Patent: Canon presents some interesting fast zoom lens optical formulas

[Johnw]

RF 24mm F2.8L - not everyone wants or needs F1.4 or F2
RF 35mm F2.8L - ditto
RF 85mm F2.8L - ditto

I don't really get the appeal of a prime series at 2.8 though, that seems rather slow. I would also like to see more lenses in the category you are wanting, L quality mid level lenses but not as high priced as the 1.2s. But I see that more like a line of 1.4s such as the EF 50/85 1.4 etc. Generally falling more into the mid-range I usually stick with the f/4 zooms but then for primes if I'm going to get a prime I usually want at least 2 stops better than what I have on a zoom to make it worth it for purchasing another lens, which would mean at least f/2, a 3 stop improvement to 1.4 would likely get me even more interested.

 

[koenkooi]

Any time someone makes claims such as, "There are a hell of a lot of people, probably the majority who want [fill in the blank]," I have to wonder...who knows more about the market – the manufacturer that dominates it, or the individual claiming to know what 'a hell of a lot of people' want?

If Canon is making lenses for entry-level consumers and for wealthy enthusiasts and pros, and not much in between, why would they be leaving all that money on the table from the 'majority of enthusiasts' who want something in between? Could it be that they know more about the market than you? (That’s rhetorical, obviously.)

[..]

I agree with your premise, but we also have to keep in mind that Canon seems to have trouble meeting demand for new releases and in interviews have said their lens design department is a bit understaffed.
And that would mean that Canon decided that leaving ‘in-between’ money on the table is better than designing and producing 3 lines in parallel.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I agree with your premise, but we also have to keep in mind that Canon seems to have trouble meeting demand for new releases and in interviews have said their lens design department is a bit understaffed.
And that would mean that Canon decided that leaving ‘in-between’ money on the table is better than designing and producing 3 lines in parallel.

Certainly more RF lens launches are coming, and the pace has been negatively impacted by supply and personnel constraints. But @entoman is arguing there’s a demand for lenses like a 35mm f/2.8L, and I don’t believe Canon will make RF lenses of that ilk ever, regardless of resource constraints. Canon will make a 35/1.2 or 1.4 L, certainly. They have an RF 35/1.8 Macro costing $500. I highly doubt they’ll make a 35/2.8, but if they do it sure as heck won’t be an L-series lens.

 

[entoman]

I see. So we’ve gone from ‘probably a majority of enthusiasts want…’ to ‘I want…’. - you conveniently missed out "probably"

I trust you’ve been around here long enough to know that posting here isn’t telling Canon anything. That pretty much obviates the point of your original post.

A bit tetchy neuro!

"probably a majority of enthusiasts want" and "I want" are not mutually exclusive - I think there would be a huge demand for more middle-of-the-road" L quality lenses. You may think differently, but that doesn't prove that you are right and I'm wrong, or vice versa.

I'm not entirely convinced that "posting here isn't telling Canon anything". I don't for one second claim to be an expert on corporate business practices, but if I was in charge of a huge company like Canon, I'd *want* to know what my customers think, and I'd pay a small team specifically to read on-line reviews *and* gear forums relating to my products!

... and if *you* believe that "posting here isn't telling Canon anything", what is the point of you or anyone else posting on this site?

 

[neuroanatomist]

"probably a majority of enthusiasts want" and "I want" are not mutually exclusive - I think there would be a huge demand for more middle-of-the-road" L quality lenses. You may think differently, but that doesn't prove that you are right and I'm wrong, or vice versa.

The evidence suggests differently. Where was the EF 35/2.8L? Where was the EF 24/2.8L? They were never made. There were very few 'middle of the road' L-series lenses, e.g the 200/2.8L and the 70-200/4L non-IS, those were made back in the 1990s and not updated since. As I said, that period includes the heyday of DSLRs. If there was a demand, Canon would have answered it.

If you look at what Canon has said about L series lenses, the philosophy is really not consistent with narrow aperture primes in typical focal lengths.

I'm not entirely convinced that "posting here isn't telling Canon anything". I don't for one second claim to be an expert on corporate business practices, but if I was in charge of a huge company like Canon, I'd *want* to know what my customers think, and I'd pay a small team specifically to read on-line reviews *and* gear forums relating to my products!

Some time back, one of the mods mentioned he had looked for Canon-owned IP address hits on the site, and there was just one in the logs. Canon has lots of ways to determine what customers think, the main one being what they buy. They also conduct customer surveys, I've received several.

In any case, I haven't seen anyone but you clamoring for slow, L-series primes like a 35/2.8L, and others here have posted they see no point in such lenses. So if your goal was to communicate demand to Canon, and if Canon actually reads this post (LOL), then they'll come away with the conclusion that there isn't a demand for such lenses. We should also let them know that water is wet. That way they can learn two things they already knew.

... and if *you* believe that "posting here isn't telling Canon anything", what is the point of you or anyone else posting on this site?

It's a discussion forum. The point is to discuss topics relevant to Canon gear and photography. If you believe the point of posting on this site is to communicate your desires to Canon, you're wasting your time.

 

[entoman]

It's a discussion forum. The point is to discuss topics relevant to Canon gear and photography. If you believe the point of posting on this site is to communicate your desires to Canon, you're wasting your time.

So a user's opinion about what items are available in Canon's range are irrelevant? Are we not allowed to express our opinions and desires my Lord?
Well sorry, but unlike some, I've never been a member of the "Canon can do no wrong" school of thinking - I give companies (and people) credit where it is due, and will criticise where I think it's deserved.

 

[neuroanatomist]

So a user's opinion about what items are available in Canon's range are irrelevant? Are we not allowed to express our opinions and desires my Lord?

Overreact much? Please point out where I said you couldn't express your opinions and desires. That's rhetorical, I didn't – quite the opposite, I explicitly stated the point of posting here is to discuss things related to photo gear.

My point, since you seem to have completely missed it, is that Canon is not paying any attention to the opinions and desires you express here. Express away, your fellow forum members are listening, even if Canon isn't.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Well sorry, but unlike some, I've never been a member of the "Canon can do no wrong" school of thinking - I give companies (and people) credit where it is due, and will criticise where I think it's deserved.

I agree. People make mistakes and have foolish ideas, just like companies. Canon has made some major gaffes, but they are relatively few as supported by the fact that they've led the ILC market for >20 years and currently have ~50% of the market share. That's a good sign they don't make many missteps.

I also criticize where deserved. For example, I think the suggestion that there's a large market for slow L-series primes is a foolish idea.

 

[unfocused]

So a user's opinion about what items are available in Canon's range are irrelevant? Are we not allowed to express our opinions and desires my Lord?
Well sorry, but unlike some, I've never been a member of the "Canon can do no wrong" school of thinking - I give companies (and people) credit where it is due, and will criticise where I think it's deserved.

I agree. People make mistakes and have foolish ideas, just like companies...I also criticize where deserved. For example, I think the suggestion that there's a large market for slow L-series primes is a foolish idea.

We all have our fantasy lenses. Mine would be a Canon version of the third-party 150-600 f6.3 zooms, but lighter, better quality and faster focusing. But there is a world of difference between imagining a product and being upset that Canon doesn't produce your fantasy lenses. Insisting, without any evidence, that others share your fantasies is a bit delusional. Rejecting perfectly good lenses because they don't fit your preconceived notions is a recipe for making yourself unhappy.

No one on this site has ever suggested "Canon can do no wrong." It's just that some of us recognize that Canon's objective is to give their shareholders a good return on investment and that requires them to make products that actually sell. A good share of those products have been ones that I want to buy. If Canon isn't making products that you want to buy then maybe you should look elsewhere.

One piece of practical advice: if you are concerned about weather sealing of non "L" lenses, just get yourself a storm cover. They are cheap and a lot more reliable than any 50-cent rubber gasket. I never trust Canon's weather sealing anyway. Instead I just use common sense. It's not like any of us on this forum are combat photographers.

 

[entoman]

if you are concerned about weather sealing of non "L" lenses, just get yourself a storm cover. They are cheap and a lot more reliable than any 50-cent rubber gasket. I never trust Canon's weather sealing anyway. Instead I just use common sense. It's not like any of us on this forum are combat photographers.

On that point I agree. I permanently carry a polythene bin-liner in my pocket when out taking photos, just in case of unexpected rain. But note that weather-sealing isn't just about rain - it's also about dust and high humidity. I spend a lot of time in rainforest and cloudforest, which is extremely humid, and that's why I want L-level weather sealing. I'm usually in the field with 2 bodies and a couple of lenses, which is why I want compact and light lenses, as well as L quality and durability.

We all have our fantasy lenses. Mine would be a Canon version of the third-party 150-600 f6.3 zooms, but lighter, better quality and faster focusing. But there is a world of difference between imagining a product and being upset that Canon doesn't produce your fantasy lenses. Insisting, without any evidence, that others share your fantasies is a bit delusional. Rejecting perfectly good lenses because they don't fit your preconceived notions is a recipe for making yourself unhappy.

Several other CR forum users have stated that they want middle-of-the-road lenses, or "liked" posts where they have been proposed, so I'm certainly not alone or being delusional. CR forum users are only a very tiny percentage of Canon's customers, but we are probably quite representative of enthusiast buyers.

Nowhere have I "rejected" lenses that don't fit my own needs or wants - quite the opposite - I own several L lenses and a couple of Canon's "budget" RF lenses myself. What I'm advocating is a 3rd tier of middle-of-the-road lenses, so that Canon offers a more complete range. Why that upsets one or two people here is a mystery. I'm expressing a desire for lenses that I would like to be added, which is no different to you expressing a desire for a 150-600mm. I actually expressed a desire here for exactly the same thing a few months ago.

 

[AlanF]

On that point I agree. I permanently carry a polythene bin-liner in my pocket when out taking photos, just in case of unexpected rain. But note that weather-sealing isn't just about rain - it's also about dust and high humidity. I spend a lot of time in rainforest and cloudforest, which is extremely humid, and that's why I want L-level weather sealing. I'm usually in the field with 2 bodies and a couple of lenses, which is why I want compact and light lenses, as well as L quality and durability.

Do you cut eye slits in it so you can see when wearing it?

 

[Jethro]

Some time back, one of the mods mentioned he had looked for Canon-owned IP address hits on the site, and there was just one in the logs. Canon has lots of ways to determine what customers think, the main one being what they buy. They also conduct customer surveys, I've received several.

It's always been surprising to me that they don't pay a little more notice to Rumour sites - not because the occupants of the forums of such sites are representative of the overall customer base (pretty obviously we're not), but because you'd think companies like Canon would have an interest with what rumours are circulating at a given time? There is clearly a fair degree of internal secrecy about development and (eg) release dates etc, so if there is a published rumour revealing something which is accurate, I would have thought that would be of interest. And I can't imagine they could be bothered using anything other than a Canon address to do the checking.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I don't really get the appeal of a prime series at 2.8 though, that seems rather slow.

Some people like compact lenses.
I doubt they would be L lenses though.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I agree with your premise, but we also have to keep in mind that Canon seems to have trouble meeting demand for new releases and in interviews have said their lens design department is a bit understaffed.
And that would mean that Canon decided that leaving ‘in-between’ money on the table is better than designing and producing 3 lines in parallel.

It seems like Sony is putting out far more lenses.

 

[unfocused]

It's always been surprising to me that they don't pay a little more notice to Rumour sites - not because the occupants of the forums of such sites are representative of the overall customer base (pretty obviously we're not), but because you'd think companies like Canon would have an interest with what rumours are circulating at a given time? There is clearly a fair degree of internal secrecy about development and (eg) release dates etc, so if there is a published rumour revealing something which is accurate, I would have thought that would be of interest. And I can't imagine they could be bothered using anything other than a Canon address to do the checking.

Most likely it’s farmed out to a third party. There are a lot of companies that monitor the internet and produce daily summaries of what’s trending in relation to hundreds if not thousands of topics. Canon’s PR departments would have someone monitoring those reports and including the information in a daily briefing to executives if they see something of importance that’s trending. Something big like the R5 overheating issue no doubt made it into the daily summary but don’t kid yourself that any discussion that isn’t on multiple sites over multiple days will ever be seen by anyone other than maybe an intern, if that.

 

[Jethro]

Most likely it’s farmed out to a third party. There are a lot of companies that monitor the internet and produce daily summaries of what’s trending in relation to hundreds if not thousands of topics. Canon’s PR departments would have someone monitoring those reports and including the information in a daily briefing to executives if they see something of importance that’s trending. Something big like the R5 overheating issue no doubt made it into the daily summary but don’t kid yourself that any discussion that isn’t on multiple sites over multiple days will ever be seen by anyone other than maybe an intern, if that.

I'm sure that's true.

I was thinking more about actual leaks. So, there has been development of (say) a new APS-C R body for(likely) years. Or the R1 for a forthcoming version. It's got to a stage past patent, past R&D, into pre-production, and copies are out in the wild under confidentiality agreements. The marketing dept are doing (well) all the things they do for a living, and there are timelines for announcements etc. At some point, specs which are at least substantially correct end up on a rumours site with a CR2 or 3 rating. Wouldn't you want to know about that right away?

 

[entoman]

Do you cut eye slits in it so you can see when wearing it?

Don't need to, I've got x-ray vision

 

[entoman]

I'm sure that's true.

I was thinking more about actual leaks. So, there has been development of (say) a new APS-C R body for(likely) years. Or the R1 for a forthcoming version. It's got to a stage past patent, past R&D, into pre-production, and copies are out in the wild under confidentiality agreements. The marketing dept are doing (well) all the things they do for a living, and there are timelines for announcements etc. At some point, specs which are at least substantially correct end up on a rumours site with a CR2 or 3 rating. Wouldn't you want to know about that right away?

Early rumours are most likely just wish-lists toned down a little in line with logical expectations.

But when gear is "in the wild" being tested, the "substantially correct rumours" are more likely IMO to be intentional leaks, with the purpose of arousing interest and pre-orders for an about-to-be-released model. So Canon not only already know about them, they probably created them.

 

[LogicExtremist]

It's always been surprising to me that they don't pay a little more notice to Rumour sites - not because the occupants of the forums of such sites are representative of the overall customer base (pretty obviously we're not), but because you'd think companies like Canon would have an interest with what rumours are circulating at a given time? There is clearly a fair degree of internal secrecy about development and (eg) release dates etc, so if there is a published rumour revealing something which is accurate, I would have thought that would be of interest. And I can't imagine they could be bothered using anything other than a Canon address to do the checking.

Two points to bring up,

First, Canon's market research must come from somewhere, it's not like they invest huge amounts into product development randomly! They may consult with specialist groups of professionals for their expensive, premium pro range gear, but with their consumer level and currently absent mid-range series, it would likely be some other way. Whether they look at competitor's sales, or sales of their previous EF, EF-S and EF-M lines is a possibility, but that's a 'chicken and egg' problem if there aren't pre-existing products. They must have spoken to someone, conducted some kind of survey or research to figure that there was a market for relatively cheap, super-tele wildlife lenses before they controversially released the RF 600mm and 800mm lenses with f/11. They obviously didn't consult their pro market segment who use expensive primes and high-end zooms on that one. I have no definitive answers here, but it's something to think about.

Second, as someone familiar with running websites, I'd say that half the traffic or more on many sites comes from mobile devices. We can't assume that marketing researchers are all using desktops, and can therefore be tracked via their IP addresses. If they're using mobile devices, they may be connecting via 1. local company wifi 2. home or other remote wifi services or 3. mobile data. Only the former would use a corporate IP address if it wasn't going through a VPN. Many marketing types may be on the road often, or work from home part time. Just a few more possibilities... I'm not commenting on the likelihood that Canon scans online forums, just on the slip in reasoning.

Also worth considering, while forums may not be representative of the whole market, they probably accurately represent a specific demographic, a subsection of the non-professional enthusiast market (who also like sharing their opinions and views online), so forums are probably not without value. It wouldn't be too hard to profile the users on this forum and DPR and others, to figure which part of the market they represent, what type of gear they buy and how often, whether they are early adopters and tech buffs, how much they generally spend, and whether they would likely unquestionably swallow up whatever Canon throws out on the market. Then again, that last point may be the reason why Canon might never need to read forums, they just might be able to get a rough idea of what might sell based off some other data, and chance it because this demographic will buy everything from low to high end released for the hybrid digital camera range..

 

[AlanF]

Two points to bring up,

First, Canon's market research must come from somewhere, it's not like they invest huge amounts into product development randomly! They may consult with specialist groups of professionals for their expensive, premium pro range gear, but with their consumer level and currently absent mid-range series, it would likely be some other way. Whether they look at competitor's sales, or sales of their previous EF, EF-S and EF-M lines is a possibility, but that's a 'chicken and egg' problem if there aren't pre-existing products. They must have spoken to someone, conducted some kind of survey or research to figure that there was a market for relatively cheap, super-tele wildlife lenses before they controversially released the RF 600mm and 800mm lenses with f/11. They obviously didn't consult their pro market segment who use expensive primes and high-end zooms on that one. I have no definitive answers here, but it's something to think about.

Second, as someone familiar with running websites, I'd say that half the traffic or more on many sites comes from mobile devices. We can't assume that marketing researchers are all using desktops, and can therefore be tracked via their IP addresses. If they're using mobile devices, they may be connecting via 1. local company wifi 2. home or other remote wifi services or 3. mobile data. Only the former would use a corporate IP address if it wasn't going through a VPN. Many marketing types may be on the road often, or work from home part time. Just a few more possibilities... I'm not commenting on the likelihood that Canon scans online forums, just on the slip in reasoning.

Also worth considering, while forums may not be representative of the whole market, they probably accurately represent a specific demographic, a subsection of the non-professional enthusiast market (who also like sharing their opinions and views online), so forums are probably not without value. It wouldn't be too hard to profile the users on this forum and DPR and others, to figure which part of the market they represent, what type of gear they buy and how often, whether they are early adopters and tech buffs, how much they generally spend, and whether they would likely unquestionably swallow up whatever Canon throws out on the market. Then again, that last point may be the reason why Canon might never need to read forums, they just might be able to get a rough idea of what might sell based off some other data, and chance it because this demographic will buy everything from low to high end released for the hybrid digital camera range..

I'm sure they have reports back from forums. For example, they will read that we would love to have variable fps for the electronic shutter for the R5. So, they won't implement it with a firmware update and will have it as a feature of the R5 II that we we will have to pay for. Similarly, they won't remove its unnecessary 30 minute limit. Now you might think I am jesting, but many a true word in jest.