I wouldn't call it "boring" if it features IS and is really sharp wide open... f/2.8 for a "cheap", small and lightweight EF-S wideangle is pretty OK.

If a lens is almost unusable at f/1.8 or even brighter (because you have to stop it down to ~f/2.8 anyway to get nice contrast and sharpness), now THAT I'd call a boring lens.


----------



## ashmadux (Mar 11, 2017)

It should be a 22/f2 as an ef-s version of the sweet M lens, or anything below 15mm. 

15 @ 2.8 mm on crop is, well 'crap' - not interesting in the least. 2.8 on crop isn't spectacular either, so go lower or go home.

12mm? now your talking


----------



## ashmadux (Mar 11, 2017)

Crosswind said:


> anden said:
> 
> 
> > EF-S 8/1.8 USM would be cool. Like UltraWide GoPro and EF 14 on FF.
> ...




Lol we said the same thing. 2.8 on crop is no crowning achievement, definitely not newsworthy. BUT "boring?"

*DEFINITELY.* :


----------



## Crosswind (Mar 11, 2017)

ashmadux said:


> 15 @ 2.8 mm on crop is, well 'crap' - not interesting in the least. 2.8 on crop isn't spectacular either, so go lower or go home.



Depends on the price


----------



## ashmadux (Mar 11, 2017)

slclick said:


> Boring lens? Boring photographer. Come on now, you can make exciting images with a pinhole camera.



You're making a point for something no one was talking about. Nobody was talking about the skills of a photographer nor ability to use a given lens. Stay focused! (no pun)

A boring lens is boring like a boring camera body. Boring.

Cmon dude.

PS - Go buy a 40d, I heard you can make exciting images with it  Aww...why not? Ooohh....gotcha.


----------



## sanj (Mar 11, 2017)

A 35mm equivalent f2 will make me buy a crop camera. Serious!


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 11, 2017)

anden said:


> EF-S 8/1.8 USM would be cool. Like UltraWide GoPro and EF 14 on FF.
> 
> EF-S 15/1.2 USM would also be welcomed.
> 
> Wouldn't any f/2.8 be quite boring?



To whom?

Canon makes lenses that sell, all the more so when it comes to crop. Who is the target audience for a fast wide crop lens? Would a fast crop lens be cheap enough to sell well? Would it hurt sales of fast L primes, e.g. 24mm f/1.4?

Suppose an 8mm f/1.8 was priced at $500. One could buy a 14mm f/2.8L for $2,100 or 80D + 8mm f/1.8 for $1,900, FF owners might choose the later, while few crop owners would be willing to spend $500 on a prime lens, leading to a bottom line loss.


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 11, 2017)

Why is everyone so hung up on the speed of an ultra-wide angle lens?

By far the more important issue is image quality.

I couldn't care less if it was f/1.8 or f/2.8 as long as it's pin sharp.


----------



## Plainsman (Mar 11, 2017)

I like the 24/2.8 STM semi-wide pancake - so sharp,so light IS is not necessary.
On the 24Mp sensor it crops down to a very good 12Mp "standard" lens equivalent i.e. two lenses for one.
A 15 or 18/2.8 STM would be a great additional lens.


----------



## Frage (Mar 11, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> We <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/the-next-lens-from-canon-will-be-an-ef-s-prime/">told you back in January</a> that Canon would be announcing a new EF-S prime lens soon.</p>
> <p>We now know the lens is expected to be announced on April 5, 2017 in North America and that it is indeed a new wide angle EF-S prime lens.</p>
> <p>Unfortunately we’ve been told two different focal length for this lens and we’re trying to confirm which is correct. We’ll let you know as soon as we know. We’re hoping for a lens around 10mm for APS-C cameras (though that’s highly unlikely).</p>
> <p><em>More to come…</em></p>
> <span id="pty_trigger"></span>


@CR Guy

You forgot to mention the 2 rumored focal lenghts.


----------



## traveller (Mar 11, 2017)

Isn't it a strange new world when Canon are making the budget lenses and leaving the high end to Sigma? 

I take it we are assuming that Canon will be announcing a f/2.8 pancake in the ilk of the EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM? To be honest, unless it is ultra wide (e.g. 10mm), I can't really see the point. An 18mm or 15mm lens only gets you 2/3rds of a stop of extra light gathering over the zooms (18-55mm kit zooms & 15-85) and you lose IS. You aren't going to get much depth of field control either, unless you get very close to your subject. 

What is Canon trying to tell its APS-C customers, because to me it looks like if you want fast wide glass, either pay the money and size penalty for full frame, or go mirrorless (probably with another manufacturer's system, given Canon's currently less than extensive EF-M wide prime lineup). 

Of course, Canon could surprise us all with a 15mm of 22mm f/1.8 or f/2 prime... and pigs might fly!


----------



## vangelismm (Mar 11, 2017)

The 24mm is 2.8, any lens bellow this focal length is more expensive to make, and even more expensive to make it fast. 99% sure will be a 2.8 lens.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Mar 11, 2017)

IglooEater said:


> Ef-s and prime give the potential of very small. Sounds like an awesome lens to put on an SL2 and throw in a pack for hiking.



Heck, get the SL2 and the 24 STM, 40 STM, and (hopefully) this if it's small. All very easy to carry together, and some creative flexibility.


----------



## PeterT (Mar 11, 2017)

I would be glad to see anything in the"wide" interval that is F2.0 or f1.8 and it is not pancake (=too much compromise in quality for a small gain in size), but "cupcake" sized.
Canon, please give us a 22mm f/1.8 (or f/2.0 with IS) or a 15mm 2.0.
Not interested in f/2.8 - my zoom starts at 15mm 3.5 and it has IS.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Mar 11, 2017)

ashmadux said:


> It should be a 22/f2 as an ef-s version of the sweet M lens, or anything below 15mm.
> 
> 15 @ 2.8 mm on crop is, well 'crap' - not interesting in the least. 2.8 on crop isn't spectacular either, so go lower or go home.
> 
> 12mm? now your talking



I don't think they'd put out a 22/2 when they already have the 24/2.8, which is said to be the equivalent of the 22/2 in terms of optical formula. I'm betting the "more likely" FL is 16mm, or maybe a mm or two lower.


----------



## TeT (Mar 11, 2017)

sanj said:


> A 35mm equivalent f2 will make me buy a crop camera. Serious!



a 22mm f/2 then?


----------



## TeT (Mar 11, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> I've nailed down the speed of the lens and other features. I think I know the focal length... I just want to [CR3] it.



Such a tease...


----------



## Luds34 (Mar 11, 2017)

ashmadux said:


> 12mm? now your talking



Completely agree, 12mm, a great focal length on crop!

Just picked up the Rokinon 12mm prime for a trip to Asia. Love the lens, gotta give Samyang some credit as the optics are incredible. Very very sharp, great resolving power. 

As for this rumor??? My bet is on a ~35mm (FF equiv) fast prime.


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Mar 11, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Also, to CR guy -- an isolated lens announcement for crop seems oddly timed. Any chance this might be announced alongside something else that it might go with? The Rebels just got a refresh and an 80D or 7D2 replacement isn't the right timing, so I can't think of anything 'crop-appropriate' off hand... unless it's an 80Da or something, and that seems a reach.
> ...



Canon could update the 60Da. The 80D modified for astrophotography would not be a whole new camera but just a 80D modified from factory. Canon could do this, IMHO its possibility. Who knows. But Ashanford has a point though, why release a fast prime UWA for APS-C if not for Astro. And, not have an updated Astro camera. Doesn't really make sense. But guess we will find out.. LOL


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 11, 2017)

sanj said:


> A 35mm equivalent f2 will make me buy a crop camera. Serious!



Or you could just get the existing 35mm f/2 EF 

Or, if you want a 35mm equivalent f/2 then an EOS M5/6 with the EF-M 22mm f/2 is the other option


----------



## Markintosh (Mar 11, 2017)

sanj said:


> A 35mm equivalent f2 will make me buy a crop camera. Serious!



Canon 35mm IS f/2.


----------



## vangelismm (Mar 11, 2017)

TeT said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > A 35mm equivalent f2 will make me buy a crop camera. Serious!
> ...



No, 22mm 1.2.


----------



## TeT (Mar 11, 2017)

vangelismm said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



Speechless, drooling...


----------



## BXL (Mar 11, 2017)

Using mostly the 24-105/4L, a 15mm f/2.8 would be nice.


----------



## slclick (Mar 11, 2017)

Markintosh said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > A 35mm equivalent f2 will make me buy a crop camera. Serious!
> ...



Thats a 56 Equivalent but a damn fine lens nonetheless


----------



## anden (Mar 12, 2017)

traveller said:


> Isn't it a strange new world when Canon are making the budget lenses and leaving the high end to Sigma?


I recall Scott Kelby's conclusion about the essence of the 7D2: making it possible for parents to take really good sports photos without having to pay pro gear price.

But it certainly starts to look like Canon see it differently. They may now basically be targeting semi-pro daytime birders, then needing just long EF lenses. Therefore, EF-S lenses would from now on not be fast, but rather designed for general use and a more distinctively low price. What Sigma is releasing though, seem to suggest they believe in the market that Kelby described, and similarly demanding ones like amateurs' indoor events.

The reason why Canon wouldn't go for those markets, wouldn't necessarily be just about protecting FF sales but also lack of time and resources given today's FF competition, as well as lack of belief in them.


----------



## KristinnK (Mar 12, 2017)

I was hoping for a fast 50mm equivalent normal lens (so 30/32/35 mm), aperture at least f1.8, preferably f1.4. Seeing as the 40mm f2.8 is a pancake lens with a full-frame image circle I think they could easily make a 35mm crop-frame f1.8 for a similar cost. Alternatively I would have a liked a portrait lens (100-135mm equiv.) where I wouldn't have to pay double for the 1.6x larger image circle. But this better be a real UWA, i.e. 10mm (16mm full-fram equiv.) or wider, at least f2.8 (f4.5 full-frame equiv.), and preferably f1.8 (f2.9 full-frame equiv.).

Canon is really making it difficult to want to use their crop-frame cameras. There is a good telephoto lens (55-250mm STM) and an OK standard zoom lens (17-55mm f2.8 ). Even that one isn't really anything special. It's a 27-88mm f4.5 full-frame equivalent lens. Meanwhile the 24-105mm f4 full-frame lens is considered lackluster. Only other crop frame lenses are small aperture ultrawides (which are bad for night-sky photography), a 24mm f2.8 prime and a 60mm f2.8 macro lens (100mm f4.5 full-fram equiv.). You're forced to use at least 1 to 3 full-frame lenses, which means paying for a 1.6^2=2.56 times larger image circle. At that point it's almost worth it to buy a full-frame camera to be able to use the whole of these lenses, which means also replacing the couple of good crop lenses with full-frame lenses. And that's exactly what Canon wants...


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 12, 2017)

KristinnK said:


> Canon is really making it difficult to want to use their crop-frame cameras. There is a good telephoto lens (55-250mm STM) and an OK standard zoom lens (17-55mm f2.8 ). Even that one isn't really anything special. It's a 27-88mm f4.5 full-frame equivalent lens. Meanwhile the 24-105mm f4 full-frame lens is considered lackluster. Only other crop frame lenses are small aperture ultrawides (which are bad for night-sky photography), a 24mm f2.8 prime and a 60mm f2.8 macro lens (100mm f4.5 full-fram equiv.). You're forced to use at least 1 to 3 full-frame lenses, which means paying for a 1.6^2=2.56 times larger image circle. At that point it's almost worth it to buy a full-frame camera to be able to use the whole of these lenses, which means also replacing the couple of good crop lenses with full-frame lenses. And that's exactly what Canon wants...



Yep. If crop is where you want to live and you don't want to pony up for larger-than-you-need FF glass to use with it, Fuji would appear to be a company to consider.

Since Fuji lacks an FF platform, they are pumping all kinds of money into 'pro crop' lenses _no bigger than they need to be for crop_ that Canonites would love to see in EF-S: 56mm f/1.2, 23mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4 etc. 

- A


----------



## Crosswind (Mar 12, 2017)

CR: _"Canon EF-S xxmm f/2.8 IS STM
We haven’t confirmed the focal length of this lens yet, but it will be announced on or around April 5, 2017. We’ve also been told that it’ll have a unique feature for an EF-S lens."_

So it will be xx mm (expecting to be way lower than the EF-S 24, otherwise it'd be too similar in FL, I'm guessing at least (!) *18mm or lower*), have a *unique feature* on board (what could be unique for a wideangle lens?), is at *f/2.8* while having *IS* and *STM*.

These are considered _unique features_: the ef-m macro has built-in lights, the ef-m kitzoom is retractable... Now what could be useful for a wideangle lens? Is being a pancake considered a unique feature? Or tilt/shift? (I guess it wont be any of these)


----------



## Crosswind (Mar 12, 2017)

KristinnK said:


> But this better be a real UWA, i.e. 10mm (16mm full-fram equiv.) or wider, at least f2.8 (f4.5 full-frame equiv.), and preferably f1.8 (f2.9 full-frame equiv.).



*f/2.8 on crop is also f/2.8 on FF.* It just "appears" to look like a f/4.5 in terms of depth of field (because you have to go further away with crop to get the same framing as with a FF camera), but in reality the depth of field between crop and FF sensor is the same (DOF depends on something else, see below). And also in terms of light-gathering ability; f/2.8 on crop lets in the exact amount of light as a f/2.8 lens for FF. It just "appears" to be better because FF cameras usually have a better signal to noise ratio than crop cameras.

The DOF. is only dependent on the distance between your sensor and the subject (not the sensor size) - and of course the chosen aperture. Just to clarify.


----------



## okaro (Mar 12, 2017)

Crosswind said:


> KristinnK said:
> 
> 
> > But this better be a real UWA, i.e. 10mm (16mm full-fram equiv.) or wider, at least f2.8 (f4.5 full-frame equiv.), and preferably f1.8 (f2.9 full-frame equiv.).
> ...



What you say makes no sense. 10 mm f/2.8 gives same angle of view and DoF as 16 mm f/4.5 on FF. Changing position has nothing to do with it (if you change the distance you change everything) Also the total light to the sensor is same. This means you get similar image quality on high ISO. In FF you need to raise ISO higher but the sensor can take it. On low ISO the FF has advantage as the crop cannot go low enough and one often stops down anyway losing the advantage of the higher speed. FF cameras have better signal to noise ratio as they gather more light. 

People often forget the ISO part in the equivalences and they complain that the exposure is incorrect. 10 mm f/2.8 ISO 400 is equivalent to 16 mm f/4.5 ISO 1000. If one uses those, then the angle of view, depth of field, exposure and noise are same if the sensors have same quality. Yes, nothing changes on the lens, it is always what it is. These are just calculations. 

One can, however, question the need of the calculations. If you choose crop sensor, you make some choices relating to cost and size. People who expect FF performance on crop have made the wrong choice on the body. Understanding these formulas is one thing. Trying to use them to undo the limitations of the crop sensor is another. Sigma can try that as they have nothing else to sell. Canon will not make expensive crop lenses that would make their FF bodies less desirable. Also an average crop user will not want expensive and heavy lenses.


----------



## Crosswind (Mar 12, 2017)

okaro said:


> What you say makes no sense.



Sure.



okaro said:


> 10 mm f/2.8 gives same angle of view and DoF as 16 mm f/4.5 on FF.



A 10mm lens on crop gives the same angle of view as a 16mm lens of FF - that's correct. But I have referred to the aperture, not focal lenght.

Please consider this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy5UTSmg2i0 to rethink what you've just said. There seems to be a lot of widespread confusion about that.

P.S.: A 10mm lens on a crop body won't change its focal lenght when you put it on a FF body (but the field of view will change - that is a big difference). The same is true for aperture - if the lens has f/2.8 on crop, it has f/2.8 on FF too - and the same DoF, if the distance to the subject is the same for both cameras (because the crop sensor is smaller than the FF sensor so it will give a different framing). 
DoF has nothing to do with sensor size.


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 12, 2017)

Chaitanya said:


> That would be certainly useful, 24/28mm equivalent pancake lens.


Something like that would get my interest for my travel kit.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Mar 12, 2017)

KristinnK said:


> Canon is really making it difficult to want to use their crop-frame cameras. There is a good telephoto lens (55-250mm STM) and an OK standard zoom lens (17-55mm f2.8 ). Even that one isn't really anything special. It's a 27-88mm f4.5 full-frame equivalent lens. Meanwhile the 24-105mm f4 full-frame lens is considered lackluster. Only other crop frame lenses are small aperture ultrawides (which are bad for night-sky photography), a 24mm f2.8 prime and a 60mm f2.8 macro lens (100mm f4.5 full-fram equiv.). You're forced to use at least 1 to 3 full-frame lenses, which means paying for a 1.6^2=2.56 times larger image circle. At that point it's almost worth it to buy a full-frame camera to be able to use the whole of these lenses, which means also replacing the couple of good crop lenses with full-frame lenses. And that's exactly what Canon wants...



Eh, I think rather Canon has decided that the market breaks down thusly (or the market they're interested in does):

1) pros/ deep-pocket enthusiasts who will either have a 7D2 + big lenses, or a FF + maybe a crop for portability
2) casual/ budget enthusiasts who will buy whatever crop body is on sale at BB/ Costco and either weld on the 18-135, 18-55 (or MAYBE 17-55 or 18-200), possibly add the 55-250 or 60 macro if they're "serious", and call it a day

Especially with the 6D, and the current going rate for the 5D3, the number of people who specifically want a crop camera with high-end EF-S lenses is probably not that high. They just tend to hang out here and make it seem like a large, untapped market.

Personally, from the people I know, that's exactly how the market breaks down: the people who primarily shoot crop couldn't imagine paying more than a couple hundred for a lens, or having more than a couple in total. It would be shocking if Canon hadn't done the market research to figure out how many people would actually pay for premium EF-S lenses.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 12, 2017)

Crosswind said:


> DoF has nothing to do with sensor size.



That is simply not true in real terms, and your video is just plain wrong.

DOF is dictated by two things alone, magnification and aperture (the actual apparent aperture size not number).

Now if you take a 10mm lens at f2.8 and a 16mm lens at f 2.8 from the same spot the wider lens has greater dof because the aperture opening is smaller. Ergo, shoot a smaller sensor with a lens that gives you the same fov from any point and you have greater dof, that is why camera phones have an f2 lens yet inordinate amounts of dof, their sensors are comparatively smaller and the actual apparent aperture is physically smaller. It isn't the sensor size per se that is impacting the dof, it is the physical size of the aperture. An f2.8 lens is not an f2.8 when talking about dof.

Equivalence is a real thing, you can take identical shots from an image quality perspective that include noise levels, dof and fov across sensor sizes and from the same place, but you have to change all three. It is so easy to prove it is farcical that anybody could argue differently, especially somebody wearing a tee shirt with _"get out and take some damn photos"_ on!

Now because so many people would rather listen to idiots on YouTube sprouting bull---- than actually take some pictures here is an example I did years ago to illustrate this very point. Three different sensor sizes, three different exposures, three identical pictures from the point of view of perspective, noise, framing, and depth of field.

if you want to really understand this stuff read this article: www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 12, 2017)

So Crosswind, what do you 'dislike' about my post? What is inaccurate?


----------



## c.d.embrey (Mar 12, 2017)

Canon still camera sales are decreasing. Canon's Super35 Cine sales are increasing.

Canon's C-100 Mk2, etc can use EF-S lenses. Maybe the new EF-S lenses is aimed at the cine/video market. Say something like an 18mm f/1.8


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 12, 2017)

c.d.embrey said:


> Canon still camera sales are decreasing. Canon's Super35 Cine sales are increasing.
> 
> Canon's C-100 Mk2, etc can use EF-S lenses. Maybe the new EF-S lenses is aimed at the cine/video market. Say something like an 18mm f/1.8


Not one there is a great market for such a lens.
But, on second thought, it makes sense to offer a truly wide-angle F1.8 lens, so C100 users will not be forced to buy Sigma / Samyang.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Mar 12, 2017)

c.d.embrey said:


> Canon still camera sales are decreasing. Canon's Super35 Cine sales are increasing.
> 
> Canon's C-100 Mk2, etc can use EF-S lenses. Maybe the new EF-S lenses is aimed at the cine/video market. Say something like an 18mm f/1.8



Wouldn't CR-guy know if it was a Cine lens? As in, the specs leaked to him would be in T-stop rather than f-stop, they're designed differently, in different bodies, and named differently?


----------



## slclick (Mar 12, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Crosswind said:
> 
> 
> > DoF has nothing to do with sensor size.
> ...



Thank you for sharing that. This argument, this inane argument is perpetuated by YouTube personalities who convince people solely based upon their magnitude of followers.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Mar 12, 2017)

The NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) show runs fro April 17 to 22 http://www.nabshow.com Announcing a wide Super35 Cine prime on April 5th makes some sense. Get some buzz going before the show. Baybe there is a new EOS C100-500 series Cine camera being announced at the show :-\


----------



## noncho (Mar 12, 2017)

Interesting, if it's below 24mm and it's compact I doubt that could be below 14/15mm - with wider angle lenses(from other manufacturers) are getting bigger.
So with good small body might be good reply to the mirrorless.
.
About unique feature... could it be fisheye? Wide angle pancakes naturally are barrel distortion friendly.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Mar 12, 2017)

> Canon's C-100 Mk2, etc can use EF-S lenses. Maybe the new EF-S lenses is aimed at the cine/video market. Say something like an 18mm f/1.8





> Wouldn't CR-guy know if it was a Cine lens? As in, the specs leaked to him would be in T-stop rather than f-stop, they're designed differently, in different bodies, and named differently?



Check-out the Canon EOS C100MK II with 17-55 Lens Kit (EF-S Mount) https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1244137-REG/canon_0202c030_eos_c100mk_ii_with.html That's just an autofocus EF-S lens that's been around since 2006.

Learn all about the various flavors of EOS Cine bodies and lenses at http://cinemaeos.usa.canon.com Not everything is in T-stops and PL mounts, lots of autofocus F/stop lenses in EF and EF-S mounts.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Mar 12, 2017)

anden said:


> I recall Scott Kelby's conclusion about the essence of the 7D2: making it possible for parents to take really good sports photos without having to pay pro gear price.
> 
> But it certainly starts to look like Canon see it differently. They may now basically be targeting semi-pro daytime birders, then needing just long EF lenses. Therefore, EF-S lenses would from now on not be fast, but rather designed for general use and a more distinctively low price. What Sigma is releasing though, seem to suggest they believe in the market that Kelby described, and similarly demanding ones like amateurs' indoor events.
> 
> The reason why Canon wouldn't go for those markets, wouldn't necessarily be just about protecting FF sales but also lack of time and resources given today's FF competition, as well as lack of belief in them.



Do parents taking sports photos not just use the 85/1.8, 100/2, 135L, or whichever 70-200/2.8? With the bulk of the COGS for those lenses being in the front elements, EF-S versions (especially in lower volume) might not be a ton cheaper. They're also pretty affordable - a 7D2 + 85/1.8 is way cheaper than a 5D4 + 135L/70-200, or a 1DX/2 + anything.


----------



## slclick (Mar 13, 2017)

Ok, I'll go ahead and do this.....

'The Pancake Trinity' 

There.


----------



## okaro (Mar 13, 2017)

Crosswind said:


> okaro said:
> 
> 
> > What you say makes no sense.
> ...



DoF surely depends on the sensor size. I have actually done these calculations. With same focal length DoF is smaller on smaller sensor as the image is magnified more so smaller error is required on the sensor. If the angle of view is same then the smaller sensor has more depth of field. Just check Wikipedia for the formulas pr check a Depth of Field calculator.

As I said, nothing changes in the lens depending on the sensor. That is why we call them equivalences. They are tools to compare the final result on relation to the depth of field and the total noise. Yes, one needs to adjust also the ISO and the aperture to get the proper results. 

The format for the hyperfocal distance (on which DoF is based) is H = f + f^2 / (N*c). There f is the focal length, N is the aperture value and c is the maximum acceptable circle of confusion. That depends on the sensor size. On FF it is typically 0.03mm. On APS-C for the same results one needs about 0.019mm. That is so that on a 100 mm x 150 mm print the values on both are about 0.125 mm. Note the equivalence is not exact as it only makes the second part of the sum equal, not the first f. This is insignificant in normal (non-macro) photography. Lets use the same example: FF: 16 + 16^2 / (4.5*0.03) = 1912 mm. Crop: 10 + 10^2 / (2.8 * 0.01875) = 1915 mm. Close enough.


----------



## anden (Mar 13, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> anden said:
> 
> 
> > I recall Scott Kelby's conclusion about the essence of the 7D2: making it possible for parents to take really good sports photos without having to pay pro gear price.
> ...


Yes they do, because there is not much else available...

You can take fantastic sports photos with an ultra wide angle lens. But now it's the 10-22 with its f/3.5 at the wide end, and that's doable but indoors you need to push ISO so much that you really wish for something faster.

The bunch of 70-200's are usable, but combining the crop factor and the limited size of indoor courts, the short end's 70 mm is often too long. Add the rather slow-for-crop f/2.8 and you have lenses leaving much to desire.

About "way cheaper" - yes, with that huge difference already in body price, crop-friendly focal length and aperture lenses don't even need to be much cheaper for the system to be much more affordable - they just need to exist.

We can question this market size, but go to any kids indoor sports event and you see parents lined up with their iphones and looking confused when they see how miserable the pictures look. Then you will see someone here and there with a DSLR, getting away better but rarely with pictures representative of what a mid-price DSLR would be able to do.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Mar 14, 2017)

anden said:


> Yes they do, because there is not much else available...
> 
> You can take fantastic sports photos with an ultra wide angle lens. But now it's the 10-22 with its f/3.5 at the wide end, and that's doable but indoors you need to push ISO so much that you really wish for something faster.
> 
> ...



Hell, my wife's mother tries to take pictures at her Ironmans with an iPad. And I mentioned in another thread one of her friends trying to take a shot from a second-floor balcony after our marathon and it not going well. The Apple ads have convinced people the iPhone is as good as a huge SLR; there's no convincing them. If the 70-200 is too long, what about the 24-70? The 7D2 should be able to handle the ISO needed. If not, then yeah, you sound like a good candidate for a 5D3 or 5D4. A crop zoom faster than the 2.8 is going to be huge (and expensive) as well, so I don't know what you think you'd gain by having a super-fast crop zoom.


----------



## anden (Mar 14, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> Hell, my wife's mother tries to take pictures at her Ironmans with an iPad. And I mentioned in another thread one of her friends trying to take a shot from a second-floor balcony after our marathon and it not going well. The Apple ads have convinced people the iPhone is as good as a huge SLR; there's no convincing them. If the 70-200 is too long, what about the 24-70? The 7D2 should be able to handle the ISO needed. If not, then yeah, you sound like a good candidate for a 5D3 or 5D4. A crop zoom faster than the 2.8 is going to be huge (and expensive) as well, so I don't know what you think you'd gain by having a super-fast crop zoom.


Indeed, maybe Canon need to up their marketing.

The crop cameras can handle f/2.8 indoor sports ISO, but lights are often so dim that you are stretching into somewhat grainy pictures. Additionally, if you could have some extra background separation that's just great. These faster lenses aren't a must - but they would be a very nice option.

24-70 is also 2.8 slow. And it is a bit short for general court coverage, covering just the nearest half or so on crop. Third, the price is very high.

I don't think even a very small part of this market can be steered to a 5D4-priced system. Additionally, you lose those 10 fps that are terrific for sports.

What is gained? Big savings, like +50%. Compare 7D2 + 50-100 with 5D4 + 70-200. And the 10 fps. Yes, the 5D4 is a more capable general system, but the price is way up there for most people.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 14, 2017)

anden said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Hell, my wife's mother tries to take pictures at her Ironmans with an iPad. And I mentioned in another thread one of her friends trying to take a shot from a second-floor balcony after our marathon and it not going well. The Apple ads have convinced people the iPhone is as good as a huge SLR; there's no convincing them. If the 70-200 is too long, what about the 24-70? The 7D2 should be able to handle the ISO needed. If not, then yeah, you sound like a good candidate for a 5D3 or 5D4. A crop zoom faster than the 2.8 is going to be huge (and expensive) as well, so I don't know what you think you'd gain by having a super-fast crop zoom.
> ...


Yes, that is a point that is often forgotten on this forum......we buy the best camera we can AFFORD! If you can not afford a particular camera, it really does not matter what it's features and capabilities are......


----------



## LonelyBoy (Mar 15, 2017)

anden said:


> Indeed, maybe Canon need to up their marketing.
> 
> The crop cameras can handle f/2.8 indoor sports ISO, but lights are often so dim that you are stretching into somewhat grainy pictures. Additionally, if you could have some extra background separation that's just great. These faster lenses aren't a must - but they would be a very nice option.
> 
> ...



But if you want the light-equivalent of the 70-200/2.8 for crop, so a ~45-120/1.8 or so, it'll be the same size except for the rear elements, and so as expensive as the 70-200/2.8. And for the body, yes, 10FPS is great for sports. Do you really think Canon can, or will, give a no-compromise body with FF and speed for mid-range price? I'm about to buy a 4Runner, wish I could afford a GX460, but I know Toyota can't (or won't) give me the premium version for the same price.

The zoom isn't mandatory; people can and do shoot basketball with a crop + 85/1.8. If you want to be all-in for less than $2000, there will be some compromises compared to the full pro-setup. And for a lot of people even $2000 is too much, so they'll just have to rely on whatever photographer is there from the school or paper (or go with a yet-cheaper option than you're talking about and manage to make do...).


----------



## anden (Mar 16, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> But if you want the light-equivalent of the 70-200/2.8 for crop, so a ~45-120/1.8 or so, it'll be the same size except for the rear elements, and so as expensive as the 70-200/2.8. And for the body, yes, 10FPS is great for sports. Do you really think Canon can, or will, give a no-compromise body with FF and speed for mid-range price? I'm about to buy a 4Runner, wish I could afford a GX460, but I know Toyota can't (or won't) give me the premium version for the same price.
> 
> The zoom isn't mandatory; people can and do shoot basketball with a crop + 85/1.8. If you want to be all-in for less than $2000, there will be some compromises compared to the full pro-setup. And for a lot of people even $2000 is too much, so they'll just have to rely on whatever photographer is there from the school or paper (or go with a yet-cheaper option than you're talking about and manage to make do...).


It seems to me too that they don't get much smaller or cheaper at least for tele range. But isn't that different on the wide side?

And again, since the body difference is $2000, lenses don't need to be that much cheaper.

Primes are certainly good for indoor sports. I have used 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 for that many times, even if I much more often prefer zooms. When your photographing time is limited, you may not have a lot of opportunities and with primes they get even fewer.

With mid-price I refered to a 7D2 with suitable fast lenses. But Canon may not be the one to make those lenses.


----------

