New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)

[privatebydesign]

What's Canon's excuse for not offering a high quality fast aperture 50mm prime--something that is arguably the foundation for any 135 format system?

Well if you discount the high quality fast aperture they do make, and I am not sure why you would, then we could start discussing your other "arguable point" , the 50mm lens has not been the basis of any 135 format system for decades, literally decades. Recent comments suggest that only 4% to 5% of DSLR purchasers actually buy any other lens than the slow midrange zoom that came in the kit. So, we have reduced the people interested in a 50mm lens to considerably less than 5% of DSLR owners, Canon already make four 50mm lenses that all have good product differentiation and they know exactly how many of each they sell, most of those actual potential purchasers are happy with one of the four offerings Canon already make, if not they have the choice of several other manufacturers also at different price and specification points.

Where is the upside in making a new 50? At least a 50 f2 IS fits in with their current prime series and offers yet another feature set to differentiate it from the competition. Time and money is better spent on more interesting lenses with mass appeal, to that <5% of owners, like a 100-400 etc etc.

 

[e17paul]

I'd love it if they updated the 28–135 to be a 24–135, to be the full-frame equivalent for the 15–85.

Thing is, they'd have to sunset the 24-105 lens at that point...which is something they seem hesitant to do. I certainly can't see them even imagining starting a new, cheap kit lens product line when they have a successful one already, and backlogs on lenses that need updates.

Likewise for anything like the 28-200/28-300. Just too hard to get it down to a reasonable price that people will buy it, knowing it inherently has IQ and performance trade-offs

A replacement for the 28-135 will become important as full frame reaches the Rebel price range. This won't happen soon, but probably in 5 years, certainly before 10. I'm predicting an STM version, but not for a few years yet.

 

[dgatwood]

I'd love it if they updated the 28–135 to be a 24–135, to be the full-frame equivalent for the 15–85.

Thing is, they'd have to sunset the 24-105 lens at that point...which is something they seem hesitant to do.

Not necessarily. The 28–135 isn't an L lens, and a 24–135 probably wouldn't be, either.

 

[StudentOfLight]

I'd love it if they updated the 28–135 to be a 24–135, to be the full-frame equivalent for the 15–85.

Thing is, they'd have to sunset the 24-105 lens at that point...which is something they seem hesitant to do.

Not necessarily. The 28–135 isn't an L lens, and a 24–135 probably wouldn't be, either.

Sorry, I couldn't resist... just got this gift from my brother and sister-in-law

 

[vscd]

Nice Try... there is no EF-S L-Lense

 

[Antono Refa]

I suspect people are forgetting that Canon are in the business of lens manufacturing to make money, not to satisfy photographers economic needs.

Yes, and so are Canon's competitors. So how does that explain the fact that Sigma released a 50/1.4 under $1000 that is better than any Canon 50mm prime out there? I can assure you that Sigma wants to make money as much as Canon does. What's Canon's excuse for not offering a high quality fast aperture 50mm prime--something that is arguably the foundation for any 135 format system?

<snip>

The bottom line is that Canon makes crappy 50mm primes. There is no escaping that. They do not satisfy the basic criteria of reasonable price, quality construction, fast aperture, and good sharpness. No, I am not demanding that they make an AF version of the Otus 55/1.4 and sell it for $25. I am saying that their existing 50mm lineup has been lacking for years, and I claim this is in large part due to their apparent interest these past several years in making cheap consumer zooms or disproportionately expensive L zooms and superteles. And so we have competitors like Sigma swooping in and eating their lunch.

The Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 is a crappy 50mm prime? It's made for purpose portrait lens, just like the 85mm f/1.2 II, but it isn't crap.

As for general purpose fast 50mm prime, the Otus 55mm f/1.4, the Nikon 58mm f/1.4, and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 are all less than a year old.

Before that, none of the manufacturers made great fast 50mm primes. My impression is the Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.4 G is better than Canon's 50mm f/1.4, then the former is 6 years old digital era lens, and the later is a 20 years old film era lens.

I agree it's time Canon refreshed it's time Canon released new 50mm primes, but things aren't as bad as you present them.

 

[Andrew Davies Photography]

There seems to be some odd concensus that Canon have not made anything new for years and are neglecting primes.

I have recently purchased both the 24 2.8 IS and the 35 F2 IS both new lenses and both are fantastic, the 35 F2 IS has replaced my 24-70 L and walks all over my 50mm 1.2L which is now sold.

It logically follows that it would be easy enough using those new designs to bring in a 50 1.8 IS with the build quality and optical quality of the 35 F2 IS which would then be on a par with the Sigma.

I am also hoping more for an 85 1.8 IS to replace my 85 1.8 which although great needs an update !

www.andrew-davies.com

 

[Hector1970]

I always find these debates interesting but also people spend too much time saying certain lens are crappy. I think people often blame equipment before themselves. A good photograph is 90% creativity and 10% equipment. I'd say in a blind test 99% of Canon shooters couldn't tell a photo taken from an Otus from a 50mm 1.4.
People should push to the limit what they have before moving to more expensive equipment.
I have the 85 1.2 . This lens is amazing at times. It's not amazing all the time because the photographer isn't precise enough with their technique. Similarily the 50 1.2 is a great lens in the right hands. It's a specialist portrait lens. I doubt they had walking around in mind. In a studio with lights and stopped down a bit those two lens are too sharp. You can see every pore, every blemish and piece of food stuck in their teeth.
It's scary at times. I have to jump past photoshop to portrait professional to not shock the person in the photo.
More practice with your existing prime is my advice. Work on your creativity and technique and worry less about the lens performance. It's good enough.
Ps my canon 1.4 isn't the sharpest lens in the world but it takes a lovely photo (as long as you don't pixel peep).
Perfectly fine for flickr or Facebook and printing to A4

 

[mackguyver]

A new 50 L that's "a lot smaller" ?? Makes no sense whatsoever ..

Makes, sense, that's just like the Otus. Oh wait.

 

[vscd]

I doubt they had walking around in mind. In a studio with lights and stopped down a bit those two lens are too sharp

Yepp, and there you mark the problem by yourself. Why do you want to stop down a f1.2 lens? Of course it's not clever to use the f1.2 on portraits in short distances, but the f1.4 is even better @f1.4...

The weathersealing and a little bit brighter viewfinder makes not a grand on money. On the other side, the 85 1.2L is totally useable @f1.2...

 

[Ruined]

So how does that explain the fact that Sigma released a 50/1.4 under $1000 that is better than any Canon 50mm prime out there? ... The bottom line is that Canon makes crappy 50mm primes. There is no escaping that.

Because Canon's first priority is professionals who depend their livelihood on the unmatched portrait performance of the 50mm f/1.2L. While enthusiasts who put test chart performance as first priority are marketed towards also, they are not Canon's first priority. So, I would recommend simply buying the Sigma and being happy with it if it meets your needs. There is not a single 50mm lens I would use in place of the Canon 50mm f/1.2L, and the only lens that offers similar quality of portrait results is the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II - but that is a different focal length and it is good to own both if portraits are a priority as each lens has its set of advantages & disadvantages plus different focal lengths.

Also, have you missed the mountain of posts where people cannot get the Sigma 50mm to autofocus even remotely close to correctly on outer focus points (despite center point working fine)? That does not sound too great to me.

 

[Sporgon]

So how does that explain the fact that Sigma released a 50/1.4 under $1000 that is better than any Canon 50mm prime out there? ... The bottom line is that Canon makes crappy 50mm primes. There is no escaping that.

Because Canon's first priority is professionals who depend their livelihood on the unmatched portrait performance of the 50mm f/1.2L.

As time goes on I'm having more respect for the 50 f1.4. It's a lens that is capable of producing images that boast a very expensive signature, even at f1.6 if you get the subject, distance and lighting right. Certainly not 'crappy', unless of course, you happen to be a 'crappy' photographer, then maybe an Otus is 'crappy' too.

 

[privatebydesign]

I have always liked my 50 f1.4, it is a great little lens, it works well at wide apertures and is incredibly sharp when you stop it down to f5.6 or f8, AF is good and reliable it takes no space in the bag and is light and cheap. It is very good for stitched panos too.

 

[mackguyver]

My 50 f/1.4 wasn't great until f/2, but at f/2 and above, it was an awesome lens. I would never have bought the 50L if it hadn't been for my love of the f/1.4.