File :-(, x, )
The next EF-S lens will be... Anonymous
Canon has been introducing at least one EF-S lens every single year since the mount was introduced in 2003:

2003: EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

2004: EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
EF-S 17-85mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM

2005: EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro

2006: EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

2007: EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS

2008: EF-S .....?
Comment too long. Clickhereto view the full text.
>> Anonymous
yea, itll be possibly and 18-125 theyll never do an 18-200, that was made pretty clear with the twin EFS kit last year.

they "may" re-release an updated all round 17-85 or its probably easier just to go 18-125...

either that or an EFs normal prime?
>> Anonymous
I bet it'll have a bit of wide in it.

Cause a zoom made just for crop is dumb.
>> Anonymous
>>205081
by zoom I mean tele
>> Anonymous
I always wish for an EF-S version of the 24-105 f/4 L IS.

Not having a 24mm equivalent walkaround zoom is a big minus for the EF-S system.

Nikon users wanting more reach than their kit lens could choose from the 18-70, 18-135, 16-85, and 18-200 VR.

Sony users wanting more reach than their kit lens could choose from the 18-70, 18-250, 16-105, and Carl Zeis 16-80.

Not only does Canon lack extra reach in their EF-S lenses, but they have nothing that gives them a 24mm equivalent Field of View either. Nikon and Sony do.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>205082

oh hey, meet the EF-S 55-250 IS
>> Anonymous
I'm confused by the EF-S and DX lenses. These were made specifically for crop sensors right? So does that mean we don't need to multiply the focal length by the crop factor anymore or is it just a smaller projected image circle which makes the lens cheaper than its full frame counterparts?
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
It's not what I would want, but I would guess that a sort of medium grade superzoom like a 18-200 may be considered profitable and not clash too much with the others.

What I'd want is more like>>205084
>> Anonymous
>>205088

They have never done that for any other format like APS film or medium or large formats. The focal length is determined by the lens and a fixed 100mm lens is always a 100mm lens no matter what you mount it on. It's just that the "crop bodies" only let you see part of the image circle of that lens.

The same focal length on a medium format and a large format would get progressively larger image circles and fields of views.
>> Anonymous
>>205090

We'd need something that starts at 15mm ;___;

15-75 f/4 IS, unpossible?
>> Anonymous
>>205088

it is a smaller circle

you still have to apply crop factor

if you are using a crop camera, you HAVE to apply crop factor on ANY lens you mount on it, no questions
>> Anonymous
>>205091
So you mean a 100mm DX and a 100mm FX will have the same focal length because that doesn't change and both will look exactly the same on a crop body? Though the DX one would be cheaper because it doesn't project the larger image circle that would just get cropped out anyway? And you end up with massive vignetting if you place it on a full frame?
>> Anonymous
>>205099

yes

except on the cheaper part

they have yet to show they can make them cheaper
>> Anonymous
>>205102
arent they already using plastics for lens elements nowadays?
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>205118
Been for a while on cheaper aspherical elements (mold a bit of plastic, glue it to a spherical one to make it the right shape), but I'm pretty sure normal elements are all glass.

Doesn't really matter, because kit lens performance is pretty decent so if they've put plastic in, they can keep on doing what they're doing.
>> Anonymous
>>205130

no plastic elements in the big brands. that is for holga.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>205143
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/dx/af-s_dx_18-55mmf_35-56g_vr/index.htm

I'm pretty sure "hybrid" aspherical lens means "we snuck some plastic in there shhhh"

Otherwise it would mean that every kit lens is getting hand ground elements and I really doubt that's the case.
>> Anonymous
>>205150

hybrid means more than one type of glass.
>> Anonymous
>>205079
Nikon is selling the shit out of the 18-200VR, Canon would be stupid to never make an EF-S IS version.

I'd love an EF-S 50-150mm f/2.8 IS, but that's probably coming too close to the 70-200mm L series. An EF-S 30mm f/1.4 would also be lovely as long as I'm dreaming.
>> Anonymous
I'm not so sure they will. Since those were the *very first five years* of the EF-S mount, they had to fill in all sorts of new lenses for it, make sure their crop users are "covered." And they are: even if someone only bought EF-S lenses (i.e. no 70-300 or 100-400L or whatever) they'd have 10mm to 250mm, which is actually more than most people have a real use for.

I mean, they could, but I don't see any gaps in the current Canon lens line up, except like the guy said for a slightly wider standard zoom.

>>205093
There's cine zooms that start at 10mm and are faster, so it's technically possible.

The thing with cine lenses, though, is that there are no size, weight, or price limits to their designs. Cine cameras are very rarely handheld, except when it's a Jason Bourne movie, so size and weight is no object.

Cost is also no object because practically the only people who actually *buy* these lenses are studios and rental houses that charge megabucks a day for them to be used on a production.

So cinematographers get to play with nice things like a rectilinear 8/2.8. (Yes, you read that right.)

>>205155
No. A hybrid aspheric element is one that is made spherical with glass, but they just glue some aspherically molded plastic onto it. Works fine better than it would if it was still spheric. Ideal, of course, is hand-ground native aspherics, but then you get into Noctilux, or at least 28/1.4 Nikkor, price territory.
>> Anonymous
>>205182
but arent cine lenses designed to only cover an 8mm frame or similar smaller size frame, i.e not even aps-c sized?
>> Anonymous
>>205155

sorry to break it to you but you've got plastic elements in your lens
>> Anonymous
>>205188
Nope. Super 35 is even bigger (slightly) than Nikon's DX, which is the largest "APS-C" format.
>> Anonymous
>>205195
To illustrate:

Canon 16-35 f/2.8L

Weight: 635 grams (1.2 pounds)
Length: 112mm (4.2 inches)
Diameter: 88mm (3.5 inches)

Arri/Zeiss LWZ-1 15.5-45mm T2.6 (LWZ stands for "lightweight zoom," I'm not kidding.)

Weight: "around 2 kg/4.4 lbs"
Length: 209mm (8.2 inches)
Diameter: 114mm (4.5 inches)
>> Anonymous
>>205196
Oh, and the 16-35L covers 36x24mm, whereas the LWZ-1 covers Super 35, 24.9x18.7mm.
>> Anonymous
>>205182
proof they use plastic, please
>> Anonymous
>>205200
What does it matter? Really, there's nothing wrong with using plastic in a lens unless you're some snotty tool who's pissed off that his precious Nikkor/Canon/Pentax/Zuiko/whatever uses the same *type* of material, not same material, but *type* of material as a Holga.

http://www.tamron.co.jp/en/about/core/index03.html

"Resin" = "plastic."
>> Anonymous
>>205208
i am not a snotty tool. i am genuinely interested in it and would like a good and reliable article mentioning it and some technical info for a curious person to delve into, preferably one with some meat to it rather than a mention of its existance. don't be so aggressive, it was only a question. no insults to mother, capacity to think or your sexuality.
>> Anonymous
>>205200

wow, get the fuck over it jesus

see that $1,700 nikkor lens? it's got replica, grounded and molded elements

guess what replica means

fucking plastic
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
Even hand crafted cine cameras (and as mentioned before they cost LOTS) will use some kind of optical resin to glue the doublets/multi-elements in place. It has to be held on with something.
>> Anonymous
>>205219
did you not bother to read my reply before leaping to flaming and ranting? try again.
>> Anonymous
>>205227

i was typing that at the same time as your post you fucking retard cockmongler

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/glossary.htm#asp

>> Nikon employs three types of aspherical lens elements. Precision-ground aspherical lens elements are the finest expression of lens-crafting art, demanding extremely rigorous production standards. Hybrid lenses are made of a special plastic molded onto optical glass. Molded glass aspherical lenses are manufactured by molding a unique type of optical glass using a special metal die technique.

OH LAWD WOE IS ME THERE'S PLASTIC IN MY LENSES
>> Anonymous
>>205218
Sorry. You're right. I've just seen too many people be like that and assumed you were one from the whole "proof" thing.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>205226

Cine camera lenses, I meant to say.
>> Anonymous
>>205229
>>205219

are not

>>205230
>>205218
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>205229

i wonder which lenses have the plasitc
>> Anonymous
>>205229
yeesh. so much aggression. take a chill pill. there's nothing worth developing a twitch over.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>205234

I'd think if you looked at the design specs of the lens you'd find something in them. I've seen a few technical diagrams of specific lens designs for all the brands appear. Could be in there?
>> Anonymous
With all the panic behind plastic elements in lenses and how often manufacturers do it, you'd think a company can start making a series of lenses with shiny metal housings and advertised as "100% glass" and charge a lot for them even though the optical superiority of using nothing but glass is minuscule compared to current manufactured lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>205243

Leica, LAWL.
>> Anonymous
24mm f/2.0 USM
>> Anonymous
Different materials for different elements. Fluorite, countless combinations of doped crown glass, countless combinations of so called flint glass... Nothing inherently wrong with plastics either. Some get more yellow with time, others are unaffected.
>> Anonymouuuss
Did someone say plastic?
Yeah saw a short vid in youtube for olde lenses and the aspherical elements are mated to other lens elements through a clear resin... too bad they cant harden up that clear resin enough to be used as a replacement for glass ;)
>> okto
AFAIK, all but the cheapest lenses are still all glass elements, Canon's DO lenses of course excepted. I don't think optical resin counts, since it is not a refractory element.

>>205150
A bunch of modern ASPH elements are molded glass (Canon calls it GMo).

>>205084
10-22 EF-S
16-35L
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>205347
Yes but the vast majority contain some plastic. Like I (and some others) said, it's no big deal as long as they still perform fine.
>> okto
Are we talking about plastic optical elements or plastic in the optical block? The former I will disagree with until facts prove otherwise; you can smell a plastic lens form a mile away, and none of the lenses I've ever used smell like it.
>> Anonymous
OM NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM
>> Anonymous
>>205333
Yes it can harden to form solid blocks/lenses.

>>205443
No, you cannot smell such plastic lenses. Can you smell people's sight correction glasses?
>> Anonymous
>>205514
I CAN SMELL YOUR CUNT!
>> Anonymous
>>20534710-22 EF-S
>> 16-35L

one's a $700 ultra wide and the other is a $1,000 ultra wide that's 25.6mm on crop

people want a standard zoom that gives 24mm equiv. that doesn't cost 4 digits
>> okto
>>205514
It's a figure of speech, dick-for-brains. Of course I can't fucking SMELL a lens.
>> Anonymous
>>205637
Very well then, dipshit, I strongly doubt you can notice plastic in a lens element as you say you can. Good night, dear faggot.
>> okto
>>205716
You can't? Quick, take a picture with a disposable camera. See how there's no contrast and everything looks a little like it's melting? PLASTIC LENS FTL
>> Anonymous
>>206065
4/10. Nice try, but the comparison is too absurd to be believable.
>> okto
>>206093
Is it? Citing performance of a plastic lens isn't good enough evidence for how you can recognize a plastic lens?
Is it opposite day, or is Anon high?

>>205542
You can notice a 1.5mm difference in FoV? You should be shooting Leica.
>> Anonymous
>>206289

emphasis on $1,000, fucktard