Why doesn't Canon have more EF-S lenses?

[ronald_smith2]

I have been threatening to get a DSLR system for a couple years, but it annoys

me Canon doesn't have a whole lot of APS-C dedicated optics. I currently have

the EF 70-200mm f/4 L and would really like an above-average quality zoom to

mate with it, the EF-S 17-85mm only has a mediocre reputation, at best, plus it

doesn't quite go wide enough.

 

The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is great but it leaves a gap between 55mm and 70mm.

 

Nikon recently unveiled a nice 16-85mm VR that is a 24-127mm equivalent in 35mm

terms, plus they have a couple 70-300mm zooms, one being a VR type with ED

glass. Seems they have more DX lenses than Canon has EF-S.

 

I guess I am waiting for an EF-S 15-70mm or something similar or just get the 5D

and use my 24-85 and 70-200mm zooms....

[rainer_t]

-- "but it leaves a gap between 55mm and 70mm."

 

A gap with (nearly) no practical relevance (imho).

[bueh]

Who cares about zooms... already more than enough of them on the market. What I want are dedicated, fast and modern EF-S primes, like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. One or two excellent wide angle angles shouldn't be too hard or expensive, just an equivalent to the EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM and an improved and faster equivalent to the EF 20mm f/2.8 USM should be great. Add a long f/2 telephoto (not that expensive EF 200mm f/2 L IS USM monster) and everyone will be happy.

[nathan_meador]

The efs 10-22 has had very good reviews, just add a 50 1.8 and you should be good to go....if you've just been using a 70-200 up until now, why need a full range of wide angle anyway?

[JohnMWright]

Canon also sells full-frame and 1.3x crop bodies which cannot use the EF-S lenses. Most of the lenses that most of us need or want are covered by the EF mount. My personal opinion is we only need EF-S mounts on the wide end.

 

And I agree with Rainer, the gap from 55 to 70mm is nothing. Back in the days when zooms were generally not very good (am I showing my age?), many people considered it sufficient to have one prime for each double of focal length... like a 24mm, 50mm, 100mm, 200mm, etc. I had such a setup and never missed the between range. Now I have a 17-40 and 70-200 and I don't mind the gap at all.

[ronald_smith2]

I have had a few mention to me who own both the 17-55mm f/2.8 and a 70-200mm lens they find there is a gap - in 35mm terms, this would be about 85mm to 105mm that is missing, and I can see where that might be an issue.

 

I am thinking Canon will eventually just have FF lenses as they have always had for any of their SLR systems as upcoming full-frame bodies will be more affordable and the norm. It night take a few years, but it seems destined to happen. I'd be just as far ahead to look at the 5D since I already have the glass, or its replacement......

 

TBH, I don't know if I could accept using f/5.6 zooms, it appears more common than it ever used to be.

[stillbound]

the gap from 55 to 70 is about three steps for a normal sized person. I have had people actually do this on occasion. Take an image at 70 then put on the 55 lens and step forward till they get the same shot. It is about 3 steps.

The 16-85 nikon is nothing but a better built 18-200 - no slip and less distortion due to the lack of zoom...it's not any faster or even really sharper.

[images_in_light_north_west]

Get EF lens', they are usually better

[robert_zellner]

Re: line up of prime lenses. I guess I'm about to show my age too. I used to carry a 35mm, a 55mm, a 135mm and a 200mm. I didn't miss the gaps because I didn't know any better, and I used my feet. I can't use my feet as much any more, so I appreciated the zooms.

[photo_dark]

Hello?

 

EF-S 17-85 f3.5-5.6 IS...

 

It's a great lens and covers all the missing links. Why does everyone always forget about this lens? it's really a great lens for the money.

[photo_dark]

Ok so it's not a f2.8... but still

[disneyry]

It won't be too many year before economies of scale allow all DSLRs to be full frame. I assume Canon is trying to avoid spending money in research channels they know have a finite and relatively short life-span and minimize the consumer backlash associated the the abandonment of a format.

[bob_osullivan]

Why doesn't Canon have more EF-S lenses?

 

Because EF lenses work fine on crop bodies.

 

Your concern over the 50-70 gap is really no big deal. There is virtually no perspective change regardless of sensor size in this range. So, as the other poster stated, a couple stepps up or back does it.

 

As for why no EF-S lens from super wide to super tele at F2.8 with IS? Well that would be a very difficult and expensive lens to make. That's kind of the point of the SLR system. You can change lenses to the specialized one that can best do the job. Super wide and long tele are mutually exclusive and when you try to combine the two quality suffers.

 

Lastly, I wouldn't worry to much about crop bodies going away for two reasons. It will always be cheaper to make a 1.6 sensor than a FF sensor due to size and materials. The market will alway have a place for a lower priced body. And the smaller sensor/miror combo allows smaller overall body size. Also a feature the market will always have a place for.

[ben_quinn1]

EFS 10-22 f/3.5-x & EF 24-70 f/2.8 L & EF 70-200 f/2.8 L - gives you 16mm to 320mm on

a 1.6 sensor.....

 

Why the need for EFS other than the 10-22 except they may be a bit lighter?

[ronald_smith2]

David, the 17-85mm isn't up to the snuff I would want plus it doesn't quite go wide enough.

 

I think I'll investigate the current pricing on the 5D.

[marc_bergman1]

"The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is great but it leaves a gap between 55mm and 70mm."

 

If Canon only had a EF-S 60mm f/2.8 lens. Maybe make it a macro. That would fill the gap for a portrait and macro lens.

 

Why do I always have to come up with these great product ideas for Canon?

[g dan mitchell]

They will probably not introduce many if any more EFS lenses because:

 

1. EF lens options (especially if you look at a variety of combinations) cover most any

range you would need.

 

2. EFS lenses provide little advantage at longer focal lengths.

 

3. In the long term, use of FF sensors will eventually not be as restricted to the "high end"

- e.g. APS-C will perhaps eventually be only in entry-level bodies.

 

Dan

[anson_ko]

Nikon has to depend on Sony for their sensors, so they have to design more lenses for cropped sensor due to the cost. Canon is pushing FF in DSLR so that they don't have too many EFS lenses. Their strategy is different.

[eigtball]

@Marc: I see what you did there ;)

 

@Ronald: Personally I don't really want canon to add more lenses. I'd rather have them upgrade or re-invent some of the older lenses. I think Canon's pace is pretty decent, however there is some room for improvement.

[nabeeko]

Marc,

 

You're genius! =)

60mm EF-S is a much needed macro!

 

Steve

[alan_myers]

EF 24-70/2.8L. Works great on either crop bodies or full frame.

 

Why do people think they need to have every millimeter covered?

 

By the way, Canon *has* created quite a few APS-C/EF-S lenses, more than any other single manufacturer I think (except perhaps Sigma). They've filled a lot of needs with them. Of course, there are still a few gaps, but that will always be the case.

 

Here's a though. Switch to just a handful of prime lenses, instead of zooms. Your photography will probably improve. Working with primes forces you to move around and explore other angles of your subject, which is usually a good thing.

 

Of course, I don't expect you'll take that seriously, might not even believe it, if you actually worry about a gap in focal lengths from 56mm to 69mm.

[colinsouthern]

"EF 24-70/2.8L. Works great on either crop bodies or full frame."

 

Give Alan the Gold Star! It's the PERFECT compliment to a 70-200. And if you need wider then you ALSO add a 16-35/2.8L II.

[ronald_smith2]

The 24-70 and 70-200 lenses are great, but the former isn't much good on a cropped body (how useful is 38mm or so in 35mm terms?) - you'd really need the 16-35mm, a trio of pretty expensive glass.

 

This is exactly why I am going to hold out for a FF body - if it's not the 5D, it could be its successor - or switch to Nikon, they seem to have a better foothold on APS-C lenses and needs.

[._._z]

<small><i><blockquote>

 

Who cares about zooms... already more than enough of them on the market. What I want are dedicated, fast and modern EF-S primes, like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.

 

</blockquote> </i> </small><p>

 

Bueh, didn't you try chastizing me a couple of days ago for daring to mention a Sigma lens in a similar thread? Too funny.

[greglynch]

Regarding the comment about the EF-S 17-85 IS being a superb lens, it's not. I have one of these, and was perfectly happy until yesterday. I was doing an advertising layout for a board game, and needed a full frame shot of just the board itself. It's about 24 inches square. I shot it at somewhere between 17 an 20, and the edges of the board were really distorted - nowhere near straight. So, I'm now trying to figure out what to do with this lens and what to get as a replacement. Budget is limited, but I'm thinking of the 17-40L. I have the 20-35 f/3.5-5.6, the 85 f/1.8, the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS, and the 400L f/5.6 - I've been using the 17-85 as my walk around lens, but I've looked closer at some of what it's done for (to?) me and I'm not too pleased. Any ideas from you experienced folks? My body is the XTi, having officially exited from film about a couple of years ago.