The Next Lens from Canon & NAB Announcements

[ecka]

On the G 7X & G 7X MKII they have the FF equivilent of 24-105 to me that makes great sense, never understood a fixed 28mm or 35mm so limiting.

A fixed zoom lens in FF, especially one with a large FR, would put the camera in a space that not many people would buy, IMO. I mean, imagine if the 5D4 came in at $1300 but it could only have a 24-105L -- I sure wouldn't buy it, because the 24-105L is inferior to the 24-70 in every way except FR and massively inferior to all primes in IQ. And, it would be way too expensive as a carryaround consumer camera.

Now, imagine if you could buy the a 50/1.2L fixed on 5D4 body for $1300. I don't know about you, but I'd be super excited, because it would be like carrying around a 5D4 and a 50 1.2 always attached. If the body were rebel sized but had all the capabilities and features of a 5D4, I'd buy it in a heartbeat, because I'd never take the body off the lens anyhow.

Sure, it would make a lousy only camera. But I think most people who are would consider FF have just one camera anyhow.

So, it all depends on the cost and IQ. If Canon releases a fixed-lens, mirrorless prime that is close to the price of the lens by itself, it becomes an exciting value proposition for today, and a gateway and learning experience of Canon into the future, for tomorrow.

So, you want to get 5D4 with a permanently attached 50L for the price of the 50L alone?
Who wouldn't?
5D4 with a permanently attached 24-105L is not that bad either. $4400 combo for $1300 ... pure gold .
How about 5D4 with 40/2.8STM? Maybe $799?

 

[RunAndGun]

• [*]Video folks would love an f/1.4 IS lens. You could do some Kubrickian Barry Lyndon lighting levels with that.

IS in video isn't as important as some make it out to be and it can even be a hinderance. If you're just trying to hold a locked-off frame handheld, it can help. If you're trying to follow action or you forget to turn it off when you put the cam back on the stix, it can be like you're shooting while you're drunk, without the enjoyment of the buzz.

 

[Talys]

On the G 7X & G 7X MKII they have the FF equivilent of 24-105 to me that makes great sense, never understood a fixed 28mm or 35mm so limiting.

A fixed zoom lens in FF, especially one with a large FR, would put the camera in a space that not many people would buy, IMO. I mean, imagine if the 5D4 came in at $1300 but it could only have a 24-105L -- I sure wouldn't buy it, because the 24-105L is inferior to the 24-70 in every way except FR and massively inferior to all primes in IQ. And, it would be way too expensive as a carryaround consumer camera.

Now, imagine if you could buy the a 50/1.2L fixed on 5D4 body for $1300. I don't know about you, but I'd be super excited, because it would be like carrying around a 5D4 and a 50 1.2 always attached. If the body were rebel sized but had all the capabilities and features of a 5D4, I'd buy it in a heartbeat, because I'd never take the body off the lens anyhow.

Sure, it would make a lousy only camera. But I think most people who are would consider FF have just one camera anyhow.

So, it all depends on the cost and IQ. If Canon releases a fixed-lens, mirrorless prime that is close to the price of the lens by itself, it becomes an exciting value proposition for today, and a gateway and learning experience of Canon into the future, for tomorrow.

So, you want to get 5D4 with a permanently attached 50L for the price of the 50L alone?
Who wouldn't?
5D4 with a permanently attached 24-105L is not that bad either. $4400 combo for $1300 ... pure gold .
How about 5D4 with 40/2.8STM? Maybe $799?

Yeah, exactly I would happily buy an "experimental" camera/fixed prime lens combo if it weren't that much more than the lens would be by itself. For Canon, it would not cannibalize sales, because nobody is going to own ONLY a fixed 50 or 35. A few hundred dollars over the price of the 50L would be fine for me.

24-105L for $1300 would get me really excited, I'd buy one... and then rarely use it, because the 24-70L is just better for... everything unless you need the top end of that zoom range. I actually use my 17-135 nano more than my 24-105L (version 1). But, such a beast would probably hurt Canon's other sales, because some people would be perfectly content with a 24-105 on a fixed pro-grade body -- and then never buy anything else.

Remember, for canon, the idea would be to experiment with building a FF sensor and ergonomics -- not to give us the deal that would keep us from buying more toys

 

[rrcphoto]

it's now the 18th. you'd think we'd hear of firmware leaks by now if it was really this big.

 

[Ozarker]

On the G 7X & G 7X MKII they have the FF equivilent of 24-105 to me that makes great sense, never understood a fixed 28mm or 35mm so limiting.

A fixed zoom lens in FF, especially one with a large FR, would put the camera in a space that not many people would buy, IMO. I mean, imagine if the 5D4 came in at $1300 but it could only have a 24-105L -- I sure wouldn't buy it, because the 24-105L is inferior to the 24-70 in every way except FR and massively inferior to all primes in IQ. And, it would be way too expensive as a carryaround consumer camera.

Now, imagine if you could buy the a 50/1.2L fixed on 5D4 body for $1300. I don't know about you, but I'd be super excited, because it would be like carrying around a 5D4 and a 50 1.2 always attached. If the body were rebel sized but had all the capabilities and features of a 5D4, I'd buy it in a heartbeat, because I'd never take the body off the lens anyhow.

Sure, it would make a lousy only camera. But I think most people who are would consider FF have just one camera anyhow.

So, it all depends on the cost and IQ. If Canon releases a fixed-lens, mirrorless prime that is close to the price of the lens by itself, it becomes an exciting value proposition for today, and a gateway and learning experience of Canon into the future, for tomorrow.

So, you want to get 5D4 with a permanently attached 50L for the price of the 50L alone?
Who wouldn't?
5D4 with a permanently attached 24-105L is not that bad either. $4400 combo for $1300 ... pure gold .
How about 5D4 with 40/2.8STM? Maybe $799?

Yeah, exactly I would happily buy an "experimental" camera/fixed prime lens combo if it weren't that much more than the lens would be by itself. For Canon, it would not cannibalize sales, because nobody is going to own ONLY a fixed 50 or 35. A few hundred dollars over the price of the 50L would be fine for me.

24-105L for $1300 would get me really excited, I'd buy one... and then rarely use it, because the 24-70L is just better for... everything unless you need the top end of that zoom range. I actually use my 17-135 nano more than my 24-105L (version 1). But, such a beast would probably hurt Canon's other sales, because some people would be perfectly content with a 24-105 on a fixed pro-grade body -- and then never buy anything else.

Remember, for canon, the idea would be to experiment with building a FF sensor and ergonomics -- not to give us the deal that would keep us from buying more toys

:
The marketplace is not the place to experiment with ergonomics or new sensor technology. It certainly is not the place to sell a pro grade body for a few hundred more dollars than a lens.

I just got off a 7 day ban, so cannot tell you what I really want to say about this "idea". I learned my lesson.

Golly gee wiz... what a doozy!