A New Nifty Fifty Coming [CR1]

[lintoni]

The market cap of Canon Inc as of today is $ 35BN it is perfectly within its remit to design & build three new 50mm lenses if it so chooses. However its also a "business" and would carefully weigh up if and when it needs to replace a lens and likely in connection with other factors and not simply technical ones.

The nifty fifty the 50mm f1.8 likely sells in far greater numbers than the 50mm f1.4 and 1.2 but both of those likely carry better margins, if the Chinese however have "copied" the nifty fifty then Canon must distance itself by improving the IP protection and this is almost certainly part of any decision.

Yongnuo are also making a 50mm f/1.4, so where's the new Canon 50mm f/1.4?

 

[zlatko]

The theory of "they won't do x because it would cannibalize y" never makes sense to me because they're constantly building things that cannibalize each other to a significant degree. By that theory, most cameras and lenses wouldn't exist. Just look at all of the overlap in the camera and lens lines.

"Overlap" and "cannibalize" aren't the same, and I'm 100% sure if there's one thing Canon marketing deliberates a lot about it's their internal lineup. A pure "overlap" is to be expected, but it's about user groups and the balance of a) the danger of them jumping ship or b) luring them into upselling to the next best model.

Don't underestimate this: For example, how much less profit would Canon have made if 50% of the 5d3 customers in the last 1.5 years would have bought at 6d instead because it would "good enough", i.e. not crippled enough, for video and shooting motion? If 2/3rds of the €1300 f1.2 "L" owners would have bought a good €500 f1.4 50mm update?

Overlap vs. cannibalize = doesn't matter what you call it. Just look at what we know rather than what we imagine. Canon currently makes:
EFS 10-22 and 10-18
EF 16-35/2.8 and 16-35/4 and 17-40/4
EFS 15-85 and 17-85
EFS 18-55 in two versions
EF 24-70 in two versions
EF 24-105 in two versions
EFS 55-250 in two versions
EF 70-200 in three versions
EF 70-300 in five versions
EF 24 in three versions
EF 28 in two versions
EF 35 in two versions
EF 50 in three versions
EF 85 in two versions
EF 100 in three versions
EF 135 in two versions
EF 200 in two versions
EF 300 in two versions
EF 400 in three versions
EF 500 and 600
And I won't even mention all of the camera bodies that cannibalize each other, because there are a lot of them.

All of the above cannibalize each other to some degree. So, to say that they won't build X because it would cannibalize Y is just baloney. They do it all of the time and there is proof throughout the product line. They don't have to, but they do. If the "Canon avoids cannibalization" theory were true, a lot of these products wouldn't EXIST.

How much less profit would Canon have made if some percentage of 5D3 customers bought the 6D instead? I have absolutely no idea and neither do you. But I'm quite sure that some percentage of 5D3 customers DO in fact buy the 6D instead. I am one of them. I have 5D3 + 6D instead of two 5D3. So the 6D really shouldn't exist.

While an individual 5D3 body may bring in more profit than an individual 6D body, they may sell several 6D bodies for every 5D3, resulting in a net gain in profit. The same goes for a potential excellent new 50/1.4 lens (with or without IS) — it may sell many more copies than the 50/1.2L, outweighing any cannibalization factor.

The cannibalization theory propounded by photographers in online forums is way too simplistic. When Canon introduces the cheaper product that allegedly cannibalizes the more expensive product, it isn't necessarily a net loss. While some customers buy the cheaper product as a substitute for the more expensive one, others buy the cheaper product vs. buying nothing at all or vs. buying a competitor's product.

Cannibalization is a normal and expected part of the business. As Steve Jobs said, "“If you don’t cannibalize yourself, someone else will."

 

[lintoni]

There are four 50s - 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, 2.5 macro.

 

[zlatko]

There are four 50s - 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, 2.5 macro.

Oh yes, you are correct. Similarly, the Leica company makes four 50s: 0.95, 1.4, 2.0 and 2.4.

If the "They don't want to cannibalize" theory actually reflected company behavior, these companies would be making only one 50: their most profitable one.

 

[Antono Refa]

There are four 70-200mm lenses (f/2.8 vs f/4, IS vs no IS)

I think the list makes a good case for places where Canon cannibalizes it's own products, e.g. the 70-300mm lenses, in contrast to places where it doesn't, e.g. the 24mm lenses.

 

[zlatko]

There are four 70-200mm lenses (f/2.8 vs f/4, IS vs no IS)

I think the list makes a good case for places where Canon cannibalizes it's own products, e.g. the 70-300mm lenses, in contrast to places where it doesn't, e.g. the 24mm lenses.

Oh yes, there are four of the 70-200. Even more cannibalization!

For full-frame users, there are currently three 24mm lenses (1.4, 2.8 and 3.5 TS-E). For aps-c users, there is now a fourth 24mm option: the new EF-S 24/2.8 STM. And there are about fifteen zooms that include a 24mm focal length. So someone who needs a 24mm focal length has as many as nineteen options from Canon.

 

[RLPhoto]

Cool. With STM, it won't be the creaky, buzzy AF that we're all used to. I'd expect a price bump to 199$ with the new motor and hopefully updated build.

 

[DRR]

There seems to be a lot of misconception about market (product) cannibalization, and what it means, and why companies intentionally do it. Cannibalization is a simple concept to grasp, but a difficult one to fully understand.

Here is an example of two lenses that are often compared but are completely different lenses for different users. Canon offers two 85mm prime lenses, one that goes for about $300 and one that's close to $2000. Just because they're the same focal length, does not mean they cannibalize each other. No one in the market for the $2000 lens is going to realistically buy the $300 as a replacement. Similarly, if you're in the $300 price bracket, you can't even afford the $2000 one.

So here, you have two products in your portfolio that have the same focal length, but fill two entirely different niches in your product portfolio.

Similarly, the multiple 50mm offerings don't cannibalize each other either. They are different lenses for different uses, and they each fill a different level in Canon's overall product portfolio.

So why have all this lens overlap? Why have 4 different lenses when you could simply focus on and sell the one that makes the most profit?

Simple - the strength of these products together, create a wall that other manufacturers can't pierce. Canon's 50mm options don't compete with each other, they work in tandem to compete with Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, etc. Products don't compete with each other in a portfolio, they work together to provide a competitive option against a different manufacturer.

That's the reason why there are a dozen different Porsche 911s. Or 3 different Honda Odysseys with 9 different trim levels. Or why there's Coca Cola Classic, Diet Coke, Coke Zero, Cherry Coke, Vanilla Coke, etc etc etc. These products don't compete with each other, they give you an appealing alternative to stay within one brand/system/manufacturer.

This is not to say some of Canon's overlap is not dangerously close to cannibalization. In fact the day-old 750D and 760D are so close, and serve virtually the same market, that I think these two lines are not sustainable long term. However I see few, if any, lenses that truly compete with one another, within the Canon system.

 

[Marsu42]

This is not to say some of Canon's overlap is not dangerously close to cannibalization. In fact the day-old 750D and 760D are so close, and serve virtually the same market, that I think these two lines are not sustainable long term.

This isn't cannibalization, but deliberate upselling.

However I see few, if any, lenses that truly compete with one another, within the Canon system.

Exactly - that's *because* Canon is so good at avoiding cannibalization when there's the danger customers will chose a less expensive alternative... their whole specs and features (does a lens have focus limiter switch or not?) reflect this. A simplistic view of listing how many "overlapping" lenses Canons produces doesn't take market segments into account and is bound to fail.

 

[JoeKerslake]

Any release date set for this?

 

[zlatko]

Here is an example of two lenses that are often compared but are completely different lenses for different users. Canon offers two 85mm prime lenses, one that goes for about $300 and one that's close to $2000. Just because they're the same focal length, does not mean they cannibalize each other. No one in the market for the $2000 lens is going to realistically buy the $300 as a replacement. Similarly, if you're in the $300 price bracket, you can't even afford the $2000 one.

Well, sorry, but that's simply wrong. I have bought and sold all of the Canon 85mm lenses several times over the past 15 years, including both the original 85/1.2L and the 85/1.2L II. I have had three copies of the 85/1.8. The 1.2 and 1.8 are very different in many ways but they are the same in one way — they are both 85mm — and sometimes that is what is important. If Canon only made the 1.2L version, I would presently only have the 1.2L. But because they make the 1.8 version, I only have the 1.8. Sometimes a person can go either way, depending on what is available. Because both were available, consider the 1.2 version cannibalized.

Likewise, I have the cheaper f/4 version of the 70-200. If they only made the f/2.8 version, I would have that one. So the f/2.8 version is cannibalized. Yum. Yum. Likewise, a second 5D3 was cannibalized in favor of a 6D. And so on.

The point is that there is a degree to which these products compete with each other. Not always, not for every photographer. But enough that it's real.

Is Canon bothered by all of this cannibalization? They aren't. Canon knows that they sell many more of the cheaper products, so the cannibalization ultimately doesn't hurt them. I do agree with your point about the strength of these products together. That's a point that is often overlooked.

That's why an excellent new 50/1.4 wouldn't be a threat to the existing 50/1.2L. I expect Canon will make a much improved 50/1.4 in due time.

 

[IglooEater]

Of course Canon canibalizes their own products- if they don't, Sigma, or Nikon, will. Having a smaller profit margin is infinitely better than having none at all

 

[Mr_Canuck]

What about two 50's? Like Nikon did. They replaced both their 1.8 and 1.4 with two really great lenses and introduced them at the same time.

I wish that were the case but I'm expecting just a 50 stm and probably 1.8. In which case I'll just use my 40 and my 50 2.5 macro.

But it sure seems at least on this forum that there's great appetite for a 1.4 in the manner of the 35is.