Are the latest "updates" intended to keep EF on life support?

Q

Ian_of_glos said:
Don Haines said:
CanonFanBoy said:
Thanks. In the case of my old lenses vs the newer lenses I guess the front element, like you said, might be bigger to control aberrations etc. The newer lenses are monsters compared to 40 years ago.
yes, my 40 year old lenses also look like toys compared to modern lenses.... The old ones were 7 or 8 elements, most new ones are 15+ elements.... We are definitely living in a golden time for photography!
This is a really good point and something we often overlook. It is a clear illustration of the fact that we can have better image quality but the price to be paid is that the lens must be bigger and heavier. We don't get owt for nowt!
@Don Haines: I do not see this as a golden time - maybe a "silver rating" I would give at best. Why? Usability of tools has a bunch of parameters and light/small/unobtrusive is a heavy bunch of parameters in my opinion.
But in sheer terms of IQ you are absolutely right!
@lan_of_glos: I am not sure that this is the only way, to make lenses bigger/heavier to make them better.
But I am sure it is an easier way to get the IQ and to sell the lens for most users.

My desired path of new lenses would be the following. Take the 1.4 50mm S.S.C. FD lens and put all the new lens technology in the existing design like (1) aspherical surfaces, (2) low / anormal dispersion glass / material types and (3) advanced mechanics e.g. to shift 3 groups simultanously to achieve optimum quality (perhaps shift the aperture group too. I am confident you can have the center quality of the old FD lens straight to the corners + better contrast at f/1.4 in a package which has 1cm more diameter and is 1 cm longer. But you might have to pay 700 $ / € and 300 bucks more for integrated image stabilization.

But larger lenses and great image quality reviews sell better than a compact prime with nearly the same IQ in a not so glamorous package - just my opinion but I see the same development with cars, mobiles etc.: Representative design and long feature lists first, usability at the other end.
 
Upvote 0
May 11, 2017
1,365
635
Re: Q

mb66energy said:
compared to 40 years ago.

My desired path of new lenses would be the following. Take the 1.4 50mm S.S.C. FD lens and put all the new lens technology in the existing design like (1) aspherical surfaces, (2) low / anormal dispersion glass / material types and (3) advanced mechanics e.g. to shift 3 groups simultanously to achieve optimum quality (perhaps shift the aperture group too. I am confident you can have the center quality of the old FD lens straight to the corners + better contrast at f/1.4 in a package which has 1cm more diameter and is 1 cm longer. But you might have to pay 700 $ / € and 300 bucks more for integrated image stabilization.

But larger lenses and great image quality reviews sell better than a compact prime with nearly the same IQ in a not so glamorous package - just my opinion but I see the same development with cars, mobiles etc.: Representative design and long feature lists first, usability at the other end.

The biggest change in lenses over the last 20 years has been the development of high quality zooms, at least in focal lengths up to 200mm, or more recently, up to 400mm or so. One effect of the growth of high quality zooms has been to depress the demand for primes, which has led to stagnation in development of prime lens designs, except perhaps at very top end of the market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
Don Haines said:
CanonFanBoy said:
Thanks. In the case of my old lenses vs the newer lenses I guess the front element, like you said, might be bigger to control aberrations etc. The newer lenses are monsters compared to 40 years ago.
yes, my 40 year old lenses also look like toys compared to modern lenses.... The old ones were 7 or 8 elements, most new ones are 15+ elements.... We are definitely living in a golden time for photography!

Yes, today's pictures are sharper and often superficially prettier. But, today's technically perfect eye candy images often lack any real depth. It's like much of today's auto tuned, pre-processed music designed to entertain for a few minutes and then be forgotten.

[/rant from child of the 60s]
 
Upvote 0

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,246
1,939
Canada
unfocused said:
Don Haines said:
CanonFanBoy said:
Thanks. In the case of my old lenses vs the newer lenses I guess the front element, like you said, might be bigger to control aberrations etc. The newer lenses are monsters compared to 40 years ago.
yes, my 40 year old lenses also look like toys compared to modern lenses.... The old ones were 7 or 8 elements, most new ones are 15+ elements.... We are definitely living in a golden time for photography!

Yes, today's pictures are sharper and often superficially prettier. But, today's technically perfect eye candy images often lack any real depth. It's like much of today's auto tuned, pre-processed music designed to entertain for a few minutes and then be forgotten.

[/rant from child of the 60s]
and that is why the internet needs more cat pictures taken with a cell phone :)
 

Attachments

  • 331700CB-7AD4-42A8-BA99-2B21EEC450AA.jpeg
    331700CB-7AD4-42A8-BA99-2B21EEC450AA.jpeg
    541.3 KB · Views: 112
Upvote 0

YuengLinger

Print the ones you love.
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,739
2,255
USA
Don Haines said:
unfocused said:
Don Haines said:
CanonFanBoy said:
Thanks. In the case of my old lenses vs the newer lenses I guess the front element, like you said, might be bigger to control aberrations etc. The newer lenses are monsters compared to 40 years ago.
yes, my 40 year old lenses also look like toys compared to modern lenses.... The old ones were 7 or 8 elements, most new ones are 15+ elements.... We are definitely living in a golden time for photography!

Yes, today's pictures are sharper and often superficially prettier. But, today's technically perfect eye candy images often lack any real depth. It's like much of today's auto tuned, pre-processed music designed to entertain for a few minutes and then be forgotten.

[/rant from child of the 60s]
and that is why the internet needs more cat pictures taken with a cell phone :)


I'd venture to say your happy cat has never been agitated by a single forum post ever.
 
Upvote 0

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,246
1,939
Canada
YuengLinger said:
Don Haines said:
and that is why the internet needs more cat pictures taken with a cell phone :)

I'd venture to say your happy cat has never been agitated by a single forum post ever.

Yes :)

Some of us get a little passionate at times, but I can honestly say that I have yet to encounter a forum user that I would not go out for a beer with, or plop in the canoe and take them for a paddle .
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
Purely for the sake of my curiosity, how much better are the Otis primes versus the Canon versions?

Sharpness: Speaking of sharpness in today's world means sharpness right into the corners. Are Canon behind in this regard?

Aberration control: Fringing/flare/ghosting etc

Contrast/punch: Are Canon's lenses delivering comparable oomph or are the Otis lenses still better?

Bokeh: I personally enjoy Canon's bokeh but would I enjoy Zeiss's output more?


In part I'm also asking these questions as a way to balance what many are terming minor updates to already very good lens ranges. Could the upgrades be more substantial or is it just that Canon's lenses are some of the best out there?


1) Sharpness means different things to different people. In the current lens comparison environment, it has come to mean "perfect edge to edge reproduction of a flat test chart shot at relatively short distances."

What many fail to realize is the price we pay for that degree of flat field correction (no uncorrected lens has a flat field of focus, it has a spherical shaped field of focus) is reduced micro-contrast and "busy" or even "harsh" bokeh. Many lenses that are said to be "soft" on the edges and corners aren't really as soft as some think they are. They're just focused for the center of the flat test chart to be the sharpest and so the point of sharpest focus on the edges of the field of view is a bit in front of the surface of the edges of the flat test chart. Roger Cicala has discussed this in several of his blog entries recently. He's even developed a method for determining how far in front of or behind optimum center sharpness a specific lens must be focused to get maximum contrast for the total frame.

2) See above. Insisting on perfect reproduction of a flat test chart forces compromise with regard to other aberrations unless we make the lens even heavier and more expensive by introducing additional corrective groups of elements. Thus the "mayonnaise jar" size and weight of lenses such as the Sigma 35mm ART, 50mm ART, 85mm ART, and 135mm ART.

3) See above.

4) See above. Flat field correction often degrades the the smoothness of bokeh.

In the end, lenses should be designed and selected based on the purpose for which they are intended to be used. It's silly to base the selection of a lens intended for portraiture based on how well it can reproduce a flat test chart at a specific distance. Well, unless one wants to become known as the world's greatest portraitist of Flat Stanley.

People think many macro lenses are incredibly sharp because they are optimized for flat field performance at short distances. Thus they do well when tested using flat test charts at short distances. Many of them do not do as well when shooting at longer distances for which they have not been optimized. Many non-macro lenses are optimized to perform better at longer distances than at MFD. Yet based on the test charts shot at short distances, many will claim that "my 100mm macro is sharper than your faster 100mm lens" and refuse to see the results that say otherwise when the subjects are mountains several miles away.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
Q


@Don Haines: I do not see this as a golden time - maybe a "silver rating" I would give at best. Why? Usability of tools has a bunch of parameters and light/small/unobtrusive is a heavy bunch of parameters in my opinion.
But in sheer terms of IQ you are absolutely right!
@lan_of_glos: I am not sure that this is the only way, to make lenses bigger/heavier to make them better.
But I am sure it is an easier way to get the IQ and to sell the lens for most users.

My desired path of new lenses would be the following. Take the 1.4 50mm S.S.C. FD lens and put all the new lens technology in the existing design like (1) aspherical surfaces, (2) low / anormal dispersion glass / material types and (3) advanced mechanics e.g. to shift 3 groups simultanously to achieve optimum quality (perhaps shift the aperture group too. I am confident you can have the center quality of the old FD lens straight to the corners + better contrast at f/1.4 in a package which has 1cm more diameter and is 1 cm longer. But you might have to pay 700 $ / € and 300 bucks more for integrated image stabilization.

But larger lenses and great image quality reviews sell better than a compact prime with nearly the same IQ in a not so glamorous package - just my opinion but I see the same development with cars, mobiles etc.: Representative design and long feature lists first, usability at the other end.

Anything optimized for taking better reproduction photos of flat test charts at relatively short distances sells better in the current market, even if that lens isn't actually better for taking the photos one actually intends to take with said lens.

It's not just a question of spending more and including more corrective elements. It's the question of choosing better flat field performance for better performance with flat test charts at shorter distances over smoother bokeh by leaving some or all field curvature uncorrected. It's the question of optimizing a lens for shorter or longer focus distances. It's the questions of dozens of things that must be balanced against each other when a lens is designed.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
Yes, today's pictures are sharper and often superficially prettier. But, today's technically perfect eye candy images often lack any real depth. It's like much of today's auto tuned, pre-processed music designed to entertain for a few minutes and then be forgotten.

[/rant from child of the 60s]

There are prices to be paid in other optical qualities in order to make a lens optimized for shooting flat test charts at relatively short distances. Yet that is what the market currently demands: The best performance when reproducing a flat test chart shot at relatively short distance. No matter that such a lens may not do as well as another lens design for taking the photos we actually intend to take using said lens.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
Look at the minimal improvements to some recent lenses, such as the version III of the already wonderful ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. Also, rumors regarding the new big whites. Seriously, except for weight, which would be minimal, and some "new" coatings, how much better could new versions of the big whites be?

Could this be Canon's attempt to keep the EF L series lenses selling through the transition to whatever the new mount that will be used for FF mirrorless? Keep EF relevant long enough (years more, yes) for the FF mirrorless market to be approaching maturity?


It is far more likely that Canon is updating much of their current lens line to be (thus far, silently) compatible with some as yet unrevealed new feature or capability included in future camera bodies. These lens updates likely include compatibility with features or capabilities of planned camera bodies that the lenses recently replaced do not have the ability to fully exploit.

I think the likelihood that Canon plans to stay with the EF mount for a long time is increased with every "marginal" upgrade of an EF lens, particularly with upper tier lenses such as the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS III and the two expected new IS III versions of the Super Telephoto series. What we don't know, at present, about these minimal improvements is how much other stuff has been silently upgraded in these lenses in preparation for the new camera models on the horizon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 28, 2015
3,368
570
It is far more likely that Canon is updating much of their current lens line to be (thus far, silently) compatible with some as yet unrevealed new feature or capability included in future camera bodies. These lens updates likely include compatibility with features or capabilities of planned camera bodies that the lenses recently replaced do not have the ability to fully exploit.

I think the likelihood that Canon plans to stay with the EF mount for a long time is increased with every "marginal" upgrade of an EF lens, particularly with upper tier lenses such as the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS III and the two expected new IS III versions of the Super Telephoto series. What we don't know, at present, about these minimal improvements is how much other stuff has been silently upgraded in these lenses in preparation for the new camera models on the horizon.

That is a very good point. They are designing the lenses to a roadmap, not just to immediate requirements. As I understand it, the series 2 telephotos were much better when paired mkiii extenders because of the way the lens read the LUTs in the extender and how the future bodies interacted with both and you do not do that without an integrated design program.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0