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

[unfocused]

People! Stop and look at yourselves for a minute.

The premise of this thread is that Canon is updating its EF lenses as some sort of a ploy before they abandon the EF mount. That's tin foil hat crazy.

You are wasting valuable internet space on a thread that should have been shut down with a simple answer: "No, that's effin stupid."

Thank you for bringing the full weight of your intellect to the discussion.

Why are you so worried about EF going away? Surely Canon will have good adapters. And they'll probably keep repairing the old EF lenses for 7 or more years. Chill!

You are welcome.

I think you may be projecting your own fears onto me. I am not in the least bit worried about EF going away, because the odds of that happening are infinitesimally small. It would be like worrying that when I walk out the door I will be abducted by aliens.

What I am critical of is the bizarre reasoning that underpins this thread. That is that Canon is updating EF lenses today because they intend to discontinue them tomorrow. That is a non sequitur that requires a certain level of paranoia or perhaps extreme, paralyzing over-caution to even entertain such a possibility.

I note that that you have now started a new thread that takes this completely irrational fear to another level: "would you buy EF lenses (Canon's core lens mount) if a new mount for a tiny niche camera is introduced."

I'm actually trying to help you with an intervention here. Your comments in other threads are often quite good, but you do have a tendency to start threads based on worries that are simply irrational. I'm only trying to bring some rational thought to the process.

 

[Ozarker]

The introduction of FF mirrorless is a completely different proposition to the M series.

If you think back to the introduction of DSLRs, APS-C was introduced because of the technological challenges of making affordable FF sensors so they introduced a cropped sensor. That cropped sensor had to take the EF lenses already in existence which meant that even when they started making EF-S lenses specifically for DSLR they were constrained on how small they could go in designing lenses.
When Canon introduced the M series, they also took the decision that the new camera did not need to accept EF lenses as native, and this gave them the freedom to design smaller lenses in a smaller mount.

So the rationale behind M series and the FF mirrorless are completely independent.

With both aps-c and FF, key questions would seem to be whether another mount would permit smaller cameras and lenses, and whether smaller cameras and lenses are a good idea. (The answers might be different for aps-c and FF.)

As far as making lenses smaller goes, you have two parameters that you can play with.... radius and length. The radius at the lens mount is constrained by the FF image circle and can not be made smaller without introducing serious vignetting for longer lenses. Since people go FF for "ultimate quality" this is not going to happen. The size of the large end of the lens is constrained by the F number.... To make the radius (filter size) smaller, you have to be prepared to shoot with a slower lens.... and since the FF market is dominated by those same people searching for ultimate quality, it is highly unlikely that they are going to give up fast lenses.....

That leaves you with one parameter that you can play with, and that is lens length. The problem with shortening lens length is that you are then increasing the angles that light is being bent, and that leads to increased chromatic aberrations, which gives you a poorer quality lens, which once again flies in the face of the desire for high image quality. There is a caveat here.... and that is DO technology, which can be used to make a lens shorter..... however, for a fair comparison you have to realize that DO technology makes the lens shorter regardless of whatever mount is chosen, so there is no inherent advantage to gained here..

So, if you want smaller lenses, buy slower lenses. Period! Works on all mounts.

Don, I do have a serious question concerning the size of the front element and I'm wondering if that really has anything at all to do with f-stop number. I'm holding in my hand right now a Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4 full frame lens with a 49mm filter size. I know the lens must be a different type than we have today, but wouldn't f be defined by the size of the hole made by the opening in the blades and light transmission through the glass? This lens is tiny but still has 7 elements in 6 groups. The Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 also has 7 elements in 6 groups, but has a 58mm filter size. I suppose the front elements can be the same size and the bigger body on the Canon has to do with AF mechanicals. I just don't have a Canon 50mm to compare. One thing I know for sure is that these old lenses are very small.

 

[BillB]

As far as making lenses smaller goes, you have two parameters that you can play with.... radius and length. The radius at the lens mount is constrained by the FF image circle and can not be made smaller without introducing serious vignetting for longer lenses. Since people go FF for "ultimate quality" this is not going to happen. The size of the large end of the lens is constrained by the F number.... To make the radius (filter size) smaller, you have to be prepared to shoot with a slower lens.... and since the FF market is dominated by those same people searching for ultimate quality, it is highly unlikely that they are going to give up fast lenses.....

That leaves you with one parameter that you can play with, and that is lens length. The problem with shortening lens length is that you are then increasing the angles that light is being bent, and that leads to increased chromatic aberrations, which gives you a poorer quality lens, which once again flies in the face of the desire for high image quality. There is a caveat here.... and that is DO technology, which can be used to make a lens shorter..... however, for a fair comparison you have to realize that DO technology makes the lens shorter regardless of whatever mount is chosen, so there is no inherent advantage to gained here..

So, if you want smaller lenses, buy slower lenses. Period! Works on all mounts.

With wideangles, couldn't you also reduce lens size by avoiding the retrofocal design required by SLRs to provide clearance for the mirror?

 

[stevelee]

I haven't seen any messages so far supporting the premise of the question, that EF lenses are already on life support.

 

[Kit.]

Why are you trying to blame me for your own failures when I'm still here?

You saying "I have no idea why Canon would switch mounts, but I'll reject your reason to the contrary and declare me right" makes you an idiot, not me.

And as I am not saying anything like that, it makes you an idiot.

You're welcome.

 

[Durf]

I haven't seen any messages so far supporting the premise of the question, that EF lenses are already on life support.

EF lenses are far from being on life support in my opinion, no reason for Canon to change a great thing and I bet they'll work flawlessly on their new FF mirrorless too. (especially all the ones they've upgraded these last few years)....

 

[Ozarker]

As far as making lenses smaller goes, you have two parameters that you can play with.... radius and length. The radius at the lens mount is constrained by the FF image circle and can not be made smaller without introducing serious vignetting for longer lenses. Since people go FF for "ultimate quality" this is not going to happen. The size of the large end of the lens is constrained by the F number.... To make the radius (filter size) smaller, you have to be prepared to shoot with a slower lens.... and since the FF market is dominated by those same people searching for ultimate quality, it is highly unlikely that they are going to give up fast lenses.....

That leaves you with one parameter that you can play with, and that is lens length. The problem with shortening lens length is that you are then increasing the angles that light is being bent, and that leads to increased chromatic aberrations, which gives you a poorer quality lens, which once again flies in the face of the desire for high image quality. There is a caveat here.... and that is DO technology, which can be used to make a lens shorter..... however, for a fair comparison you have to realize that DO technology makes the lens shorter regardless of whatever mount is chosen, so there is no inherent advantage to gained here..

So, if you want smaller lenses, buy slower lenses. Period! Works on all mounts.

With wideangles, couldn't you also reduce lens size by avoiding the retrofocal design required by SLRs to provide clearance for the mirror?

I have a 28mm Takumar that has a 49mm filter thread. Use it on my 5D III all the time with no mirror problems. There isn't a problem with the 24mm or 20mm either. I don't have the 18mm, 17mm, or 15mm yet, but from what I understand there isn't a problem there either.

 

[stevelee]

I haven't seen any messages so far supporting the premise of the question, that EF lenses are already on life support.

EF lenses are far from being on life support in my opinion, no reason for Canon to change a great thing and I bet they'll work flawlessly on their new FF mirrorless too. (especially all the ones they've upgraded these last few years)....

I’ve bought two L lenses in the last three months, so I’ve done my part.

 

[Mikehit]

The introduction of FF mirrorless is a completely different proposition to the M series.

If you think back to the introduction of DSLRs, APS-C was introduced because of the technological challenges of making affordable FF sensors so they introduced a cropped sensor. That cropped sensor had to take the EF lenses already in existence which meant that even when they started making EF-S lenses specifically for DSLR they were constrained on how small they could go in designing lenses.
When Canon introduced the M series, they also took the decision that the new camera did not need to accept EF lenses as native, and this gave them the freedom to design smaller lenses in a smaller mount.

So the rationale behind M series and the FF mirrorless are completely independent.

With both aps-c and FF, key questions would seem to be whether another mount would permit smaller cameras and lenses, and whether smaller cameras and lenses are a good idea. (The answers might be different for aps-c and FF.)

As far as making lenses smaller goes, you have two parameters that you can play with.... radius and length. The radius at the lens mount is constrained by the FF image circle and can not be made smaller without introducing serious vignetting for longer lenses. Since people go FF for "ultimate quality" this is not going to happen. The size of the large end of the lens is constrained by the F number.... To make the radius (filter size) smaller, you have to be prepared to shoot with a slower lens.... and since the FF market is dominated by those same people searching for ultimate quality, it is highly unlikely that they are going to give up fast lenses.....

That leaves you with one parameter that you can play with, and that is lens length. The problem with shortening lens length is that you are then increasing the angles that light is being bent, and that leads to increased chromatic aberrations, which gives you a poorer quality lens, which once again flies in the face of the desire for high image quality. There is a caveat here.... and that is DO technology, which can be used to make a lens shorter..... however, for a fair comparison you have to realize that DO technology makes the lens shorter regardless of whatever mount is chosen, so there is no inherent advantage to gained here..

So, if you want smaller lenses, buy slower lenses. Period! Works on all mounts.

Don, I do have a serious question concerning the size of the front element and I'm wondering if that really has anything at all to do with f-stop number. I'm holding in my hand right now a Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4 full frame lens with a 49mm filter size. I know the lens must be a different type than we have today, but wouldn't f be defined by the size of the hole made by the opening in the blades and light transmission through the glass? This lens is tiny but still has 7 elements in 6 groups. The Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 also has 7 elements in 6 groups, but has a 58mm filter size. I suppose the front elements can be the same size and the bigger body on the Canon has to do with AF mechanicals. I just don't have a Canon 50mm to compare. One thing I know for sure is that these old lenses are very small.

The maximum aperture will define the minimum size the front element can be - or, more exactly, the entrance pupil which is much further back but the front element is a close enough approximation. Manufacturers often make the lens larger for design reasons, among which is the amount of glass to reduce/mitigate aberrations or the selected mount design.

 

[Don Haines]

As far as making lenses smaller goes, you have two parameters that you can play with.... radius and length. The radius at the lens mount is constrained by the FF image circle and can not be made smaller without introducing serious vignetting for longer lenses. Since people go FF for "ultimate quality" this is not going to happen. The size of the large end of the lens is constrained by the F number.... To make the radius (filter size) smaller, you have to be prepared to shoot with a slower lens.... and since the FF market is dominated by those same people searching for ultimate quality, it is highly unlikely that they are going to give up fast lenses.....

That leaves you with one parameter that you can play with, and that is lens length. The problem with shortening lens length is that you are then increasing the angles that light is being bent, and that leads to increased chromatic aberrations, which gives you a poorer quality lens, which once again flies in the face of the desire for high image quality. There is a caveat here.... and that is DO technology, which can be used to make a lens shorter..... however, for a fair comparison you have to realize that DO technology makes the lens shorter regardless of whatever mount is chosen, so there is no inherent advantage to gained here..

So, if you want smaller lenses, buy slower lenses. Period! Works on all mounts.

With wideangles, couldn't you also reduce lens size by avoiding the retrofocal design required by SLRs to provide clearance for the mirror?

Yes, but if your light hitting the sensor is at too great of an angle you get vignetting problems.... lens design is almost black magic.... it seems that everything you do to improve one thing makes another worse

 

[BillB]

As far as making lenses smaller goes, you have two parameters that you can play with.... radius and length. The radius at the lens mount is constrained by the FF image circle and can not be made smaller without introducing serious vignetting for longer lenses. Since people go FF for "ultimate quality" this is not going to happen. The size of the large end of the lens is constrained by the F number.... To make the radius (filter size) smaller, you have to be prepared to shoot with a slower lens.... and since the FF market is dominated by those same people searching for ultimate quality, it is highly unlikely that they are going to give up fast lenses.....

That leaves you with one parameter that you can play with, and that is lens length. The problem with shortening lens length is that you are then increasing the angles that light is being bent, and that leads to increased chromatic aberrations, which gives you a poorer quality lens, which once again flies in the face of the desire for high image quality. There is a caveat here.... and that is DO technology, which can be used to make a lens shorter..... however, for a fair comparison you have to realize that DO technology makes the lens shorter regardless of whatever mount is chosen, so there is no inherent advantage to gained here..

So, if you want smaller lenses, buy slower lenses. Period! Works on all mounts.

With wideangles, couldn't you also reduce lens size by avoiding the retrofocal design required by SLRs to provide clearance for the mirror?

Yes, but if your light hitting the sensor is at too great of an angle you get vignetting problems.... lens design is almost black magic.... it seems that everything you do to improve one thing makes another worse

So is there any practical payoff from a shorter flange distance at all?

 

[Mikehit]

As far as making lenses smaller goes, you have two parameters that you can play with.... radius and length. The radius at the lens mount is constrained by the FF image circle and can not be made smaller without introducing serious vignetting for longer lenses. Since people go FF for "ultimate quality" this is not going to happen. The size of the large end of the lens is constrained by the F number.... To make the radius (filter size) smaller, you have to be prepared to shoot with a slower lens.... and since the FF market is dominated by those same people searching for ultimate quality, it is highly unlikely that they are going to give up fast lenses.....

That leaves you with one parameter that you can play with, and that is lens length. The problem with shortening lens length is that you are then increasing the angles that light is being bent, and that leads to increased chromatic aberrations, which gives you a poorer quality lens, which once again flies in the face of the desire for high image quality. There is a caveat here.... and that is DO technology, which can be used to make a lens shorter..... however, for a fair comparison you have to realize that DO technology makes the lens shorter regardless of whatever mount is chosen, so there is no inherent advantage to gained here..

So, if you want smaller lenses, buy slower lenses. Period! Works on all mounts.

With wideangles, couldn't you also reduce lens size by avoiding the retrofocal design required by SLRs to provide clearance for the mirror?

Yes, but if your light hitting the sensor is at too great of an angle you get vignetting problems.... lens design is almost black magic.... it seems that everything you do to improve one thing makes another worse

So is there any practical payoff from a shorter flange distance at all?

Obviously smaller lenses, but it all depends on if the 'disadvantage' explained by Don matters to you. It has occurred to me that a vast majority of the rave reviews of the Sony gear has been from portrait and studio photographers - very few from wildlife or landscape photographers. And maybe this is why, or maybe it is that studio and portrait photography (where by and large the photographer has greater control of conditions) it is easier to demonstrate what is and is not down to the gear.

 

[Ozarker]

The introduction of FF mirrorless is a completely different proposition to the M series.

If you think back to the introduction of DSLRs, APS-C was introduced because of the technological challenges of making affordable FF sensors so they introduced a cropped sensor. That cropped sensor had to take the EF lenses already in existence which meant that even when they started making EF-S lenses specifically for DSLR they were constrained on how small they could go in designing lenses.
When Canon introduced the M series, they also took the decision that the new camera did not need to accept EF lenses as native, and this gave them the freedom to design smaller lenses in a smaller mount.

So the rationale behind M series and the FF mirrorless are completely independent.

With both aps-c and FF, key questions would seem to be whether another mount would permit smaller cameras and lenses, and whether smaller cameras and lenses are a good idea. (The answers might be different for aps-c and FF.)

As far as making lenses smaller goes, you have two parameters that you can play with.... radius and length. The radius at the lens mount is constrained by the FF image circle and can not be made smaller without introducing serious vignetting for longer lenses. Since people go FF for "ultimate quality" this is not going to happen. The size of the large end of the lens is constrained by the F number.... To make the radius (filter size) smaller, you have to be prepared to shoot with a slower lens.... and since the FF market is dominated by those same people searching for ultimate quality, it is highly unlikely that they are going to give up fast lenses.....

That leaves you with one parameter that you can play with, and that is lens length. The problem with shortening lens length is that you are then increasing the angles that light is being bent, and that leads to increased chromatic aberrations, which gives you a poorer quality lens, which once again flies in the face of the desire for high image quality. There is a caveat here.... and that is DO technology, which can be used to make a lens shorter..... however, for a fair comparison you have to realize that DO technology makes the lens shorter regardless of whatever mount is chosen, so there is no inherent advantage to gained here..

So, if you want smaller lenses, buy slower lenses. Period! Works on all mounts.

Don, I do have a serious question concerning the size of the front element and I'm wondering if that really has anything at all to do with f-stop number. I'm holding in my hand right now a Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4 full frame lens with a 49mm filter size. I know the lens must be a different type than we have today, but wouldn't f be defined by the size of the hole made by the opening in the blades and light transmission through the glass? This lens is tiny but still has 7 elements in 6 groups. The Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 also has 7 elements in 6 groups, but has a 58mm filter size. I suppose the front elements can be the same size and the bigger body on the Canon has to do with AF mechanicals. I just don't have a Canon 50mm to compare. One thing I know for sure is that these old lenses are very small.

The maximum aperture will define the minimum size the front element can be - or, more exactly, the entrance pupil which is much further back but the front element is a close enough approximation. Manufacturers often make the lens larger for design reasons, among which is the amount of glass to reduce/mitigate aberrations or the selected mount design.

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.

 

[dickgrafixstop]

I'm waiting for the next quarter's financial reports. Intuition tells me sales of ef lenses are inversely proportional to the mirrorless rumor intensity. If sales have slowed markedly, it will pressure Canon to announce sooner. If sales are at a constant level, all this noise is meaningless. Probably the biggest factor is manufacturing capacity, but I haven't seen any reports of "stockpiling" new lenses for an announcement day splash!

 

[Don Haines]

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!

 

[neuroanatomist]

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!

CAD > slide rule > abacus.

 

[Don Haines]

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!

CAD > slide rule > abacus.

Yes, like the new 70-200F2.8. 23 elements in 19 groups!

I can’t imagine designing such a zoom lens without a CAD system and at least a decade of experience! I don’t think many people realize the absolutely insane level of experience/ability that went into that design.

 

[Sabaki]

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?

 

[littleB]

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?

I also have a few more questions:
1. Price. Can Canon make lenses 5x cheaper than Zeiss and having better quality?
2. Weight. Can Canon lenses can have better quality and the 2x lighter than Zeisses?
3. AF: Can Canon NOT have AF, have higher weight, higher price, but less quality than Zeisses?
P.S. Hey man, Otus mean small-eared owl in Latin, and Otis is either an elevator makers or the Greek name meaning "no one" or "Nemo".

 

[Ian_of_glos]

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!