EOS Cinema Lenses

[Emmanuel Plakiotis]

If Chris is certain, then it's a mistake. Jon also is right, they calling the lenses after their mount not after a variation of the mount. On the other hand, it means that they are compatible with EF mount FF DSLRs, and the 14,5-60 is huge compared to the similar EF-S 18-55 2.8 and 4 times as heavy.
Maybe somebody must check with Canon for clarification.

[Chris Hurd]

It's not a mistake. They would not call it an EF-S lens if it doesn't
use the short backfocus design that gives the EF-S line its name
(see my previous post).

The zoom lenses come in two flavors, EF mount and PL mount.
The EF mount version is not "branded" as an EF lens. Instead,
the model numbers are:

Canon Zoom Lens CN-E14.5-60mm T2.6 L S
Canon Zoom Lens CN-E30-300mm T2.95-3.7 L S

The caveat is that they will not cover full-frame sensors. That
doesn't make them EF-S lenses (again, see my previous post).
Nor are they branded EF. The PL versions came first, these
are just slightly re-engineered with EF mounts. Nothing more
to it than that, and no mistake has been made in nomenclature.

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Emmanuel Plakiotis

If Chris is certain, then it's a mistake. Jon also is right, they calling the lenses after their mount not after a variation of the mount. On the other hand, it means that they are compatible with EF mount FF DSLRs, and the 14,5-60 is huge compared to the similar EF-S 18-55 2.8 and 4 times as heavy.
Maybe somebody must check with Canon for clarification.

This is cine lens, which isn't a varifocal lens. The lens itself is faster, the aperture being given in T stops, so the f stop is probably something like f 2.3-2.4, it's wider angle, so the front element is larger.

The mechanics are superior to a stills zoom lens, so also adding weight. The Zeiss Master Zoom weighs 12.6 kg, although having the same T stop, it does have a slightly larger zoom ratio (16.5 - 110 mm) but it does give an impression of how much cine zooms weigh..

[Jon Fairhurst]

I agree with everything you wrote Chris. It's technically perfect.

Still, from a branding and market perspective point of view, I can see how they wouldn't want to call the cine zooms EF-S regardless of the back focus. Canon also hasn't made an EF-S L lenses. Sure, they could. And, yes, the 17-55/2.8 IS has the visual quality, if not the build and weather proofing. But they avoided making it an EF-S L, which would dilute the implied hierarchy of EF-S -> EF -> L.

The distinction might not be real from a technical standpoint, but from a marketing standpoint, it's advantageous to keep the "feel" of a pecking order.

[Chris Hurd]

I had a discussion about the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS with the
Canon pro photo tech reps recently at PhotoPlus Expo in New
York. According to them, the only reason why this lens is not
branded as "L" is because the "L" lenses by definition must
fit on every Canon body, especially the 1-series cameras.

Since an EF-S will fit only the crop-sensor bodies, it misses
out on the "L" designation. Supposedly that's the only reason.

[Jon Fairhurst]

I wonder if the Cine zooms fit on every body - even though the image circle would be smaller than a FF sensor.

BTW, I would like all the full frame cameras to provide cropped video at faster frame rates. In that case, an S35 lens would have value on the full frame cams as well as on the crop cams.

[Emmanuel Plakiotis]

Chris, it is misleading, because the site clearly states 35 and super35. If 35 is not full frame then what is it?

[Brian Drysdale]

In the world of cine lenses it could be the standard 35mm motion picture format, in fact 35mm would probably be the usual industry term. An unusual reference with a stills mount, but inaccuracies in copy can arise given that the same lens is available with the motion picture PL mount.

You may be able to use these lenses with 35mm film cameras, so these may not just be purely digital zoom lenses, but have the clearance to allow the use of a mirror shutter, unlike some recent digital camera zoom lenses which don't allow this. This would also allow them to be used with the Arri Alexa Studio and the up coming digital Aaton, both of which have mirror shutters.

On film cameras "35mm" is the traditional format rather than Super 35.

[Don Miller]

It is odd that due to DSLR, video has adopted back the still camera size of the 135 cartridge - 36 x 24. The trouble with saying "35mm" now is are we running the "film" horizontally or vertically?
Even the S35 terminology isn't technically correct as the aspect ratio is wrong.
If the primes do cover a larger sensor I'm curious how Canon explains this design. Why would a C300 buyer want that size?

[Brian Drysdale]

Looking at the specs, there's a good chance that these lenses are based on DSLR optics, just as the Zeiss compact primes are, so by their very nature they can cover FF35.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Yeah, the primes are full frame. The zooms are S35.

[Kin Lau]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

The distinction might not be real from a technical standpoint, but from a marketing standpoint, it's advantageous to keep the "feel" of a pecking order.

In addition to what Chris wrote, EF-S is the physical mount. You _cannot_ mount an EF-S lens on to a regular EF mount camera like the 5D. Physically, it will not fit unless you take a hacksaw to it - seriously, there's an FAQ available on how to modify an EF-S mount.

[Brian David Melnyk]

'hacksaw', '5D' and 'lens' should never be in the same paragraph...

[Jon Fairhurst]

Hacksaw, no. Dremel tool, maybe. ;)

[Kemalettin Sert]

any specific date when they ll be on sale?