New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
TeT said:
It depends on what you want. I'm not convinced Canon can just burp out a 35L II or new 50L that handily beats Sigma on the resolution side of things -- Sigma has been formidable on that front.
But on draw, weather sealing, color, etc. Canon historically does well here. We'll see. Competition in the lens world is always a good thing.
- A
Upvote
0
I see the 24 70 4 IS and the 16 35 4 IS as better options for the 24 105 & 17 40 users without killing 2 wildly popular high selling basic L lenses in the 24 105 & 17 40.
They have not had opportunity to tackle faster 2.8 & wider lenses without jamming the market with all of them at once.
Makes sense for them to wait until Sigma is done with their releases. Canon with the 35 & 50 mark II has a real opportunity to totally deflate Sigmas recent ascention which is based partly on nothing else new out there (OTIS is a higher realm of quality)
Let me clarify; Sigmas lenses are great, but real world comparisons don't show them to be cadillacs to kias that a few loud and wildly optimistic individuals are claiming
They have not had opportunity to tackle faster 2.8 & wider lenses without jamming the market with all of them at once.
Makes sense for them to wait until Sigma is done with their releases. Canon with the 35 & 50 mark II has a real opportunity to totally deflate Sigmas recent ascention which is based partly on nothing else new out there (OTIS is a higher realm of quality)
Let me clarify; Sigmas lenses are great, but real world comparisons don't show them to be cadillacs to kias that a few loud and wildly optimistic individuals are claiming
Upvote
0
chromophore said:
The Sigma 50A came out this year. It will take years for Canon to respond with something in kind unless they knew Zeiss and Sigma were playing with retrofocus designs years ago.
The 16-35 f/4 IS is a great lens and addresses a lot of concerns that people had in Canon's ability to design sharp ultrawide zooms. The new 10-18 was a surprise that many were not expecting, and the ef-m 55-200 shows that Canon has not abandoned that platform. The 24-70II sets the benchmark that the fast L primes will have to beat, and that IQ bar is high. And like or not, Canon's releases of the 24, 28 and 35 IS lenses has shown that Canon's days of producing non-L primes without IS is over.
I'm hoping the 50 IS will be a small compact f/1.4 gaussian design that slots between the existing f/1.4 and Sigma's 50A, and I'm hoping that the 50L II will be a retrofocus design that competes against the 50A and the Otus. Releasing the 100-400L II this year will make it look a lot better than what has been released to date, and anything else will be gravy. I'm looking forward to the 35L II and the 100-400 II too, but I'm in no rush. Plus my wallet can't handle it all at once anyway...
Upvote
0
TeT said:
There is much more to Sigma's recent success in the quality of their products than in their go-to-market timing. Sigma is doing well because it is putting out some fine lenses for terrific prices. And on the data side of things, specifically in resolution, Sigma is handily beating Canon, not just keeping up. The 35 and 50 Art are the sharpest AF lenses in their respective focal lengths, and by a comfortable margin.
I haven't shot either of the Sigma Art primes, but many trusted reviewers hold both of those lenses in very high regard. But a lens is more than how sharp it is. So I could see 'real world' reviews possibly not seeing as large a gap between Canon and Sigma in these focal lengths.
Canon must be working on some next generation L-series standard primes (24/35/50/85) that are intended for very large MP sensors. I think we are all waiting for those.
- A
Upvote
0
Random Orbits said:
+1
Agree on both fronts. Save the 'standard zoom sized' primes for the pros shooting portraiture and weddings and such -- I want that non-L 50 IS to stay small like the Canon 50 F/1.4, even if that means it will be a step behind w.r.t. resolution.
And we know Canon can do it! The non-L 35mm F/2 IS is 66% of the length and 50% of the weight of the Sigma 35 Art, yet it is nearly as sharp. Sure, you lose a stop of max aperture, but for 3 stops of IS, I'll take it.
That same value proposition in a 50 IS: IS + shorter + lighter + nearly as fast + nearly as sharp would be gold for me.
- A
Upvote
0
jd7 said:Etienne said:PhotoCat said:I hope the non-L 85/2.0 IS is still coming this year! :
I'll take one of those too!
An 85 IS sounds great, but I really hope it's faster than f/2!
A 135 IS would be interesting too.
An 85 f2.0 IS in hand is worth two 85 f1.4 IS in 2015 LOL!
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
Don't forget some other Sigma Global Vision releases: 30 f/1.4, 18-35 f/1.8, 120-300 f/2.8 and 24-105 f/4. Some like the 35A, 50A and 18-35A are world class. The 30A and the 12-300S offer slight improvements compared to their predecessors but aren't that much better. And then there is the 24-105, which may offer slight improvements compared to Canon's 24-105 but also streets at a higher price.
Upvote
0
In my point of view a good 50 1.4L IS would be a great lense in the lineup or maybe a 1.8L IS. The 1.2L could exist for artistic purposes and the plastic 50mm 1.8 II is still a cheap entrypoint. The 50mm 1.4 would be replaced.
For me it's far more important to get a smaller fast standard-prime. I could easily skip one or two lines of MTF... the pixelpeeping with an Zeiss OTUS is fantastic, but I don't want to carry 2 pounds of 12 lenses in 10 groups.
I don't need a lense longer than a 100mm L Makro for daily use...
Better a 50mm, sharp wide open @f1.8 or f2 than a 1.2/1.4, which is usable after stepping 2 stops down. That's the reason why I like the 40mm STM. It's just f2.8 which is sad for separating objects, but those f2.8 are just awesome and useable. A good lense is a lense you're willing to carry with you.
For me it's far more important to get a smaller fast standard-prime. I could easily skip one or two lines of MTF... the pixelpeeping with an Zeiss OTUS is fantastic, but I don't want to carry 2 pounds of 12 lenses in 10 groups.
I don't need a lense longer than a 100mm L Makro for daily use...
Better a 50mm, sharp wide open @f1.8 or f2 than a 1.2/1.4, which is usable after stepping 2 stops down. That's the reason why I like the 40mm STM. It's just f2.8 which is sad for separating objects, but those f2.8 are just awesome and useable. A good lense is a lense you're willing to carry with you.
Upvote
0
vscd said:
Agree in principle, but the 40mm pancake's much-slower-than-USM focusing speed is a dealbreaker for me. That lens sits in the cabinet while I shoot with the venerable Canon 50 f/1.4. Even with the 50 F/1.4's occasionally hunting AF, I miss fewer shots with that one than I do with the pancake.
Now, for a walkaround lens shooting non-moving subjects, the 40mm pancake is a peach of a lens. Sharp right out of the gate at max aperture, and you can't beat the size and weight.
- A
Upvote
0
I suspect people are forgetting that Canon are in the business of lens manufacturing to make money, not to satisfy photographers economic needs.
The facts are as I see them, both Sigma & Nikon now have super duper high price 50(58)mm f1.4 lenses for £800 and £1500 respectively, both very likely to be selling at a price that makes a tidy return for both Sigma and Nikon, let's not even talk about the Otus range ! So, Canon has four 50mm lenses, f1.2, f1.4, f1.8 & f2.5 Macro, the last three are all cheap, long in the tooth, possibly getting difficult to manufacture, likely to have limited return on manufacturing costs and are flawed in numerous ways. Whip out a new design, add a healthy 100-200% margin above the current margin, bingo, great up to date lenses, that photographers will fall over themselves to buy, offer a premium f1.4 in the mold of the 24mm f1.4 II L, sell for about 75% of the 24mm, add a second 50mm f2.0 IS, in the mold of the 35mm f2.0, sell for a similar price as the 35mm.... But what about the f1.2 ? It's prime for pushing into towards the Otus range, give it AF that works to perfection, deal with the flaws of the current lens, sell for £2k - bingo, profits go up on the 50mm range. Photogs on here will hate the extra costs, though :-/
The facts are as I see them, both Sigma & Nikon now have super duper high price 50(58)mm f1.4 lenses for £800 and £1500 respectively, both very likely to be selling at a price that makes a tidy return for both Sigma and Nikon, let's not even talk about the Otus range ! So, Canon has four 50mm lenses, f1.2, f1.4, f1.8 & f2.5 Macro, the last three are all cheap, long in the tooth, possibly getting difficult to manufacture, likely to have limited return on manufacturing costs and are flawed in numerous ways. Whip out a new design, add a healthy 100-200% margin above the current margin, bingo, great up to date lenses, that photographers will fall over themselves to buy, offer a premium f1.4 in the mold of the 24mm f1.4 II L, sell for about 75% of the 24mm, add a second 50mm f2.0 IS, in the mold of the 35mm f2.0, sell for a similar price as the 35mm.... But what about the f1.2 ? It's prime for pushing into towards the Otus range, give it AF that works to perfection, deal with the flaws of the current lens, sell for £2k - bingo, profits go up on the 50mm range. Photogs on here will hate the extra costs, though :-/
Upvote
0
EOBeav said:
If they followed decades of nomenclature that would make an EF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM, no MkIII, nor, in time, would it become a MkI or a C for "classic". And an EF 50mm f/1.4L IS USM, also not a MkII, hopefully this would mean people never call the current EF 50mm f/1.4 USM a MkI or a "classic", I live in hope.
My favourite is the 1D, rather confusingly now often referred to as a 1Dc, meaning "classic" but changing its value from $100-200 to around $8,000-10,000, but what's in a name
Upvote
0
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.dgatwood said:
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
Upvote
0
Haydn1971 said:
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?
The current 50mm lineup is no more or less difficult to manufacture now than they were when they were designed. Production comes and goes in batches; when they want to adjust their manufacturing processes for a different optical design, it is not as if they are reinventing the entire lens from the drawing board. All of these lenses have been out so long they have long since recouped the development overhead and then some.
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.
Again, that's *SIGMA* we are talking about here. This the same lens company that used to make knockoff cr*p designs. If even THEY can design something like the 50/1.4 Art, then Canon has ZERO excuse not to do even better AND for less. Lens design is still difficult these days, but it is a lot more computer- and data-driven than it was even back when the 50/1.2L was designed. Had Canon done its homework in lens R&D, they wouldn't need years to make a competing product.
Oh, and for those of you fantasizing about an f/1.4 IS design--it's not going to happen. We will be insanely fortunate to just get ANY new f/1.4 design from Canon these days, much less one with IS. Canon's lens design philosophy these days is to slap IS on everything, reduce the aperture diameter, and call it a wash when it clearly isn't. They do this because it's cheaper to throw in IS than to design and manufacture for the much tighter tolerances of an extra few stops of light. It's easier and more profitable for Canon to make a lens that is sharp starting at f/4 rather than design a f/2 lens that is soft in the corners.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
