More Mentions of 2014 Being the Year of the Lens [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
wider than 12mm?
the widest fiel of view gives the 17 TSE f4 which has a image circle of 67mm instead of 43mm of a normal lens.
by attaching a hypothetical wide angel converter with x=0.64 this would compress the resulting picture to a 10.9mm f 2.6 view. Allready this is a bit wider than 12 or 14mm, and this converter would give this amazing lens additional possibilities (just with no sense in using the movements anymore, or only on crop).
but to be on topic again, a similar design like this lens would give the possibility of a much wider lens than the existing 14mm, and would even be nearly free of distortion.
Now to be hypothetical: by sacrifying some fastness it should be possible to design a even wider field of view, without sacrifying image quality to much.
Next question may be answered by the marketing compartment, but how many leneses with a 11mm 2.8 or hypothetical 9-10mm and 4 or 5.6 fastness would sell for a price between 2000$ - 4000$ ?
I am not sure, if for such a specialised lens a zoom is needed, assuming it would sacrify either focal lenght, brightness or image quality.
the widest fiel of view gives the 17 TSE f4 which has a image circle of 67mm instead of 43mm of a normal lens.
by attaching a hypothetical wide angel converter with x=0.64 this would compress the resulting picture to a 10.9mm f 2.6 view. Allready this is a bit wider than 12 or 14mm, and this converter would give this amazing lens additional possibilities (just with no sense in using the movements anymore, or only on crop).
but to be on topic again, a similar design like this lens would give the possibility of a much wider lens than the existing 14mm, and would even be nearly free of distortion.
Now to be hypothetical: by sacrifying some fastness it should be possible to design a even wider field of view, without sacrifying image quality to much.
Next question may be answered by the marketing compartment, but how many leneses with a 11mm 2.8 or hypothetical 9-10mm and 4 or 5.6 fastness would sell for a price between 2000$ - 4000$ ?
I am not sure, if for such a specialised lens a zoom is needed, assuming it would sacrify either focal lenght, brightness or image quality.
Upvote
0
Woody said:neuroanatomist said:
I followed the link above and the lens list that followed were CR's predictions, not based on any CR2 type of rumors. What it tells us is CR site owner is poor in predictions.
I will not be surprised if 2014 seriously turns out to be the Year of the Lens. Firstly, Canon Imaging needs to improve on their profits and the ILC market is nearly saturated. So, selling more lenses is an option. Secondly, Nikon has nearly caught up with Canon in the lens department, so it's time for Canon to put some distance between themselves and Nikon. Lenses like the widest rectilinear zoom lens and 16-50 f/4L IS will help cement Canon's status as the manufacturer with the widest lens options. Thirdly, the EOS-M fire sale is working (see Amazon and BCNRanking), so it's time for Canon to release more M-mount lenses.
Also, Sigma is outperforming Canon at the moment with their Art series lenses at a significantly lower price point. I think this could be a good marketing ploy by Canon to prevent people from potentially jumping ship to Sigma by putting out a rumour that a significant number of lenses are coming.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
stulandr said:
I've seen statements like this several times lately, but I'm not sure the argument is valid. Previously, Sigma's core strategy was two-fold: make decent lenses and sell them at lower prices than OEM lenses; and, make niche lenses no one else would (e.g., the 200-500/2.8 at $26K). They accomplished the former by having lower optical quality than OEM lenses, certain design decisions (e.g., zooms that are f/6.3 at the long end), and apparently lower QC standards.
Now, it seems that they're struggling to redefine their core strategy. Their 35/1.4, 18-35/1.8 DC, and 24-105/4 OS are not inexpensive lenses, and the 30/1.4 DC is also pretty expensive for an APS-C only prime lens. The 30/1.4 DC and 18-35/1.8 DC have no direct OEM competition. The Sigma 35/1.4 does directly compete with the Canon L, and wins. But it's beating a lens that was designed 15 years ago, so perhaps that's not too surprising, and as I said the Sigma 35mm is not exactly cheap. Also, anecdotally I have noticed that several people who sing the praises of the Sigma 35/1.4 have also stated that they had to try 2-3 copies to get a good one – so it looks like Sigma's QC issues are still present. The 24-105/4 OS hasn't been tested yet, but judging by the MTF curves (although there are caveats in doing so) the Canon counterpart is slightly better at the wide end, and the long end appears that it will be a wash. I think the vast majority of 24-105L lenses that Canon cells are in kits, and the Sigma counterpart is priced 50% higher than the current Canon kit lens price.
So, looking at the Art offerings from Sigma, two have no direct Canon competition, and of the two that do, one is better and cheaper, while the other is not better and is more expensive. Thus, I disagree with the statement that Sigma is outperforming Canon, and I sincerely doubt that Canon is terribly worried about their customers "jumping ship" to Sigma.
Upvote
0
L
Lichtgestalt
Guest
i was a sigma nay sayer for a long time. i had my share of problems and said "no more sigmas" 4-5 years ago.
but the new 35mm f1.4 is a great lens.
no problems at all here.
thought im curious to see how good the AF is for telephoto sigmas.
but cheaper than the worse canon.
you hear the same from canon lens user. especially people who shoot testcharts all day and not much else.
overall the sigma quality is MUCH better today.
but the new 35mm f1.4 is a great lens.
no problems at all here.
thought im curious to see how good the AF is for telephoto sigmas.
neuroanatomist said:
but cheaper than the worse canon.
you hear the same from canon lens user. especially people who shoot testcharts all day and not much else.
overall the sigma quality is MUCH better today.
Upvote
0
Lichtgestalt said:i was a sigma nay sayer for a long time. i had my share of problems and said "no more sigmas" 4-5 years ago.
but the new 35mm f1.4 is a great lens.
no problems at all here.
thought im curious to see how good the AF is for telephoto sigmas.
neuroanatomist said:
but cheaper than the worse canon.
you hear the same from canon lens user. especially people who shoot testcharts all day and not much else.
overall the sigma quality is MUCH better today.
Last sentence may be true to some extent. But that only means that they were previously atrocious. I went through two copies of the 35/1.4 mounted on my 5d3 and had nothing but inconsistencies in varying distances and lighting. Stunningly awesome when it hit (35% success). Tried AFMA through FoCal and was still getting inconsistent results. Before we get to the accusations of user error, let it be known that I have gone through about 30 canon lenses and never had this problem. And no, I was not shooting test charts. I spent a week with both copies taking hundreds of shots with each in regular outings with the family.
Another thing to note is that I am not the only person I know that had these issues with AF. If I had two copies that were bad and know two other people that also had at least one bad copy that I knew of, I'd say Sigma is batting pretty poorly. I will give Sigma a serious consideration again when they can license Canon's OEM AF tech instead of backwards engineering it.
Upvote
0
After further thought, here's what I'd like to see:
Not holding my breath. I'm expecting a pony long before any of these things, with the possible exception of the last one.
- A 50mm f/1.0 reissue (optionally in a version 2)
- A 600mm lens that is short enough to fit in a typical camera bag
- A 12mm (or wider) rectilinear lens
- An EF superzoom with more reach than the 24-105, but without massive zoom creep problems
Not holding my breath. I'm expecting a pony long before any of these things, with the possible exception of the last one.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
dgatwood said:
Regarding the last one, do you mean a non-L lens? The 28-300L has much more reach than the 24-105L, has IQ that's basically equivalent across their respective ranges, and I certainly never had any zoom creep issues (that's why there's a zoom tensioning ring, and if yours wasn't wroking properly, the lens needed service).
Regarding the shorter 600mm lens, that's where diffractive optics come into play. The 400/4 DO is physically shorter than both the 300/2.8 IS II and 400/5.6 lenses, and only 1 cm longer than the 300/4 IS. If I had to guess, I'd say a 600/4 DO might be ~14" long, about the length of the 400/5.6L with its hood extended. Based on published patents, Canon is still actively working on DO technology.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
I've considered the 24-300, but it is kind of a whale. What I'd really like is something closer to what a 17-135 does on a crop body, but on a full frame—something more along the lines of 24-200, ideally a DO version.
And yes, the lens creep from h*** I experienced was on a 28-135. I sent two back before giving up on that one. Not only was it not as long as I'd have liked, but it just felt insanely cheap, even when compared with the kit lens that came with my original Digital Rebel.
neuroanatomist said:
Yeah, but 14 inches is still hopeless unless you're not planning to carry any other lenses but that one. You won't find a camera bag that will hold something that big unless it's one of those giant VHS bags from the 1980s, and even then, it won't hold your camera along with it. So at that size, it's still a hard-core specialty lens that you'd buy only if you plan to do a lot of sports shooting where you have to have the reach, and where you're pretty much just going there to shoot with that one lens from a single spot for an extended period of time.
Here's what I keep thinking: Almost all of the space that a long lens takes up is just air. If you collapsed that giant 18" long 600mm lens down to where the glass was touching, it probably wouldn't be that much bigger than my 70-300, give or take, even without diffractive optics. With DO, it might even be smaller. If they can make lenses where the focus mechanism moves elements precisely, other than the manufacturing complexity inherently resulting in more QC rejects, what's so much more difficult about making all the elements move, allowing the entire body to collapse like an old-style telescope?
(Yes, I know it would be a pain in the *** to engineer, but it would make those sorts of lenses a lot more usable by ordinary folks.)
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
dgatwood said:Here's what I keep thinking: Almost all of the space that a long lens takes up is just air. If you collapsed that giant 18" long 600mm lens down to where the glass was touching, it probably wouldn't be that much bigger than my 70-300, give or take, even without diffractive optics. With DO, it might even be smaller. If they can make lenses where the focus mechanism moves elements precisely, other than the manufacturing complexity inherently resulting in more QC rejects, what's so much more difficult about making all the elements move, allowing the entire body to collapse like an old-style telescope?
(Yes, I know it would be a pain in the *** to engineer, but it would make those sorts of lenses a lot more usable by ordinary folks.)
Your last line is the key point - a 600mm lens engineered to be collapsible. How many 'ordinary folks' would be able to afford the extraordinarily exorbitant cost of such a lens?
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:dgatwood said:Here's what I keep thinking: Almost all of the space that a long lens takes up is just air. If you collapsed that giant 18" long 600mm lens down to where the glass was touching, it probably wouldn't be that much bigger than my 70-300, give or take, even without diffractive optics. With DO, it might even be smaller. If they can make lenses where the focus mechanism moves elements precisely, other than the manufacturing complexity inherently resulting in more QC rejects, what's so much more difficult about making all the elements move, allowing the entire body to collapse like an old-style telescope?
(Yes, I know it would be a pain in the *** to engineer, but it would make those sorts of lenses a lot more usable by ordinary folks.)
Your last line is the key point - a 600mm lens engineered to be collapsible. How many 'ordinary folks' would be able to afford the extraordinarily exorbitant cost of such a lens?
It wouldn't necessarily be more expensive. A significant percentage of the cost of any new piece of technology is the R&D expense amortized across the expected number of sales. If you make a lens that 1% of people would consider using, you have to amortize that cost across a relatively small number of sales. If you make a lens that 50% of people would consider using, you can amortize that cost across a lot more sales. Build a lens that is more physically approachable by the general public, and more people will buy it, which means you can charge less money for it.
This, of course, assumes that they can overcome the QC problems so the yield doesn't suck.
On second thought, you're probably right that at least the very first model they tried that trick on would cost a small fortune.
Upvote
0
GMCPhotographics
Canon Rumors Premium
Wow....year of the lens....a pair of wides no one wanted and a set of TS-e lenses that certainly no one wanted....
Meanwhile, the 35mm f1.4 II L and 100-400 II L unicorns stay in their stable....
Meanwhile, the 35mm f1.4 II L and 100-400 II L unicorns stay in their stable....
Upvote
0
- Status
