-
UPDATE
The forum will be moving to a new domain in the near future (canonrumorsforum.com). I have turned off "read-only", but I will only leave the two forum nodes you see active for the time being. I don't know at this time how quickly the change will happen, but that will move at a good pace I am sure. ------------------------------------------------------------
Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Coming in October
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
You sound like a broken record. We all know that Canon is the number one seller blah blah blah....neuroanatomist said:
i'm assuming you consider McDonalds, Subway and Applebee's to be 3 of the best restaurants in America and Iron Man III to be the best movie of 2013?
Profit is one indicator of success, but it is far from being the end all be all of it. While you might be happy with simply owning the system that sells the most, that is far from my main requirement for my camera system.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
EchoLocation said:
And yet you seem to feel the need to respond, frequently. Get some earplugs, or a blindfold, or whatever.
EchoLocation said:
I own the system that best meets my needs…that's my main requirement. The fact that Canon is the market leader indicates that a majority of photographers feel that Canon provides the system that best meets their needs. Hopefully you own whatever system best meets your needs. Does it bother you if that system is not Canon, that you are in the minority?
I understand that you apparently don't care about sales figures, or don't think they are relevant. From a personal/selfish standpoint, they aren't. But if someone is wondering why Canon hasn't felt the need to update a couple of lenses for >20 years, or is complaining about that fact, or wishing it wil change soon, the fact that those two lenses are among the most popular lenses is one very significant reason that Canon has not felt the need to update them. So whether sales figures matter to you or not, they matter to Canon, they drive the business decisions that Canon makes, and those decisions determine the products that Canon ultimately makes available to consumers.
Oh, and guess what? Sales figures also impact the business decisions being made by whatever brand meets your camera system needs, too.
Forgot to add...I don't eat at any of those restaurants you mentioned. However, one of my favorite local restaurants went out of business a while back, and now there's an Applebee's in that location. Sales matter.
Upvote
0
jdramirez said:
This could give us a chance on testing AI servo speed and accuracy on our lenses/DSLRs. (° ͜ʖ°)
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
I think you're flipping the pancake a bit.
Sales do matter in terms of determining the business decisions of a company. We however are the end users, not the company. To us it can be nice to know why they did this or that, but ultimately it is a very academic interest. Sales figures do not affect our experience once the product is in our hands and do not improve our output or our enjoyment. The first rule of statistics is that it never applies to individual cases.
In the end of the day, I don't really care whether Canon feels the need to update this or that. My money is supposed to be spent on fulfilling my needs, not Canon's. If their products are good I buy them, otherwise I don't and it doesn't really matter if other people think they're good for them. If I have to choose, I'd rather be a quality minority than a trivial majority, yes.
That said, this point is a particularly moot one when it comes to OEM vs 3rd party offers. The reason why the Canon 50mm sells well is that it's Canon's offer in the 50mm range and it's affordable. The real quality of the product matters only to a little extent, since most buyers do not make a lot research ahead of purchasing. Buying a Canon lens for your Canon camera is a very trivial and uninteresting event; preferring a Sigma lens for your Canon camera is instead a choice with significant implications.
Anyway this isn't even a criticism to the Canon system, since 3rd party offering are part of, and not against, the Canon system.
Upvote
0
RLPhoto said:
I think there are many of us thinking the same thing. These Sigma Art lenses are coming out at just the right time for me as I am slowly rebuilding my lens kit.
A fast 135mm Art quality lens will be very interesting.
I don't know if I will ever go all Sigma, but so far I have been happy with my new Sigma primes.
Competition will be a good thing for the customer. Canikon better start gettin' busy.
Upvote
0
Albi86 said:
Absolutely. The explanation that Canon does not update their lenses for > 20 years because the market lets them get away with it is logically correct, but not particularly satisfying for those end users, whose needs aren't completely met.
It's like your kid saying the reason he hasn't been doing his homework is because he can get away with it by copying his friend's solution... a valid explanation, but probably not one you want to hear.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
roguewave said:
Your analogy makes it sound like you'd prefer to not hear the truth. The truth in the case of the Canon 50mm f/1.8 and f/1.4 lenses is that, "those end users, whose needs aren't completely met," represent the minority of buyers (at least, who's needs are met sufficiently to result in a purchase). Keep in mind that affordable is a big need for many buyers.
If you don't like what Canon, or any vendor, offers...don't buy. That's what I do. Where I take issue is when people suggest that Canon must do this or that to remain competitive, just because that individual's needs aren't being met. To suggest that Canon needs to update their 50mm lenses to compete with the Sigma 50/1.4 A is illogical. Of the Canon lenses, one is ~1/2-stop faster with weather sealing and a renowned bokeh (and frankly is a niche lens anyway) and the other two are 1/2 and 1/8 the cost of the Sigma, and will easily outsell it.
Upvote
0
roguewave said:
It's presumably true that anyone who wants to buy Brand X's products is disappointed if Brand X doesn't have a model that does what s/he wants, but it's a fairly trivial observation, isn't it?
A year or two back Roger Cicala at lensrentals compared a raft of fast 50mm lenses and most respects (that he tested, at least), the old Canon 50mm 1.4 did at least as well as any other, perhaps better (I forget all the details), regardless of price. I may be wrong, but I don't think it's possible to buy a current-production 50mm 1.4 AF lens for as little the price of the Canon 1.4 ($400 new, assuming no discount) that's better, regardless of who makes it. If Canon upgraded it, it doesn't seem unlikely that the price would double, and Canon's most recent prime upgrades (24 IS 28 IS and 35 IS) were not only much more expensive than their predecessors but not terribly fast anyway (2.8, 2.8 and 2 respectively). Chances that Canon would release a new 50mm 1.4 for $400 which meets the needs of picky consumers rather than those who buy most of Canon's lenses seem pretty remote.
And if Canon can't meet your needs, assuming the reported AF inconsistencies with the new Sigma are exaggerated, and assuming you don't mind paying $900 for it, you can just buy the Sigma and still use it on your Canon bodies. Or you could do something a little different and, say, supplement your Canon gear with a Sony A7r + 55mm 1.8 (which costs the same as the Sigma), like I recently did, and get image quality that I suspect is better than the Sigma will give you on any current Canon body (provided you don't mind the limitations of the Sony body).
So I'm not really sure what all the fuss is about - unless it's annoyance that the home team (Canon) doesn't have all the best players. If other companies made recently upgraded 50mm 1.4 lenses that out-performed the Canon while costing the same, this general complaint would make more sense. But I don't think they do.
Upvote
0
Well, the days of Canon/Nikon taking their own sweet time to update lenses is likely drawing to a close. They could get away with that before, since there was no real competition. Sigma and Tamron have not been taken too seriously by most enthusiasts/professionals for their inconsistencies in build quality, autofocus or whatever. This information would filter down to the average consumer, causing them to stick with OEM products unless budget restraints were critical. If this current rise in quality is sustained and not just a momentary aberration, this too will become well known and no company will be able to rest on their laurels. This is of coarse good for all consumers. The fact that Sigma is not just meeting, but improving over the OEM brands for significantly less money is amazing. For now, it is just in their high end models. I wonder if Sigma will be able to compete in the lower end of the market as well. That will really make Nikon and Canon take notice.
To steal a line from a previously mentioned "restaurant", I'm lovin' it!
To steal a line from a previously mentioned "restaurant", I'm lovin' it!
Upvote
0
brad-man said:
I think you fundamentally don't get Canon's position. They are a multi billion dollar international corporation and are not overly interested in selling tens of thousands of lenses, they are into selling millions of cameras. Now the P&S cash cow is drying up they are repositioning into the C line, which is probably the only thing keeping any R&D going for us high end body stills shooters, and surveillance cameras hence the ultra low light sensor video R&D etc. They don't see Sigma or Tamron as competition because they aren't, they are comparatively small companies that sell limited quantities of niche products that you need a Canon (or Nikon) product to use, just like ThinkTank, or Adobe.
Upvote
0
Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but if Sigma are able to give a 24 mm focal length the edge of frame resolution at 1.4-2 that they have achieved in the 35 + 50 Art line ( much more difficult at 24mm I know), then it would actually be a more significant lens to a much larger audience because as the 24mm has a much greater dof, it would be practical to use it at say 2.8 to achieve adequate dof in low light, allowing landscape shooting at lower ISO's and faster shutter speeds in low light, with little vignette.
I think if this was the case we would see a response from Canon in a 24/1.4 III
I think if this was the case we would see a response from Canon in a 24/1.4 III
Upvote
0
Count me in the crowd that is simply happy that Sigma is providing a quality alternative. I never thought I'd own a Sigma lens but recently bought the 35A. I am one of the people that feels the AF is a bit off, but there is no doubting its optics and I am still getting to know it as a lens and do like it. Primes are niche lenses for me, but I would likely buy the 24A in a heartbeat if it's optics check out, especially corner sharpness and coma. As a consumer, it is very nice to have quality alternatives.
While I would love to see additional lens released from Canon and, frankly, find it a bit puzzling what they have and haven't released in 2013 and so far in 2014, I can't bring myself to criticize a company, to the extent some here have, that has produced a wide array of lenses that have been used to produced some of the world's best photographs for decades. And by wide array, I just counted the following off of Canon USA's website:
51 EF lenses
12 EF-S lenses
2 EF-M lenses (3 if you count the EF-M 11-22)
4 TS-E lenses
2 TC extenders
1 MPE lens
So, Sigma has now released 3-4 "Art" lenses that compete well against specific Canon lenses. It's nice for us consumers to have alternatives, I am sure Canon is aware of what Sigma has done, but I seriously doubt it represents much of an impact to Canon's thinking even in regards to their lens lineup, much less their overall corporate strategy.
While I would love to see additional lens released from Canon and, frankly, find it a bit puzzling what they have and haven't released in 2013 and so far in 2014, I can't bring myself to criticize a company, to the extent some here have, that has produced a wide array of lenses that have been used to produced some of the world's best photographs for decades. And by wide array, I just counted the following off of Canon USA's website:
51 EF lenses
12 EF-S lenses
2 EF-M lenses (3 if you count the EF-M 11-22)
4 TS-E lenses
2 TC extenders
1 MPE lens
So, Sigma has now released 3-4 "Art" lenses that compete well against specific Canon lenses. It's nice for us consumers to have alternatives, I am sure Canon is aware of what Sigma has done, but I seriously doubt it represents much of an impact to Canon's thinking even in regards to their lens lineup, much less their overall corporate strategy.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
I think, fundamentally, that Canon's position is to turn a profit. The fact that Canon Inc is a more diversified company that doesn't derive all it's income from cameras and lenses is irrelevant. While I will certainly agree that it's unlikely that the board of directors are sweating bullets and pulling all-nighters over the rise of Sigma and Tamron, I can assure you that they, or at least their subordinates, look at market share in all divisions with great interest. My point was that if Tamron and Sigma, which most certainly are competitors to Canon, continue to develop high quality lenses at much more reasonable prices, then their market share will certainly increase as word gets out. So far, Sigma is only seriously competing at the higher end of the market and so it could be argued that they are in more direct competition with Zeiss (doesn't that sound funny?) than with Canon. But as Sigma's reputation improves, then its products will become more than just niche lenses and lower cost alternatives for the financially impaired.
Next week we shall discuss sensor development (and profits there from) vis a vie Canon vs Sony
Upvote
0
sanj said:
Sanj, your comment is, I hope, tongue in cheek, just look at the release of the 7D successor, or if we want to keep the ideas to strictly lenses the 100-400, 35 f1.4L, 400 f5.6, 50 f1.4, a high quality ultra wide zoom, or even a decent sub 16mm prime.
To see how much pressure Canon feels from third party lens makers just look at where the money on lens R&D has gone, specialised high value lenses that set a standard for a system, the 200-400 f4 1.4TC, the 17mm TS-E, the MkII super teles, or for more modest uses, $500+ f2-2.8 moderate wide primes with IS, 24mm f2.8IS, 28mm f2.8IS 35mm f2IS. How much would you bet that the 45mm TS-E and 90mm TS-E lenses will take up the next significant lens releases? Canon are broadening the appeal of their bodies by pushing the envelop of specialised lens designs, they don't seem too interested, or in a hurry, to make competing lenses with the Sigma Art series.
You can make or agree with hyperbolic comments like "Well, the days of Canon/Nikon taking their own sweet time to update lenses is likely drawing to a close." or you can look at the ample evidence that it is not. Don't forget for one second Canon knows to the exact number the market for the 24mm f1.4 premium lens at the price point they are prepared to sell them at. Nowadays it seems the one who shouts loudest or wishes the most gets the most followers, that doesn't make what they are shouting accurate.
Upvote
0
sanj said:
You can start here: http://www.canon.com/ir/annual/2013/report2013.pdf
No?
Page 15: 2014 Initiatives
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
I think you are neglecting one important point.
Canon has a multilayer interest in producing lenses. First of all they produce a revenue on their own, otherwise they wouldn't design, manufacture and sell them. Differently from kit lenses and consumer cameras, the target market of expensive lenses is more opinionated and sensitive to quality. The moment you offer them better quality at a lower price, you make them interested. More and more as time goes by and both Sigma and Tamron become established as quality manufacturers.
Second, many people are with Canon because of the lenses and their reputation to be the best. The moment this changes, a big reason for having a Canon system is gone - especially if you take into account that other manufacturers offer better sensors too. So the availability of quality lenses and cameras in different mounts is eventually going to affect camera sales too. Case in point, the latest market share data for Japan showed that Canon is still the market leader but did lose some share. Sigma btw has a quite considerable share of the lens market.
So as someone stated before, Canon executives are not likely to start pulling their hair already, but at the same time I do agree that the Canon/Nikon duopoly is over and that both companies should really rethink their strategy.
Upvote
0
