May 22, 2018, 12:20:52 PM

Author Topic: why????  (Read 20626 times)

Haydn1971

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 592
  • UK based, hobbyist
    • My Flickr Photostream
Re: why????
« Reply #45 on: July 25, 2011, 04:42:32 PM »
Now your just getting carried away ;-)
Regards, Haydn

:: View my photostream on Flickr, Canon EOS 6D, EOS M6, EOS M,  16-35mm II, 24-70mm II, 70-300mm L, 135mm f2.0 L, 35mm f2.0 IS, M11-22, M18-55, M18-150, M55-200, M22mm, Lensbaby (lots), EOS M adaptor, Cosina CT1G film SLR & 50mm f2.0

canon rumors FORUM

Re: why????
« Reply #45 on: July 25, 2011, 04:42:32 PM »

Rocky

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 820
Re: why????
« Reply #46 on: July 25, 2011, 05:17:01 PM »
Actually the $1000 FF DSLR can be built even Now. However, ALL DSLR company wants to keep the higher profit in the existing FF model and will not build a "Cheap"FF. just look at the following numbers: The cheapest Rebel is about $500 now. My previous tread calculated the difference of FF and APS-C sensor  can be $500 (based on the white paper from Canon dated 2006, now the gap may be even smaller). So $500 (Cheap body)+$500(upgrade to FF from APS-C) that is $1000. Let us be generous, add $200 to additional feature and bigger body. That is a CHEAP $1200 FF right there.

unfocused

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4071
    • Mark Gordon Communications
Re: why????
« Reply #47 on: July 25, 2011, 06:21:05 PM »
Quote
Now your just getting carried away ;-)

+1

I don't even know what this is such a sensitive subject. Are people that invested in their full frame cameras that they can't bear the idea that maybe Canon's lens division ought to do a better job of developing EF-S lenses?

That's all the OP suggested and it's a reasonable request.

Quote
eventually they will take control of the world, and enslave human beings

I don't know about taking over the world, but reading some of these posts it's pretty clear they've already enslaved a lot of human beings. :)

Quote
let's compare the Canon 300mm f/4L IS to the Pentax Pentax DA* 300mm f/4 (the latter being an APS-C telephoto lens with weather sealing, high-end coatings including fluorine on the front like the newest Canon lenses, low-dispersion glass, etc.).

As I expected, some can't resist arguing over a simple illustrative and hypothetical example.

So, I might counter with a question: Would that be the Pentax lens that is $400 less than the 100-400 Canon, about $200 less than the Canon 300mm f4 prime and $300+ less than the new Canon 70-300 zoom?

Or, instead let's compare Apples to Apples. 400mm on a crop sensor is 640 mm on a full frame. Canon's newest 600 mm f/4 full frame lens is $13,000. Sure seems like there is a lot of room for Canon to position a 400 mm APS-C lens that will produce images of comparable magnification.

Quote
FWIW, 100-400/4 would have a 100 mm front element regardless of its imaging circle.  Huge size+price jump.  Sigma's new 120-300/2.8 OS has more than a few folks salivating though.  Now there's a sports+nature lens.

Okay, now that's a reasonable criticism. If my particular example is impractical I'll take your word for it. But, it was just an example. Although I can't help but think there must be some advantages to EF-S at the longer focal lengths.

Quote
IMO an EF-S 55-135/2.8 IS is sorely needed.

Well, Sigma's announced a 50-150 f2.8 IS for APS-C cameras. Of course right now it's just vaporware. But maybe they'll actually get it to market one of these days.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ***************
  • Posts: 22597
Re: why????
« Reply #48 on: July 25, 2011, 07:46:30 PM »
Would that be the Pentax lens that is ... about $200 less than the Canon 300mm f4 prime

Yes, but the Pentax lens lacks image stabilization, for which Canon charges a hefty premium in it's white lenses...

Quote
FWIW, 100-400/4 would have a 100 mm front element regardless of its imaging circle.  Huge size+price jump.  Sigma's new 120-300/2.8 OS has more than a few folks salivating though.  Now there's a sports+nature lens.

Okay, now that's a reasonable criticism. If my particular example is impractical I'll take your word for it. But, it was just an example. Although I can't help but think there must be some advantages to EF-S at the longer focal lengths.

Yes - there would be a slight savings on overall length and probably a minor weight savings, too.  But it's a diminishing return - unless you're right and FF sensors go away, those minor differences don't justify the expense of R&D and production line setup for a lens that won't work on FF, when the lens for FF will work on APS-C (and can be marketed to consumers as longer than it really is, as Canon has done with the new 70-300mm L).

Are people that invested in their full frame cameras that they can't bear the idea that maybe Canon's lens division ought to do a better job of developing EF-S lenses?

That's all the OP suggested and it's a reasonable request.

I've got no issue with Canon developing EF-S lenses - it is pretty clear they they've prioritized those over non-L EF lenses.  But they're certainly emphasizing the L series lenses, and going out of their way to promote some of those for APS-C (e.g. the 70-300mm L and the new 8-15mm fisheye zoom).

Could they do a better job?  I do think that often people who state, 'Canon is not doing a good job of developing lenses' really mean 'Canon is not developing the lenses that I want.'  Personally, I see about as much utility for a fisheye zoom as I do for the Flowbee, but Canon feels differently...and there's always a chance that the next niche lens will be useful for my niche (e.g. a TS-E 90mm f/2.8L).

In some ways, they are probably hitting a bit of a wall in terms of where they can go.  That old Canon product manager quote about Canon eventually wanting to take all their cameras FF is something that's taken root in the prosumer consciousness, which is where those 'better' EF-S lenses are targeted (e.g. an f/2 zoom, or an EF-S telezoom with a fast/constant aperture and great IQ).  Whether they actually ever will or not, most prosumers 'plan to go FF someday' and that colors their buying choices away from EF-S lenses and toward the EF lineup.  Canon's R&D department doesn't function in a vacuum - their research is driven in large part by input from their marketing department.  I'm willing to bet that that department has a very good idea of what consumers want, and know full well that in the main, consumers who drive their bottom line in the dSLR arena fall into two main camps - true 'consumers' who want inexpensive products, and 'prosumers' who wish to go FF someday.  Pros are important for cache and prestige, but not really for the bottom line.

I will say that one obvious lack that Canon really should address is the Nikon DX-format 35mm f/1.8 - that's in the focal range that can really benefit from the smaller image circle, and Canon really should come out with a 'normal' prime for what is their biggest-selling sensor format.

But, to most directly answer the OP's question:

why does no one make say a 16-50mm f2.0 or something similar for crop cameras

I don't think anyone in this thread has yet brought it up, but Canon had a patent published for an EF-S 17-55 f/2 IS - may or may not become a reality, but it's clear that someone at Canon is thinking along the lines the OP is hoping.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2011, 07:49:34 PM by neuroanatomist »
EOS 1D X, EOS M6, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

UncleFester

  • Guest
Re: why????
« Reply #49 on: July 26, 2011, 01:41:35 AM »
Not to get too far off thread here, but wouldn't the loss of full frame sensors nudge the super tele users backward?

Sports shooters will have to take a giant step backwards? Some lenses are perfect for some sports, 400 for football, polo, baseball come to mind, with full frame (esp 21 megapix) and the 1.3 crops. But 1.6x it would seem a bit claustrophobic (in some areas,not just the sports I listed)and have to rework where photographers normally shoot.


canon rumors FORUM

Re: why????
« Reply #49 on: July 26, 2011, 01:41:35 AM »