Best & Worst Releases From Canon in 2015

[pj1974]

During 2015 I did something that I would not have expected… I bought Canon’s 50mm f/1.8 STM. In years gone by I have owned 2 copies of the 50mm f/1.8 II. Both of those lenses had inconsistent AF (even of my 7D), so much so – that it made using (and keeping) the lens a negative experience. So I sold both.

I tried out the 50mm STM at my local camera store (“Diamonds”, here in Adelaide, South Australia) – and I was given a good price. (I have bought a fair bit of gear from them in the past). The new 50mm’s STM AF is just worlds better than the AF system on the 50mm II lens. I noted this when trying the lens in store already (both on the store’s 700D camera, and my own 7D). It is so much improved, that I actually ‘enjoy’ using this lens.

In other posts / threads on CR about the 50mm STM, I’ve written extensively about my experience with this lens. So I won’t repeat here, just to say that it has great IQ from f/2.8 onwards, and ‘very decent’ at f/2.2 and f/2.5 already. Minimum focusing distance is great, and 7-blade aperture a huge noticeable improvement over the 5-blades of the older version.

My wife and I compiled photos (to print) for my step-daughter’s (Hannah’s) 9th birthday the other week, using an online ‘photo-book’ service. Most of the best photos of Hannah this year were from the 50mm STM, at apertures between f/2.2 and f/5.6 (where it is bitingly sharp!)

Thus for me ‘personally’ in terms of what I’ve bought / used - the 50mm STM is ‘Canon’s best 2015 release. Having written that, I am still looking forward to seeing what Canon will do for another 50mm prime, hopefully something like a f/1.4 – f/2 non L lens, with similar specifications (e.g. IS please!) as the 35mm f/2 USM IS… which I will likely buy / replace the 50mm STM with.

As for Canon’s worst for 2015, I agree, probably the XC10 (not a huge market for it, I expect.. expensive and too much of a hybrid).

Other ‘good to excellent’ offerings include the 11-24mm f/4 L, 100-400mm II and 35mm II. Not that I expect I’ll buy any of these though.
Interestingly, my Sigma 8-16mm covers a very similar range on APS-C as the 11-24mm on FF, and my 70-300mm on my 7D as the 100-400mm II on FF). I’m very happy with both these lenses!

Paul 8)

 

[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.

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

Oh, I don't know.

 

[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.

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.

First of all, you said "The 8-15L on crop is wider than the 11-24 (8mm-equivalent rectilinear when cropped to 3:2...." which is not true, the rectilinear conversion of an 8mm lens on a 1.6 crop camera is 12.8mm on a ff camera, so it is not an 8mm equivalent; and the 8-15 on a crop is not wider than the 11-24 on a ff when converted to rectilinear. So both of those are simply not true.

If you are "of the opinion that lens sharpness rarely matters on wide angle or mid range lenses" then I can well understand how you could get "Defishing the 8-15 on crop from about 11-15mm produces an image that's plenty sharp enough for a good quality 24x36 print" I couldn't.

As for using 1% of the native image circle diameter, if you are cropping down to such small percentages of your crop camera image, again, you are doing something I couldn't, good luck to you as we are obviously talking about different levels of detail and quality.

 

[Eldar]

I ended up with several new Canon products this year, including a 5DSR, 11-24mm f4L, 35mm f1.4L II and 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS II. If I desregard some AF issues with the 35mm f1.4L II, which now is gone (would have liked to understand why), I can only say that I am impressed with everyone of them.

Initially I was very negative towards the 5DS/R, but that was based on spec reading and before I got it. As long as you understand the consequences of dealing with 50MP, it is fantastic and it is currently my most used camera. It still has two major flaws though. 1st is the lack of metering locked to AF point, which should have been so obvious that I still find it hard to comprehend how they could decide to omit it, the 2nd is the lack of support of different focusing screens. I solved that by buying the Focusing Screens S-type screen, but it is a cumbersome installation process and metering must be manually adjusted. I expect the 5DSR to be dedicated to my Zeiss glass as soon as the 5DIV and/or 1DXII comes out.

I also believe the 400mm f4 DO IS II is a fantastic lens worth mentioning.

I don't believe there are any worst releases to mention (I don't do video). The only thing that bothers me is timing. At the beginning of the year I was expecting to see both 1DXII and 5DIV, of which the latter probably was a bit optimistic considering the 5DS/R release. Withing the lens department, maybe a couple of TS-E (45, 90 + macro) and/or 50/85/135L updates.

 

[tomri]

Winner: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM

A 50mm plastic lens that mimics the performance of its 20 year old predecessor.
Whow! That tells us something about Canon's innovation this year!

Cheers!

 

[Maximilian]

I can live quite well with this ranking although I also understand that many are voting for the 100-400L II.

I will not buy the 50 STM as I am waiting for the 50/1.4 successor, but I feel tempted.

My personal reason for the 50 STM was a conversation that just took place this weekend:
I was talking to a friend of mine, not so much into photography as I am but still that much that he recognized that his APS-C double zoom kit was not delivering enough to him, especially when taking portraits of his toddler. We came to the point that composition, attention to the BG and particularly DOF were the reasons why his portraits didn't pop.
Problem was that he's on the "dark side" so the cheapest Nikon option was a 50/1.8 for about 180€ instead of the 50 STM for 115€. That's 57% more (although the Nikkor seems to deliver better corner IQ).

Conclusion:
Canon is delivering a real steal entrance into serious photography making the people long for more and spend more later on.
That's the same reason why I found the EF-S 10-18 (2014) a real clever decision to offer an "affordable" UWA/WA option.

 

[Lee Jay]

First of all, you said "The 8-15L on crop is wider than the 11-24 (8mm-equivalent rectilinear when cropped to 3:2...." which is not true, the rectilinear conversion of an 8mm lens on a 1.6 crop camera is 12.8mm on a ff camera,

It is true.

The vertical angle of view of the 11-24 on full-frame, at 11mm, is 95 degrees.
The vertical angle of view of the 8-15 on crop, at 8mm, is 112 degrees.

Thus, when cropped to 3:2, the 8-15 on crop at 8mm is much wider (HFOV = 148 degrees) than the 11-24 is on full frame (HFOV = 117 degrees).

The projections are different thus the angles-of-view at the same focal lengths are different. Check yourself. Here are the formulas:

Fisheye: 4*arcsin(sensor size/(focal length*4))
Rectilinear: 2*arctan(sensor size/(focal length*2))

As for using 1% of the native image circle diameter, if you are cropping down to such small percentages of your crop camera image, again, you are doing something I couldn't, good luck to you as we are obviously talking about different levels of detail and quality.

Well, how do you get a picture at 2,800mm equivalent, hand held, while standing on the side of a mountain, of an A-380 at 40,000 feet 14 miles away?

 

[jeffa4444]

Im going to be the lone voice that votes for the Canon 5DS (I disagree with Private by Design about dropping it and only having the 5DSr).

As a landscape camera used 95% of the time on a tripod the camera provides absolutely brilliant IQ and the ability to crop way beyond the 5D MKIII or 6D. The beefed up base plate allows for really tightening the camera to the dove plate and the motorised mirror does what it states on the tin. This camera really is about its resolution and it doesnt disappoint. As a portrait camera the detail in hair & texture in cloth etc make it stand-out and works great with the EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM Macro.

I also bought the 50mm f1.8 STM lens and for the money its a steal and worthy of any camera bag.

 

[scrup]

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?

So the M10 is much better than the M3?

 

[ashmadux]

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?

So the M10 is much better than the M3?

Didnt quite understand this one either.

Im actually returning my M3 for a replacement in the next hour, . The camera has serious shutter 'bang', and this camera has failed to produce a traditional sharp image in 2 weeks- even on a tripod. No such issue with the M, even handheld at 1/10 sec. I swear it makes my hand move when im shooting.

I just noticed the same thing mentioned in some others review - asking the same question if the shutter harshness is causing soft images.

Other than that, besides the quirks, I absolutely needed a m-like camera with a swivel screen for my cityscapes.

Now only if i could get some sharp images out of it, on a freaking tripod..sheesh. I will keep it if i can get over the issues. The EVF is handy, though i would not purchase that thing at 200+. Nope.

edit: I will say thing- the m10 feel solid and nice in the hands. The M3 feels delicate because of these damn cheap canon rebel plastics. The plastic on my t2i feels wayyyyy better, and doesnt take scratches that the new versions do.

PS- give me a g5x with a aps-c sensor and a real swivel screen...Id be one happy guy.

 

[mskrystalmeth]

Don't know even if the Canon Twin Sisters were mentioned.

Canon EOS 5DS / 5DS R

Canon has arrived Four Years Late, with the Twin Sisters. Remember this was done 4 years ago by Nikon, with D800/E and were a hit with reviewers , and Sales Hit.

Canon has proven to all and it's fan base...that having a 50mp sensor does not make it the best Camera. Nikon D800/E and D810 and Sony's A7rll out shine the Canon Twin Sisters in the Low Light and Dynamic Department and ISO Performance.

And while shooting in Chinatown in LA recently...I came across Three Canon Users of 5Dr. I asked them what they thought of the Camera...They all said, We are glad we are renting this camera and didn't buy it. I ask would they buy the Canon Twin Sisters...All Three said No!

Canon, while along with Nikon..On the Mirrorless Department is a Massive Failure.

 

[Loswr]

Canon has arrived Four Years Late, with the Twin Sisters. Remember this was done 4 years ago by Nikon, with D800/E and were a hit with reviewers , and Sales Hit.

See, I just knew there was a reason Nikon released the D810 so close on the heels of the D800/E. With the D600 it was the oil splattering and the ban from sale in the world's most populous nation. With the D800, it was that the cameras were so successful. :

 

[mskrystalmeth]

Canon has arrived Four Years Late, with the Twin Sisters. Remember this was done 4 years ago by Nikon, with D800/E and were a hit with reviewers , and Sales Hit.

See, I just knew there was a reason Nikon released the D810 so close on the heels of the D800/E. With the D600 it was the oil splattering and the ban from sale in the world's most populous nation. With the D800, it was that the cameras were so successful. :

I guess 4 Years is on the Heel? The Nikon D800/E was released 4 years ago. Please keep up.

 

[Loswr]

Canon has arrived Four Years Late, with the Twin Sisters. Remember this was done 4 years ago by Nikon, with D800/E and were a hit with reviewers , and Sales Hit.

See, I just knew there was a reason Nikon released the D810 so close on the heels of the D800/E. With the D600 it was the oil splattering and the ban from sale in the world's most populous nation. With the D800, it was that the cameras were so successful. :

I guess 4 Years is on the Heel? The Nikon D800/E was released 4 years ago. Please keep up.

The D810 was released two years after the D800, which for Canon/Nikon FF bodies as of 2014 (when the D810 launched) was 'on the heels'. Please try to read and comprehend.

 

[NancyP]

I have to get that nifty fifty. I am crazy about my shorty forty. There's a great deal to be said for a good but not supreme lens that is light weight and allows you to carry additional primes, if you are a prime shooter or just want to keep a spare lens in your pocket for possible landscapes when you are out there shooting with long tele or tele macro.

 

[Woody]

Worst releases from Canon in 2014: all their cameras with out-dated sensor designs, leading to slow or incapable on-sensor AF, lack of 4k video capability and non-competitive high and/or low ISO performance.

Perhaps Canon improve in all these areas in 2015. I won't hold up my hopes 'cos I've been disappointed too many times already.

 

[sanj]

Worst releases from Canon in 2014: all their cameras with out-dated sensor designs, leading to slow or incapable on-sensor AF, lack of 4k video capability and non-competitive high and/or low ISO performance.

Perhaps Canon improve in all these areas in 2015. I won't hold up my hopes 'cos I've been disappointed too many times already.

I have full faith in Canon to fix and even better the slight differences in sensor tech in their new releases.

 

[Maximilian]

Worst releases from Canon in 2014: all their cameras with out-dated sensor designs, leading to slow or incapable on-sensor AF, lack of 4k video capability and non-competitive high and/or low ISO performance.

Perhaps Canon improve in all these areas in 2015. I won't hold up my hopes 'cos I've been disappointed too many times already.

Yeah!

The sensor design is so bad that even photojournalists around the world couldn't avoid getting prices for their awful pictures.
[/sarc mode]

Back to real world:
Yes, the sensor design of Canon is the one feature where they are behind the competition. But not as far as some EXMOR gurus always say.
On sensor AF: DPAF is bad? Interesting to hear. First mention to me
No 4K: a decision Canon did take. Not, that they couldn't make. Low cost video guys already have turned away from Canon. Maybe they decided that there's no more market to milk ...
Non-competitive low ISO: see above at sensor design.
Non-competitive low high: Aha! One brand-new Sony a7SII makes the former best nightscopes for 4 years, 1DX and 6D, look a little bit old? Let's wait for the successors next spring and talk again.

You try to make a catastrophe from a few deficits that are in the sub 10% deviation.
But at the same time you conceal the points where the others have their sub 10% deviation

Yes, I also wish my Canon product to be top notch at every point - but that isn't possible with any other brand either. If you don't like what Canon is doing, jump ship. If you don't like some things Canon is doing, rethink your scaling.
Stop making doomsday out of it :

 

[Ivan Muller]

I bought the M3 having high hopes but expecting the worst...

I took it to Europe for almost three weeks and made many many great 'street' and travel photographs with it...later on I got the EVF which improved things a lot...

In my neck of the woods it was the cheapest mirror-less offering by far...(Sony is absent in our market having pulled out at the beginning of the year) and the fact that it integrated seamlessly with the rest of my Canon stuff was and still is a bonus...

AF speed and the size of the AF 'points' really is probably its worst feature and the image quality up to 1600iso its best

Definitely not without its flaws but better than expected and a qualified pleasure to use...

As for the 5DS & R I would really like to get one but I am sitting on the fence waiting to see what the 5d4 and 6D2 has to offer. After using the 24mp M3 I realized that anything just a little more than 24mp probably would be more than good enough for me...so hoping for a camera with around 28mp and very good high iso image quality...

 

[Zv]

I have to get that nifty fifty. I am crazy about my shorty forty. There's a great deal to be said for a good but not supreme lens that is light weight and allows you to carry additional primes, if you are a prime shooter or just want to keep a spare lens in your pocket for possible landscapes when you are out there shooting with long tele or tele macro.

+1 just like the "best camera is the one in your hand" same goes for a lens in the pocket! Sure, it's not the best but it gets the job done for those extra shots you might have missed due to space constraints.

It also pairs well with the EOS M via adaptor to get some nice portrait shots though AF is a bit slow. Makes a half decent 80mm lens for when you are shooting primarily wide with your other FF body. A native M 50 would be awesome but until then this set up is the next best thing.