Pro APS-C Lenses

roxics

roxics

Veteran
In the Nikon and Canon world the logic historically seems to be that full frame is for professionals and that APS-C is for consumers and hobbyists. Yet even they know that's not entirely true. Cameras like the 7D and 6D cross the bridge. The 7D being a pro level APS-C camera and the 6D pushing more into consumer territory as a full frame camera.

There also seems to exist this philosophy among Canon and Nikon shooters that eventually we'll all move up to full frame, so we should protect our lens investments by purchasing lenses that can cover full frame. Like L glass in the Canon world.

Obviously there are benefits to L glass. Better built quality, internal focusing and zooming, constant apertures and sometimes optical quality.

But Canon sells some lenses that teeter on the edge of L territory. Like the 17-55 f2.8
It's APS-C only and doesn't have the build quality and L designation.

As a canon shooter now my initial thought is to buy L glass. To start investing in it for it's build quality and constant apertures and full frame coverage. Thinking like so many that I'll eventually move up to a full frame camera. But then I ask myself why. As someone that primarily shoots video and then photos second, what is the benefit to full frame for me? Lower light shooting is the only real benefit. But APS-C sensors will eventually get better at low light. Newer technologies like graphene sensors may make an APS-C sensor of tomorrow far better at low light than todays full frame sensors. You could also say that it's bound to make full frame sensor even more light sensitive as well, which would be true. But there is bound to be a point in which that just doesn't matter anymore. When you can shoot clean photos and videos at 25K+ ISO on an APS-C sensor, does it matter if the full frame camera can shoot in even in lower light? You've reached the point of dimishing returns where you are not even going to see the difference in regular use.

The only other thing that full frame offers is shallower DOF. But that's a stylistic choice. For cinema, that can be a drawback. Even when shooting stills I can get plenty of shallow DOF with an APS-C sensor and the right lens. I haven't felt limited. I didn't even feel that limited shooting micro four thirds.

Which all got me thinking, should Canon release a new series of pro lenses that are APS-C only? Maybe a blue or green ring around the front and the same build quality as L glass. Just an easielr way to designate the lens as a higher quality pro-level product.

Maybe if we and Canon break this mentality that we're all going to eventually move to full frame, Canon may be interested in giving us a series of lenses that benefit us from an ergonmics and build quality perspective that matches L glass but is APS-C only.

Just a random thought I had. I could be off base here.
 
You should grab a few old pk mount pentax lenses for your canon, I really love the look they produce, and their cheap! I understand your wanting to invest in Canon, but for the cost of some of the old legacy glass, it's crazy not to have a few of the common focal lengths in these old lenses, especially for hard conditions that your not going to want to jeopardize your non L glass in. They really do produce beautiful images.
 
A good idea, but my guess is Canon wants people to upgrade to (more expensive) FF cameras so they make the FF-optimised L series lenses as an incentive for people to move up.

If pro's using the 7D could get APS-C optimised lenses with the same characteristics, they would not buy the more expensive cameras.

It would be great though, to see an nice matched pair like a 17-55 2.8 IS II & a 50-150 2.8 IS, both with internal zoom & focus, weather-sealing and matching filter diameter, at a considerably lower price than the 24-70 II & 70-200 IS II.
 
but that doesn't really make sense to me. Why limit what you can use it on.

It's not like the L glass can't be used on APS-C bodies. It functions perfectly. Why make professional(expensive) glass that can only be used on selected bodies when they currently make pro glass that can be used on every Canon ever.

If it's coverage your after, I'd argue it's already there. If you don't like the build quality of the 17-55, get the cheaper 17-40 L.

It doesn't make sense to me to limit the use of the lenses.
 
The 17-40 L is an f4 lens because it's a full frame lens. Obviously they can build a 17-55 for just APS-C that is f2.8, as they have done. So there is a benefit to making the glass APS-C only.

Plus you assume that everyone will always want to move up to a full frame camera. My argument that that many won't ever have to or want to. People who shoot m4/3 aren't holding off buying expensive glass for their system because it won't cover full frame. For them there is no full frame. Or to think of it another way, what they have is already considered full frame to them. In the same sense that people shooting ff35mm aren't investing in medium format glass thinking that one day they are going to move up to that. Hope that makes sense. It's really just a perspective shift. If you consider that you'll only ever shoot APS-C, why buy full frame glass? But yet there would still be a benefit to having something rugged like an L build.
 
roxics said:
People who shoot m4/3 aren't holding off buying expensive glass for their system because it won't cover full frame. For them there is no full frame.
Click to expand...

...There are also some distinct advantages when shooting with lenses designed for the "crop" format. Most of the premium m4/3 lenses are designed to be close to maximum performance at full aperture, so you can shoot wide open and get optimal results.

Canon should make a line of APS-C L lenses that are optimized for the APS-C format, especially with their Cxx cine line of cameras that are almost the same format. ( Super35 motion picture format is slightly larger )
 
I just don't think APS-C is distinct enough to justify it is what I'm getting at. The same lenses work on both.

I get the point of m43 lenses and I'd like an updated efs superwide lens from Canon since I don't really like the 10-22, but I don't see them doing it and don't really desire them too. What are some examples of lenses you'd like to see in this line that there aren't currently alternatives for?

Canon also already makes a cine line of lenses designed mainly for their cinema line.
 
homestar_kevin said:
I just don't think APS-C is distinct enough to justify it is what I'm getting at. The same lenses work on both.
Click to expand...

...But premium APS-C lenses would perform better ( like the premium m4/3 lenses do ) compared to using Full Frame lenses on an APS-C body. Very likely you could get the maximum performance at full aperture with an APS-C designed lens. It's very noticeable when you compare an Olympus 45mm f/1.8 lens to a Canon 50mm f/1.2L / f/1.4 / f/1.8 lens on a m4/3 camera body, the Olympus 45mm kills all competition when shooting at f/1.8, as this lens was designed to be absolutely sharp wide open.

homestar_kevin said:
What are some examples of lenses you'd like to see in this line that there aren't currently alternatives for ?
Click to expand...

Wide prime APS-C lenses. Where's the 15mm f/1.8 or 18mm f/1.8 prime lenses ? ( m4/3 has a bunch of these lenses, and there's no reason why APS-C cameras shouldn't have this too )

homestar_kevin said:
Canon also already makes a cine line of lenses designed mainly for their cinema line.
Click to expand...

...Which sell at cine prices. What I'm talking about are premium APS-C L lenses that would be priced like other L lenses.

I am sure there are way more Canon and Nikon APS-C bodies being sold than Full Frame bodies, so why are APS-C users stuck buying Full Frame lenses ?
 
I guess see what you're saying, any maybe it'll happen eventually, but I don't see canon doing this.

I still just don't think the difference between FF and APS-c is big enough to justify it. M43 is a way bigger difference and needs glass that can accommodate this difference.


I think the vast vast majority of those canon and nikon aps-c cameras sold are being sold to entry level shooters and consumers who rarely get past the kit lens, let alone to L series glass.
 
homestar_kevin said:
I think the vast vast majority of those canon and nikon aps-c cameras sold are being sold to entry level shooters and consumers who rarely get past the kit lens, let alone to L series glass.
Click to expand...

I've seen many Canon 7D and Nikon D300 photographers shooting professional work with premium Canon and Nikon Full Frame glass. Given the number of APS-C shooters, I am certain there would be a market for premium ASP-C glass just like there is for m4/3 premium glass. ( lots of us m4/3 shooters are waiting for Olympus to convert their high end 4/3 lenses in to m4/3 lenses )
 
I do too. I've seen more L lenses on APS-C cameras than on FF's at the end of the day, because there are a lot more cropped bodies released and they all do video.

Yet this is the first i've ever heard of anyone not getting what they need to/deisre to out of the L glass.

It seems to be working quite well for all those folks. Especially with high ISO performances leveling the playing field in a lot of ways I just don't think that the extra half stop or stop benefit of specially designed glass would be worth the effort, or the expense, on both the consumer and manufacturer ends.

But the interested in the new sigma 18-35 1.8 and lenses like that could spur this.

I personally just don't need that speed.
 
homestar_kevin said:
Yet this is the first i've ever heard of anyone not getting what they need to/deisre to out of the L glass.
Click to expand...

I think most shooters don't realize that APS-C specific L glass would be higher performance, and would perform optimally at full aperture like the premium m4/3 glass does.
 
Designing a lens is, as usual, a matter of compromise: you want to have cheap, light, sharp, with great bokeh, etc, and you can't have them all, some fight against th others. In the case of FF lenses, you definitely need a big-enough image circle so that there's light hitting the corners of the FF sensor, and you want it sharp in those corners, within reason. If you design the lens for APS-C, you can lift these restrictions: the lens can now be, say, smaller/lighter, cheaper to manufacture, sharper in the center, etc. But then you have to design two lenses (one for FF and one for APS-C) and this increases your development costs. And sends your customers a signal that APS-C is big enough. So Canon and Nikon so far have neglected this market.

Luckily, they're not the only players in town: Sigma has a 18-35mm f/1.8 for APS-C that seems to be a really awesome lens, and samyang has an APS-C 8mm fisheye that can trash rivals costing 8 times as much
 
Are the Sanyang and Rokinon cine style lenses one and the same? Follow-up question... does anyone know when the 50mm variant will be issued?
 
Andrew Stone said:
Follow-up question... does anyone know when the 50mm variant will be issued?
Click to expand...

Samyang is the original manufacturer that other companies re-brand under their own name. There are at least 4 different brands ( with slightly different styling ) selling the same Samyang lenses.

re: The Samyang 50mm lens, I am interested to know how this lens performs wide open, as many 50mm lenses ( Canon, Nikon, Zeiss ) are very soft at full aperture.
 
I bought a T2i when it was released to see what I thought of the footage (as a long-time Nikon shooter, I thought the D90 sucked for video and wondered what the DLSR fuss was all about).

I never did upgrade it and use it for commercial projects often - my D7000 has taken up a lot of the footage load though, and I'll probably dump them both for a 7100.

My point being, regardless of what people consider a "pro" camera, it's what ya do with it that counts.

For Canon, I'm with the older manual lenses and adapters crowd. The focus feel of a manual lens is a big deal for me. I can't see sinking $1700 into a lens for video at this point.

Canon T2i with an 80's era series-E (Nikon's first "consumer" foray with plastic barrels, etc) 100 2.8, 1080 frame grab:

MVI_3026.jpg
 
TheDingo said:
Samyang is the original manufacturer that other companies re-brand under their own name. There are at least 4 different brands ( with slightly different styling ) selling the same Samyang lenses.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that up.

re: The Samyang 50mm lens, I am interested to know how this lens performs wide open, as many 50mm lenses ( Canon, Nikon, Zeiss ) are very soft at full aperture.
Click to expand...

I am sure within a couple of weeks of release, we will get the verdict. Lots of people waiting for this lens.
 
roxics said:
Which all got me thinking, should Canon release a new series of pro lenses that are APS-C only? Maybe a blue or green ring around the front and the same build quality as L glass. Just an easielr way to designate the lens as a higher quality pro-level product.

Maybe if we and Canon break this mentality that we're all going to eventually move to full frame, Canon may be interested in giving us a series of lenses that benefit us from an ergonmics and build quality perspective that matches L glass but is APS-C only.
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what the complaint is here. L lenses work on APS-C cameras as you well know. They're still L lenses, they still work, they're just not as wide as on a full frame camera. If you want the really wide, Canon has already made an L lens that covers APS-C with the 8-15mm fisheye: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/732107-USA/Canon_4427B002_EF_8_15mm_f_4L_Fisheye.html It doesn't work so great at 8mm on a full frame, but it does on an APS-C so maybe you could kind of consider this an APS-C L lens?

There is a clear quality jump for stills between the APS-C and full frame sensors. It's not just shallower depth of field or wider angle. The sensor is better. Much better. For video, there's the headphone jack, the audio controls, all the Magic Lantern goodies, so there is a definite advantage in the full frame cameras. It's not that the APS-C cameras are bad, or that they're not pro*, they're just different tools for different tasks and budgets.
 
A similar lens with only APS-C coverage should be cheaper. Or, alternatively, at same price, a lens that's slightly redesigned so that FF coverage is not required will probably be sharper and faster.

To go to the extreme: the cheap lens of your average point-and-shoot camera is actually sharper than the center of the sharpest L lens. But it only covers an area of around 1/25th of FF. Expanding that area brings lots of painful tradeoffs to the table.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top