Is there a gap in Canon's EF-S lens range?

[Chris of Arabia]

For a fast telephoto zoom that is. Given the regard that the 17-55mm f2.8 IS is held in, should they be looking to build on that with an f2.8 EF-S lens of around 50-125mm? There's no obvious signs of Canon moving away from the APS-C sensor format, so wouldn't something along these lines be a popular decision? Presumably not everyone want the cost or weight of the 'L' series stuff, as good as it is. Are Canon missing a trick here?

 

[Overread]

EFS 24-105mm f2.8 IS - If they do it it will spite all the fullframers

Heck canon could easily expand into EFS lenses over 100mm in focal length - a 100-400mm EFS or even just long prime lenses would be fantastic for many who go after wildlife - not only offering a cheaper solution than fullframe options but also lighter as well.

However I suspect we won't see those kind of lenses - and that for many serious wildlifers the fullframe options would still be in the bag

 

[Chris of Arabia]

I guess I'm looking at the capabilities of the 7D and seeing it make a compelling case for more/better/faster EF-S glass to compliment it.

 

[Big Mike]

Why do they need a longer EF-S lens? The 'crop factor' only takes away the wide end (compared to EF lenses on full frame).

For example, my three main lenses are an EF-S 10-22mm, a 17-50mm and a 70-200mm. The gap between 50mm and 70mm is about 1.5 steps forward or back.

 

[Big Mike]

Sigma has a 50-150mm F2.8, is that what you are wanting from Canon?

 

[Overread]

weight and price only Mike -a crop sensor 300mm would be lighter and cheaper (less glass in construction) than a fullframe equivalent. However I have the feeling that canon will not go down this route - though one good crop sensor lens at that range (eg a 200-400mm) would be a nice light option for hte casual user or the serious user looking for a light casual option

 

[Big Mike]

There are tons of 70-300mm lenses...most of them are already light & cheap. It's just that most of them are crap. But they're still good enough for most people who don't want to spend $1000 on a lens. And those who do spend that much, aren't usually worried about the weight if it means great image quality.

 

[Montana]

I don't see anything coming anytime soon. The 17-55 2.8 IS covers the "normal" zoom range for a cropper. After that, as Big Mike alluded to, you might as well shoot with EF mount glass.

If it is cost you are thinking about, then that eliminates the EF-S 17-55 as it a very expensive lens anyways. Regardless of the mount (EF or EFS), great optics with a fast max aperture is going to be expensive. So you have:

17-55 2.8 IS
70-200 2.8
300 2.8

etc, etc.

 

[flightless_beaker]

I'd rather invest in good EF lenses for my 7D than EF-S lenses. Plus I'm planning to invest in a 5D eventually anyway so I can deal with the crop factor. I can get a good EF ultrawide if I need the wide angle for my 7D

 

[Derrel]

I guess I'm looking at the capabilities of the 7D and seeing it make a compelling case for more/better/faster EF-S glass to compliment it.

It seems to me from looking very closely at 7D images, that the current pixel density the 7D has, 17.8 MP, which would scale up to about 46MP on FF, means that better optical performance is needed for the 7D. Some of the current Canon lenses are simply not up to the task of maximizing the incredible pixel density the 17.8 MP 1.6x FOV sensors; chromatic aberration and insufficient resolving power is clearly a problem on the lower-end EF-S lenses when they are paired with the 7D's new, high-tech sensor. Canon's current EF-S lenses, including the 17-55, are not "quite" there on the 7D.

This is not just a Canon issue or problem--it's universal. Nikon's D3x for example, is showing the limits of MANY of the Nikon lenses in the older segment of their entire lineup, and only the very-best Nikkor lenses like the 14-24,24-70,70-200,200 f/2 VR, 24mm PC-E, and other similar "newest generation" primes and zooms are able to allow the 24MP FF D3x sensor to show what the SENSOR is capable of; so, if 24MP on FF is taxing lenses, it's not too hard to see that 17.8 MP on 1.6x, which extends to 46MP on FF, is causing the same problem, only a bit worse! The photos show this.

The problem with EF-S though is that it simply will NOT mount on FF or 1.3x Canon bodies; the EF-S specification is totally incompatible with anything but the 1.6x bodies, soooooo....Canon probably cannot afford (not enough ROI) to make a high-priced EF-S lens unless it has very wide appeal, meaning "zoom lens" and one that covers popular lengths and fits the budgets of the 1.6x body crowd. If Canon does make a 1.6x-friendly focal length, it would make more sense to make it EF, and not EF-S. I think though that the new 17.8MP sensors will see many lenses slated for re-designs: already the 70-200 2.8 L-IS USM is in a redesign phase, as they announced last month: The 70-200's upper end needs higher resolution to leverage the increasingly pixel-dense sensors that are here, and which will come over the next 10 years. The newer 70-200 f/4 L-IS USM was beating the older, higher-spec'd lens, so the refresh was definitely due.

Canon's newest 24,45,and 90mm Tilt-Shift lenses are another example of needing better lenses, so Canon WILL do what it needs to keep up with higher and higher MP counts--at least in the big-money lens categories. Those lenses had a BIG price increase over the same models from prior generations, but Canon wants its users to have some of the finest big-system lenses in the world,and they are already fulfilling that goal. EF-S lenses appeal to budget-constrained customers and the masses,and it seems to me that 17-25-35 MP on 1.6x will call for L-quality lens designs and builds.

 

[gsgary]

No none of my cameras will take EFS only L lenses for me

 

[cfusionpm]

Canon's current EF-S lenses, including the 17-55, are not "quite" there on the 7D.

What do you mean by this? I have that lens and it performs excellently on my 15mp crop body which, by calculation, would still be a 39mp full frame equivelant.

 

[Derrel]

Canon's current EF-S lenses, including the 17-55, are not "quite" there on the 7D.

What do you mean by this? I have that lens and it performs excellently on my 15mp crop body which, by calculation, would still be a 39mp full frame equivelant.

When the 7D first came out, I downloaded a number of full-sized sample images from Rob Galbraith, a Flickr set shot by an early adopter, and also dPreview's prteview and sample gallery. Since then, dPreview has totally re-worked their galleries and URL system to a fairly useless slide-show in Flash format, but if you go to http://s3.amazonaws.com/masters.gal...368401&Signature=S31dDggZg7vOXKqp0Tuc7vreiDs=

and look at that photo in Original size, as well as the other London architectural scenes at Original size, it is *clear* that the 17-55 does NOT perform at a professional level on the entire periphery throughout most of the shorter range of its focal lengths (the outer 1/3 on each side of the frames is sub-par) of the 7D's ultra-dense sensor. There is a sort of video-y, fuzzy-edge that is the sign of a fair amount of residual chromatic aberration on most all of the bright-light London samples. The 70-200mm f/4 L Rob used has MUCH better image quality on the 7D. Looking at the full-sized London shots, it is clear that there is basically no advantage to the 17.8 MP of the 7D over lower-MP cameras shot with higher-performing lenses. The 17-55 is simply not as good as some other lenses on the 7D. Looked at original size, the 17-55's edges are simply not capable of delivering the kind of resolution that other lenses in the Canon lineup can deliver. In Rob's shots, the 16-35-Mk II shows how demanding that sensor is on the periphery: the lens is not quite good enough for the incredible demands of the world's densest sensor and the world's smallest d-slr pixels. This is not a surprise. Lenses optimized for FF can perform "well", but produce higher LP/mm results on a FF camera than on a 1.6x body, because a FF sensor is 2.3x larger than a 1.6x sensor. The smaller and denser the sensor, the more critical the lens becomes; Oly had to design ALL-new lenses for their 4/3 series cameras; Nikon has had to re-design the 70-200 VR, had to discontinue the 17-35 AF-S, had to update the 70-300, and built all-new supertelephotos. Canon re-did three T/S lenses, and is re-designing its 70-200 2.8 because,moving forward, lenses need to have *incredible* optical performance on 18 MP sensors with tiny pixels. Go to the above URL and download 5-6 of the London full-size image shot with the 17-55 on the 7D. Look at the edges" the detail is simply bad compared to the center.

The 17-55 EF-S was formulated and designed back when Canon was working with 8.2 MP sensors. A lot of the test results of it are from the Rebel 350 Days. The 7D's sensor is multiple generations newer than what Canon had to work with when designing the lens in 2005. I'm not trying to "bag on the 17-55"; the 7D is not the same sensor as your camera's. Some lenses are better matches for specific sensors; visit Bjorn Rorslett's pages for numerous examples of lens performance related to specific sensors.

 

[Sam6644]

I have the EF-S 17-55 2.8 and a 7D now...

I have to agree, while the lens is really nice- the 7D find all the flaws in it.
Chromatic aberrations are worse than I would have expected, after looking at all the sample shots I had seen before hand.

My next purchase is a 70-200 L, and I'm excited about it. Wont be for another couple months though.