Nikon sells a lineup of crop primes, why not Canon?

[crasher8]

So in assisting a friend search for new lenses on her D90 I advised her to check out some decent economical fast Nikon primes. These are crop only lenses akin to EF-s for Canon. I am curious as to why Canon hasn't tapped this market. I really like the Nikkor 35mm 1.8 DX for a 'normal lens on her D90. Kind of Nikon's equivalent to a Nifty Fifty.

But to tell the truth, as a lifetime Canon user,other than owning a Nikon film camera in the 80's it was my first foray into shopping for Nikon products and I truly found the overall line lacking in variety and multiple pricepoints. It's either super expensive or dirt cheap.

 

[Loswr]

I expect it's because 'economical primes' would generally be considered consumer lenses, and the trend seems to be that most consumers prefer zoom lenses. There's a reason Canon updated both the 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS lenses to essentially unchanged MkII versions that are slightly cheaper to produce - those zoom lenses are their bread and butter. The 60mm macro is Canon's only EF-S prime.

There may also be a marketing component - FF cameras are more expensive than APS-C cameras, so by having pretty much all the primes compatible with FF cameras, that may lower the inertial barrier to current APS-C customers going FF. Keep in mind that while a DX lens can be used with a Nikon FF body, the same is not true for EF-S lenses.

 

[weekendshooter]

The 35/1.8 DX is a really remarkable lens. Its main faults are lackluster construction and somewhat nervous bokeh, but aside from that it's a tremendously sharp, light, and cheap walkaround prime. The lack of anything in this price range for Canon is a main reason why I recommend Nikon to beginners who would likely only use the kit and at most one other lens.

I was nervous about Nikon's lens lineup before I switched, as I knew so much more about Canon's lenses, but it turns out to be quite fantastic for my tastes. The new line of f/1.8 G primes - 28, 50, 85 - is very very good and very well-priced. Now there is even a 70-200/4 IS with a new "5-stop" IS system, so that fills one of the main holes in the lineup as compared to Canon.

Nikon lacks the truly range-topping, whimsically fast L primes that Canon boasts, but their lens lineup is quite robust for those of us not in the market to spend $1500-2000 per lens. Moreover, Nikon's new lenses have been launching with much more reasonable MSRPs than Canon's latest offerings.

Edit: I have tried the 35 DX on my D700 and it works rather well indoors! It does vignette a bit, but not a great deal more than most fast 35's on full frame as long as the focusing distance is close and the aperture is wide. Trying to focus at infinity and stopping down crops the image at the corners, so it's impractical to own as a full frame user.

 

[IronChef]

I want Canon to make an affordable 23mm f/2 EF-S as a walk around prime. I find the 56 mm equivalent focal length of the 35mm f/2 a bit too much. I know that they just released the 24mm f/2.8, but both the price and f-stop are a bit too high. A crop version might make it easier to design.

 

[crasher8]

Well I for one, when I shot crop, would have bought a few.

 

[iso79]

I'm glad Canon doesn't. I want all my lenses to work on all my bodies.

 

[dickgrafixstop]

I think they're too busy wasting time with the "M" series as a consumer camera. The average Rebel user is
probable content with the 18-55 and 55-200. They haven't been flocking to the various ~17-~85 faster zooms,
and while the 10-22 is an excellent lens, it's price point discourages the average "consumer" photographer.
It will be interesting to see if there's an "L" series lens for the mirrorless camera but it would probably have to
wait until Canon releases a "real" mirrorless body.

 

[jondave]

I think they're too busy wasting time with the "M" series as a consumer camera. The average Rebel user is
probable content with the 18-55 and 55-200. They haven't been flocking to the various ~17-~85 faster zooms,
and while the 10-22 is an excellent lens, it's price point discourages the average "consumer" photographer.
It will be interesting to see if there's an "L" series lens for the mirrorless camera but it would probably have to
wait until Canon releases a "real" mirrorless body.

L-series lens for the M? The M is an enthusiast body at best, how many enthusiasts will buy lenses 2-3 times the cost of the body?

 

[dickgrafixstop]

Beats me - but take a look at the offerings from Panasonic and Fuji on their mirrorless cameras. A Leica 45mm f1.4, the Fuji 35mm f1.4 with other focal lengths to follow - a price points that are perhaps high for an casual shooter but a bargain for serious shooters. Unfortunately, that's the ball game that Canon has to play in if they
keep the M series pricepoints as high as the introductory model.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I suspect that Canon feels that their strategy is more successful. At a time where camera sales are hard hit, Canon is doing relatively well. Companies tend to stick with what works for them.

 

[J.R.]

So in assisting a friend search for new lenses on her D90 I advised her to check out some decent economical fast Nikon primes. These are crop only lenses akin to EF-s for Canon. I am curious as to why Canon hasn't tapped this market. I really like the Nikkor 35mm 1.8 DX for a 'normal lens on her D90. Kind of Nikon's equivalent to a Nifty Fifty.

But to tell the truth, as a lifetime Canon user,other than owning a Nikon film camera in the 80's it was my first foray into shopping for Nikon products and I truly found the overall line lacking in variety and multiple pricepoints. It's either super expensive or dirt cheap.

I think that it is just the way you look at it. Canon already has three variants of the 35mm, the relatively cheap 35mm f/2, the mid range 35mm f/2 IS and the excellent 35mm f/1.4L. All variants work on the APS-C format also so what market is there to tap? probably there is no need for a specific APS-C prime lens.

 

[Marsu42]

There may also be a marketing component - FF cameras are more expensive than APS-C cameras, so by having pretty much all the primes compatible with FF cameras, that may lower the inertial barrier to current APS-C customers going FF.

+1 ... it's the same reason why Canon doesn't sell any sealed ef-s lenses though the 7d camera body is (somewhat) weather-sealed. The first time this upselling strategy might be mixed up is when a "pro" sports/wildlife 7d2 might be more expensive than an "entry" 6d, but of course the sole reason for the mere existence of the 6d is the Nikon d600.

 

[Canon-F1]

I suspect that Canon feels that their strategy is more successful. At a time where camera sales are hard hit, Canon is doing relatively well. Companies tend to stick with what works for them.

it works for canon because a huge percentage of fanboys are stupid.
don´t know how to call it other then stupid, sorry.

instead of complaining about overpriced gear they even DEFEND canon.
even gear that is more expensive and has lower specs then the competition gets praise from them.

and then you read comments like "R&D is expensive" or "be thankfull that canon makes a profit! so canon can invest in R&D".

well i don´t see much improvement in sensor performance so why should i care about R&D and how much money canon makes?
i can see what sonys R&D sensor department is doing... but canons?

 

[PeterJ]

it works for canon because a huge percentage of fanboys are stupid.

I used to be a Canon fanboy, the mirror actuation kept me somewhat cool, but I've since found a combination of vanes and a DC motor is both more effective and economical.

 

[Rat]

I think Nikon has such a wide range of crop primes, because prior to 2007, Nikon didn't have full-frame dslr's. From 1999 to 2007, they sold aps-c-bodies exclusively. Makes no sense to design new full-frame lenses if you don't expect to be selling full-frame bodies ever again, apart from for the dwindling analog market. And for those camera's they already had lenses.

Canon released the 1Ds in 2002. I think they never gave up on full-frame, whereas Nikon (apparently) assumed for years and years that the 1.5x crop format would suffice. If Canon thought primes would primarily be sold to quality-conscious customers, they were always going to aim for full frame ones for the 1Ds owners.

 

[J.R.]

I suspect that Canon feels that their strategy is more successful. At a time where camera sales are hard hit, Canon is doing relatively well. Companies tend to stick with what works for them.

it works for canon because a huge percentage of fanboys are stupid.
don´t know how to call it other then stupid, sorry.

instead of complaining about overpriced gear they even DEFEND canon.
even gear that is more expensive and has lower specs then the competition gets praise from them.

and then you read comments like "R&D is expensive" or "be thankfull that canon makes a profit! so canon can invest in R&D".

well i don´t see much improvement in sensor performance so why should i care about R&D and how much money canon makes?
i can see what sonys R&D sensor department is doing... but canons?

Relax dude! I think his post was about Canon's positioning with respect to primes for APS-C format cameras. Hardly fanboism ... I've seen worse.

You may need to see the trolling that goes on at Nikon forums ... phew

Cheers ... J.R.

 

[crasher8]

I suspect that Canon feels that their strategy is more successful. At a time where camera sales are hard hit, Canon is doing relatively well. Companies tend to stick with what works for them.

it works for canon because a huge percentage of fanboys are stupid.
don´t know how to call it other then stupid, sorry.

You really should look in the mirror, better yet, read your posts.

instead of complaining about overpriced gear they even DEFEND canon.
even gear that is more expensive and has lower specs then the competition gets praise from them.



and then you read comments like "R&D is expensive" or "be thankfull that canon makes a profit! so canon can invest in R&D".

well i don´t see much improvement in sensor performance so why should i care about R&D and how much money canon makes?
i can see what sonys R&D sensor department is doing... but canons?

 

[leolol]

I suspect that Canon feels that their strategy is more successful. At a time where camera sales are hard hit, Canon is doing relatively well. Companies tend to stick with what works for them.

it works for canon because a huge percentage of fanboys are stupid.
don´t know how to call it other then stupid, sorry.

You really should look in the mirror, better yet, read your posts.

instead of complaining about overpriced gear they even DEFEND canon.
even gear that is more expensive and has lower specs then the competition gets praise from them.



and then you read comments like "R&D is expensive" or "be thankfull that canon makes a profit! so canon can invest in R&D".

well i don´t see much improvement in sensor performance so why should i care about R&D and how much money canon makes?
i can see what sonys R&D sensor department is doing... but canons?

Best post here in a while. You say what i feel.
Everybody here is always like "they make the most money so there is nothing bad with their products"... All those blinded fanboys that dont even see what Canon is doing since the last year.