EF-S Wants

mercphoto

Ok, so many people are happy with this 10-22 EF-S lens, I want something too. Is Canon listening? Pick one. All with image stabilization (modes 1 and 2):

300/2.8L EF-S
400/4L EF-S
100-400/4L EF-S

With all the benefits of the S mount, just how much smaller or better could these lenses be, given the smaller image circle and the rear element being closer to the sensor plane?

BridgeCity

mercphoto wrote:

Ok, so many people are happy with this 10-22 EF-S lens, I want something too. Is Canon listening? Pick one. All with image stabilization (modes 1 and 2):

300/2.8L EF-S
400/4L EF-S
100-400/4L EF-S

With all the benefits of the S mount, just how much smaller or better could these lenses be, given the smaller image circle and the rear element being closer to the sensor plane?

Sign me up for a 100-400 f/4L EF-S please!

I love the 100-400 4.5-5.6L I don't know if I could handle an f/4

mercphoto

BridgeCity wrote:

Sign me up for a 100-400 f/4L EF-S please!

I love the 100-400 4.5-5.6L I don't know if I could handle an f/4

I wonder, if EF-S does make the lens smaller, and add DO on top of that...

ubergeek

About EF-S...
EF-S lenses place the rear element further back into the camera body, which is what renders them incompatible with non-EF-S mounts. As I understand it, this provides an advantage with wide-angle lenses, but it's not clear that telephoto lenses would benefit similarly. Now, it also happens that Canon doesn't make any reduced-image-circle lenses that are not EF-S. But it seems to me that if they're going to offer reduced-image-circle telephoto lenses, they need not necessarily use the EF-S mount, thus making them usable on 1.6x cameras without the EF-S mount. But then again, perhaps they'd want to sell a few more bodies, and make such lenses EF-S for no good reason.

Of course it's all speculative at this point, since Canon hasn't announced their intention to offer any reduced-image-circle lenses that aren't wide angle.

Cheers,
Jeremy

luckyrwe

I am beginning to think EF-S is going to be a different format branch altogether, like EF was form FD.

Khaos

I think they'll come out with DO telephotos instead of EF-S telephotos.

NHBubba

I'm no optical engineer, but I agree w/ what ubergeek said. It is my understanding that the returns in terms of reduced lens weight and size diminish as focal length increases. Eventually you get to the point where it's nearly the same cost, size and weight regardless of sensor size. .. That's as I've been told anyhow.

Besides, how many people have you heard complain that their 100-400 now acts like a 160-640?! Conversely I know lots of people (including myself) who are unhappy that their 28-whatever now acts like a ~45-whatever..

As for reduced image circle on non-EFS mount glass. I think it's obvious that the EF-S mount is Canon's way of making these lenses digital only. W/ the exception of the 10D, there would be no advantage I can think of of having a reduced image circle lens w/ the standard EF mount.. In fact I hear the rear element on the 17-85 IS doesn't even extend all that far back. It apears that the rubber/plastic dohicky that makes the lens an EF-S is unneeded.. Probably just Canon's way of making sure they sell an extra lens to FF and 1.3x users.. Not that any of them would want to use the 17-85 anyhow..

mercphoto

NHBubba wrote:

Besides, how many people have you heard complain that their 100-400 now acts like a 160-640?!

Its not that reason I'm wanting the lenses I asked for. And maybe I'm actually asking for the wrong thing. What I was assuming was that if you make an EF-S telephoto, it will be smaller than an EF unit. Thus, a 400/4 for the size of a 400/5.6? It appears not to be the case, however.

How about simply adding IS to a 400/5.6??? I'm hooked on IS. Makes me think about the 300/4 instead, along with my existing 1.4 tele....

NHBubba

So what you want is 400mm effective at f/4.. IE a 250mm (400mm divided by 1.6) f/4.. Which they have a pretty close match of (ignoring costs) in the 300/4.. or better yet the 200/2.8.. I don't think EF versions of these same lenses would be much cheaper, lighter, or smaller. At least not from what I've been told.

Sorry to say, but I think most of the new lenses you see in the short term are going to be under 100-150mm. Once people soak those up the teles might get a refit. But I can't imagine an EF-S only 400mm lens. If they're going to redo such a lens, then they might as well redo it for both markets simultaniously.

Although a friend just told me that the 55-200 MkII is actually 'designed for digital'. The image circle is full frame, but supposedly the MkII was introduced because of some sort of internal reflection problem seen on the smaller digitals.

ubergeek

"Designed for Digital"
A number of lens manufacturers are marketing certain of their lenses as "designed for digital," even though such lenses may have full-frame image circles. As you allude to, there are other characteristics, such as how close to perpendicular the light strikes the sensor plane. While these characteristics most likely provide a better digital image, they also don't hurt when used with film (although they probably don't provide any benefit either).

Also, you rightly point out that we already have "smaller" telephoto lenses for the ~1.6x crop sensors. With such a sensor you can have, for example, a ~300mm f/2.8 for the size, weight and cost of a 200mm f/2.8. Doesn't that work great? (I'm sure telephotos could be made smaller still by providing a reduced image circle, though I wonder just how much smaller.) Of course, on the wide-angle side, it's a different story--reduced image circle seems to make a big difference in the amount of glass needed.

Cheers,
Jeremy

NHBubba

ubergeek wrote:

(I'm sure telephotos could be made smaller still by providing a reduced image circle, though I wonder just how much smaller.) Of course, on the wide-angle side, it's a different story--reduced image circle seems to make a big difference in the amount of glass needed.

Exactly! .. Not to mention the fact that while you have this option at the tele end, the crop hurts at wide angle. In order to get coverage you had in a 16-35 EF you HAVE to go to a 10-22 EF-S, there is no other option.