Why is Canon so slow updating (legacy) lenses?

[Marsu42]

Leaving nuclear holocaust, floods and earthquakes aside - I'm wondering why Canon is so slow actually rolling out updated versions of their legacy lenses. There seems to be no short supply of patents, and they released several 70-200 versions. But: A weather-sealed 35L, 50mm without focus breathing or micro usm anyone?

If I knew, I'd probably be less surprises which of the rumored lenses actually arrive... if anyone has any other suggestions than the ones I came up with, please let us know.

 

[Loswr]

I voted, "Until recently, Canon thought that people would like to have zooms..." Although I don't actually think that's changes - Canon still thinks people want zooms, and I'm sure they think that because they can look at their sales figures and easily see that trend.

 

[Marsu42]

Although I don't actually think that's changes

I put in "until recently" because of the new primes with IS - but of course they are primarily made for video.

 

[prestonpalmer]

I wonder if the Tsunami has anything to do with delayed lens production...???

 

[DavidRiesenberg]

I'm not sure it is a fair assessment to say they are slow to update. In the past few years we have seen a steady release of updates and I have no reason to think the future will be any different. We can argue which lens should be updated sooner and which later but fact remains that Canon is releasing new lenses at what seems to me an adequate pace. The latest major being the super whites. Now, I would love to see right now a new 35L and 135L with IS but Canon decided those superteles are more important.

As for the 50 1.2L, I too am frustrated by the focus shift but overall I believe the feedback is very positive on the lens (I love it too, despite the shift). And it being a fairly new lens, I don't see them updating it too soon.

By the way, regarding the focus shift of the 50mm, how do you AFMA it? Do you set it for 1.2 or somewhere further back?

 

[dickgrafixstop]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[RichATL]

People underestimate the amount of technical skill and development it takes to create a lens.
When you start adding "breathing", and other video considerations... the cost quickly moves beyond the pro/consumer range that is Canon's bread and butter.

Why people feel the need to "update" their glass when a new version comes out is beyond me.
Great lenses, should, last you your entire career if taken care of properly.

For example.. I just purchased a 28-70mm L about a month a go...
It's rubbish on a crop sensor...because it was created in 1993...before digital.
But now... on my 5d3, its incredible!

Canon went from having to update lenses for digital in the early 2000's, which meant lowering the quality a bit because lenses couldn't be designed soley for one format...(FF etc), to now having to re-evaluate their quality to match the ever increasing sensor technology.

I decided to hedge my bets (and save money), buy getting some well kept "old School" glass, along with some of the new hotness.

Here's one (albeit small) from the 5d3, and the aforementioned 28-70 2.8L

 

[Marsu42]

Why people feel the need to "update" their glass when a new version comes out is beyond me.

Rumor has it that Canon uses other glass/coating in for the digital generation lenses - so that would be one reason to "update". The other reason is that some 80s tech is just crappy today - talking of non-usm af motors... and Canon did update some lenses like the 24L but didn't do the same for the 35L for reasons unknown to me.

 

[pwp]

I voted, "Until recently, Canon thought that people would like to have zooms..." Although I don't actually think that's changes - Canon still thinks people want zooms, and I'm sure they think that because they can look at their sales figures and easily see that trend.

Yes, outside of a statistically tiny percentage of photographers who are completely "prime" focused and incorrectly perceive zooms as optically and creatively lightweight trash, the vast majority of the market either chooses or very happily accepts the flexibility and very high performance of particularly L zooms.

Why are Canon slow to update older glass? First and foremost they are a business with obligations to the long term viability of the company and to shareholders. Pragmatic business decisions are being made daily, based on a whole raft of criteria, none of which would include what they may see as distant background noise from lists such as this one.

I didn't vote as the options were too narrow.

Paul Wright

 

[wickidwombat]

i just wish they would hurry up and update the 50mm f1.4 already
I love the compact 50

 

[Aglet]

I voted, "Until recently, Canon thought that people would like to have zooms..." Although I don't actually think that's changes - Canon still thinks people want zooms, and I'm sure they think that because they can look at their sales figures and easily see that trend.

Yes, outside of a statistically tiny percentage of photographers who are completely "prime" focused and incorrectly perceive zooms as optically and creatively lightweight trash, the vast majority of the market either chooses or very happily accepts the flexibility and very high performance of particularly L zooms.

Why are Canon slow to update older glass? First and foremost they are a business with obligations to the long term viability of the company and to shareholders. Pragmatic business decisions are being made on daily, based on a whole raft of criteria, none of which would include what they may see as distant background noise from lists such as this one.

I didn't vote as the options were too narrow.

Paul Wright

it's all about the money
takes quite a bit of R&D investment to make improvements on lenses. Not so much the actual design, i think, otta be a way to have modern computer analysis help out in optimizing every aspect of any design. But getting that design into a practical and manufacturable product at a cost that leaves room for profit is a whole different game.

Priorities are likely given to marketing mainstays, cheap zooms kitted with consumer class items, then some decent primes that actually sell in measurable amounts and those higher end pieces, like L class zooms and a few L primes.

I've been eagerly waiting for a whole whack of updated wide primes for FF. The old ones are just not up to expectations when more modern zoom designs can outperform many of them. And that should just not be the case. Hopefully the recent news on refreshed wide and standard primes will turn up soon and provide us with performance that meets today's expectations and tomorrow's technological advances. With or w-o the red stripe. (I'd also like to see some hot new primes for the other big brand too)

I didn't vote either - my reason's above.

 

[FunPhotons]

• Making these things takes specialized talent, and good engineers are hard to come by these days anyhow. They surely have a small team or two that does this that is already heavily loaded
• Bringing a lens (or any device I can tell you because I do something similar) takes a huge amount of effort, engineering, OF (order fulfillment/manufacturing), marketing, learning products, etc ... just tooling up a new line takes a lot of capital
• Big, old conservative companies go slow

 

[peederj]

Leaving nuclear holocaust, floods and earthquakes aside

I LOL'ed! ;D Not like you could be serious! ;D


Unh.......

wait.... ???

 

[birtembuk]

I think we have become a bit of spoiled brats. The performance of zooms have tremendously improved over the last decade or so. But, drooling in front of our 24" full HD PC screens, we always ask for more. Canon have more than 70 fine lenses in their catalog. IMO, their zooms cover from 16 up to 400 almost flawlessly and the more so with their new 24-70 and 200-400. There surely will be touch-ups here and there, or maybe some silent improvements but overall, we are spoiled with choice.

For a number of us though, primes remain the photography grail. Correct me if I am wrong but price is not real issue here. I don't mind paying a load for a flawless 50/1.2 knowing that there's 1.4 or 1.8 for those who don't want to get in serious conflict with their spouse. Same applies to any other prime anyway.

Problem is that Canon is probably busy doing in the zoom compartment as this is obviously mainstream. But don't forget, once we are loaded - and we love it - with a truckload of L glass, for sure the last think we want to think of is to jump ship when the itching, sometimes, becomes a bit painful. Canon, do make us more captive customers ! Give us more of our addictive L drugs !

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

People underestimate the amount of technical skill and development it takes to create a lens.
When you start adding "breathing", and other video considerations... the cost quickly moves beyond the pro/consumer range that is Canon's bread and butter.

Why people feel the need to "update" their glass when a new version comes out is beyond me.
Great lenses, should, last you your entire career if taken care of properly.

I'm interested in updated primes for other reasons.

The 24mm f/1.4L is too expensive for me. The 24mm f/2.8 non-IS is just one stop faster than my kit lens, and it's IQ isn't good enough to make me buy it. If Canon made a 24mm f/2 USM with good IQ, I would buy it. If the new 24mm f/2.8 IS USM would be very favourably reviewed, I would consider it.

 

[KWSW]

I would love for an updated 50 f/1.4 and maybe the cheaper teleprimes (as compared to their older f/2.8 siblings) like the 300 f/4 and the 400 f/5.6

 

[AvTvM]

compared to Nikon, Canon was exceedingly slow to update their lens line-up over the last 7+ years.

While they are very slowly completing work on the super-teles and the TS-E lineup, there are lots of major weaknesses throughout the normal range:

* 50/1.4 II ... matching Nikon/Sigma, with new and robust Ring-USM/FTM ... overdue for years
* 14-24 L or at least a 16-35 L III ... fully matching the Nikon optically
* 20/2.0 or 24/2.0 - instead of a 24/2.8 IS and the totally useless 28/2.8 IS
* 24-70/2.8 III WITH IS!
* 100-400/4-5.6 L II - upgrade in IQ for the long end, current 4 EV IS, turning-zoom, and still affordable price

 

[Neeneko]

I will echo people saying 'it is all about the money', but this is not a bad thing.

Lenses are expensive to develop and retooling is a pretty major deal. Compare this against the fairly incremental improvement you get out of new lenses and it quickly becomes kinda impractical. With DSLRs, we have not really hit a plateau yet, things are still rapidly changing and thus updates can really obsolete older versions (though this is debatable, one can get a LOT of work out of older DSLRs).. lenses on the other hand have not changed all that much in decades. Take a lens from the 60s and while it might lack some convenience, chances are it can still preform about the same optical job as a modern counterpart and the end photograph will look about the same.

Thus they have a much longer upgrade cycle... come out with a new Rebel and you might see 50% of the current users upgrade in 3 years. Come out with a new 50mm f/1.4 and you will probably see closer to 10% upgrade and mostly just see new sales, which would be the same with the old version.

 

[Daniel Flather]

What seems odd is the 24IS and 28IS. Why two lenses so similar, but we still have a 50/1.4 and 1.8 that are long over due for an overhaul?

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

I will echo people saying 'it is all about the money', but this is not a bad thing.

Lenses are expensive to develop and retooling is a pretty major deal. Compare this against the fairly incremental improvement you get out of new lenses and it quickly becomes kinda impractical. ...

Thus they have a much longer upgrade cycle... come out with a new Rebel and you might see 50% of the current users upgrade in 3 years. Come out with a new 50mm f/1.4 and you will probably see closer to 10% upgrade and mostly just see new sales, which would be the same with the old version.

Some of those primes are >20 years old, and are upgrades of FD mount lenses. Canon probably recycled the optical design & manufacturing process for the glass, and 20 years is a long time to recoup the development & tooling expenses.

To return to a favourite example - buying a 24mm f/2.8 IS USM would be an incremental upgrade from the 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM, which is one of the reasons I wouldn't buy it, but be interested in a 24mm f/2. That's a new sale Canon wouldn't make otherwise.