prime lenses for APS-C

[aaron d]

<p>How nice would it be if Canon were to produce some L prime lenses for its smaller sensor cameras? The beauty of the 7D, 50D, 500D is they are super high quality and COMPACT - so why not some excellent compact prime lenses to go with? Like:</p>

<p>15mm f2.0 (24 equiv.)<br>

17 or 18mm f2.0 (28 equiv.)<br>

28mm f2.0 (44 equiv.)</p>

<p>They don't need to be the fastest damn lenses on the planet - but SMALL!<br>

OK I'm done ranting now.</p>

[kevin_b.2]

<p>whats wrong with the FF Ls? Do you think if they make it for APS-C the price will be lower? What if you chose to upgrade in the future?</p>

[aaron d]

<p>I'm wanting COMPACT - the full frame lens are big honkers (that's what I'm shooting now...). I like a 5D 24 1.4 for my slow careful work, but it's too much to drag around on vacation... I like the idea of the "pancake" lenses they're making for other formats.....</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Canon have stated that they won't make EF-S L lenses. To get an L designation a lens must fit, and work, on every Canon EOS camera ever made.</p>

<p>However the EF-S 60mm macro is tough to beat from an IQ point of view.</p>

[bkpix]

<p>Aaron:<br>

Get a Pentax.<br>

They are the only DSLR manufacturer to embrace the APS-C format. The Pentax line has sweet, small primes in crop-appropriate focal lengths (15-21-31-70).<br>

A former Canon shooter, myself.</p>

[aaron d]

<p>I'm not so much wanting a compact lens that has the letter L on it and a red stripe - I mean professional build/quality - and COMPACT. It can be an R series with a blue stripe or no stripe at all....</p>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>Aaron Dougherty Go to Pentax the OP stated I have a Pentax K10 D and use their M42 lenses on it<br>

talk about small light lens those M42 are nice</p><div></div>

[aaron d]

<p>Bob, Yeah - that's what I mean! I looked at their web-site, this one especially is a near perfect lens: </p>

<p>http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses/smc_PENTAX_DA_15mm_F4_ED_AL_Limited/</p>

<p>Canon's got plenty of good small bodies already, they could slap a few of these lenses together in their sleep....</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<blockquote>

<p>The beauty of the 7D, 50D, 500D is they are super high quality and COMPACT</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, they are great cameras but not much more compact (a couple mm!) than a FF camera like the 5D or 5DII. In fact, my 7D is slightly heavier than my 5DII. The thing is most buyers of APS format want zooms, so the market is very tiny for wide primes. I certainly wouldn't buy a prime unless it worked on both my 5DII and 7D. Sigma and Tamron must see the market the same way as Canon as their offerings in wide APS primes is meager. </p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>whats wrong with the FF Ls?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They're unnecessarily large, complex, heavy, expensive, and perform poorly at 1.6x crop.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do you think if they make it for APS-C the price will be lower?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course they would.</p>

<p><em>You're not doing rhetorical questions right. When you ask a rhetorical question, it's supposed to have an implied answer that agrees with the question. Both of yours were obviously incorrect. They were, at best, sarcasm; and that's not a good stance to take when you're in the wrong.</em></p>

<p>For example, due to the nature of SLRs, all wide angle lenses are retrofocus designs, basically 50-55mm primes with "wide converters" in front of them. The wide converter is a reverse Galilean telescope, a strong (and highly curved) negative lens, with a positive lens behind it. That's why SLR wides have such huge, bulging "eyeball" appearances. Because the front lens is negative, it's thinnest in the center, and it gets thicker towards the edges (and curves most dramatically) in proportion to its size. So, if you reduce the coverage circle of that lens from the 43.3mm required for FF to the 27mm required for a Canon APS, you can reduce the size of the front few elements of the wide angle by a factor of 1.6, and the weight by a factor of four (1.6^3). The lens gets smaller, lighter, cheaper, the thinner elements, closer in, cut down on flare, ghosting, and reduce almost all lens aberrations.</p>

<p>How about that ultrawide? We can't do Aaron's 15mm, but we can do apples to apples at 14mm. Pentax has a line called the "Limited Editions" that are on a par with Canon L, Nikon gold bands, etc.</p>

<ul>

<li>Pentax 14mm f2.8 - $699, 69mm long, takes 77mm filters, weighs 420g</li>

<li>Canon 14mm f2.8 - $2120, 94mm long, can't use filters, weighs 645g </li>

</ul>

<p>And, on an APS camera, the Pentax is a clear winner for image quality.</p>

<p>How about a cheap normal? Canon has a 35mm f2 that's not an L and sees a lot of APs "normal" duty.</p>

<ul>

<li>Canon 35mm f2.0 - $329, weighs 210g</li>

<li>Nikon 35mm f1.8 DX - $195, weighs 200g</li>

</ul>

<p>Here's a fun one; how about a faster normal? This is one of the few things that Sigma does well. Their 30mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.4 have the largest glass molded aspheric elements in the industry, as well as low dispersion glasses, and my sample of the 30mm f1.4 is well centered.</p>

<ul>

<li>Sigma 30mm f1.4 - $439, 59mm long, takes 62mm filters, weighs 430g</li>

<li>Canon 35mm f1.4 - $1350, 86mm long, takes 72mm filters, weighs 580g</li>

</ul>

<p>And the Sigma, at 30mm, is a better normal than the 35mm Canon, on APS.</p>

<p>Now, the interesting thing about all three lenses that I picked on is that they're all lenses with rear elements that can clear a FF mirror. Nikon and Pentax didn't make a "short mirror" mount like Canon's EF-S, and the Sigma 30mm f1.4 is a "universal" design, since it has to clear a FF mirror for Nikon, Pentax, and Sony, it also does it for Canon, it's EF, not EF-S (it still only has an APS coverage circle, though, leading to its reduced size, weight, and cost). Panasonic does. So, if you want an idea what's really possible, when you push both the image circle and the mirror clearance down...</p>

<ul>

<li>Panasonic 20mm f1.7 - $381, 26mm long, takes 46mm filters, weighs 100g</li>

<li>Canon 20mm f2.8 - $470, 71mm long, takes 72mm filters, weighs 400g</li>

</ul>

[aaron d]

<p>Compact lenses for full-frame would be great! I like that better anyway, because I've always suspected that if I got a good photo with a "travel" camera, I'd always wish afterwards that I'd gotten it with my "main" one instead. They wouldn't have to be TINY, just small enough I could tuck it under a jacket without a monstrous lump....</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>Puppy Face - Sigma and Tamron must see the market the same way as Canon as their offerings in wide APS primes is meager.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Their offerings in wide FF primes is pretty meager, too.</p>

<ul>

<li>Tamron has nothing, at all.</li>

<li>Sigma has the 14mm f2.8. (They also have the 20, 24, and 28mm f1.8 lenses, which are listed as FF, but are so bad in the corners that they're essentially useless on anything but APS, unless you want to pay for an f1.8 lens and keep it stopped down to f11, permanently).</li>

</ul>

<p>Sigma does have, in APS, the</p>

<ul>

<li>30mm f1.4 normal</li>

<li>4.5mm f3.5 circular fisheye and 10mm f2.8 180 degree diagonal fisheye, to compliment their decade old 8mm and 15mm FF fisheyes.</li>

</ul>

<p>Nikon's APS primes include</p>

<ul>

<li>10.5mm f2.8 180 degree diagonal fisheye</li>

<li>35mm f1.8 APS normal</li>

</ul>

<p>And we won't even get into Pentax, ;)<br>

All in all, it looks like, aside from Canon, the APS prime market is active.</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>It's simply that zooms have gotten so good that the market for these sorts of primes would be small. Sure primes are still going to have a speed advantage, but a lot of people are more than willing to "settle" on one the great 17-50ish/2.8 lenses out there. And if you want to go any wider, there are even more good options... and with the Tokina 11-16/2.8 there's even a "fast" wide zoom. Who wants a 14/2.8 that is only the tiniest bit better optically?</p>

[link]

<p>Aaron,</p>

<p>I feel the same way you do. So, for my first digital camera, I bought a 5D mk1 with the 24 f2.8, 35 f2, 50 f1.4, and 100 f2.0. I think this system does exactly what you want.</p>

<p>I first looked at crop frame cameras from Nikon and Canon, but I couldn't really use wide primes with them, and I don't like carrying a zoom all the time, though I know that one would come in handy, but I don't really need it :)</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Joseph - that was a very informative post! Thanks.</p>

<p>Count me in the primes for APS-C camp. I would love to see fast crop primes equivalent to 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm.</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>Manufacturers want to encourage us to go FF eventually. Even Nikon who had been APS- size for a long time and how many primes have they made for APS size?</p>

<p>If the manufacturer has no FF sensor, then they would do it, like Pentax because they want to convince you to stay with APS size</p>

[thanasis_siozos]

<p>Well, what's wrong with mounting an old pentax k-mount manual lens with a 10 Euro adapter to your 7D? I do it all the time and the quality is excellent. the 24 2.8 is pretty neat (38mm equivalent FF focal length).</p>

[jtk]

<p>Canon and Nikon are handicapped size-wise by in-lens stabalization. IMO Pentax APS-C IQ (seen in prints) readily equals 5D (P seems higher resolution but C is "smoother")..5DII steps ahead of both. Some folks claim Leica R primes on their 5D/5DII have big advantages.<br>

Unless one needs DSLR for some real reason, NEX-5 may be a better bet.</p>

 

[aaron d]

<p>BG, I actually did use a 28mm 2.8 on a trip but the damned thing stopped dead after 10 days touristy shooting. "Touristy" meaning I was in Amsterdam, not the jungles of Borneo! Which was really infuriating - it was a great lens till then... All of <a href="http://aarondougherty.com/04_o_hand.html">these</a> were done with the 28 2.8 and a 5Dii.</p>

<p>And John, yeah, that NEX-5 looks really nice - I can't help but think that's a glimpse of the future....</p>

[faysal]

<p>If you want something small, I seriously suggest getting one of the micro 4/3's options from olympus or even the sony. Instead of thinking of it as a glimpse of the future, its something thats small, easy, affordable, but still maintains options for creativity. You can have one now instead of in the future, and it may be worth your time.<br>

As for Canon, your best bet is to start a revolution of overly dramatized disgust, that canon further their EF-S line (a la apple iphone 4). But otherwise, regardless of the facts, Canon may not see a point to creating more ef-s lenses if they feel their current line is sufficient and they feel their consumers feel the same way</p>

 

[daniel flather]

<blockquote>

<p>They're unnecessarily large, complex, heavy, expensive, and perform poorly at 1.6x crop.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Really?</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p><strong>Joseph Wisniewski</strong>--Thanks for a very informative explanation of wide angle lenses. I've used them for years but never knew about their construction. I've learned something today. Thanks!</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Andy, you're quite welcome.</p>

<p>Daniel, yes, "really". I provided several concrete examples. Apparently, all you can do is is grab one line from my post and comment, out of context.</p>

[daniel flather]

<blockquote>

<p> Apparently, all you can do is is grab one line from my post and comment, out of context.''</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes.</p>

[faysal]

<p>Joseph, its possible that Daniel is in the same about as I, although I do not know, but would you mind pointing me in the direction of more information on the matters you explained above.<br>

They were thorough for a forum post, but honestly not quite enough for me. I'm not saying I think you are crazy, its just that I feel there is more to the matter than saying smaller glass means less glass and therefore less expensive. For instance a thought in my head was, well wouldn't the shaping then have to be even more precise on a smaller surface? (You dont really need to answer that here) I'm just curious to find a place to read up on this matter further.</p>