# We want more EF-S lens



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 24, 2013)

Tell me which EF-S lenses you would like to buy if it existed. Would have some advantage over existing lenses, even if it is just the price.
My short list:
*EF-S 8-16mm F4-5.6* $ 800 (non-fisheye)
*EF-S 16-55mm F2.8 IS* $ 900 (I have a dream ...)
*EF-S 17-70mm F4 IS* $ 500 (not impossible)
*EF-S 55-150mm F2.8 IS* $ 1100 (so sexy)
*EF-S 135-500mm F4-5.6 IS* $ 1200 (not too heavy)
Does my dreams will be met? What is your dream lens EF-S?


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 24, 2013)

An 8-11 that was faster. 

Would be a perfect match for my tokina 11-16.


----------



## Promature (Aug 24, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Tell me which EF-S lenses you would like to buy if it existed. Would have some advantage over existing lenses, even if it is just the price.
> My short list:
> *EF-S 8-16mm F4-5.6* $ 800 (non-fisheye)
> *EF-S 16-55mm F2.8 IS* $ 900 (I have a dream ...)
> ...


Canon already has the 10-22, so don't need the 6-16.
Canon already has the 17-55, so don't need the 16-55.
Canon already has the 15-85, so don't need the 17-70.
A 55-200 F2.8 could be interesting.
The 135-500 would be my pick.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 24, 2013)

Its a one sided poll. I would not buy any because FF bodies are the up and coming thing. I've nothing against APS-C, I own one, but EF lenses work fine on them and can be used on my FF body as well.


----------



## duydaniel (Aug 24, 2013)

I doubt Canon/Nikon will ever go shorter than 10mm on DX camera because they don't want 
competition with their Rectilinear widest angle lenses (Nikon 14-24) or (Canon 16-35)

17-55 2.8 is the best one lens on DX just like the 24-70 2.8 on FX imo.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 24, 2013)

Promature said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me which EF-S lenses you would like to buy if it existed. Would have some advantage over existing lenses, even if it is just the price.
> ...


In fact, the difference between *8mm* and *10mm* is quite noticeable, and although I would also like a 8mm F2.8, it seems that Canon does not plan to primes EF-S lenses. Also I think *16-55mm* is a useful improvement over the current 17-55. My wish is that it would be *17-70mm F4*, not F3.5-5.6 as the current 15-85. What we have seen is Tamrom Sigma and investing more in developing new lenses for APS-C, Canon while showing little interest in the area.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 24, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Its a one sided poll. I would not buy any because FF bodies are the up and coming thing. I've nothing against APS-C, I own one, but EF lenses work fine on them and can be used on my FF body as well.


In the case of prime lenses, a few millimeters not make much difference, because we will do the zoom with your feet. On the other hand, we need zoom lenses in situations where we can not or do not want to walk to get the required distance, as in a theater chair. In this case EF lenses do not always coincide with the range of zoom we need in APS-C.


----------



## PVS (Aug 24, 2013)

As long as no one is complaining about lenses being weather-sealed L coated Canon already got you served. 

Welcome to teh FF, now give them more money for the new set of lenses.


----------



## papa-razzi (Aug 24, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Its a one sided poll. I would not buy any because FF bodies are the up and coming thing. I've nothing against APS-C, I own one, but EF lenses work fine on them and can be used on my FF body as well.



+1 I'm with Spokane on this one. The EF-S lenses exist to fill gaps where the EF lenses don't exist. For example the 15-85 and 17-55 cover the normal zoom on the crops where the 24-xx don't get wide enough. The 10-22 is the same - a wide angle for crops where the 17-40 wouldn't be that wide. The EF-S 60mm macro is another.

For most everything else, there is an EF lens that will do the trick nicely. We really don't need a horde of EF-S lenses. I think Canon has done a nice job on plugging the gaps for crop.

The rest of the EF-S lenses are consumer lenses for the entry level person.


----------



## rs (Aug 24, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> I doubt Canon/Nikon will ever go shorter than 10mm on DX camera because they don't want
> competition with their Rectilinear widest angle lenses (Nikon 14-24) or (Canon 16-35)
> 
> 17-55 2.8 is the best one lens on DX just like the 24-70 2.8 on FX imo.



The Canon 16-35 on FF has exactly the same angle of view as the EF-S 10-22 does on crop, so purely from the wideness point of view, it already is competition. About 90% of my shots taken with the 10-22 are taken at 10mm. If it went to 8mm, I'm sure that would be my most used focal length with that lens.

Regarding the normal zoom range, since moving to FF I find the 24-70 range much more useful that 17-55 is on crop. I'd therefore vote for a 15-44/2.8 IS as a replacement for the 17-55.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Aug 24, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Its a one sided poll. I would not buy any because FF bodies are the up and coming thing. I've nothing against APS-C, I own one, but EF lenses work fine on them and can be used on my FF body as well.



I don't really believe that crop sensors will ever go away now - the benefits are for too great for the manufacturers in the mass market - however here in lays the problem, the vast majority of crop camera owners will never own more than two lenses, many of these will stick with just the one "super zoom". However, looking at the options, the EOS-M 22mm f2.0 is nearly a third of the depth and weight of the full frame 35mm f2.0 (ok so this has IS) - so I feel that there is an opportunity to provide a small range of crop specific primes, which a widened range of FF pancakes wouldn't necessarily forfill.

Similarly with the crop zooms, the 15-85mm is a cracking lens, but crop users need more like it, the 17-55mm is getting old, it could be improved in a number of ways, there isn't a decent crop specific zoom to match the 70-200mm range (something like a 40-135mm f2.8 would be nice) - the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II just looks silly on a 700D, but as a starting camera, more serious users are likely to grab an extra lens or two and the 70-200 range is popular.

I'd love to know the breakdown of lens sales to users, whilst we speculate, I really do think that the crop user is underestimated by the minority FF buyer, especially in the UK where I live, you hardly ever see FF cameras other than in the hands of wedding photographers and even then it's just as likely to be a crop body.


----------



## Woody (Aug 24, 2013)

My dream: EF-S 30mm f/1.4 USM


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Aug 24, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> I doubt Canon/Nikon will ever go shorter than 10mm on DX camera because they don't want competition with their Rectilinear widest angle lenses (Nikon 14-24) or (Canon 16-35)



They already have competition with Sigma's 8-16mm lens, so it might make sense competing with it and getting some sales back.


----------



## bardamu (Aug 24, 2013)

EF-S does need some development, badly. In primes particularly. Admittedly, the relatively recent 24 & 35 non-L rejuvenations mitigate that a little. EF 24mm IS can pinch hit as a 35 on crop, 35 IS as a 50. But it would still be nice to see:

EF-S 24mm equiv (16mm f/whatever IS)
EF-S 35mm equiv (22mm f/whatever IS)
EF-S 50mm equiv (31mm f/whatever IS)
and some more pancakes !!!

The FF options listed above are not cheap, EF-S equivs would surely be cheaper. There is a saying that if you don't cannibalise your own products then somebody else will - it seems odd for MFT and mirrorless systems to have a proliferation of primes whilst Nikon and Canon crops get nothing. Canon is not alone, this is the number one complaint from Thom Hogan in the last few months. The most logical explanation is that Canikon are trying to push more ambitious crop users into FF systems. But giving more lens options to crop would not take away some of the other attractions of FF like better high ISO performance and shallower DOF.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 24, 2013)

rs said:


> duydaniel said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt Canon/Nikon will ever go shorter than 10mm on DX camera because they don't want
> ...


One thing we must remember is that the Canon APS-C is more croped than Nikon (1.6X to 1.5X), then using EF lenses, we always have less wide angle. If 17mm is wide enough for Nikon to Canon is not. Accept that is 10-22mm were extended to 8mm, most of the time would I 8mm. However, I know that a replacement 8-22mm would be too heavy and too expensive. Therefore Sigma 8-16mm is very successful. Yes, 15-44mm F2.8 would be great, but it should not cost more than $ 1000 to be worth.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 24, 2013)

Haydn1971 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Its a one sided poll. I would not buy any because FF bodies are the up and coming thing. I've nothing against APS-C, I own one, but EF lenses work fine on them and can be used on my FF body as well.
> ...


I agree entirely with Haydn1971. Indeed, Canon needs to understand that in most countries, APS-C cameras dominate the market, even for professional use. Affluent consumers in rich countries do not care about APS-C, after they pay the value of a monthly salary for a full frame camera with a lens L. It turns out that most of the planet, the same full frame camera with a lens L costs three months' salary, perhaps up to five months. I think the blame for the Canon 17-55mm is so expensive is its Nikon equivalent cost $ 1300. Does not have options intermediate between Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm $ 600 and the original Canon and Nikon 17-55mm $ 1200? In my town, I watch dozens of weddings every year, and only see professional photographers using cameras full frame in 5% of the time. Why is it? It is because a Canon 6D with 24-105mm L costs $ 4,000 american dollars.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 24, 2013)

After jumping from crop to FF, EF-S is no longer on my wish list. Do wish for more PANCAKES though.

2005, I started with 40D + 17-55 + 50 f1.4


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 24, 2013)

Woody said:


> My dream: EF-S 30mm f/1.4 USM


Me too. Moreover, EF-S22mm F2, EF-S15mm F2.8, EF-S10mm F2.8(non-fisheye). When comes the long awaited 7D Mark II, which are the wide angle primes high quality for it? 24mmL U.S. $ 1550 and 14mmL $ 2100? That's it?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 24, 2013)

bardamu said:


> EF-S does need some development, badly. In primes particularly. Admittedly, the relatively recent 24 & 35 non-L rejuvenations mitigate that a little. EF 24mm IS can pinch hit as a 35 on crop, 35 IS as a 50. But it would still be nice to see:
> 
> EF-S 24mm equiv (16mm f/whatever IS)
> EF-S 35mm equiv (22mm f/whatever IS)
> ...


That's right. If Canon does not cannibalize their sales of lenses L, Sigma will. In fact, already doing. I also believe that Canon will not risk if Nikon does not. But already Nikon offers 35mm f/1.8 DX, 40mm f/2.8 DX Macro, 85mm f/3.5 DX Macro VR, 10.5mm f/2.8 DX Fisheye. And canon, offers only EF-S 60mm F2.8 macro. Nothing more.


----------



## tiger82 (Aug 24, 2013)

Wouldn't you prefer the flexibility to go FF without chucking all of your EF-S lenses or duplicating them? An EF-S 10-22 is equivalent to 16-35 when it reaches the sensor? A 16-35 EF would be a 24-55 equivalent on an APS-C. I guess my point is if you want to go wide or UWA then you should go FF. I bought a 5D to complement my 7D because it made more sense to buy a 16-35/2.8 EF for the 5D than a 10-22/3.5-4.5 EF-S for the 7D. When I need the extra reach, the 7D and 1D gives me a 1.6 and 1.3 crop factor on the long lenses.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 24, 2013)

tiger82 said:


> Wouldn't you prefer the flexibility to go FF without chucking all of your EF-S lenses or duplicating them? An EF-S 10-22 is equivalent to 16-35 when it reaches the sensor? A 16-35 EF would be a 24-55 equivalent on an APS-C. I guess my point is if you want to go wide or UWA then you should go FF. I bought a 5D to complement my 7D because it made more sense to buy a 16-35/2.8 EF for the 5D than a 10-22/3.5-4.5 EF-S for the 7D. When I need the extra reach, the 7D and 1D gives me a 1.6 and 1.3 crop factor on the long lenses.


Your suggestion makes sense. But I like to shoot with two bodies at the same time. The first, with battery grip + zoom lens F2.8 + flash + flash diffuser, and the second with fast prime lens. With full frame, I would have to carry 5 kg in the neck for several hours. I'm not an athletic body type, and would be quite uncomfortable. I also think women photographers who always end up using F4-5.6 lens because of the size and total weight.


----------



## Gareth (Aug 24, 2013)

Almost all these lenses have pretty close equivalents (oddly all made by Sigma), so is this post really "we want CANON to make these lenses?" 

> EF-S 8-16mm F4-5.6 $ 800 (non-fisheye)

Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM, $650 (except not f/4 to start)

> EF-S 16-55mm F2.8 IS $ 900 (I have a dream ...)

No one makes this down to 16mm, but 17-55mm or 17-50mm. How important is 16mm?

> EF-S 17-70mm F4 IS $ 500 (not impossible)

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM, $500. Even faster than f/4 and recently re-designed.

> EF-S 55-150mm F2.8 IS $ 1100 (so sexy)

Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM APO, $950. Except apparently it's about the same size and weight as a FF 70-200mm 2.8. The non-stabilized previous version was significantly smaller.

> EF-S 135-500mm F4-5.6 IS $ 1200 (not too heavy)

I got nothing for this. Although given the size of the 50-150, maybe it just makes more sense to buy a FF lens.
Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM APO, $970.

> EF-S 30mm f/1.4 USM

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM, $500. A recently re-designed Art lens.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 24, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > My dream: EF-S 30mm f/1.4 USM
> ...


Sigma has it.


----------



## tiger82 (Aug 24, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Your suggestion makes sense. But I like to shoot with two bodies at the same time. The first, with battery grip + zoom lens F2.8 + flash + flash diffuser, and the second with fast prime lens. With full frame, I would have to carry 5 kg in the neck for several hours. I'm not an athletic body type, and would be quite uncomfortable. I also think women photographers who always end up using F4-5.6 lens because of the size and total weight.



There's not much weight difference between my gripped 7D and gripped 5D and they share batteries! I keep weight off my neck by using a two body sling. Most of that is because I suffer from cervical dystoni but if I were completely healthy, I would still do it that way.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 24, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> *EF-S 135-500mm F4-5.6 IS* $ 1200 (not too heavy)



I guess you don't realize that for a telephoto design, the size of the image circle isn't limiting, the limiting parameter is filling the entrance pupil with light, and the entrance pupil is effectively at the front element. 

Such a lens would need an 89mm front element, and be large, heavy, and expensive (because unlike Sigma, Canon wouldn't make it f/6.3 so it's only 79mm in front and have to spoof their own AF system).


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 24, 2013)

Gareth said:


> Almost all these lenses have pretty close equivalents (oddly all made by Sigma), so is this post really "we want CANON to make these lenses?"
> 
> > EF-S 8-16mm F4-5.6 $ 800 (non-fisheye)
> 
> ...


You are right. If Sigma can do it, why can not Canon? About the statement "How important is 16mm", I say that I use a Tokina 16-50mm F2.8 and understand well the difference of 16mm to 17mm. Strongly urge that Canon makes a 16-55mm F2.8 IS, but would not pay $ 1300 for it.


----------



## tiger82 (Aug 24, 2013)

What happens if/when Canon delivers inexpensive full frame for the masses and abandons APS-C in favor of micro 4/3 for the consumer?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 24, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > *EF-S 135-500mm F4-5.6 IS* $ 1200 (not too heavy)
> ...


This is my first post in canonrumors, but I read a few years ago and I am honored with the contribution of Neuro always enlightening. It could be an EF-S 150-400mm F4-5.6 costing $ 1100 and I would be very happy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 24, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> It could be an EF-S 150-400mm F4-5.6 costing $ 1100 and I would be very happy.



If so, you could consider a used 100-400L, they often sell for ~$1000-1100.


----------



## noncho (Aug 24, 2013)

12 2.8 prime would be nice, 50-150 2.8 IS too.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 25, 2013)

noncho said:


> 12 2.8 prime would be nice, 50-150 2.8 IS too.



Make that a 12 EF prime instead of EF-S, and I'd probably buy that, too.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 25, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> noncho said:
> 
> 
> > 12 2.8 prime would be nice, 50-150 2.8 IS too.
> ...


The problem of an Canon EF12mm F2.8 would be the price of $ 2500, maybe $ 3000. :


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 25, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > noncho said:
> ...



And an EF-S won't? All twelve people worldwide who are frothing at the mouth waiting for such a lens will buy it if it's EF. If it's EF-S, only six or seven of them will.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Aug 25, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Promature said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...



Down the road canon may get to some of these lenses you mention, or other variants with similar stats. But, looking at the releases - I think they are going top down. Lots of "L" updates. Which makes sense in a way. as was said by others..,.EF glass works with crop bodies, but the same doesn't go the other way.

If you look at it from the marketing logic standpoint, canon wants People to progress up the line, from a P&S to a rebel, to a XXD, then make the leap to Full Frame. Less people will make the leap if they produce too much good EF-S glass. Like this one you bring up -- "My wish is that it would be *17-70mm F4*, not F3.5-5.6 as the current 15-85." the current one is $700 --- if you make it a constant f4 then that price will jump. If people are shelling out over $1000 on EF-s Lenses, then that would create a very effective roadblock in getting to FF bodies. Keeping the EF-S specific lenses to a minimum makes those looking to buy good glass buy EF lenses (maybe even L lenses) so they don't get stuck in the trap of "now I want to step up to FF but I would have no glass for it."

and finally, your ultra wide ---isn't the Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM Ultra-Wide Zoom Lens covering that?


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Aug 25, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > noncho said:
> ...



there's your bottleneck, your roadblock.. whats the end cost! high end glass will be costly, and for canon doesn't want you loading on on really expensive Ef-S glass, they'd prefer you go with L series EF lenses then upgrade to FF.

Back earlier in your post, you brought up how even the pro's in the less affluent countries are using crop bodies because of the cost, which is much much more. If a 6d is 2k here, and 4k there, then a $600 lens would be $1200..so any higher end EF or EF-S is gonna be out of your range too....that ain't canon's fault...thats the global economy...


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 25, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Promature said:
> ...


Before shooting with Canon APS-C, I used 35mm color film, so I had a few years of experience with the "feeling" equivalent to full frame DSLR. I remember I needed to use the diaphragm F5.6 (or F8) in all the photos of groups of people to have the necessary depth of field. At that time I did not plan to spend much money on a zoom lens F2.8 to use in F5.6 most of the time. When I started with DSLR (Rebel XT) I was pleasantly surprised to see that F4 was enough to give me the DOF I wanted, and some time later I bought a F2.8 zoom. Today, I would not go back to using F5.6 because the DOF on full frame. I know that Canon wants to push users APS-C to full frame to make more profit with L lenses, but for me, APS-C is ideal DOF. Just need high quality lenses to accompany the evolution of APS-C sensors. On the suggestion of the EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye, I really do not like the distortion exaggerated, but I prefer ultra wide rectilinear.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 25, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > dgatwood said:
> ...


Yes, I live in a city of three million people, which has no shop to sell full frame cameras, only Rebel T3i and D3100.  If a Canon 6D with 24-105mm costs $ 4000 here, Rebel T5i with 18-55mm costs $ 1300.  In this situation, many photographers prefer cameras like 60d, because a 6D deserves a high quality lens like 24-70mm F2.8 which costs $ 3,600. I would never use 5D Mark iii with low quality lens. So, I care more 7D Mark ii with the best lenses I can afford.


----------



## elflord (Aug 25, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> In fact, the difference between *8mm* and *10mm* is quite noticeable, and although I would also like a 8mm F2.8, it seems that Canon does not plan to primes EF-S lenses. Also I think *16-55mm* is a useful improvement over the current 17-55.



Tokina has 16-50mm.


----------



## elflord (Aug 25, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> You are right. If Sigma can do it, why can not Canon? About the statement "How important is 16mm", I say that I use a Tokina 16-50mm F2.8 and understand well the difference of 16mm to 17mm. Strongly urge that Canon makes a 16-55mm F2.8 IS, but would not pay $ 1300 for it.



They can but they don't want to. The reasons have been explained in this thread -- basically it doesn't play well with their overall strategy. What puzzles me about this thread is, why not just go ahead and buy what is available from manufacturers who have released a product that addresses your needs (Sigma, other third parties), instead of complaining about the manufacturers who have not done so (Canon)


----------



## josephandrews222 (Aug 25, 2013)

I love this website and enjoy reading the posts here.

I wonder if anyone else thinks what I think--what we now call a dslr will, in a while, be fullframe...and the apsc sensors will be found on mirrorless.


----------



## moreorless (Aug 25, 2013)

Personally I'd say the most obvious gap is a wider prime, either something like a 30mm 1.4 ala Sigma or a 20-25mmish pancake to go with the SL-1/100D.

I have my doubts as to whether theres a market for a 50-150mm f/2.8, I think crop users tend to want the extra reach so will go for a FF 70-200mm f/2.8 instead, as I understand it going EF-S isn't going to effect the size/price of tele's much.

One zoom that I think might be interesting is something between your typical normal and UWA ranges. Tokina seem to be targeting this with there new 12-28mm, I think something like a 14-35mm could be very popular if the price wasn't too high.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 25, 2013)

elflord said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > You are right. If Sigma can do it, why can not Canon? About the statement "How important is 16mm", I say that I use a Tokina 16-50mm F2.8 and understand well the difference of 16mm to 17mm. Strongly urge that Canon makes a 16-55mm F2.8 IS, but would not pay $ 1300 for it.
> ...


I have a Tokina 16-50mm F2.8 and it looks like the mechanical bulletproof. I could buy the Canon 17-55mm, but honestly, I think a lot of money for a building only reasonable. Seems plausible that update the Canon 17-55mm at some point, improving construction and extending the range for 16-55mm F2.8 IS. If Tokina make, I would buy, but they do not manufacture lens image stabilizer. I have a Sigma 10-20mm in 10mm I use for 99% of the time. I wish I had 8mm straight, but the Sigma 8-16mm is too dark (F4.5-5.6) and does not accept filters. What I have seen is the Sigma, Tamron and Tokina are meeting some needs of photographers that Canon does not want to meet. I have a canon 50mm F1.4 which has many weaknesses, but I do not see much better options at the moment. As people clamor for 50mm F1.4 IS, Canon is busy putting in image stabilizer lenses 24mm and 28mm. I know there is no perfect lens, but I hope Canon improves what really needs improvement. However, if you like 28mm F2.8 IS that tripled the price of the updated version, guess I'll have to wait for new Sigma lenses.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 25, 2013)

josephandrews222 said:


> I love this website and enjoy reading the posts here.
> 
> I wonder if anyone else thinks what I think--what we now call a dslr will, in a while, be fullframe...and the apsc sensors will be found on mirrorless.


I hope not. Why the evolution of technology should reduce the options currently available?  Just as I do not wish to make the leap to full frame DSLR, do not want to stay with mirrorless. Who knows if in the future mirrorless offering a viewfinder as good as DSLR, ergonomics, speed autofocus, set of lenses and accessories, I might want one. 8)


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 25, 2013)

moreorless said:


> Personally I'd say the most obvious gap is a wider prime, either something like a 30mm 1.4 ala Sigma or a 20-25mmish pancake to go with the SL-1/100D.
> 
> I have my doubts as to whether theres a market for a 50-150mm f/2.8, I think crop users tend to want the extra reach so will go for a FF 70-200mm f/2.8 instead, as I understand it going EF-S isn't going to effect the size/price of tele's much.
> 
> One zoom that I think might be interesting is something between your typical normal and UWA ranges. Tokina seem to be targeting this with there new 12-28mm, I think something like a 14-35mm could be very popular if the price wasn't too high.


It is. Canon offers fast primes that are wide angle on APS-C ... EF14mm f2.8 $ 2100, also TS-E 17mm f4 $ 2300. I do not seem suitable to the purpose of the user 7D, for example. Tokina and Sigma has experienced major innovations in this area. Maybe a 15-45mm F2.8 costing $ 800?


----------

