Best & Worst Releases From Canon in 2015

[Lee Jay]

I don't care that the 11-24L costs $3k. Nothing else can do what that lens does, and I'd certainly put it higher on the list than the nifty fifty.

The 8-15L on crop is wider than the 11-24 (8mm-equivalent rectilinear when cropped to 3:2, which is stupidly wide in rectilinear format), about as long at the long end (22mm equivalent rectilinear when cropped to 3:2) and can be fisheye, rectilinear (after defishing) or anywhere in between using Lightroom or Camera Raw profiles.

 

[privatebydesign]

I don't care that the 11-24L costs $3k. Nothing else can do what that lens does, and I'd certainly put it higher on the list than the nifty fifty.

The 8-15L on crop is wider than the 11-24 (8mm-equivalent rectilinear when cropped to 3:2, which is stupidly wide in rectilinear format), about as long at the long end (22mm equivalent rectilinear when cropped to 3:2) and can be fisheye, rectilinear (after defishing) or anywhere in between using Lightroom or Camera Raw profiles.

The 8-15 defished via LR/ACR profiles is a hunk of junk compared to the 11-24. The 8-15 and older 15 defish very nicely in Fisheye-Hemi, but that isn't a rectilinear projection.

I am a very strong advocate of defishing having tested the 15 defished vs the 14mm MkII and found the 15 better in the corners, but the Adobe profiles are not good and rip the corners to pieces not least because they are rectilinear projections.

As an aside, I own the EF 15, TS-E 17 and 11-24, and owned but sold my 16-35 f2.8 and 16-35 f4 IS, I have also rented or borrowed two copies of the EF 14mm MkII and one copy of the 8-15.

Below are three versions of the same image, first is EF15 on FF camera, native shot, second is ACR/LR profile at 100%, third is Fisheye-Hemi. Advanced use of Fisheye-Hemi via canvas size adjustments is far and away the best remapping of fisheye images I have seen and can be done twice to fully adjust for rectilinear.

 

[Tinky]

I concur absolutely with the worst two choices...

The XC10 is a travesty. Against something like the Panasonic FZ1000 (ok, lesser codec, but affordable memory, lens has one stop f-drop vs XC10's 2 stops) or the RX10mkII (still cheaper than XC10) constant f2.8..

Apple Pro Res is great idea, but the CFast Cards are not.

What we really want is something that can out-do a gh4 but with a canon mount, without spending £8k for 4k.

Oh, I just bought a G7, with 100mbs internal MP4, and used some of the change to buy a metabones 0.64 XL. Add in my Tascam DR60D to the mix and I'm laughing.

Canon, where are you?

The new M's... vastly overpriced at launch... again. An improvement, but no headlines.

 

[Sabaki]

I haven't bought any 2015 products but the one that intrigued me most was the 35mm f/1.4mii

Most, if not all of Canon's L series zooms since the 70-200 f/2.8 mkii was deemed to produce prime quality images and for the longest time, I was waiting to see what a modern prime could do.

I haven't heard much in the way of a comparison to say the 24-70 but it seems to be an incredibly well engineered lens that produces outstanding images. Add into that the BR tech, the reportedly fantastic AF performance and I feel the 35mm to be the most compelling piece of kit to be released this year.

If only they had a way of replicating their lens making brilliance in the bodies!

 

[sanj]

I think 35 II is more of a landmark lens then the 50mm. We are discussing the best, not value for money.

 

[scrup]

You hurt my feelings shaming the M3. I thought this is canons best mirrorless offering and would take it over the m10 anyday.

 

[AvTvM]

You hurt my feelings shaming the M3. I thought this is canons best mirrorless offering and would take it over the m10 anyday.

LOL!!! ;D

M3 is indeed a shame. Canon not able to match 3 year old Sony A6000, not to mention best it.

Why is Canon unable to take
* Rebel T6s sensor
* Powershot G5X EVF
* improved version of 70D dual-pixel AF
* regular EOS suer interface
* reasonable Auto-ISO implementation from 5D3
* LP-E6N battery
* EF-M moutn up front
and stick those innards into an body similar to M3/SOny A6000? Possibly with a minimally chunkier grip to accomodate beefy LP-E6 battery and then sell it at price of T6s plus 100 USD/Euro for extra profit?
What is so difficult about it?

 

[hogmark]

I think the 100-400L ii is a better release than the 50 STM. The 50 STM isn't bad by any stretch, but I think the 100-400L is a more notable improvement over it's predecessor than the 50 STM.

I also think the 100-400L II is a greater achievement/advancement over the 50 STM. The 100-400 II not only has insane build-quality, improved image quality, and amazing IS - but also added the shortest MFD for any tele/zoom which makes it a true allrounder. I am totally in love with this masterpiece! For my kind of photography that is outdoor sports, nature, landscapes, including portraits and close-up shots: This is THE lens.

My list
1-3. Canon EF 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS II USM 8)
4. Canon EF 16-35/4 L IS USM (2014)

 

[ahsanford]

The new 50 STM fixed everything. It is sharper wide open, has slightly shorter minimum focus distance. The extra iris blades make a big difference stopped down. It also works good enough on my A7II after the firmware update that I moved the Sony FE55f1.8 to maybe someday.

It's a smart improvement over the 50 f/1.8 II, I agree, but the 50 f/1.8 STM did not fix everything. Canon still does not field a proper 50mm prime that is simultaneously sharp and fully featured (tougher build quality, internal focusing, distance scale, fast/modern/reliable/consistent USM, FTM focusing / not focusing by wire, etc.).

The fact that a studio photographer on this thread chooses the 50mm f1.8 STM -- a perfectly fair call to make, mind you -- can be read two ways: one is a compliment to how well/inexpensively Canon has retrofit that ancient optical design. The other is a scathing reflection of how two 'better' lenses in the 50 f/1.4 USM and the 50 f/1.2L USM are not getting it done.

I think the nifty fifty is a very nice refresh. I continue to wait for Canon to offer a more complete lens.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

If they had raised the price of the new 50 f/1.8 STM by $50 plus dollars, I wouldn't have put it on the list. It's that they improved most everything that was wrong with the previous version and didn't charge us more for it. It was a bargain before, now it's a steal.

I just bought one for $85 direct from Canon (black Friday refurb). I had an older 50/1.8 II before. I always found it soft and unable to focus its way out of a paper bag. This one is sharp and has fast, silent, accurate focusing. Since it's the same optical formula, I now think the old one was just missing focus in almost every case, at least by a little bit.

No way this lens should perform as well as it does for $85!

One argument is that the original optical formula for the 50 f/1.8 was great if the lens was built correctly, which we know many were not. But the new lens is more consistently well built. LR's optical bench data pegs the new 50 f/1.8 STM as one of the most consistent lenses they've ever tested:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/07/variation-measurement-for-50mm-slr-lenses

- A

 

[ahsanford]

I think 35 II is more of a landmark lens then the 50mm. We are discussing the best, not value for money.

+1. That's actually a new lens.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

M3 is indeed a shame. Canon not able to match 3 year old Sony A6000, not to mention best it.

Why is Canon unable to take

[truncated]

and stick those innards into an body similar to M3/SOny A6000? Possibly with a minimally chunkier grip to accomodate beefy LP-E6 battery and then sell it at price of T6s plus 100 USD/Euro for extra profit?
What is so difficult about it?

It's not difficult at all. Canon knows exactly what an intermediate/enthusiast EOS-M product would have onboard and is choosing not to offer it.

Your guess is as good as mine as to why. It's easy to say that they are protecting their SLR sales, but it's similarly easy to argue that Canon is hedging their bets on mirrorless until a clear market direction takes hold.

The mirrorless market is heavily split along two very different camps: "Do everything an SLR can" and "This sonuvab---- had better be smaller than my SLR". Canon appears to be waiting out the market (a) until it makes up it's mind on being comprehensive vs. being small and (b) until Canon starts losing customers because of their indecision.

- A

 

[tianxiaozhang]

The new 50 STM fixed everything. It is sharper wide open, has slightly shorter minimum focus distance. The extra iris blades make a big difference stopped down. It also works good enough on my A7II after the firmware update that I moved the Sony FE55f1.8 to maybe someday.

It's a smart improvement over the 50 f/1.8 II, I agree, but the 50 f/1.8 STM did not fix everything. Canon still does not field a proper 50mm prime that is simultaneously sharp and fully featured (tougher build quality, internal focusing, distance scale, fast/modern/reliable/consistent USM, FTM focusing / not focusing by wire, etc.).

The fact that a studio photographer on this thread chooses the 50mm f1.8 STM -- a perfectly fair call to make, mind you -- can be read two ways: one is a compliment to how well/inexpensively Canon has retrofit that ancient optical design. The other is a scathing reflection of how two 'better' lenses in the 50 f/1.4 USM and the 50 f/1.2L USM are not getting it done.

I think the nifty fifty is a very nice refresh. I continue to wait for Canon to offer a more complete lens.

- A

Both are true.

Just sold my 50/1.4 last night. It feels flimsy, had been unreliable mechanically and just doesn't feel like a workhorse.

The STM's bokeh doesn't quite do it for me, and for outdoor shoots I'm still not as comfortable using the STM vs the 85/1.8.

I'll most likely buy both the new 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8 from Canon should they get updated.

 

[Orangutan]

M3 is indeed a shame. Canon not able to match 3 year old Sony A6000, not to mention best it.

Why is Canon unable to take

[truncated]

and stick those innards into an body similar to M3/SOny A6000? Possibly with a minimally chunkier grip to accomodate beefy LP-E6 battery and then sell it at price of T6s plus 100 USD/Euro for extra profit?
What is so difficult about it?

It's not difficult at all. Canon knows exactly what an intermediate/enthusiast EOS-M product would have onboard and is choosing not to offer it.

Your guess is as good as mine as to why. It's easy to say that they are protecting their SLR sales, but it's similarly easy to argue that Canon is hedging their bets on mirrorless until a clear market direction takes hold.

The mirrorless market is heavily split along two very different camps: "Do everything an SLR can" and "This sonuvab---- had better be smaller than my SLR". Canon appears to be waiting out the market (a) until it makes up it's mind on being comprehensive vs. being small and (b) until Canon starts losing customers because of their indecision.

- A

I agree with the above, blue-highlighted comments. You don't achieve Canon's consistent profitability and market share by wasting R&D money on a bunch of niche products you hope will catch on. When the market clarifies, Canon will jump in, and will do it well. Whether they do it soon enough or well enough is still a question.

A bigger question is why Sony, Nikon, Samsung, etc. have not used their supposedly superior mirrorless products to pillage Canon's market share. What's wrong with their products? Do they have technical problems? Market interest problems?

 

[Lee Jay]

I don't care that the 11-24L costs $3k. Nothing else can do what that lens does, and I'd certainly put it higher on the list than the nifty fifty.

The 8-15L on crop is wider than the 11-24 (8mm-equivalent rectilinear when cropped to 3:2, which is stupidly wide in rectilinear format), about as long at the long end (22mm equivalent rectilinear when cropped to 3:2) and can be fisheye, rectilinear (after defishing) or anywhere in between using Lightroom or Camera Raw profiles.

The 8-15 defished via LR/ACR profiles is a hunk of junk compared to the 11-24.

First of all, I said "on crop". Second, who cares? I'm of the opinion that lens sharpness rarely matters on wide angle or mid range lenses. I've printed 8x10s from lousy lenses (28-135IS) shot on crop at diffraction-limited f-stops (f/13) and where the final image was only about 2MP and the print is sharp. Sharpness really only matters on telephotos where we often abuse the heck out of the optics for purposes of resolving power through cropping and enlarging. It's not all that uncommon for a final image from my 70-200/2.8L IS II to be composed of 1% of the lens' native image circle diagonal.

Defishing the 8-15 on crop from about 11-15mm produces an image that's plenty sharp enough for a good quality 24x36 print. Even though the 11-24 is better, it doesn't need to be. Further, I rarely (I mean, really rarely) think that an image wider than about 16mm equivalent (12mm on the 8-15 on crop) should be fully rectilinear. Even the images I often see from the 11-24 mostly look lousy wider than that. There are a few exceptions but I keep about 99.8% of my images that are that wide partly or fully in fisheye projection.

 

[RobPan]

Orangutan asked: "Do they [Sony] have technical problems?"

One of the most irritating technical problems was overheating. This caused the 4K videos to stop far too soon. The camera got too hot. The newest firmware for the A7Rii fixed this:

[announcement in Sony Rumors:]

New A7rII firmware update fixes overheating issue. Watch the test!

"The video on top proves that overheating issues is now gone thanks to the new 3.0 A7rII firmware. The video has been shot for 2:51 hours(!) in super 35, 24p 100mbps mode. Jonathan writes:

As I’m posting I’m still recording and I’m at 2 hours and 51 minutes. I’m going to stop. Just to be clear. The recording still stop at 29:50 each time. I just pressed record immediately after it stopped. Overheating would normally occur right after the first recording.

The new firmware also improved the chromatic aberration correction on the Sony A7rII and A7sII camera.

A7rII download page at Sony.com (Click here).
A7sII download page at Sony.com (Click here).
Share"

Sometimes the recording would stop after only 15 minutes. This is now a thing of the past.

Many Canon users are switching to Sony and have no regrets. Hopefully Canon will live up to its promise to produce a top FF mirrorless camera. I am convinced mirrorless has the future. After my 5D3 was stolen I waited a long time for the 5D4, when it did not come in time I bought a A7Rii. Can use my Canon lenses (although with MF) and even my FD lenses (MF of course). As I have more FD lenses than EF lenses I have become more versatile.
My only FE lens is a Sony 24-240mm which is ideal for traveling.

Kind regards, Rob.

 

[keithcooper]

I don't care that the 11-24L costs $3k. Nothing else can do what that lens does, and I'd certainly put it higher on the list than the nifty fifty.

The 8-15L on crop is wider than the 11-24 (8mm-equivalent rectilinear when cropped to 3:2, which is stupidly wide in rectilinear format), about as long at the long end (22mm equivalent rectilinear when cropped to 3:2) and can be fisheye, rectilinear (after defishing) or anywhere in between using Lightroom or Camera Raw profiles.

The 8-15 defished via LR/ACR profiles is a hunk of junk compared to the 11-24.

First of all, I said "on crop". Second, who cares? I'm of the opinion that lens sharpness rarely matters on wide angle or mid range lenses. I've printed 8x10s from lousy lenses (28-135IS) shot on crop at diffraction-limited f-stops (f/13) and where the final image was only about 2MP and the print is sharp. Sharpness really only matters on telephotos where we often abuse the heck out of the optics for purposes of resolving power through cropping and enlarging. It's not all that uncommon for a final image from my 70-200/2.8L IS II to be composed of 1% of the lens' native image circle diagonal.

Defishing the 8-15 on crop from about 11-15mm produces an image that's plenty sharp enough for a good quality 24x36 print. Even though the 11-24 is better, it doesn't need to be. Further, I rarely (I mean, really rarely) think that an image wider than about 16mm equivalent (12mm on the 8-15 on crop) should be fully rectilinear. Even the images I often see from the 11-24 mostly look lousy wider than that. There are a few exceptions but I keep about 99.8% of my images that are that wide partly or fully in fisheye projection.

Not a style I think I could sell to many of our architectural clients ;-)

I don't carry round the 8-15/11-24/ts-e17/ts-e24 in my bag just for the exercise...

Definitely a case of YMMV ;-)

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I love the 100-400L II, and for me it was the must buy of the new Canon lenses for the year, but as I get deeper into my 35L II review I keep feeling like I'm shooting a reasonably sized Zeiss Otus with great autofocus. The image quality is that good. It's expensive, but...wow!

The second image is a crop of the first. That combination of pinpoint focus, amazing resolution, and then such creamy bokeh fall-away is pretty special.

 

[nicolas.det]

M3 is indeed a shame. Canon not able to match 3 year old Sony A6000, not to mention best it.

We recently bought an Sony alpha 6000 to compare with our 6 mouth old Canon EOS M3. Result: After 2 weeks of intensive testing we kept the Canon.

The Sony does not feel mature and the Canon has a far better (do not forget the lenses) image quality.

Regards

 

[Diltiazem]

This year I bought 5DSR, 50/1.8 STM and 35/1.4II. They all are amazing products, but 5DSR and 35/1.4 stand out for me.