I actually think they are worth their money if the optics perform excellent with the 1 Ds or the 5 D. And there was a need for those lenses, since the new Nikons along with the D 3X have made me thought changing camera systems. Now with the option of rotationg them and coming close to the capabilities of a large format system, and you get two lenses in one, compared to other TS-lenses. That´s another thing that has to be considered when it comes to price evaluation…
Justin on
maxs, I’ve had a bit more time to process all of this. And while I wouldn’t double back on anything I have said, I do think these lenses make sense for Canon and help position them better among their pros who are key to Canon’s survival.
The problem with not responding to the hordes of requests for revised/improved wide-medium medium-tele and tele-super L zooms with IS is that Canon loses out on enthusiasts who would open their wallets wider and continue to progress in their hobby and passion. We’re kind of stuck in the vocal and growing middle. If all Canon were interested in doing were making money they would be responding more rapidly to this growing middle. But as a company they have other goals besides shear profit–which is really a very good thing. But I digress.
Getting back to the lens preferences and shooting styles of the vocal middle for a bit, I think my tastes are fairly representative. For example, I’ve used a 24-70 and I do like it. But I’ve also used a 17-55IS and I like it more because it has IS. I know that optic like that on a full frame would push me further. I also think that once you have used a few good primes, many of the zooms (even L zooms like 70-200 f2.8IS and 16-35 f2.8I) just don’t do your eye any favors, save for a few like the 70-200 f/4 IS or the 17-55 2.8IS. Maybe we expect too much from a zoom because the primes are so good. But for hobbyists and enthusiasts, zooms represent the ultimate in function and value.
For the vocal middle, we understand the potential of quality glass and what it can add to our work. We’ve read too much, and many of us have tried a lot of glass. We expect a lot when it comes to optics. But we also like value and convenience. Hence the zooms. Multiple focal lengths, no sneaker zooming, framing possibilities galore, IS for our unsteady hands and tripod antipathy, and in the case of some L lenses, really stellar quality. I guess that’s why we get so disappointed when Canon doesn’t offer something that fits our shooting style. We are narrowly L zoom shooters. With maybe a portrait lens like the 85 1.8, 50 1.4, or for those of who have sprung for them, 35 1.4L and 85 1.2LII.
Anyway, just some thoughts.
brian44 on
Way too expensive from my point of view for what they are and I’ve spent a lot on lenses in the past. My 400mm f2.8L was worth every penny.
I’m actually considering going back to 5×4 with Velvia for architecture.
9 Comments
I actually think they are worth their money if the optics perform excellent with the 1 Ds or the 5 D. And there was a need for those lenses, since the new Nikons along with the D 3X have made me thought changing camera systems.
Now with the option of rotationg them and coming close to the capabilities of a large format system, and you get two lenses in one, compared to other TS-lenses. That´s another thing that has to be considered when it comes to price evaluation…
maxs, I’ve had a bit more time to process all of this. And while I wouldn’t double back on anything I have said, I do think these lenses make sense for Canon and help position them better among their pros who are key to Canon’s survival.
The problem with not responding to the hordes of requests for revised/improved wide-medium medium-tele and tele-super L zooms with IS is that Canon loses out on enthusiasts who would open their wallets wider and continue to progress in their hobby and passion. We’re kind of stuck in the vocal and growing middle. If all Canon were interested in doing were making money they would be responding more rapidly to this growing middle. But as a company they have other goals besides shear profit–which is really a very good thing. But I digress.
Getting back to the lens preferences and shooting styles of the vocal middle for a bit, I think my tastes are fairly representative. For example, I’ve used a 24-70 and I do like it. But I’ve also used a 17-55IS and I like it more because it has IS. I know that optic like that on a full frame would push me further. I also think that once you have used a few good primes, many of the zooms (even L zooms like 70-200 f2.8IS and 16-35 f2.8I) just don’t do your eye any favors, save for a few like the 70-200 f/4 IS or the 17-55 2.8IS. Maybe we expect too much from a zoom because the primes are so good. But for hobbyists and enthusiasts, zooms represent the ultimate in function and value.
For the vocal middle, we understand the potential of quality glass and what it can add to our work. We’ve read too much, and many of us have tried a lot of glass. We expect a lot when it comes to optics. But we also like value and convenience. Hence the zooms. Multiple focal lengths, no sneaker zooming, framing possibilities galore, IS for our unsteady hands and tripod antipathy, and in the case of some L lenses, really stellar quality. I guess that’s why we get so disappointed when Canon doesn’t offer something that fits our shooting style. We are narrowly L zoom shooters. With maybe a portrait lens like the 85 1.8, 50 1.4, or for those of who have sprung for them, 35 1.4L and 85 1.2LII.
Anyway, just some thoughts.
Way too expensive from my point of view for what they are and I’ve spent a lot on lenses in the past. My 400mm f2.8L was worth every penny.
I’m actually considering going back to 5×4 with Velvia for architecture.
Ãâ€Ã°, тðúøх ÷ðчõтýых ñûþóþò Ѡõщõ ýõ òøôõû! ÃÂтþт ñûþó ôðÑÂÑ‚ фþру üýþóøü ÑÂðùтðü ( ÿþ ÑÂþôõрöðýøю ø ýõ тþûьúþ)! Ãâ€ÃµÑÂÑÂÑ‚ÑŒ ñðûûþò!