Letter to Canon

  • Thread starter Deleted member 383276
  • Start date

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,565
2,002
As a landscaper, I will always try to find the sharpest camera/lens combination, which (for me) excludes smaller sensors.
With upcoming R-mount cameras and high resolution sensors, existing EF zooms and lightweight primes might not match these sensors. Sure, Canon makes new and fantastic R-mount zooms to catch up with these sensors, but here we are again, they are big and heavy...
Anything wrong with the dozens of EF lenses you can mount on an EOS R? Moreover, you can mount them with the option to put a CPL or VND behind them, which for me is far more convenient than the salad-plate front filters I have for my TS-E 17 or the dinner-plate filters I didn’t bother buying for my 11-24.
 

Pape

EOS RP
Dec 31, 2018
358
211
Hmm i would think there are plenty of manual focus lanscape lenses from many manufacturer ,you can use practically what ever with R camera and adabters even medium format lenses with speedbooster.
 

Antono Refa

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 26, 2014
816
112
I own or have owned the 24mm f2.8 IS... They are all very good lenses. I happen to prefer zooms for the convenience, but I would have no hesitation using or recommending any of these lenses.

If you are suggesting that Canon should make, for example, a 24mm f4 "L" lens, I'm not sure why. I doubt it would be any sharper or lighter than the 24 mm f2.8 EF IS that they already make. And, I'm pretty sure they would sell a lot fewer of them, so the price is likely to be much higher for no gain in quality.
The image quality comparison at the-digital-picture gives me the impression that the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM mkIII is better at f/11 than the 24mm f/2.8 IS at the same aperture. I doubt Canon is unable to make a 24mm prime at least as good as the zoom at equivalent apertures, esp if it doesn't need to have wider apertures.
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,210
395
As a landscaper, I will always try to find the sharpest camera/lens combination, which (for me) excludes smaller sensors.
There are quite a few professional landscape photographers turning to micro four-thirds such as the Olympus E-M1 mkii and report no problems with the images they get. And that camera has better weather-sealing than most DSLRs or 35mm mirrorless.
You may have very specific needs for photography but most times I think people just have an out-moded idea of 'it must be full frame'.
 

YuengLinger

EOR R
Dec 20, 2012
2,434
488
Southeastern USA
There are quite a few professional landscape photographers turning to micro four-thirds such as the Olympus E-M1 mkii and report no problems with the images they get. And that camera has better weather-sealing than most DSLRs or 35mm mirrorless.
You may have very specific needs for photography but most times I think people just have an out-moded idea of 'it must be full frame'.
Micro 4/3 for postcards, perhaps? Ok, maybe calendars at the dollar store? How many of these "professional landscape photographers" are also sponsored or, at the least, compensated by Olympus? Now we are heading towards Cloud Cuckoo Land! :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: chrysoberyl

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,094
1,574
Canada
Micro 4/3 for postcards, perhaps? Ok, maybe calendars at the dollar store? How many of these "professional landscape photographers" are also sponsored or, at the least, compensated by Olympus? Now we are heading towards Cloud Cuckoo Land! :p
They are fine in good light.... but when it comes to shooting birds in a dark forest with a long lens there is no option to FF
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

ArtisanCraft

EOS R
Jan 28, 2019
12
14
www.instagram.com
I don't get some of the hate in the replies. There's no reason to be sour for the sake of it. OP has a reasonable request here. I don't think he is flaming Canon, he is just asking for L quality 1.8 lenses. Honestly what's wrong with that?

I would buy a 1.8 L in heartbeat. Weather sealed, light, and optically as good as it could be at 1.8? I would pay $1k for that, for an optically superb, L quality 1.8 RF lens. I would use the 50 1.2 I have for special occasions, but when I go out on the street or travelling light, it would be great to have a light lens that performs as well and is as well-built as the Nikon 50 1.8. Canon could charge even higher for this lens, and I would gladly pay.

I have no idea why there would be hate on an idea like that? Do some people just act bitter for the sake of being bitter? Honestly that's not helpful for anyone...

I get the hating on trolls, but OP's request is reasonable. I would support a line of 1.8 L primes without batting an eye.

I own the 35 1.8 - great at 2.8, but at 1.8 it just isn't the greatest performer. And isn't weather-sealed. In London, that sucks, because if it starts raining I would have to stress while shooting street... It is a nice lens for what it is, but I would rather pay double and get an L 1.8 designed to be light and optically well performing...

I understand why they haven't released it yet. They can't perform miracles. But as a request for the future? Come on people be reasonable. It's a very nice request. Totally on board, OP
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pape

YuengLinger

EOR R
Dec 20, 2012
2,434
488
Southeastern USA
I don't get some of the hate in the replies. There's no reason to be sour for the sake of it. OP has a reasonable request here. I don't think he is flaming Canon, he is just asking for L quality 1.8 lenses. Honestly what's wrong with that?

I would buy a 1.8 L in heartbeat. Weather sealed, light, and optically as good as it could be at 1.8? I would pay $1k for that, for an optically superb, L quality 1.8 RF lens. I would use the 50 1.2 I have for special occasions, but when I go out on the street or travelling light, it would be great to have a light lens that performs as well and is as well-built as the Nikon 50 1.8. Canon could charge even higher for this lens, and I would gladly pay.

I have no idea why there would be hate on an idea like that? Do some people just act bitter for the sake of being bitter? Honestly that's not helpful for anyone...

I get the hating on trolls, but OP's request is reasonable. I would support a line of 1.8 L primes without batting an eye.

I own the 35 1.8 - great at 2.8, but at 1.8 it just isn't the greatest performer. And isn't weather-sealed. In London, that sucks, because if it starts raining I would have to stress while shooting street... It is a nice lens for what it is, but I would rather pay double and get an L 1.8 designed to be light and optically well performing...

I understand why they haven't released it yet. They can't perform miracles. But as a request for the future? Come on people be reasonable. It's a very nice request. Totally on board, OP
Disagreeing with a premise, even expressing mild scorn, is light-years from "hate." Despite what second-grade teachers might say, there are dumb questions! I've asked plenty myself!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: scyrene

Pape

EOS RP
Dec 31, 2018
358
211
They could make couple what can squeeze everything out from 100megapixel full frame like 135mm f1,8L and 50 f1,8L .
Sounds ok plan ,later when they got time design some :)
Its crazy how zoom lenses beating primes nowdays ,but big money talks there . Most of lenses they sell are zooms and most of design money goes to zooms.
 
D

Deleted member 383276

Guest
I don't get some of the hate in the replies. There's no reason to be sour for the sake of it. OP has a reasonable request here. I don't think he is flaming Canon, he is just asking for L quality 1.8 lenses. Honestly what's wrong with that?
Thank you - perfect landing!
For landscapes, I'd be even happy with f4 lenses as long as they were small, ligthweight, weather sealed, mechanical and optical as good as it can be - otherwise known as L quality (at least the last three properties).

Disagreeing with a premise, even expressing mild scorn, is light-years from "hate." Despite what second-grade teachers might say, there are dumb questions! I've asked plenty myself!
Hate and scorn are not so far apart... but why even mild scorn? You may disagree with whatever you want as much as you like, but why scorn? Are my thoughts, questions or wishes despicable in any way?
Just to ask some more dumb questions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,153
566
I don't get some of the hate in the replies. There's no reason to be sour for the sake of it. OP has a reasonable request here.
I don't see how the request for "small, full frame, L quality, native R-mount lenses from Canon" right now is "reasonable" given the current market conditions.

I would buy a 1.8 L in heartbeat. Weather sealed, light, and optically as good as it could be at 1.8? I would pay $1k for that, for an optically superb, L quality 1.8 RF lens.
Maybe, maybe not. Saying is not paying. Maybe you will use those $1k on buying a weather-resistant P&S, or even a cameraphone... happening to be just good enough by the time Canon sorts out the production of more important RF lenses and will be able to afford developing lenses in that tiny niche.
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,210
395
Micro 4/3 for postcards, perhaps? Ok, maybe calendars at the dollar store? How many of these "professional landscape photographers" are also sponsored or, at the least, compensated by Olympus? Now we are heading towards Cloud Cuckoo Land! :p
I am trying hard not to hit the sarcasm button here because your reply is total and utter......rubbish.
Firstly, why does someone have to be paid to prefer something to FF?
Second, Olympus (like any proper camera company) will sponsor people who use their gear,not sponsor them to make them switch.
Third, why would a professional compromise their image quality, and therefore their career and earnings for the sake of a free camera?

Answer those and I may give your reply some sembleance of credibility.

Also note I was responding to the OPs comments about not using smaller format sensors which to me sounded like a bias rather than something they have tried and found did not meet their needs. So maybe hold back on the 'scorn' when replying to a post not directed at you?
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,728
815
119
Firstly, why does someone have to be paid to prefer something to FF?
Second, Olympus (like any proper camera company) will sponsor people who use their gear,not sponsor them to make them switch.
Third, why would a professional compromise their image quality, and therefore their career and earnings for the sake of a free camera?

Answer those and I may give your reply some sembleance of credibility.
Just playing Devils Advocate here but:-
1/ Landscapers in particular (for photographers) are know to value image quality, anybody that tries to argue nothing beats sensor size when talking about image quality is being disingenuous. FF/135 format has seen the most development and has far and away the best high quality lens selections. Find me a medium format or a M4/3 distortion free 11mm rectilinear lens, for example.
2/ Nonsense, camera companies encourage interesting and high profile 'influencers' to switch all the time. I know Sony have reached out to established photographers.
3/ Most photographers can make more money teaching than selling their photos, workshops and classes are the new norm, sponsorship raises awareness and grants respectability to both parties. Image quality is not the most important thing to many many photographers, if it was there would be many more people shooting MF and far fewer people with kit lists like half ours.
 

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
Jul 20, 2010
4,887
1,171
65
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Firstly, why does someone have to be paid to prefer something to FF?
Second, Olympus (like any proper camera company) will sponsor people who use their gear,not sponsor them to make them switch.
Third, why would a professional compromise their image quality, and therefore their career and earnings for the sake of a free camera?
My take:

1) They don't. Smaller formats can have significant size and reach advantages. As the prime audience for interchangeable lens cameras ages, the appeal of smaller cameras is likely to grow. With modern sensors, it's entirely possible to print very large images of high quality from cameras using smaller sensors. In addition, many full-frame and APS-C shots are cropped, so starting with a smaller sensor doesn't necessarily mean the final image has any less resolution. Just because a photographer has changed formats, that doesn't mean he or she is sacrificing image quality. Canon, Nikon and Sony have all spent a lot of money convincing everyone that full frame is the way to go, but in the real world, most people would be hard-pressed to see any difference between full frame and APS-C or micro four-thirds.

2) I'm not sure about that. I would be willing to bet that there are photographers who get solicited to try a different brand. In addition, relationships change. Sometimes the camera manufacturer drops a particular photographer for a variety of reasons. Sponsored photographers like Explorers of Light aren't sponsored simply because Canon is nice. They have to meet certain metrics. If they don't deliver they can be dropped. Can't find it right now, but I think there was a thread here recently about a photographer who was dropped by Nikon and picked up by Olympus.

3) We are not talking about free cameras, we are talking about a reliable income stream. As PBD said, most high visibility photographers are making their money from workshops and classes (including online classes like Creative Live). That requires finding a sponsor, usually either a camera manufacturer or a software company like Adobe. And, as I said, they aren't sacrificing image quality or selling out.
 
D

Deleted member 383276

Guest
I don't see how the request for "small, full frame, L quality, native R-mount lenses from Canon" right now is "reasonable" given the current market conditions.
Looking beyond market conditions has been a recipe for success more than often.
As far as I know, there were no ''markets'' for cars or hairdryers when they were introduced.
I really don't want to compare some Canon lenses I would like to see with cars or hairdryers, but sometimes products create markets.
 

YuengLinger

EOR R
Dec 20, 2012
2,434
488
Southeastern USA
Just playing Devils Advocate here but:-
1/ Landscapers in particular (for photographers) are know to value image quality, anybody that tries to argue nothing beats sensor size when talking about image quality is being disingenuous. FF/135 format has seen the most development and has far and away the best high quality lens selections. Find me a medium format or a M4/3 distortion free 11mm rectilinear lens, for example.
2/ Nonsense, camera companies encourage interesting and high profile 'influencers' to switch all the time. I know Sony have reached out to established photographers.
3/ Most photographers can make more money teaching than selling their photos, workshops and classes are the new norm, sponsorship raises awareness and grants respectability to both parties. Image quality is not the most important thing to many many photographers, if it was there would be many more people shooting MF and far fewer people with kit lists like half ours.
What he said!

Yes, I had to avoid rolling my eyes hearing yet another claim that micro 4/3 is just as good as FF for landscape, or weddings, or astro, etc, etc. It might be adequate for you, but it certainly doesn't equal the quality of FF. Or are you trying to depress the landscape photographers who invested in medium format too?

Wouldn't we all love to carry a shirt-pocket camera with a fixed lens has the same quality as a FF camera? The OP wants it all--FF and tiny lenses. And he/she is complaining that Canon doesn't have an adequate selection of cheap to mid price, relatively lightweight lenses for dSLR's. Not sure how I got off track here. Threads usually have several conversations going at once.

And why so willing to believe Olympus would never recruit photographers who aren't already using Olympus gear? What better spokesman for brand A than somebody who used brand B for years, then "discovered" the advantages of brand A? And what would be wrong with recruiting an influential pro? Nothing!
 
D

Deleted member 383276

Guest
And he/she is complaining that Canon doesn't have an adequate selection of cheap to mid price, relatively lightweight lenses for dSLR's.
(Almost) right.
First, I'm not complaining, I'm thinking and asking.
Second, I didn't ask for cheap or midpriced lenses. I was talking about small, lightweight, optically superb, L quality prime lenses for upcoming high resolution sensors. Of course they can't be cheap, I never expected them to be.
Third - yes, I would like full frame tiny lenses, from Canon, for Canon cameras, and I still don't feel silly (your word).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jd7

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 3, 2013
725
93
(Almost) right.
First, I'm not complaining, I'm thinking and asking.
Second, I didn't ask for cheap or midpriced lenses. I was talking about small, lightweight, optically superb, L quality prime lenses for upcoming high resolution sensors. Of course they can't be cheap, I never expected them to be.
Third - yes, I would like full frame tiny lenses, from Canon, for Canon cameras, and I still don't feel silly (your word).
Hi Paco
I follow what you are saying, but I'm not sure if small and lightweight (on the one hand) and optically superb and L build quality (on the other hand) is actually realistic. If you can give up a little bit of build quality, there are already good EF prime options which are fairly and small and light (eg 35/2 IS, etc, as noted in one of the earlier posts). I understand what you say about them not being weather sealed, but perhaps a cover for the camera and lens could deal with that at least if you are just talking about light rain?

Also, I'm not sure how much of a market there would be for prime lenses with a maximum aperture of, say, f/4. For the "price" of about 600g to 700g in weight, and a fairly moderate size in the context of lenses for full frame cameras, you can get f/4 zooms (such as 16-35 f/4L IS and 24-70 f/4L IS) with image stabilisation, L build quality, and very good optics. (And if you move up to around the 750g to 800g mark, the 70-200 f/4L IS v1 and v2 come into the picture. You could also include the 24-105 f/4L IS v1 and v2 in this discussion although it seems they are optically a little weaker than the others). Non-L primes such as the 35/2 IS generally weigh around 300g-ish, and my guess is an f/4 prime of the type you are looking for would end up being heavier than that. How many people would choose an f/4 prime which weighs even, say, 400g, over an f/4 zoom which gives them some flexibility in focal length for the "price" of another 200g? I anticipate you will say a prime could be better optically, and I assume that is correct, but at the same time the zooms have very good image quality (especially by the time you stop down to something like f/8 or f/11, as you often would for landscape shooting), reasonable size and weight given the optical quality, the flexibility which a zoom provides, the inclusion of IS and the L build quality. By the time you do some post processing, and deal with the issues which printing introduces (different types of paper and inks providing different levels of sharpness, etc), I question whether you would really see a difference in the final output, especially assuming you were shooting at something like f/8 or f/11. (I'm open to being convinced you would see a difference, but at least at this point I have my doubts.)

My guess is Canon will eventually release a range of f/1.8 primes or thereabouts (perhaps f/1.4 to f/2 depending on focal length) for the RF system which are relatively small and light (although I have doubts they will be L lenses). But given the EF lenses already available, and the adapter to use them on the R cameras, I don't think it is so hard to see why Canon is concentrating its early efforts on "high end" RF lenses. I can imagine those lenses enticing some people to give the R system a go, plus the very wide aperture lenses allow the accuracy of the R system's AF to be shown off (again enticing some people, eg portrait shooters, to give the R system a go), where if all that was on offer was another f/2.8 or even f/1.8 prime they might be happy to stick with what they have already. I know in my case I'm not particularly excited about mirrorless (eg I like the OVF and battery life of a DSLR), but the AF accuracy at wide apertures and the ability to put an AF point just about anywhere in the frame are the things which appeal to me about the RF system.
 
Last edited:

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,565
2,002
Looking beyond market conditions has been a recipe for success more than often.
As far as I know, there were no ''markets'' for cars or hairdryers when they were introduced.
I really don't want to compare some Canon lenses I would like to see with cars or hairdryers, but sometimes products create markets.
The introduction of a novel product is not analogous to releasing a few more ILC lenses to their expansive portfolio which all mount on R-series bodies.

A better analogy would be wanting Conair to release a few new hairdryer models that are 2 cm shorter and deliver an extra 25 W of power.

But personally, I wouldn’t mind some small L-series RF primes along your line of thinking.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
3,742
1,308
Irving, Texas
I wrote a letter like this to Canon a couple of years ago and they mail me back a coupon code for 20% off on any 1 Sony Camera, up to 30 Sony Batteries, and an air conditioner.....
These are sayings that come to mind while sitting around the campfire my mountain man friend. Good show!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Durf