Canon EF-S Telephoto Zoom Lenses?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Matt, Nov 27, 2004.

  1. Matt

    Matt Guest

    Anyone heard is Canon are going to release an EF-S telephoto zoom lens such
    as a 75-300 IS?
    Matt, Nov 27, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Matt

    Eric Gill Guest

    "Matt" <> wrote in
    news:coa2ch$acg$:

    > Anyone heard is Canon are going to release an EF-S telephoto zoom lens
    > such as a 75-300 IS?


    I'm not sure why they would want to. Why do you ask?
    Eric Gill, Nov 27, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Matt

    Matt Guest

    The reason I ask, is because supposedly the EF-S lenses are designed
    specifically for the digital sensor size of the 300D and 20D, and it seems
    like this is the future for non-Pro Canon DSLR's.

    They do a 10-22 EF-S lens, and a 17-85 EF-S lens, I just wondered if they
    are planning on completing the range by making a 75-300 EF-S lens.

    I was thinking of buying a 75-300IS lens, but will hold out if they are
    planning to produce a EF-S version to keep it all matching as I don't use
    the telephoto much in the Winter. (Sad I know, but I don't want to waste
    money, and it is not very often I completely change my setup, so want to
    make the right choice).


    "Eric Gill" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns95AE583968FDBericvgillyahoocom@63.223.5.254...
    > "Matt" <> wrote in
    > news:coa2ch$acg$:
    >
    > > Anyone heard is Canon are going to release an EF-S telephoto zoom lens
    > > such as a 75-300 IS?

    >
    > I'm not sure why they would want to. Why do you ask?
    >
    Matt, Nov 27, 2004
    #3
  4. "Matt" <> writes:
    > "Eric Gill" <> wrote:
    >> "Matt" <> wrote:


    >>> Anyone heard is Canon are going to release an EF-S telephoto zoom
    >>> lens such as a 75-300 IS?


    >> I'm not sure why they would want to. Why do you ask?


    > The reason I ask, is because supposedly the EF-S lenses are designed
    > specifically for the digital sensor size of the 300D and 20D, and it
    > seems like this is the future for non-Pro Canon DSLR's.
    >
    > They do a 10-22 EF-S lens, and a 17-85 EF-S lens, I just wondered if
    > they are planning on completing the range by making a 75-300 EF-S
    > lens.


    That is very unlikely. The reasom they make wide angles with a
    smaller image circle is because it is much more difficult and
    expensive to make lenses with very short focal lengths that covers
    the full 35 mm film frame.

    The same is not the case at the tele end. It is probably cheaper to
    stick with a single design and manufacturing line and let that cover
    both smaller and larger sensors.

    Unless the film and "full frame" digital sensors disappears
    completely, I doubt that we'll ever see "EF-S" lenses that
    are not wide angle lenses.
    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
    ========================================================================
    When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to?
    Gisle Hannemyr, Nov 27, 2004
    #4
  5. "Matt" <> wrote in message
    news:coa481$nid$...
    > The reason I ask, is because supposedly the EF-S lenses are designed
    > specifically for the digital sensor size of the 300D and 20D, and it seems
    > like this is the future for non-Pro Canon DSLR's.
    >
    > They do a 10-22 EF-S lens, and a 17-85 EF-S lens, I just wondered if they
    > are planning on completing the range by making a 75-300 EF-S lens.


    Less of an advantage with a longer lens. There's much less size and weight
    to save. Also, when the lens already covers a narrow angle, you don't get
    to simplify the design much by making it even narrower.
    Michael A. Covington, Nov 27, 2004
    #5
  6. Matt

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Matt wrote:
    > The reason I ask, is because supposedly the EF-S lenses are designed
    > specifically for the digital sensor size of the 300D and 20D, and it seems
    > like this is the future for non-Pro Canon DSLR's.
    >
    > They do a 10-22 EF-S lens, and a 17-85 EF-S lens, I just wondered if they
    > are planning on completing the range by making a 75-300 EF-S lens.
    >


    I think the logic for it is not there:

    o 10-22 EF-S gets the 20D/300D wider than any other available lens

    o 17-85IS is the 1.6x version of their popular 28-135IS for film cameras

    These both fill a performance niche. A 70-300IS EF-S (which would
    really be a 45-190 or so based on doing a film equivalent 70-300) seems
    unwarrented. LOTS of lenses covering such ranges.

    Phil
    Phil Wheeler, Nov 27, 2004
    #6
  7. Matt

    Matt Guest

    I understand what you are saying, but just a petty correction:

    You divided, not multiplied. The 75-300 digital equivalent would be
    120-480. Easy mistake.



    "Phil Wheeler" <> wrote in message
    news:9C2qd.64096$...
    >
    > These both fill a performance niche. A 70-300IS EF-S (which would
    > really be a 45-190 or so based on doing a film equivalent 70-300) seems
    > unwarrented. LOTS of lenses covering such ranges.
    >
    > Phil
    >
    Matt, Nov 27, 2004
    #7
  8. Matt

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Wrong conclusion:

    I was computing the EF-S which would be equivalent to a 70-300 after a
    1.6 multiplier ala the 17-85IS being equivalent to a 28-135IS for film

    Matt wrote:
    > I understand what you are saying, but just a petty correction:
    >
    > You divided, not multiplied. The 75-300 digital equivalent would be
    > 120-480. Easy mistake.
    >
    >
    >
    > "Phil Wheeler" <> wrote in message
    > news:9C2qd.64096$...
    >
    >>These both fill a performance niche. A 70-300IS EF-S (which would
    >>really be a 45-190 or so based on doing a film equivalent 70-300) seems
    >>unwarrented. LOTS of lenses covering such ranges.
    >>
    >>Phil
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    Phil Wheeler, Nov 27, 2004
    #8
  9. Matt

    Mark² Guest

    "Matt" <> wrote in message
    news:coa2ch$acg$...
    > Anyone heard is Canon are going to release an EF-S telephoto zoom lens

    such
    > as a 75-300 IS?


    There is little-to-no reason for this, since telephoto is actually enhanced
    by the crop-factor. It is only the wide angle that becomes a problem with
    the smaller sensor size. Most users of long telephoto actually WELCOME the
    crop factor when shooting long. I know I do.
    Mark², Nov 27, 2004
    #9
  10. Matt

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Mark² wrote:

    > "Matt" <> wrote in message
    > news:coa2ch$acg$...
    >
    >>Anyone heard is Canon are going to release an EF-S telephoto zoom lens

    >
    > such
    >
    >>as a 75-300 IS?

    >
    >
    > There is little-to-no reason for this, since telephoto is actually enhanced
    > by the crop-factor. It is only the wide angle that becomes a problem with
    > the smaller sensor size. Most users of long telephoto actually WELCOME the
    > crop factor when shooting long. I know I do.
    >


    Me, too -- particularly with Image Stabilzation :)

    Phil
    Phil Wheeler, Nov 27, 2004
    #10
  11. Matt

    Eric Gill Guest

    "Matt" <> wrote in
    news:coa481$nid$:

    > The reason I ask, is because supposedly the EF-S lenses are designed
    > specifically for the digital sensor size of the 300D and 20D,


    ....which makes WIDE ANGLE lenses cheaper to build. It makes no sense at all
    to make longer lenses for the mount.

    <snip>
    Eric Gill, Nov 27, 2004
    #11
  12. Matt

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Eric Gill <> wrote:
    >
    >> The reason I ask, is because supposedly the EF-S lenses are designed
    >> specifically for the digital sensor size of the 300D and 20D,

    >
    > ...which makes WIDE ANGLE lenses cheaper to build.
    > It makes no sense at all to make longer lenses for the mount.


    Maybe, but a small-circle long lens could be smaller and lighter,
    as is the Sigma 55-200/4-5.6 DC.

    If the OP really wants such a lens, and doesn't mind the likelihood
    of future incompatibility, or non-durability, there's always Sigma.

    Canon has a fairly poor selection of telephoto lenses for DSLR:

    The 18-55/3.5-5.6 EFS takes ø58 filters, but the 75-300/4-5.6 IS
    is very slow autofocusing (just where you need it, in a long lens)
    and the 70-300/4.5-5.6 DO IS is very expensive and has bad bokey.

    The 17-85/4-5.6 EFS IS takes ø67 filters, but the only other lens
    in the Canon lineup that matches filters is the 70-200/4.0 L, and
    that is not an IS lens (where you need it most, in a long lens).

    The 17-40/4.0 L matches ø77 filters but combines poorly with the
    70-200/2.8 L IS due to lack of 40-70mm range.

    This is why lots of people are buying the Sigma 18-125/3.5-5.6 DC
    instead of a Canon kit lens. But see ø67 filter problem above.
    Bill Tuthill, Nov 27, 2004
    #12
  13. Matt

    Skip M Guest

    "Bill Tuthill" <> wrote in message news:...


    The 17-40/4.0 L matches ø77 filters but combines poorly with the
    70-200/2.8 L IS due to lack of 40-70mm range.

    This is why lots of people are buying the Sigma 18-125/3.5-5.6 DC
    instead of a Canon kit lens. But see ø67 filter problem above.

    Yes, but...the 16-35 f2.8L, 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f2.8L IS and 100-400 f4-5.6L
    IS all take 77mm filters, the long ones have IS and all are screamingly
    expensive, at least from the perspective of a $400-600 17-85, 28-135 or
    17-40L.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    Skip M, Nov 27, 2004
    #13
  14. Matt

    Guest

    In message <Xns95AE97100FA25ericvgillyahoocom@63.223.5.254>,
    Eric Gill <> wrote:

    >"Matt" <> wrote in
    >news:coa481$nid$:
    >
    >> The reason I ask, is because supposedly the EF-S lenses are designed
    >> specifically for the digital sensor size of the 300D and 20D,

    >
    >...which makes WIDE ANGLE lenses cheaper to build. It makes no sense at all
    >to make longer lenses for the mount.


    When you optimize the lens for a smaller area of the focal plane,
    though, it is easier to make the lens sharper.

    There must be a reason why the 75-300mm zooms tend to be very soft at
    300mm; perhaps a crop-version could be a lot sharper, without costing
    more to produce.

    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Nov 28, 2004
    #14
  15. Matt

    Mark² Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <Xns95AE97100FA25ericvgillyahoocom@63.223.5.254>,
    > Eric Gill <> wrote:
    >
    > >"Matt" <> wrote in
    > >news:coa481$nid$:
    > >
    > >> The reason I ask, is because supposedly the EF-S lenses are designed
    > >> specifically for the digital sensor size of the 300D and 20D,

    > >
    > >...which makes WIDE ANGLE lenses cheaper to build. It makes no sense at

    all
    > >to make longer lenses for the mount.

    >
    > When you optimize the lens for a smaller area of the focal plane,
    > though, it is easier to make the lens sharper.


    Nonsense. Full-frame lenses are designed to be sharp on the film/sensor
    plane. That you are only seeing the middle portion is certainly not going
    to lead to softness. If anything, you're utilizing the "sweet-spot" of any
    full-size lens you mount on a smaller sensor camera, which leads to sharper,
    less distorted images.
    Mark², Nov 28, 2004
    #15
  16. Matt

    Eric Gill Guest

    wrote in news::

    > When you optimize the lens for a smaller area of the focal plane,
    > though, it is easier to make the lens sharper.


    Just the opposite. The smaller sensor cuts off the edges of the image on a
    standard lens, where most distortion is going to occur.

    <snip>
    Eric Gill, Nov 28, 2004
    #16
  17. Matt

    Guest

    In message <v5dqd.363834$a85.121307@fed1read04>,
    "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

    ><> wrote in message
    >news:...


    >> When you optimize the lens for a smaller area of the focal plane,
    >> though, it is easier to make the lens sharper.


    >Nonsense. Full-frame lenses are designed to be sharp on the film/sensor
    >plane.


    No, they are designed to be sharp from corner to corner on a 35mm frame,
    and in so doing, have limits about how sharp the center can be.

    The lenses on the high-end P&S cameras have higher resolution within
    their sensor area than most of the Canon L lenses have in the same area.

    >That you are only seeing the middle portion is certainly not going
    >to lead to softness.


    The fact that you're cropping means that you have to stretch the image
    more to meet a final print or display size, softening the image,
    compared to if it were full-frame.

    >If anything, you're utilizing the "sweet-spot" of any
    >full-size lens you mount on a smaller sensor camera, which leads to sharper,
    >less distorted images.


    The lens may have been sweeter in the spot if it didn't have to cater to
    the corners of a 35mm frame.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Nov 28, 2004
    #17
  18. Matt

    Mitch Alsup Guest

    wrote in message news:<>...
    > In message <Xns95AE97100FA25ericvgillyahoocom@63.223.5.254>,
    > Eric Gill <> wrote:
    >
    > >"Matt" <> wrote in
    > >news:coa481$nid$:
    > >
    > >> The reason I ask, is because supposedly the EF-S lenses are designed
    > >> specifically for the digital sensor size of the 300D and 20D,

    > >
    > >...which makes WIDE ANGLE lenses cheaper to build. It makes no sense at all
    > >to make longer lenses for the mount.

    >
    > When you optimize the lens for a smaller area of the focal plane,
    > though, it is easier to make the lens


    Yes.

    > sharper.


    No.

    >
    > There must be a reason why the 75-300mm zooms tend to be very soft at
    > 300mm; perhaps a crop-version could be a lot sharper, without costing
    > more to produce.


    Too much zoom range cause difficult optical prescription.
    Mitch Alsup, Nov 28, 2004
    #18
  19. Matt

    Mark² Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <v5dqd.363834$a85.121307@fed1read04>,
    > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >
    > ><> wrote in message
    > >news:...

    >
    > >> When you optimize the lens for a smaller area of the focal plane,
    > >> though, it is easier to make the lens sharper.

    >
    > >Nonsense. Full-frame lenses are designed to be sharp on the film/sensor
    > >plane.

    >
    > No, they are designed to be sharp from corner to corner on a 35mm frame,
    > and in so doing, have limits about how sharp the center can be.


    More nonsense.

    > The lenses on the high-end P&S cameras have higher resolution within
    > their sensor area than most of the Canon L lenses have in the same area.


    Yet more nonsense.

    > >That you are only seeing the middle portion is certainly not going
    > >to lead to softness.

    >
    > The fact that you're cropping means that you have to stretch the image
    > more to meet a final print or display size, softening the image,
    > compared to if it were full-frame.


    That has nothing to do with how sharp the lens projects the image on the
    sensor.

    > >If anything, you're utilizing the "sweet-spot" of any
    > >full-size lens you mount on a smaller sensor camera, which leads to

    sharper,
    > >less distorted images.

    >
    > The lens may have been sweeter in the spot if it didn't have to cater to
    > the corners of a 35mm frame.


    The center portion of the lens does not have to "cater to the corners."
    Mark², Nov 28, 2004
    #19
  20. Matt

    Guest

    In message <Xns95AF6EC3595C5ericvgillyahoocom@24.93.43.119>,
    Eric Gill <> wrote:

    > wrote in news::


    >> When you optimize the lens for a smaller area of the focal plane,
    >> though, it is easier to make the lens sharper.


    >Just the opposite. The smaller sensor cuts off the edges of the image on a
    >standard lens, where most distortion is going to occur.


    Think about what you're saying.

    Did you forget that you now have to stretch what the lens did resolve in
    that crop to 160%? That multiplies the remaining CA and softness by
    1.6x, for all practical purposes, so it isn't a completely free lunch.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Nov 28, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ronny Svensson

    Re: Difference between C-40 zoom [D-40 zoom] and c-4000 zoom

    Ronny Svensson, Aug 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    916
    Ronny Svensson
    Aug 23, 2003
  2. Jimmy Smith

    100mm telephoto vs telephoto macro

    Jimmy Smith, Jun 22, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    3,152
    Bill Hilton
    Jun 23, 2004
  3. AK
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    548
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    320
  5. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    639
Loading...

Share This Page