Canon 1.6 crop L lenses

[Silent-Sam]

I was wondering about what you thought about canon ever making an L lens with a focal length more suited to their crop sensor range?

Clearly crop sensors are here to stay and have advantages over full frame. So I see no reason why Canon won't make L class lenses which are designed for 1.6 cameras.
I'm thinking about the wide angle and walkabout lenses specifically but a better prime range would also be appreciated (by me anyway), a 50mm equivalent would be nice.

Lots of people own crop sensor cameras and I think it's a market waiting to be filled.

 

[woof woof]

I doubt they'll ever do EF-S L, and I think I once read somewhere that they've said they wont do it. As to why, snob factor I think.

All is not lost though as I think I read somewhere that the 10-22mm uses L quality glass but obviously it does lack the build quality and sealing. Maybe other high end EF-S lenses also used the best glass Canon can do?

 

[Silent-Sam]

I heard they use very good glass in some efs lenses, but I think they are missing a trick if they don't put out a really well made lens for that type of camera, maybe nikon will trump canon and steal some new customers.

I don't have many lenses, but I don't mind saving for quality, and something that will last. I don't want to buy a focal lenth I don't want just incase I 'go full frame', seems a little short sighted for companys which seem to take crop sensors seriously.

 

[woof woof]

I sort of agree but I think it's a shame to deny yourself EF-S type lenses just in case you might go full frame at some point in the future as you may well be denying yourself the lenses that will partner your camera best and you might not go full frame for years or indeed never go full frame at all. Another thought is that if/when you do there may be a crop lens option as there is on some Nikon.

I've only had two EF-S lenses, 17-85mm and 10-22mm and neither struck me as feeling especially special or give me the impression that they were well made beyond the norm. Shame really.

 

[HoppyUK]

The argument goes something like, crop format cameras are primarily aimed at budget conscious users and they would not want to pay for L-series standards of both build and optics.

And since they don't usually need the build quality, but do need the optical excellence, we'll give them some EF-S optical gems like the 17-55 and 10-22, but at more affordable prices.

If those lenses were also built to L-grade, with weather sealing too, they would cost 30-50% more, and they're already expensive.

There is always the option of going full frame with L-grade lenses, and the EF-S question only arises with short focal lengths anyway. I doubt that we'll see any EF-S L lenses.

 

[woof woof]

The first part of the argument could be negated somewhat by the arrival of the 7D as it's clearly aimed at a more experienced and demanding user. If Canon saw it that way...

Shame about the build quality too as what's the point in having a lovely metal camera and believing that it's built like a brick outhouse and then screwing a piece of plastic EF-S to the front? Come on Canon...

 

[jennief]

I have a 7D and use Canon L lenses on it- what's the problem?? The focal length is just multiplied by 1.6??? Makes the 100-400 just GREAT!!! Just get really wide angle Sigma lenses if you want- the 10-20 f/3.5 is a gem! It's a great camera-

 

[dinners]

Looking at if purely from a build quality point of view:

Build quality on a full frame 5D2 has never struck me as being on a level with 1D or 1Ds bodies and the 7D is equal to 5D2 so I don't entirely buy into the view that if you own a 5D2 you suddenly require lenses of a better build quality than a 7D owner simply bacuse it's a full frame camera.

It's not really an issue with longer L lenses for wildlife as people just want the reach but the popular 24-70 and 24-105 do get a bit skinny at 1.6. I'd have an EF-S 17-55 like a shot if it wasn't for the fact that I also want to use my lenses on a film body. F4 suits my needs so something like the 17-40 compensates for the 1.6 X 24-105.

The one thing that does niggle with L lenses on a crop is that you're paying for edge to edge IQ that a crop camera doesn't even see.

 

[puggie]

The first part of the argument could be negated somewhat by the arrival of the 7D as it's clearly aimed at a more experienced and demanding user. If Canon saw it that way...

Shame about the build quality too as what's the point in having a lovely metal camera and believing that it's built like a brick outhouse and then screwing a piece of plastic EF-S to the front? Come on Canon...

The 7D is aimed at the sport/wildlife shooters though, fast moving subjects needing good AF etc, and for that kind of work why would you need anything wider than the 16-35 or 17-40. if you do why not use the 8-15mm f4 L and de-fisheye it in software?

 

[scottthehat]

full frame lenses should produce better images on a crop camera due to using the center(sharpest) of the glass.

 

[Silent-Sam]

The first part of the argument could be negated somewhat by the arrival of the 7D as it's clearly aimed at a more experienced and demanding user. If Canon saw it that way...

Shame about the build quality too as what's the point in having a lovely metal camera and believing that it's built like a brick outhouse and then screwing a piece of plastic EF-S to the front? Come on Canon...

Looking at if purely from a build quality point of view:

Build quality on a full frame 5D2 has never struck me as being on a level with 1D or 1Ds bodies and the 7D is equal to 5D2 so I don't entirely buy into the view that if you own a 5D2 you suddenly require lenses of a better build quality than a 7D owner simply bacuse it's a full frame camera.

Agree with these points. If the build quality is a selling point, It would be nice to have a good quality lens with sealing to take on holidays.

And if Canon (and Nikon) are serious about the 1.6, which I think the 7D and D7000 proove, then they should think about us and give us the quality option if we want it.

Not to forget that lots of crop sensor users buy L lenses, so the buying president is there already.

 

[DaveKing]

I have a 7D and use Canon L lenses on it- what's the problem?? The focal length is just multiplied by 1.6??? Makes the 100-400 just GREAT!!! Just get really wide angle Sigma lenses if you want- the 10-20 f/3.5 is a gem! It's a great camera-

No problem with using 'L' lenses on a crop camera. But imagine a EF-S 100-400 L. Being EF-S it would Canon could either make it smaller (physically) or faster with the same dimensions. I'd imagine an EF-S 100-400 F4L would sell like hotcakes to the 7D birders!

 

[whiteflyer]

They all ready do an EF-S version of the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM it's called Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM Lens

Just as a question of interest what are we calling a crop camera.

a) One with a APS-C 1.6 sensor
b) Any that is not full frame ,ie. APS-C 1.6 sensor AND APS-H 1.3 sensor as in 1D range.

 

[DaveKing]

They all ready do an EF-S version of the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM it's called Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM Lens

Just as a question of interest what are we calling a crop camera.

a) One with a APS-C 1.6 sensor
b) Any that is not full frame , APS-C 1.6 sensor AND APS-H 1.3 sensor as in 1D range.

I was really refering to any crop camera that is designed for EF-S lenses. It looks like Canon are killing the 1.3 crop, therefore I can't see any 1.3 crop specific lenses coming out any time soon (not that there are anyway!)

With regards to an EF-S version of the 100-400, the 70-300 is nothing like the 100-400 I specified above. With my theoretical 100-400 you could use it at F4 @ 400mm - 640mm F4 full frame equivelent!!. For this to be similar on a full frame you would need a 600mm F4 to match it!

 

[modchild]

I've got a 5D MkII and a 7D now and have 3 L lenses, the 100-400, 100 2.8 macro and 24-105 f4 which I use frequently on both cameras depending on what I'm shooting. Before I got the 5d MkII I had a 550D and the 7D which I used the 100-400 and the 100 macro with.
I tend not to obsess over focal lengths, just get a lens that will do the job and bring its best characteristics of both lens and camera together. If I needed a new lens for a certain range I would look at EF-S lenses as well as EF even if I could only use it on the 7D. Although I would prefer to find a lens that will suit both cameras whether it be a canon or 3rd party.
I dont think canon need to make any EF-S L lenses specifically as some of the EF-S lenses are already top quality and if well looked after with give results very similar to L lenses.

 

[whiteflyer]

I was really refering to any crop camera that is designed for EF-S lenses. It looks like Canon are killing the 1.3 crop, therefore I can't see any 1.3 crop specific lenses coming out any time soon (not that there are anyway!)

With regards to an EF-S version of the 100-400, the 70-300 is nothing like the 100-400 I specified above. With my theoretical 100-400 you could use it at F4 @ 400mm - 640mm F4 full frame equivelent!!. For this to be similar on a full frame you would need a 600mm F4 to match it!

The OP did ask about EF-S equivalent lenses, and to answer his first question , Canon do make an L lens equivalent to 50mm on a crop, the Canon EF 35mm f1.4 L USM

100-400 F4, have you won this weeks lotto you'd be talking mega money for that theoretical lens and boy it would be heavy, Canon have a 400 f4 already , but it's a little pricey £5299.00 and it a DO lens

 

[Ksanti]

Because the L line is essentially their professional line, and even with the 7D there aren't really any professional APS-C bodies in the Canon line up. The only real problem with full frame L glass on their crop bodies is the wide end, and the 17-55 EF-S covers the high end of that nicely. The problem with the wide non-Ls is the build quality, but by and large the L lenses can still cover that reasonably well (16-35 f/2.8 and 17-40 f/4).

If you need the build, the 17-40 and 16-35 function just fine as crop general zooms, and while smaller optics might be possible on smaller sensors, Canon don't really have any incentive to make EF-S professional lenses as the vast majority of professionals will be shooting either 1.3x or full frame, and it's arguable that most people who would buy a 17-55 f/2.8L in the pursuit of IQ would eventually end up shooting full frame anyway - i.e. Canon want them to make that jump rather than postpone it with tank-build crop lenses.

 

[woof woof]

The 7D is aimed at the sport/wildlife shooters though, fast moving subjects needing good AF etc, and for that kind of work why would you need anything wider than the 16-35 or 17-40. if you do why not use the 8-15mm f4 L and de-fisheye it in software?

My point in part was that quite a few 7D owners seem to be saying that they value the build quality, how many times have people gone on about magnesium bodies etc and how it's essential? So, if the 7D is marketed or viewed at least in part as a camera of good build quality why not aspire to have EF-S lenses, it is an EF-S camera body after all, of equal build?

 

[DaveKing]

100-400 F4, have you won this weeks lotto you'd be talking mega money for that theoretical lens and boy it would be heavy, Canon have a 400 f4 already , but it's a little pricey £5299.00 and it a DO lens

Yes a EF-S 100-400mm L isn't going to be cheap, but it would be significantly less than the 400F4L as it wouldn't need as much glass due to the reduced image circle. Anyway - no point having an argument over a theoretical lens

 

[farrance]

I've seen people using Canon 50mm 1.2's and 200mm L's on 1.6x DSLRs. Doesn't actually seem worth the extra money, but thats just my 2 cents.

The only exception to all of these are the TS-E lenses, but I don't suppose they count.

 

[woof woof]

If you need the build, the 17-40 and 16-35 function just fine as crop general zooms,

I don't really agree with that. For a start the lenses are bigger and heavier than they need to be and you're buying glass that simply isn't used on APS-C. And has already been said, do away with the useless unused glass and you could possibly make the lens smaller and lighter or make it faster and possibly retain the same bulk.

For example, the 17-40mm f4 could be a 17-50mm f2.8 which would be much more appripriate to APS-C (IMVHO) than a 17-40mm f4. Of course you could just go for the current 17-55mm f2.8 but then you lose the build...

Instead of making these compromised choices wouldn't it be nice if you could have your cake and eat it? A top build range of lenses designed for APS-C?

 

[DaveKing]

I don't really agree with that. For a start the lenses are bigger and heavier than they need to be and you're buying glass that simply isn't used on APS-C. And has already been said, do away with the useless unused glass and you could possibly make the lens smaller and lighter or make it faster and possibly retain the same bulk.

For example, the 17-40mm f4 could be a 17-50mm f2.8 which would be much more appripriate to APS-C (IMVHO) than a 17-40mm f4. Of course you could just go for the current 17-55mm f2.8 but then you lose the build...

Instead of making these compromised choices wouldn't it be nice if you could have your cake and eat it? A top build range of lenses designed for APS-C?

This was my point with the theoretical 100-400 F4L. Canon, if they wanted to, could make a series of EF-S 'L' that are smaller and / or faster than there EF counterparts. Although I'd imagine they would eat into their full frame camera sales.

 

[puggie]

My point in part was that quite a few 7D owners seem to be saying that they value the build quality, how many times have people gone on about magnesium bodies etc and how it's essential? So, if the 7D is marketed or viewed at least in part as a camera of good build quality why not aspire to have EF-S lenses, it is an EF-S camera body after all, of equal build?

I see your point but its cost, you can sell a lot of L lenses and mass produce them cheaper than you can sell come EF L lenses and some EF-S L lenses. These L lenses are still made to a budget (in the world of professional optics they are pretty cheap tbh), if you reduce the number being made the cost will rise. You could have your EF-S L lenses but if they cost 40% more than the EF equivalent would they still look as tempting.

 

[HoppyUK]

full frame lenses should produce better images on a crop camera due to using the center(sharpest) of the glass.

Often said, but not true. A full frame lens on a cropper will always perform worse in the centre because the image has to be enlarged twice as much for a given output size. The harder a lens has to work to deliver higher resolution, the more contrast drops which is the main contributer to perceived 'sharpness' (basic MTF theory).

The edges are a different question because they're never used on a cropper, so that depeneds on the lens in question. Experience suggests that any decent lens will usually be better on full frame too.

No problem with using 'L' lenses on a crop camera. But imagine a EF-S 100-400 L. Being EF-S it would Canon could either make it smaller (physically) or faster with the same dimensions. I'd imagine an EF-S 100-400 F4L would sell like hotcakes to the 7D birders!

This wouldn't work - the lens would be just as big. The benefits of the reduced image circle of crop format quickly runs out at longer focal lengths. It begins to fall away dramatically beyond about 50-60mm and is virtually gone by 100mm. That's the reason nobody makes long focal length EF-S lenses.

Edit: bottom line is what makes commercial sense for manufacturers. If they believed that a full L-grade EF-S lens would sell, they'd make it (but probably not call it an L). How many people would actually pay an extra 30-50% for a more rugged build and weather sealing? If they're that keen (and well heeled) why aren't they using full frame anyway?

 

[DaveKing]

Often said, but not true. A full frame lens on a cropper will always perform worse in the centre because the image has to be enlarged twice as much for a given output size. The harder a lens has to work to deliver higher resolution, the more contrast drops which is the main contributer to perceived 'sharpness' (basic MTF theory).

The edges are a different question because they're never used on a cropper, so that depeneds on the lens in question. Experience suggests that any decent lens will usually be better on full frame too.



This wouldn't work - the lens would be just as big. The benefits of the reduced image circle of crop format quickly runs out at longer focal lengths. It begins to fall away dramatically beyond about 50-60mm and is virtually gone by 100mm. That's the reason nobody makes long focal length EF-S lenses.

Edit: bottom line is what makes commercial sense for manufacturers. If they believed that a full L-grade EF-S lens would sell, they'd make it (but probably not call it an L). How many people would actually pay an extra 30-50% for a more rugged build and weather sealing? If they're that keen (and well heeled) why aren't they using full frame anyway?

Maybe you are right as I can't find any comparitive lens. The only thing close is the Sigma 50-150mm F2.8 which is significantly smaller than the 70-200mm. But that's not a fair comparison!

 

[HoppyUK]

Maybe you are right as I can't find any comparitive lens. The only thing close is the Sigma 50-150mm F2.8 which is significantly smaller than the 70-200mm. But that's not a fair comparison!

Well, there are no direct comparisons because nobody makes them.

Look at it another way, and compare the Olympus 300 2.8 which is for 4/3rds - one quarter the image area of full frame. That lens is 281mm long and weighs 3.3kg. The identical spec Canon 300L 2.8 MkII for full frame is actually smaller at 248mm long and lighter at 2.4kg. They both cost the same at £5.5k.

 

[Toggerman]

How many people would actually pay an extra 30-50% for a more rugged build and weather sealing? If they're that keen (and well heeled) why aren't they using full frame anyway?

I'd pay extra for better build and weather sealing, and that's why I've got 2 weather sealed L lenses for my 7D.

And I'm not using full frame yet as I'm mostly shooting sports and wildlife and there currently isn't a truely decent full frame Canon camera for that (bar the 1DX), although I am getting into portraits. That's also the reason why I need it weather sealed because most sports and wildlife are outdoors, whereas when I do go full frame it'll be for studio work where I won't need the build quality or sealing.

 

[odd jim]

Weather sealing is overrated IMO. I've shot in very damp and rainy conditions (friday at Silverstone this year is case in point) an I've never had any water ingress in any of non sealed lenses, or into the body between it and a non sealed lens.

 

[HoppyUK]

I'd pay extra for better build and weather sealing, and that's why I've got 2 weather sealed L lenses for my 7D.

And I'm not using full frame yet as I'm mostly shooting sports and wildlife and there currently isn't a truely decent full frame Canon camera for that (bar the 1DX), although I am getting into portraits. That's also the reason why I need it weather sealed because most sports and wildlife are outdoors, whereas when I do go full frame it'll be for studio work where I won't need the build quality or sealing.

Not sure what you're saying here. As discussed above, the 'EF-S or L' question doesn't arise with longer focal lengths, so you're fine there. And I would hardly say the 1Ds is not a decent full frame camera, then there is the truly fantastic 1DX just announced, not to mention the 1D4. It's hard to see how longer lens users are not surperbly catered for with both cameras and lenses on all fronts.

You may well be prepared to pay the premium for an L-grade EF-S lens, but I guess Canon disagrees. It really only boils down to one lens, the EF-S 17-55 2.8 that gets criticised for build quality (considering it's £800) and most people complain about the cost of that already.

Note the number of posts along those lines, and folks that opt for the Tamon 17-50 2.8 simply because it's cheaper. And it's not that the 17-55 is badly made at all - it's just that there's some fractional movement on the barrel at 55mm, mainly due to the long extending design. For that matter, the 24-105L is very similar in that regard, because it also has a similar long extending barrel.

 

[Toggerman]

The 2 lenses I mostly use for sports/wildlife are 70-200 f4L IS or 24-105 L, the latter not really being what I'd call a longer focal length lens although I do get your point.

I mentioned the 1DX, I don't know many people who use a 1Ds for sports/wildlife but then I suppose there's no reason why you can't, and the 1D4 isn't full frame, it may not be a 1.6 crop but it's still a crop. My point is that you said if people were that keen why didn't they have full frame, I was trying to point out that people who use cameras for sport or wildlife mostly use crop cameras over full frame by choice as in the current Canon lineup crop cameras are better suited to that type of photography over the full frames (1DX excluded).

Weather sealing didn't bother me until last year when I knackered a 70-300 non-L on the beach, now I just prefer to have that peace of mind.

 

[woof woof]

...and folks that opt for the Tamon 17-50 2.8 simply because it's cheaper.

Quite a few people with APS-C cameras seem to post "standard walkabout lens" threads here asking about the 17-40mm f4 possibly drawn to that lens because it has the coverted red ring possibly rather than it's suitability as a "standard" APS-C lens.

 

[hollis_f]

I was wondering about what you thought about canon ever making an L lens with a focal length more suited to their crop sensor range?

They do!

My 24-105, 70-200, 100-400 and 300 f2.8 are all excellent focal lengths on my cameras - for me. For anything wider I have 10-22 and 11-16. I've got non-L primes at 50, 60 and 100mm.