I think we all need to calm down regarding lens announcements

[00Q]

Its nice to fantasise about new lens announcements, hoping to get that MK II or the IS we have all been waiting for.

But please remember that if canon keep on releasing lenses at the rate we want, it will be a lens every year, and we would be on Canon 24-70mm f/1.0 IS III by now. So no, canon is not gonna release a lens just because we want it, neither will keep on writing about it on this forum will help.

it is addictive to talk about it. I enjoy it. but please do not take rumours seriously.

 

[willrobb]

it is addictive to talk about it. I enjoy it. but please do not take rumours seriously.

I always feel that when people are debating about buying now or later based on a rumour they are jumping the gun a bit, you can pre-order when it's announced and get it when it's released, when it's just a rumour we can have a lot of fun talking about it until the cows come home and that's one of the reasons why I enjoy this forum. We get to deal with real things and fantasy things, we're all camera geeks here in one way or another and it's great to hear what every one thinks on a lot of topics, rumoured and real.....just stick to buying decisions based on the real stuff

 

[Gothmoth]

But please remember that if canon keep on releasing lenses at the rate we want, it will be a lens every year

well some lenses are old and need a replacement.
you know how old some of the canon lenses are?

with todays technology there could be a huge jump in IQ.
just look at the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II or the new 300mm f2.8 IS II lenses.

looking at canons past, a new version every 3-5 years would come as a suprise.

im in fact suprised that there is a rumor about a 70-200mm f4 IS II.
the current model was released in november 2006.

the EF 17-40mm is nearly 10 years old.

the EF 50mm f1.4 is 20 years old i think.

the EF 35mm f1.4 is from 1998.

the EF 300mm f4 IS is from 1997

the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L is from 2002.

the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS is from 1998

and these are lenses i sell a lot more often then 500mm or 600mm lenses.

so to be honest... i think we all have waited long enough.... don´t you think?

 

[AprilForever]

But please remember that if canon keep on releasing lenses at the rate we want, it will be a lens every year

well some lenses are old and need a replacement.
you know how old some of the canon lenses are?

with todays technology there could be a huge jump in IQ.
just look at the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II or the new 300mm f2.8 IS II lenses.

looking at canons past, a new version every 3-5 years would come as a suprise.

im in fact suprised that there is a rumor about a 70-200mm f4 IS II.
the current model was released in november 2006.

the EF 17-40mm is nearly 10 years old.

the EF 50mm f1.4 is 20 years old i think.

the EF 35mm f1.4 is from 1998.

the EF 300mm f4 IS is from 1997

the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L is from 2002.

the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS is from 1998

and these are lenses i sell a lot more often then 500mm or 600mm lenses.

so to be honest... i think we all have waited long enough.... don´t you think?

Indeed! Let us grab the torches and pitch forks! On a serious note, though, before the Earthquake, Canon was in the process of overhauling its line up, starting with the big whites. Hopefully, they will continue, now that things have settled...

 

[Axilrod]

But please remember that if canon keep on releasing lenses at the rate we want, it will be a lens every year

well some lenses are old and need a replacement.
you know how old some of the canon lenses are?

with todays technology there could be a huge jump in IQ.
just look at the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II or the new 300mm f2.8 IS II lenses.

looking at canons past, a new version every 3-5 years would come as a suprise.

im in fact suprised that there is a rumor about a 70-200mm f4 IS II.
the current model was released in november 2006.

the EF 17-40mm is nearly 10 years old.

the EF 50mm f1.4 is 20 years old i think.

the EF 35mm f1.4 is from 1998.

the EF 300mm f4 IS is from 1997

the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L is from 2002.

the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS is from 1998

and these are lenses i sell a lot more often then 500mm or 600mm lenses.

so to be honest... i think we all have waited long enough.... don´t you think?

Indeed! Let us grab the torches and pitch forks! On a serious note, though, before the Earthquake, Canon was in the process of overhauling its line up, starting with the big whites. Hopefully, they will continue, now that things have settled...

That comment doesn't even make sense.

Makes sense to me.... What part of it don't you get?

 

[Edwin Herdman]

u mad bro...all o' yaz.

 

[willrobb]

Makes perfect sense to me too. With an earthquake that killed nearly 20'000 people in Japan and then the terrible flooding in Thailand where canon also has production lines was a major knock back. Things still aren't fully back to normal in Japan...

 

[Astro]

i want new lenses with new coatings.

i mean 20 years!!! sure the physic behind the lenses is the same but there are new materials.

 

[CrimsonBlue]

Long-time lurker, first-time poster

well some lenses are old and need a replacement. you know how old some of the canon lenses are? with todays technology there could be a huge jump in IQ. just look at the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II or the new 300mm f2.8 IS II lenses.

the current model was released in november 2006.
the EF 17-40mm is nearly 10 years old.
the EF 50mm f1.4 is 20 years old i think.
the EF 35mm f1.4 is from 1998.
the EF 300mm f4 IS is from 1997
the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L is from 2002.
the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS is from 1998

and these are lenses i sell a lot more often then 500mm or 600mm lenses. so to be honest... i think we all have waited long enough.... don´t you think?

This argument makes absolutely no business sense. Canon's quarterly (and yearly) revenue was down significantly because of many factors. It's goal is to make money so that it can keep offering great products that allow it to make money. The execs are sitting in a room saying, "Let's piss everyone off by slowing things down!" They are constrained by how running a multi-billion dollar, multi-national company works.

The business of making lenses:
• The jump in IQ is because Canon uses super premium optics on those lenses you mentioned. $2500 and $7500 lenses aren't in the same category as a 24-70mm lens. When an update is released, it will be far more expensive to help cover new R&D and production costs
• Likewise, your costs decline substantially the longer you have a lens in production. Canon has every financial incentive to drag out production as long as possible
• If you produce far too many copies of a lens, you don't update it with new optics and scrap millions of dollars of inventory
• Agreed that those black lenses sell far more copies, yes, but what do you think the margin on a $750 lens compared to a $12,000 lens?

Same goes for camera bodies with price differentiation:
• Did we really think that there was going to be a 5D III with a 61pt AF or the same sensor as the 1DX? Why would people by the 1DX? For a non-removable grip? You have to segment your market so that people don't move down without giving up enough features.
• This is why you don't see a compact, Full Frame, Fast AF, 4K video, unicorn camera that costs $3000 -- because you couldn't charge more for a premium model. Some features have to stay (by Canon's choice) on the $7000 model.
• The AF on the 5D is unlikely to have a drastic improvement in the mkIII. You either have to go up to the 1DX or down to the 7D. That's on purpose, and it's okay to curse at Canon for that decision.

So, while we would LOVE for new lenses and bodies to be released all the time, it would drive Canon's camera division into the ground. R&D is not cheap, neither is tooling a new production line, and making a camera that serves up enough ultra pro features at the low and mid level wouldn't make any economic sense. I don't want to make Canon sound evil, but this kind of production practice and market segmentation is the only way you can stay profitable enough to continue staying in business. Luckily, there are other more profitable divisions within Canon worldwide (office equipment division, etc.) that help keep everything afloat.

Sorry for the rant! I'm dying to get my hands on a 1DX, 5DIII, 200-400mm f/4, and a new 24-70mm, but we should keep in mind that Canon wants us to have those products too and will get them to us as fast as economically possible.

 

[Gothmoth]

Re: Long-time lurker, first-time poster

Agreed that those black lenses sell far more copies, yes, but what do you think the margin on a $750 lens compared to a $12,000 lens?

well do you think canon is making the big money with the 500mm or the EF-S lenses?
do they make more money with the 1D X or the rebels?

it´s "volume" x "margin".

there is the profit.

So, while we would LOVE for new lenses and bodies to be released all the time, it would drive Canon's camera division into the ground

well if canon is unable to produce a new 50mm lens in 20 years or a new 17-40mm in 10 years without going broke .... they are doing something wrong.... lol.

other companys produce new lenses all the time without going broke on R&D cost.
how can companys like olympus afford to produce new m43 lenses?
or lenses for a small system like the new fuji? they don´t even have a customer base for these new systems.

canon has a huge customer base and could sell these new lenses immediately.

sure profit maximization is always a concern... but even ford has stopped producing the ford t-model at one point....

 

[Astro]

Re: Long-time lurker, first-time poster

The business of making lenses:
• The jump in IQ is because Canon uses super premium optics on those lenses you mentioned. $2500 and $7500 lenses aren't in the same category as a 24-70mm lens. When an update is released, it will be far more expensive to help cover new R&D and production costs
• Likewise, your costs decline substantially the longer you have a lens in production. Canon has every financial incentive to drag out production as long as possible
• If you produce far too many copies of a lens, you don't update it with new optics and scrap millions of dollars of inventory
• Agreed that those black lenses sell far more copies, yes, but what do you think the margin on a $750 lens compared to a $12,000 lens?

.....

So, while we would LOVE for new lenses and bodies to be released all the time, it would drive Canon's camera division into the ground.

so you say lenses are different to:

cars
cpus
printers
handys
monitors
blu-ray player
etc.

why do we have 10-20 year old optics but not printers, cars, cpus or handys?

of course you can not improve optics as fast as other technology ... but all these things cost R&D too. your argumentation has a hole i think.

imho canon is not producing new lenses because they don´t have the competition.
their old stuff is selling well enough.

 

[CrimsonBlue]

Re: Long-time lurker, first-time poster

so you say lenses are different to:
cars
cpus
printers
handys
monitors
blu-ray player
etc.
why do we have 10-20 year old optics but not printers, cars, cpus or handys?

of course you can not improve optics as fast as other technology ... but all these things cost R&D too. your argumentation has a hole i think.

imho canon is not producing new lenses because they don´t have the competition.

You've proven my point masterfully The difference in lens technology/quality has not forced any of the dominant manufacturers to update all of their lenses on a regular basis because the technology advances (and competition) don't require it. Cars, CPUs, cell phones -- all of these evolve on a monthly basis. Miss innovation and you're out of business quickly (Blackberry, Nokia...)

Canon absolutely has competition, and has actually been reacting less quickly than some might have thought. No one thought the Sony Alpha series would take off, but Sony does have (or used to have) a reputable name as the leader in consumer electronics. Nikon has made HUGE inroads in the last 3-4 years. Canon has innovated its long glass as best it can, but Nikon has done a better job with camera bodies (my personal view.)

To say that Canon isn't producing new lenses because it doesn't have the competition misses quite a bit. Canon is very worried about Nikon -- just look at all the dark lenses on the sidelines of major sporting events now, when 5 years ago they were all Canon white.

The R&D process is arduous -- look how long it takes for patents to make it into actual lenses (and often times they never materialize because they can't be produced in sufficient yield with proper quality. This is the case with all camera/lens manufacturers -- I'm just highlighting that it takes time and it's hard to react quickly to competitors when tooling a new lens takes years.

In full disclosure, I have good knowledge of Canon Japan's corporate team. Nothing I've said here should be shocking to anyone; just a reminder that Canon is fully aware of customer desires and will deliver as soon as they are able. Believe me, they want to sell you a newer, more expensive lens as soon as possible!

 

[Astro]

Re: Long-time lurker, first-time poster

You've proven my point masterfully The difference in quality has not forced any of the dominant manufacturers to update all of their lenses on a regular basis because the technology advances (and competition) don't require it.

nikon has a better 50mm lens.
problem for us canon user: sigma has a kind of bad reputation, zeiss is very expensiv and has no AF.

To say that Canon isn't producing new lenses because it doesn't have the competition misses quite a bit. Canon is very worried about Nikon -- just look at all the dark lenses on the sidelines of major sporting events now, when 5 years ago they were all Canon white.

i doubt that. white is more prominent that is why you get that impression.

bejing:

anyway... the question is why can, for example, olympus design new lenses en mass for m43 and canon has lenses that are methusalems?
it´s not as if a 50mm prime for 35mm is so much harder to design then for m43.

I'm just highlighting that it takes time and it's hard to react quickly to competitors when tooling a new lens takes years.

not 20 or 10 years. as other companys proved.

In full disclosure, I have good knowledge of Canon Japan's corporate team.

of course. who not on a internet forum?

 

[CrimsonBlue]

re:

Forgive my hyperbole -- they weren't all Canon white, but at least at US sporting events (probably a little further back than 5 years) -- the vast majority were Canon. Go and find a photo where there are mixed lenses, I'll applaud you, but the fact is that Canon has owned professional sports for years and that has been changing in the last few years.

If you can do a better job, go make your own camera company. It's pretty easy to whine about how XYZ isn't up to your standards when you're on the sideline.

Going back into my hole now. Sorry for trying to impart a little business acumen to counter our natural exuberance.

 

[Astro]

Re: re:

Forgive my hyperbole -- they weren't all Canon white, but at least at US sporting events (probably a little further back than 5 years) -- the vast majority were Canon. Go and find a photo where there are mixed lenses, I'll applaud you, but the fact is that Canon has owned professional sports for years and that has been changing in the last few years.

supertele competition => new lenses.

other lenses no competition => no new lenses.


seems to prove my point

 

[jcns]

Re: Long-time lurker, first-time poster



nikon has a better 50mm lens.
problem for us canon user: sigma has a kind of bad reputation, zeiss is very expensiv and has no AF.

from Canon's perspective, they don't have to worry about replacing the 50mm any time soon then, do they?

 

[Canon-F1]

Re: Long-time lurker, first-time poster

anyway... the question is why can, for example, olympus design new lenses en mass for m43 and canon has lenses that are methusalems?
it´s not as if a 50mm prime for 35mm is so much harder to design then for m43.

and the standards for the non L lenses are not as high.

a 400mm f2.8 is a different beast then a 35mm or 50mm.

 

[Astro]

Re: Long-time lurker, first-time poster

from Canon's perspective, they don't have to worry about replacing the 50mm any time soon then, do they?

they don´t.
that´s what im saying. but it´s not because they could not afford the R&D.

the new lens could as well sell for 8-10 years. with an IQ that´s better fitted for digital sensors.

 

[smirkypants]

I think I have been waiting patiently for at 200-400/f4 since about the time Saddam Hussein was seeing his last days. It's been a LONG time and to be completely fair, until the 70-300 came out, Canon's long zooms were kind of lame. The 100-400 is kind of lame. It's not like there's something that "kinda" works in this range to replace the 100-400 or 200-400 either. The choice is between inflexible long primes and mediocre long zooms. Nikon makes an absolute killer 200-400/f4. I just hate their camera line-up.

 

[CrimsonBlue]

release cycles

Back to the thread topic itself...

it suffices to say that Canon would like to get new technology to us as soon as economically possible. I was in Tokyo when the earthquake hit last year -- lots of damage to many manufacturers, to say the very least (not to mention the human toll.)

Lenses and camera are all on loose cycles. Those cycles are getting shorter with the fast rise of Nikon, who blitzed their lineup in 2007. Canon is beginning to react, it just takes time so let's be patient

Lens releases per year:

Nikon | Canon (with specific models)
(6) 2011 (4): 500mm II; 600mm II; 18-55mm EF-S; 55-250mm EF-S
(9) 2010 (7): 300mm II; 400mm II; 8-15mm; 70-300m L; 1.4TC; 2.0TC; 70-200 II
(7) 2009 (5): 100mm Macro; 15-85mm EF-S; 18-135mm EF-S; 17mm TS; 24mm TS;
(7) 2008 (4): 24mm f/1.4 II; 18-200mm EF-S; 200mm f/2; 800mm
(7) 2007 (4): 16-35mm f/2.8; 14mm f/2.8 II; 55-250mm EF-S; 18-55mm EF-S
(4) 2006 (3): 70-200mm f/4 IS; 50mm f/1.2; 85mm f/1.2; 17-55mm EF-S;
(2) 2005 (4): 60mm EF-S; 24-105mm; 70-300mm IS; 18-55mm EF-S
(4) 2004 (4): 70-300mm DO IS; 28-300mm; 10-22mm EF-S; 17-85mm; 28-90mm