To keep using Leica and Zeiss as unfortunate examples, how much of their price comes from quality, how much from the extra-costs of small-scale production, and how much premium just to put the 'leica' badge on the front?

Canon is a much bigger company, they get a lot cheaper marginal-cost from mass-production than a smaller company like Leica. And yet their lenses tend to be more expensive for the same length than Nikkors.

Nikon produce less lenses than canon too, so they should also be more expensive, why are nikons (generally) cheaper than canons? Quality, and the associated extra manufacturing costs? (that fluorite element ain't cheap). But Nikon also have some new fandangled high-tech extra-cost techs like Nano crystal coating that bump up the cost too.
Can canon get away with higher margins on lenses because we've all been told that white lens + red ring is worth a price premium?


Kind of sounds like apple vs samsung vs kindles. Pretty much all cost the same per unit to build, and yet what's more expensive? Who can get away with the higher margins, because their ad-campaigns have told us that it's cool to have one of these devices?

Can zeiss and Leica get away with higher margins because they have an inherent 'cool' factor, or perception of quality? Ok, even if they are actually higher-quality than your standard ef-s zoom, is it worth that much extra price? They've both done very well targetting the upper ends of the market, the money-no-object deep-pockets consumer. Zeiss just announced $4bil revenue on 12% increased sales last year, so they're definitely doing something right (and i know that includes a lot more than just camera lenses).


Back to OP, yes, lenses are getting more expensive. Even adjusting for inflation, it's gonna be about the same, give or take depending on which lens you use as an example. But they've got a long way to go before really encroaching on leica.
B+H prices:
50mm f/2.5 summilux M-mount, $1500. Nifty fifty: $107
35/75/90mm f/2.5 $1900
And they're slower than the canon versions, and that's the cheapest 4 in the list.
Furthermore:
35mm f/2.0 $3200. EF 35/2 $330
50mm f/1.4 $4000. EF 50/1.4 $380
24mm f/1.4 $7000. EF 24/1.4L $1700
50mm f/0.95 $11000. EF 50/1.2L $1500

Unfortunately, the only way around this is competition. I may have mentioned before, I love my Samyang 35/1.4. It's as sharp as the zeiss, and craps all over the canon L in the corners, for 1/4 as much of the price (I paid half again because it was used). Certainly, the build quality isn't the same as zeiss or the L, it's not sealed and there's no AF. But if it makes canon sit up and think that they might be losing sales to a small korean manufacturer, then you can bet that the 35L II is going to have to be a lot sharper and/or compete a bit better on price (seeing as AF and sealing are already features that it has over both the zeiss and samyang). So even if you never use their lenses, you should always be thankful of the samyangs, the sigmas, tokinas, and tamrons of the world, or you really would be paying leica money for your next L...

Screw you Canon!! The prices just went up:

http://www.japanphoto.no/product/kampanje/nyheter/systemkamera/canon-eos-1d-x-kamerahus/

This translates to 9616 usd......

Thanks Neuro, that's very helpful.

bigblue1ca said:

kpk1 said:

Look at the 24-70. They put on the price and they cut on the performance, no IS.

Click to expand...

The 24-70 never had IS, so how can that be a cut in performance? As for the price, yes a few hundred dollars less would be nice, but at the same time by the sounds of it the optics of the lens are going to be great. So that doesn't come cheap, unfortunately.

Click to expand...

The expected 24-70 was with IS at least, as many of us wrote. The improvement in border area is justifying the increased price ? For me, not.
I quess when 24-70/2.8 III with IS will show you won't mind paying 3000$ on it just because it has something added.
I agree with a price increase because it's a new model and 2-300$ more is justified, so I have been with 1700 in my pocket for this, but 2300 is ridiculous.
Another thing, Nikkor 24-70 is around 1850. If they can do it don't you mind being fulled with 450$ more ??? I am.
Put it this way, Canon 24-105 is 1050$. Proportionally speaking the new 24-70, 2300$ it isn't justified. Make it 1300 or 1400 but the difference is pure marketing and I can see is that good done because some of us really think it's worth.

bohaiboy said:

I have a 40D that is about 4 years old. We are going on a safri trip this summer. My current lenses are 24-105 4L and a 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS The f stops are not all that fantastic, even though they were not inexpensive. My question is should I be happy with my lenses as are and get a FF 5D(hopefuly new one is not THAT much more than the current) or look at getting a faster prime lens such as the Canon 24 f/1.4L.

My oher interest are primarily very still photos, landscape and people

Click to expand...

Hi there,
I was in Tanzania back in 2010, and took a 40D too. I had a 10-22 and the older 80-200mm 2.8L with a 2x. Yes, you will need the the 400 range and more for birds and some other animals. In most cases, it will bright enough, meaning you will be able to use the lens wide open in the morning or at dusk and closing down and/or using low iso during the day. I do recommend an UWA lens - the 10-22 for the crop body does wonders, as the lens distortion is not the worst - not a bad as the 15mm F.E. on ff. You will need the wide angles for landscaping - yes, africa is big and with wide spaces, but even at 17mm not everything will "fit" in.
The 24-105(36-170 on 1.6x) will cover most of people and closer animals shots. The 100-400 will do a good job on most animals, except in heavy shade situations; so in my opnion, you need to cover below the 36mm range - hence the 10-22mm.
No question you will benefit with a ff body, and your kit still works very well with one, but in that case you would need the 17-40 or 16-35 lens.
IF you can, rent the 5dc or 5d2 with the 16-35 or 17-40 combo - too many chances to shoot, but probably not so many chances to go in safari every year
besides, you want to avoid lens changes while on the safari - bumps, shakes and plenty of dust all the time

pj1974 said:

On the other hand, I sold my Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens a few months ago - the main reason being the focus speed, accuracy and consistency were not up to my standards. I'm waiting for a true (full ring) USM prime from Canon in the 50mm - 60mm range, between f/1.4 - f2.

Cheers all, and thanks again Marsu42. 8)

Click to expand...

You're welcome - while I think the author of this site couldn't confirm the rumor that his own pants he was wearing had just been stolen, the people and standard in the forum seem to be quite nice.

And I feel sorry for the poor soul who bought the 50/1.8 - I've got a broken one (fell down, of course the plastic lens split), but even before I wouldn't dare to give it to anyone else ... the bokeh and af is so crappy in comparison to today's standards (not to speak of the bad quality @1.8) that the only application is "shoot moving objects in the complete dark"

[email protected] said:

I'm in the market for a DSLR and two lenses, willing to spend about $2500. I'm thinking EOS 60D and canon ef-s 15-85 and 70-200 f/4L IS USM. Any thoughts? I'm mainly shooting family photos/outdoor activities/youth sports and travel shots. Any other variations to this package I should consider?

Click to expand...

Are the youth sports indoor or outdoor?

Those are both wonderful lenses, but neither are very fast. If indoor, even f/2.8 zooms will not be fast enough if your kids schools are as poorly lit as mine. Have you considered a flash? The 430EX II should fit your needs quite nicely. A couple primes would also be highly recommended. The 85/1.8 is great for portraits, and for indoor sports. The 28/1.8 (or the Sigma 30/1.4 if you're feeling adventurous) makes for great group portraits, and general inside family pictures when you don't want to keep blowing people away with the flash.

Re: Canon 4K DSLR Pics

Policar said:

Not quite. Super35 is 24.9mm wide.

The original Red has a 24.4mm wide chip, but it crops 16:9 video to 22.2mm wide.

Canon's version of APS-C is 22.3mm wide. So Red and the 7D have the same FoV for a given lens, and both can use cinema lenses and EF-S lenses.

The C300 gets it right with a 24.6mm sensor. The Alexa has a 23.8mm sensor. These cameras do it right.

The Red Epic and apparently this new dSLR have APS-H sensors for video, between 28mm and 30mm wide, the worst of both worlds--too wide for many cinema lenses (and, crucially important for Canon, too wide for APS-C lenses--the 17-55mm IS being nice for video) and too small to take advantage of big fast still primes. A bizarre no man's land. I get that this is just a modified 1dx, but that puts the price (likely) at half a c300. This is a very weird product. There are advantages to full frame video (the availability of lenses like the 24mm f1.4 for much less than cinema primes allowing you to go fast and wide) and advantages to APS-C (works with cinema lenses and EF-S, including the very nice 17-55mm IS) but this is an awkward sensor size. Not a deal breaker, but strange.

Click to expand...

It seems like, based on what Canon's people have said about this camera, that it shoots stills at 24x36, but windows to APS-H when shooting video. I'm sure we'll know soon enough.

As for using APS-C lenses with IS, the IS system makes quite a bit of noise if you're recording audio with the camera. If you're using a sound guy with a shotgun mic and he can grab his audio from someplace where he won't pick up the grinding of the IS then you're golden. Speaking of noise generating devices, though, Canon's motorized iris control is extremely noisy for in-camera audio, as well. And of course non-cinema zoom lenses generally have problems holding focus through a zoom and distort more than you'd really want to see in video where you notice when someone's head bends as they move across the frame, something less obvious in stills.

While it's true that the APS-H image circle prohibits the use of some very fine cinema optics, there are plenty of good options. One of the really great options IMO is Duclos lenses cinema mod for Zeiss ZE lenses. It's less expensive than buying Zeiss cinema lenses, but provides a very nice alternative, IMO. They take a ZE lens and declick the aperture so you can smoothly and silently adjust the aperture on the fly. Then they add a follow focus gear so you can operate the lens with a follow focus rig. And finally they put an adapter on the lens so it will take 80mm lens caps and 77mm filters allowing you to accumulate 77mm filters and use them on all your ZE lenses.

And finally, you can "take advantage of big fast still primes" with an APS-H sensor, but the problem with all fast lenses is uneven sharpness across the frame. Again, that's something you don't notice as much in still lenses, but when someone goes out of focus as they near the edges of the frame you notice in video. My take on it is that you can never go wrong with macro lenses. And if you need shallow DOF you just increase the focal length until you get the isolation you need.

-Rob

There are many happy users of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens. It can produce great photos in the hands of the right person - as can a lot of other lenses... The constant f2.8 is great for low light work, and to get a decent amount of subject isolation / background blur at the tele end.

I don't believe an update for the 17-55mm will be coming anytime soon though. One of the major reasons that I have for this, is that Canon released the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM a few years ago, ie a few years after the 17-55.

While the 15-85mm isn't a constant f2.8 lens, it does improve on a few other aspects of the 17-55mm:

• better flare control
• 2mm more on the wide end
• 30mm more on the tele end
• better IS (4 stops)

Some people argue the 15-85mm build quality is slightly better than the 17-55mm... but I'd say it's quite close.

Both lenses (17-55mm and 15-85mm) are very sharp, have good contrast, make use of Canon's true USM focus and benefit from IS (3 & 4 stops respectively). So they are great 'kit lenses', which each meeting differing photographer's needs. (The 15-85mm meets my needs much better in a 'kit lens' - eg when I want a fast lens, it should be at least f/1.8). 8)

So while there might be a 17-55mm II sometime in the future, I expect that is probably around 4 or 5 years away at least..... In the meantime I think Canon will be producing lenses to complement it (eg more dedicated / primes lenses).

I also believe that it's very hard to compare an EF-S lens with an 'equivalent' EF (ie FF compatible) lens, due to the differing nature of focal length, DOF, etc - although f2.8 (on APS-C) will always let in more light than f4 (on FF) even if the background / blur isn't as affected as much. Then there is the whole argument about "difference in build quality between an L, the new prosumer lenses, older 'gold ring' lenses, etc, etc,". I won't even go there... :

Best wishes.... and happy photographing....

Paul

Scott_7D said:

Axilrod said:

dstppy said:

unfocused said:

Awhile back I got curious, so I checked my customer profile on Adorama (they keep a record of everything you've ever ordered). Virtually every lens I've purchased is either now selling for more or roughly the same as what I paid.

So, I guess the answer would be: maybe never.

Click to expand...

Untrue to one extent: Crap always varies. Good stuff on the other hand is on a "buy it if you need it" basis . . . because it's a hit-or-miss sale proposition.

The only lens I got (financially) burned on was the 70-300 IS . . . which is also the lens I was greatly disappointed in.

As I said in another post (paraphrased) it's not like X bursts into flames and stops taking good photos when it's replacement comes out.

Most people are looking for sales on the 24-70mm right now; so, just find a 'good' dip in price ASAP and stick with it, IF you need it and you'll be fine.

Click to expand...

I don't know about that, most glass prices seem to remain fairly consistent. Hell the original 24-70 was $950 when it came out! And it was as high as $1449 retail within the last few years and it's still $1200 at B&H. Granted the original came out before the "recession," but still.

Click to expand...

Actually the Canon press release states that the MSRP of the 24-70L was $2099 USD at the time of release, not $950. And if you look, you'll see that pretty much all lenses Canon's released in the last decade have started out with a higher price than expected and then dropped 20-30% once the early adopters have bought theirs. Expect the new 24-70 to be at $1800-1900 or so within 18 months of the first shipments.

Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about the press release, I was talking about what they were actually selling for when released compared to what they have been selling for recently. I'm just saying the lens was cheaper 6 years ago than it is now.

I'm sure the 24-70 II will drop below $2k fairly quickly, I was just trying to point out that lenses prices fluctuate much differently than most electronics. I didn't want the OP to get the impression that if he waited a year it would be $500 or something (like a computer or TV).

This topic has been moved to Lenses.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=3399.0

Nice approach Kernuak! +1

DzPhotography said:

I'm still gonna buy one.... :

Click to expand...

Why? :-X

Haydn1971 said:

There has been 3 used 100-400mm lenses at my local specialist photography dealer in the last few months, which either indicates times are hard and people are ditching their least used lenses or a lot of people are expecting something soon and want to get the maximum return on a old lens.

Click to expand...

The 100-400mm is a very popular lens (for good reasons) - the fact that so many are sold new means a lot are sold used. They are commonly and easily available on the used market - there are three up on my local Craigslist right now, in the $1200 range, and I've seen them under $1100 lately.

By comparison, I only rarely see a 300mm f/4L IS or 400mm f/5.6L up for sale, perhaps only 1-2 of each per year.

briansquibb said:

Here is a picture that I took over the weekend. First picture is cropped from 3:2 to A size (it is for a print) and small anount of level work.

Second picture is the photoshopped version to monchrome and added grain to age it

So how far do we go? Of course neither are 'true' as it is done by actors.

Click to expand...

yeah its not quite finished... what about adding a setting moon?

IMO, Nikon focus on how to make better DSLRs, Canon focus on how to sell more DSLRs, so Canon will meet the demand

wickidwombat said:

After coming from a 1D to the 5D2 i was massively dissapointed with the AF on the 5D2
especially the AI servo and outer point ability to even get a lock in low light let alone track anything

Click to expand...

I only realised the limitations of the 7D when I updated to the 1D4.

I think you will find the 7D is not much better (if at all) in low light than the 5D (on the centre point). Even if the 7D focuses it wont servo

I like your first idea, the 24-105. You want at least some telephoto if you're going to have one lens/one body.
Another alternative is the 15-85 IS. It may not be a "pro" lens, but it gives you very good range from 24 to 135 35mm equivalent.

FYI, I rented the 24-105 and the 15-85, compared them and found very little difference in sharpness, contrast, etc. I bought the 15-85. However I carry two bodies, the 2nd has a 70-300 on it.

whatever you do, you'll have a great trip and get great photos.

whatta said:

50 1.8 IS would make sense for me if reasonably priced and good IQ at f 2..

Click to expand...

The MSRPs of the recently announced 24mm and 28mm f/2.8 IS lenses are $849 and $799, respectively, so the 50mm f/1.8 IS might be in that ball park.

KeithR said:

briansquibb said:

Best APS-C maybe...

Click to expand...

And it's better at the image level than quite a few FF sensors too - it's certainly better than the original 5D, and better than the 1Ds bodies, up to and including the Mk III.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I would go quite so far as that. The 7D has a great sensor...for APS-C. But comparing it to FF sensors, even those a few years old, at best its comparable, but I would say the Mk III sensor was definitely better. At least, the full-size images I've seen taken with them have visibly less noise than the 7D.

When comparing scaled down samples, everything on the market for the last several years is pretty much comparable, downscaling eats noise for breakfast and is the great normalizer.

neuroanatomist said:

Really? So...you'd be perfectly happy if the roof of your house was 'pretty much 95% sealed' because if 5% of it leaks, that's ok? The only unsealed part is the plug? Whew, that's a relief, because there's probably no need for sealing of an electrical contact that provides power to the camera, sure, seal everything else, but let water and electricity mix, they play so nicely together. That's like saying it's best if the hole in your roof is right over your fuse box. :

Seriously, though, I think this is a design flaw on Canon's part. When I remove the grip (yes, the Canon BG-E7) where the battery compartment opening connects to the grip is just plastic on plastic. The battery compartment does have sealing, but the foam-rubber seal is on the battery door itself, and of course that's removed and stored in the slot on the grip when the grip is installed, meaning no effective sealing. Canon could have replicated the foam-rubber seal on the grip, but they didn't.

FWIW, when I go out in the rain with the 7D, I remove the grip. That's especailly important if the camera is being carried upside down (e.g. from a Blackrapid strap), since water would flow down the camera and in between the grip and body, then flow down into the battery compartment when the camera was turned over.

Click to expand...

Are you kidding me?!?

Just put some of this stuff around the base where the camera and grip connect and you're all set!
Flex Seal Reviews | Buy One Get One Free Today


;D

AJ said:

I read the title of the thread, and I was going to write something about my creaky knees, rumbling gut, and frequent passing the gas.

But then I realized you're talking about something else

Click to expand...

That's the exact same thought process I went through reading this thread title! ;D

580exii + yongnuo external battery pack it's the right thing to do. Just need to get the finances sorted. I'm holding on to my eye teeth, right hand and granny for the 5dblaa. anyone wanna buy a spleen? ;D ;D ;D

Assume a 580exii will work with a new 5D!!!

Thanks eveyone for all for the advice

DavidRiesenberg said:

Wow. Great article and real eye opener from all sorts of aspects.

Click to expand...

This was a very misleading article in a few respects, but the standout was the nonsense about extra resolution not being visible to an audience at a normal viewing distance. You have to understand that the author's company is promoting a 1080p camera system in this article, so understandably all other competing systems are a complete waste of time.

I've seen a number of 2K vs. 4K demonstrations at trade shows and the extra resolution can be quite dramatically visible. Much in the way that a good 70mm print used to completely supersede comparable 35mm prints. I remember going to see '2001: A Space Odyssey' some years back at the Castro in San Francisco. This is a film I've seen countless times on video and in theaters. I grew up going to see it at midnight movies. So I'm familiar with it visually, but I was seeing things in the 70mm print that I'd never seen before. It was quite an experience for me.

The same thing can happen in a 4K projection. The theaters are starting to pop up all over the place. Probably the most common ones are AMC's 'Enhanced Theatre Experience' ('ETX') theaters. Obviously the source material plays a part, but seeing a really good 4K projection in one of them is a very revealing experience.

By the same token, sitting very close to the screen in a 2K theater will allow you to see the individual pixels in certain types of theaters. That egg-crate overlay is extremely distracting.

I too am looking forward to Canon's 4K DSLR. Canon filed a patent on January 26th for a RAW codec that seems quite powerful and allows 12-bit RAW capture at 2K and 4K. It also apparently allows the two formats to be captured simultaneously in a single file if the need is present, which was a new twist for in-camera processing.

It could be a very interesting year for Canon.

-Rob

NotABunny said:

JT13 said:

I am not even sure if it is the FF or composition, light, post procession, primes etc.

Click to expand...

It's everything, not one thing. There is no shortcut.

JT13 said:

Still, none of the posted crop photos made a similar impression on me like the two shots in my last post.

Click to expand...

Sharp edges, like in the shot of the woman that you've posted can be achived with a backlight, or like in this case with contrasty clothing and background (including the blur of the background). Look at how her right hand fades into the background, while her left is in sharp focus.

The effect from the image of the kid is given by the high background blur and by the small focal length used to amplify the ratio of distances.

Other than this, I personaly see no 3D effect in them that you say you see.

The reason why your shots look bland is not because of lacking a 3D effect, but that you have no subject that pops in front of the viewer.

Click to expand...

+1. Like I said, FF is not a magic bullet. It really is about lighting and composition. Does the ability to better manage DoF with FF help? Sure. But if you can't get 'pop' from an APS-C camera, you won't automatically get it with FF. Conversely, if you can get 'pop' with APS-C, it can be improved - in some cases - by using a FF camera.