Lenses in 2011 [CR2]

[epsiloneri]

I don't know what's going on, but surprisingly The Digital Picture has the TS-E 24mm just trouncing the EF 24mm f/1.4.

I think it's because the the EF 24/1.4L II is strongly optimised for wide open 1.4 performance, which is very different from 3.5. It is reasonable that photographers would use the 24/1.4 wide open a lot of the time, since it's the defining feature of the lens. You may also note that the EF 24/1.4L II @ 2.8 is sharper than the EF 16-35/2.8 II @ 2.8, but the latter is sharper when both are @ 5.6.

I think it's the same optimisation that's been done for the EF 50mm/1.2L, where its much cheaper brethren beats it in terms of sharpness for smaller apertures.

So, in conclusion, if you don't care too much after low-light performance (or very shallow DOF) but are more interested in having the ultimate sharp lens (as commonly the case in landscape photography), the slower lenses might be better for you. They're also often cheaper (though not the TS-E 24/3.5L II, obviously). The only caveat is that almost all of the non-L primes are of old design, and as we know from the recent L-updates (during the last couple of years) that performance tends to improve a lot with an update.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I don't know what's going on, but surprisingly The Digital Picture has the TS-E 24mm just trouncing the EF 24mm f/1.4.

I think it's because the the EF 24/1.4L II is strongly optimised for wide open 1.4 performance...

Bingo. Fast is 'easy'. Wide is 'easy'. Fast and wide is a much bigger optical challenge. I think the optimizations for the 24/1.4 and the 50/1.2 are not quite the same - the 50L is sacrificing sharpness wide open in favor of bokeh, whereas the 24/1.4 is optimized for sharpness wide open, but it's just too darn hard to achieve at that wide an angle and that wide an aperture. You can see the effect of wider angle in the pair of wide TS-E lenses - the 17mm f/4 is slower (a little, anyway) than the 24mm f/3.5, but the 24mm is much sharper especially in corners.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

Sure, that seems to be a fair general statement. I suppose I could've said I didn't know exactly what's going on; knowledge what sort of tradeoffs are being made is the stuff of trade secrets.

It does present an interesting quandary that I imagine was less apparent to many photographers before the current time: In the days of the first consumer zooms (I have an old generic green manual for FD zoom lenses on the table next to me) your choices were either for a zoom lens - convenience at the cost of quality, which is still true, though not as much as then - or for a fast prime, as the fast aperture was so often needed to give a good exposure even with fast films. Like Barry Lyndon - today Stanley Kubrick wouldn't need to use f/0.7 lenses, and probably wouldn't bother tracking them down for empty bragging rights. (I wonder what he would think of camera movements, though.) Now that sensitivity is less of an issue than it once was, some optics are being designed that (sheer speculation ahead) pack more resolution into an area at a given f-ratio than a higher f-ratio would allow. (Why this is I am still trying to research, but it makes sense that it would be the case.)

 

[L-Fletcher]

I can see the 100-400mm being updated. Possibly would have some reduction of the dust problems.

I don't think there will be any update of the EF-S line, at least in the first part of next year, anyway. I don't see the 17-55mm being updated, and as Canon has updated their 100mm macro within the past 1+1/2 years, I don't think the 60mm being updated is entirely feasible. But it's possible.

What I do see is a new kit lens being released with a new line of xxxD's (Rebel bodies), in the next few years (first quarter 2012). Whether it'll be a 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II or something else entirely, I'm not sure. But Canon will most likely upgrade their kit lenses to match the rising sensor resolutions.

 

[L-Fletcher]

Oh, by the way - a tangent here... should this not be posted in the lenses section?