There are 4 wide-angle L prime lenses coming in the next 12 months [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Sony don’t have a public lens roadmap either, as far as I know they never have. When something is ready from them usually the “leaks” start appearing.
For a large scale project such as designing a new lens things are very likely to change and in the current chip shortage that’s just bern exacerbated.
It also depends on an organisation’s operational strategy whether they believe more or less up front information given to customers is worthwhile or not.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 381342
Guest
The roadmap I posted here is also officially from Nikon and not leaked.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 381342
Guest
Well now that I am on trial for saying it doesn't 'seem' (note that is non committal, if something doesn't seem to be, it means it appears to be this way but you don't have hard evidence ether way) to negatively affect the manufacturer I better pull some documentation out my arse. I would suggest looking at the Nikon financials for the last few quarters where they have had to revise their revenue and profits upwards.
As for strategies affection a larger vs smaller company differently, I have no evidence of that. Though I will say that when the Canon R and Nikon Z6 came out, the public roadmap from Nikon was a compelling reason to switch brands for wildlife shooting. And when the Canon R5 came out I had a roadmap for Nikon lenses with compelling lenses to keep me with them instead of switching back. So Canon lost the sale of a 2.8 trinity, 100-400/500, 400 f/2.8, and 800mm big boi. That however is just me, I am not representative of every buyer. But if the R5 had came out with a lens roadmap showing us they had say a 200-400 f/4.0 planned for next year, I would have a R5 right now.
Upvote
0
Your original statement was that Canon need to put out a lens roadmap. @Bob Howland asked how that would benefit Canon. Your answer boils down to ‘I wanted it’ and ‘Nikon does it’. Does having your answers questioned make you feel like you’re ‘on trial’? Should everyone just accept what you say because you’re you?
You are correct that I have no data either way. You might consider that Canon has revised their profit estimates upward in recent financial presentations as well, citing in part increased revenues from RF lens sales. Without the public roadmap you say they need to provide.
I suspect it’s similar to the arguments over opening up the lens mount. Sony did that, back in 2012 when they were #3 and struggling for market share. Nikon did that recently, and they are #3 and struggling for market share. Canon continues to dominate the market, with nearly 50% of ILC sales every year (meaning a user base of likely >80% of the market). They probably don’t see a need to woo new users by facilitating cheap 3rd party lens availability or telegraph their intentions for lens releases. The vast majority of ILC users are already shooting Canon, and every year that majority increases because Canon continues to sell more cameras than Sony and Nikon combined.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 381342
Guest
My answer boils down to there was no evidence to suggest it would negatively affect Canon. Canon's improved profits and Nikon's improved profits don't say ether way.
My original statement was "Canon just need to put out a lens roadmap. It is really fantastic that I can look at the Nikon one and see for sure a 35 f/1.2 and 135 f/1.8 are in the works and plan accordingly." That can only be interpreted as something I want from them and believe other customers would benefit from. If it benefits Canon or not is irrelevant but you are right I did try to answer the OP in how it might benefit Canon, even though that part was irrelevant.
As for who is dominating the market or not, I don't see that as having any relevance. Do you really want to be guessing what lenses are coming next and with no timeframes? What if they have no plans to release your bread and butter lens at all but another manufacture does? I don't know about you, but I don't buy in-between steps while I wait. If I need a 135 I am not going to make do with a 85 in the hopes that the 135 will eventually come. I would buy my other lenses in the meantime though if I know my lenses are coming.
And when we are talking about my answers here, since it is something I want to see and not a "Canon will die if they don't do this", then yes, you indeed should accept my answers as I would accept yours. This isn't something that needs a well reasoned and data baked argument, I want Canon to provide a lens roadmap.
Edit for clarity:
"You need to get off your backside" you will get up and move.
"You just need to get off your backside" wouldn't it be great if you got up, look at the benefits it'll have on your health.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
Makes sense.
To answer your question, certainly I'd prefer to know what lenses Canon plans to release, and when. Especially regarding an RF 300/2.8. However, I don't fall into the trap of thinking that what I want has any bearing on what Canon should or should not do (and to be clear, I'm not suggesting you're saying that, either...but many people on this forum certainly seem to believe that).
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 381342
Guest
I too would love to see a RF 300 f/2.8 from Canon, mostly just to see them put out their first mirrorless super-tele prime lens. But also because I didn't own a Canon 300 f/2.8 L USM for 20 odd years for fun, I have always thought of it as one of the best wildlife lenses even if it is a little too wide at times. Though now I question if I loved it or if I loved f/2.8 on a super-tele as whenever I have the 400 f/2.8 TC on loan all my other lenses, including my 800 f/6.3, are just left behind and it fixes thing I felt for twenty years "I wish this was just a little tighter." Regardless, I wish you success in the RF 300 f/2.8 coming soon. I hope it is a prime, but there is a trend now to make those into 120-300 f/2.8's which push the price up a lot.
Upvote
0
Maybe you're right, but given Canons history I'd guess differently. It's a L lens, therefore no lens for a crop APS-c camera and no RF-S lens. 12mm for full frame will be rather big and given the aperture of F1.8. at this focal length "small and light scheme" is simply not possible. So, the odds are pretty much that the 12mm F1.8L will be the spiritual successor of the 14mm F2.8.
So far, every wide-angel option has become wider, the 14mm will too. As with a lot of lenses, e.g. EF 50/ 85mm F1.2 and RF 50/85mm the RF version is more expensive. Given some extra features (in this case two extra feature) the price will be extremely high.
Upvote
0
Even with IBIS and IS, good camera stabilization techniques (whether handheld or when using tripods with various levels of quality) usually make a bigger difference than the minor differences in flat test chart performance between one lens and another. Not to mention skill controlling AF or even MF when warranted.
Upvote
0
That really depends upon the EF L lens in question.
For example, the EF 24-105mm f/4 l IS was not the most stellar in terms of optical performance, but it got the job done and could take pounding abuse day in and day out and still deliver as well as it did on day one. On the other hand, the original EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L was much better optically when in proper alignment, but couldn't take much of any kind of bump when the barrel was extended without getting knocked out of optical alignment. Thank goodness the hood was attached to the main barrel instead of the extending barrel! Both were priced similarly for much of their time in the Canon catalog.
Lower priced L zooms, such as the EF 17-40mm f/4 L, weren't all that great optically. They were made for photojournalists and others who needed durability more than they needed absolute optical image quality. On the other hand, a few of the lower priced L primes, like the EF 135mm f/2, could produce stunning results that beat more expensive zooms, such as the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II when used at 135mm, rendering out of focus areas in three-dimensional scenes.
Upvote
0
For much of the time when both were in the active catalog, the original EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L was only $100-200 more than the original EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS. The EF 135mm f/2 L and EF 200mm f/2.8 L were about the same or $100-200 less. The EF 17-40mm f/4 L was another $100 less. It wasn't until shortly before the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS II was announced that the price of the first generation 24-105/4 dropped from around $1,100 USD to about $800 USD, then even lower after the II came out. Of course, one could get a 5D II kit with the 24-105/4 for about $600-800 more than the body only, and one could get a "white box" 24-105/4 lens taken from those kits by retailers and sold individually for around $200-300 less than the official dealer price for a new 24-105/4 in a retail box.
"Weather sealing" is not binary. They all have varying degrees of sealing. No EF or RF lenses are fully sealed enough to be submerged in water. Only an open truss Newtonian reflector telescope type of lens could be truly said to have "no" weather sealing. Canon said the 17-40/4, for instance, was considered "weather sealed" when a UV or other spin-on filter was attached to the front of the lens. It does have a rubber gasket around the flange ring.
Upvote
0
The EF17-40/4L wasn't a great lens though and I wonder whether it met our expectations of what a L series lens would be.
Still available now @USD800 if @entoman wants to adapt it
It was one of those L lenses that fell into the "good enough for newsprint" category optically while being nearly indestructible to fit the requirements of photojournalists.
Upvote
0
It's only advantage was ticket holders could take it into stadiums/events that limited lens lengths to six inches or less.
Upvote
0
Wondering why you compare the RF 70-200/2.8 IS to the EF 70-200/2.8 IS III (2018) instead of the II (2010) or original version (2001), but then turn around and compare the RF 24-105/4 to the original 2005 EF 24-105/4 IS (which was officially $1,099 USD for many years) instead of the EF 24-105/4 IS II (2016)?
Also, the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II (2012) was almost twice the price of the original EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L (2002). Ditto for the EF 70-200/2.8 L IS ($1,299) and the II/III versions ($2,399/$2,099) as well as the EF 100-400 IS and IS II. Also the EF 16-35/2.8 L II (2007) and III (2016).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Somewhere around 2009-2010 or so Canon decided the market would bear significantly higher prices for f/2.8 zooms and top tier primes.
In 2010 the 70-200 IS went from $1,299 to $2,399 for the II.
In 2012 the 24-70 went from $1,199 to $2,299 for the II.
In 2015 the 16-35 went from around $1,399 for the II to $2,199 for the III.
In most cases the optical quality of those lenses also noticeably improved over the ones they replaced.
Pricewise, after the $1,200-1,300 f/2.8 zooms were replaced with $2,100-2,400 f/2.8 zooms, new f/4 zoom lenses that were only slightly cheaper than the old f/2.8 lenses appeared in the catalog.
The same trend can be seen in the pricing of Great White Tele primes beginning with the updates introduced in 2011-12. The $4,000-6,000 IS tele primes became $7,000-11,000 IS II tele primes. Nothing new filled the price gap below the large aperture superteles above 200mm. The old 300/4 and 400/5.6 stayed in the catalog, but they had no IS and optical designs from the early 1990s.
Even the mid-grade WA primes saw a real price increase about the same time. Compare 24/28/35 f/2.8 (35/2) prices in 2011 to the prices of the 24/28/35 IS primes that replaced them in 2012. They almost doubled.
The price bump for top prime lenses seemed to happen at the EF to RF transition partly because not many top tier non-GW primes were released between 2008 and 2018.
The two TS-E L primes rolled out in 2009 certainly had much higher prices than the previous TS-E 24/45/90 non-L lenses!
The EF 35mm f/1.4 II in 2015 also bumped the price up quite a bit higher than the 1998 original. In 1998 the street price (those are not really much of a thing any more, as online commerce and supply chain issues have raised the percentages of new lenses that are sold at "official" prices) of the 35/1.4 L was $1,200. The II was introduced at $1,799.
In 2017 the EF 85/1.4 L IS was introduced at $1,599, only about $100 less than the street price of the larger aperture EF 85mm f/1.2 L II.
The TS-E 50/90/135 L lenses introduced in 2017 were also priced much higher than the non-L TS-E 45/90 lenses they supplanted.
The EF 600/4 III IS from 2018 and the RF 600/4 from 2021 are the same price. Ditto for the EF III 400/2.8 III IS and RF 400/2.8.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The gap was not near as large until the 2012 introduction of the 2nd generation of IS Big Whites and prices jumped by about 50-70% or more. The EF 300/2.8 IS was around $4.5K. The EF 300/2.8 IS II was over $6K. Go back to the last generation of non-IS Big Whites, considering the 300/4 and 400/5.6 are non-IS, and the gap was even smaller. The original EF 300/2.8 was only $3,500.
Upvote
0
The thing a lot of folks miss when looking at MF digital is that Leica S (3:2), Fuji GFX (4:3), Hasselblad 50c (4:3), and Pentax 645D (4:3) are only crop factor 0.8X compared to 135 format (3:2).
Phase One (4:3) and Hasselblad 60c (4:3) are crop factor 0.64, which is almost 645 (3:4) film format (0.614).
Leica S (3:2) is only 56% more area than 135.
GFX/50c/645D (4:3) are only 68% more area than 135
P-1/60c (4:3) are 150% more area than 135.
P-1/60c (4:3) are 49% more area than GFX and 50c.
Phase One and Hasselblad 60c are almost as much larger compared to GFX/50c/645D as GFX/50c/645D are compared to full frame.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
