M. Gilden
Canon DSLR Moderator
By the way, Vivitar is no longer using Samyang. They switched to another manufacturer (didn't catch the name, but I believe from China) and are discontinuing their Korean glass. Just FYI.
Pro APS-C Lenses
- Thread starter roxics
- Start date
By the way, Vivitar is no longer using Samyang. They switched to another manufacturer (didn't catch the name, but I believe from China) and are discontinuing their Korean glass. Just FYI.
David W. Jones
Veteran
No, historically you never heard the term "full frame". It was just 35mm. And as far as professional, medium format was the format of choice for working pros who needed higher quality than 35mm. There was no such thing as an APS-C lens back then because there were no APS-C cameras. Every 35mm lens covered full frame because that was all there was. It wasn't until digital cameras were developed that the term full frame appeared. And remember, the first DSLR cameras were all APS-C because that was as large as they could make a sensor back then. That is when lens makers started to manufacture APS-C lenses. From a financial standpoint it is less expensive to produce a lens that only covers APS-C because of the smaller image circle needed. Bottom line, it's not that APS-C lenses are for consumers or hobbyists, it's just that they are designed to only cover APS-C. And there are plenty of professionals earning a living with APS-C cameras.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
I hadn't heard that. Thanks for the heads up.
M. Gilden
Canon DSLR Moderator
Yep, heard it as a nasty rumor almost a year ago from a Samyang rep I met, and was hoping it wasn't true until I recently confirmed with one of Vivitar's in house photographers.
Right now they only have an 8mm and an 85mm in production, and the manufacturer is some new Chinese place. I haven't gotten my hands on glass to compare to the Samyang 85mm F/1.4 that I have, but I already know that the new 85mm is only F/1.8, so its already sounding like a bad start to me.
That's all I know, I've been meaning to pull some strings with the folks I know there to get some more details.
Right now they only have an 8mm and an 85mm in production, and the manufacturer is some new Chinese place. I haven't gotten my hands on glass to compare to the Samyang 85mm F/1.4 that I have, but I already know that the new 85mm is only F/1.8, so its already sounding like a bad start to me.
That's all I know, I've been meaning to pull some strings with the folks I know there to get some more details.
Medium format was around before 35mm and when it was introduced it was not a pro format. It was for amateurs.
This is 100% false. There were APS film cameras.
That second sentence is false, false false. I don't know about the first sentence. That's ancient history but given the veracity of the other statements in this post I wouldn't trust it without some kind of reputable reference.
You are ignoring the size of the manufacturing run. As was stated earlier most APS-C Canons are purchased by consumers who will never move beyond the kit lens. L lenses are expensive already. Making an even smaller run of L level lenses for APS-C would be even more costly and may negate any benefit of producing a smaller lens. If someone is really a pro and really wants to go wider they can easily buy a full frame camera such as the 6D or a used 5D MK II and the relatively cheap 17-40mm f/4 L. A new 6D is less than $2,000 everywhere in the US. Too expensive for me but if someone gave me a choice between keeping my 17-40mm L and getting a 6D vs sinking an obscene amount of money into an APS-C L I would go with the 6D option.
The Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM costs MORE than the Canon 17-40mm f/4 and it has no where near the quality of the L. It's not a bad lens but if you brought it up to L quality it would costs hundreds more.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
There were APS cameras before digital (a friend of mine had one, film for it was expensive and difficult to find). But they were point-and-shoot cameras, AFAIK. So I would aggree that there were no APS-C lenses before digital. And it is definitely true that the first DSLRs had APS-C sensors because a digital FF sensor was impossible to manufacture at a reasonable price.
It is true that making 1K lenses makes each of them a lot more expensive than if you made 100K. But there are A LOT more APS-C shooters than FF shooters, so I'm not sure which one would become more expensive with dual production... In any case, there are lots of APS-C lenses, they just happen to be mostly low-end zooms. What I want are decent APS-C primes. Or wanted, I should say: my solution was to buy a SpeedBooster so my FF lenses would work as they were supposed to.
Edit:
There were indeed some APS SLRs back in the 90s, and some manufacturers made lenses specifically for them. Rare as a pink unicorn, of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Photo_System#Cameras
Also:
Canon 10-22 vs 17-40, both at 17mm f/4:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Plus, the 10-22 goes to, you know, 10mm. That's kind of expensive.
It is true that making 1K lenses makes each of them a lot more expensive than if you made 100K. But there are A LOT more APS-C shooters than FF shooters, so I'm not sure which one would become more expensive with dual production... In any case, there are lots of APS-C lenses, they just happen to be mostly low-end zooms. What I want are decent APS-C primes. Or wanted, I should say: my solution was to buy a SpeedBooster so my FF lenses would work as they were supposed to.
Edit:
There were indeed some APS SLRs back in the 90s, and some manufacturers made lenses specifically for them. Rare as a pink unicorn, of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Photo_System#Cameras
Also:
Canon 10-22 vs 17-40, both at 17mm f/4:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Plus, the 10-22 goes to, you know, 10mm. That's kind of expensive.
Last edited:
Again this information is false. There were APS film SLRs with detachable lenses. Canon made an APS zoom for it's film cameras back in the 90s.
The number of APS-C people that get anything other than the kit lens has got to be tiny. The number that get anything other than a cheap consumer zoom has got to be infinitesimally tiny. I am pretty sure the number of people that buy full frame and get something other than a cheap zoom has got to be a lot larger. And of course plenty of pros who use APS-C just get the full frame L. So the market for APS-C buyers who would upgrade to an L level APS-C has got to be pretty small.
I of course am not an industry insider but I wouldn't take it as a given that their is some kind of pent up demand for a bunch of APS-C L lenses. Really even a consumer grade fast wide prime would be great for us movie guys. But I personally have never heard of a APS prime lens for digital Canons. Maybe it's happened and I just didn't hear about it. But if a basic consumer prime isn't even made why would you think an L would be profitable?