Which Canon lens is most in need of updating.
- Thread starter rfdesigner
- Start date
ahsanford said:
Very happy to share this common ground, but my biggest Canon wish is for the 50mm 1.2L to be updated to be just as good as the marvelous 35mm 1.4L II. As I'd be shooting it mostly only up to f/2.8, I can happily live without the IS--though it would be a nice bonus, but apparently just adds too much weight and size to the fastest lenses that fit FF...
Upvote
0
YuengLinger said:
Yep. The future of the 50L remains at a fork in the road: Canon could either stick with the compact double gauss design or join the Art and Otus lenses with huge new designs. Your guess is as good as mine there.
One would also expect the BR gunk to make a comeback based on the performance of the 35L II.
- A
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
Not really. That 35mm f1.4 L MkII you mention is the same family of design as the Otus and Sigma 50's, retrofocus. That the next 50L will be a retrofocus design is pretty much a given.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
Oh, so you think it's a done deal -- Canon will build a big / killer resolution lens and abandon the weird magic and draw of the current 50L? It's a logical guess, sure, but do we know that's what they'll do?
- A
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
None of us know anything!
But yes I believe a new 50L would have to be a retrofocus design not a double gauss. However I don't believe a 50L 'upgrade' is imminent, when Canon designed the 50L they made what they consider to be the ultimate portrait lens with no consideration to cost or processes, in other words they built what they wanted to build and the aberrations that are there are there by design.
Now a 50 f1.4 upgrade with the 35 f2 IS treatment at f1.4-f2 makes a huge amount of sense to me. As does a full on 85 f1.2 MkIII.
Of course this means we will never get an 85L MkIII or that 50 f1.4 IS.........
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
Well, I just rented that 'ultimate portrait lens' over the holiday to take some nice shots of the family, and there is nothing 'ultimate' about the AF hit rate with that lens on my 5D3. Despite getting the AFMA dialed-in, I ended up camping out around f/2 with that lens because I had too many misses when I shot wider than that, even with painstakingly careful AF technique (single cross point only, no focus and recompose, completely static subject, etc.).
From what I've read, the 35 f/1.4L II has the
- A
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
That's because you expected the kind of AF performance other lenses with different design concepts deliver together with the exceptionally narrow dof at close focus distances and the technique and familiarity needed to optimize it.
Many people use and love the 50 f1.2L, that you couldn't on your first outing with it really isn't any kind of comment on the lens, and knowing your self deprecating nature I wouldn't expect you to blame the lens especially had you had more time with it.
Having said all that, I'd be surprised if you didn't have more than one keeper that has a certain something you can't quite put your finger on and that is why that lens, with it's 'character', has so many fans and so many haters. But it does do what Canon wanted it to do, it can deliver images with a certain magic that seems impossible to quantify yet was deliberately built in regardless of any other compromises needed to achieve that look.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
My second rental with it, actually, but my experience was similar both times.
Your comments are fair. I make no proclamation that I have mastered how to handle the 50L by any stretch, and working with small DOF absolutely has it's challenges. And yes, it definitely net some very nice shots for me. It didn't miss all the time!
But I still believe that a photographer -- throwing out all artistic ambition / composition / judgment / intuition for a moment -- should be able to say 'I want to nail my nephew's eyes at f/1.4 (when he's not moving)', commit to accomplishing that task and repeatedly accomplish it. That was not my experience at all, and such, I actually do hold the lens accountable in this case. I expected a far-from-perfect hit rate towards the wide-open end, but I also experienced misses at f/2, even f/2.8 on non-moving subjects with decent available light. That's borderline inexcusable to me.
I'm not categorically indicting the lens, and I fully recognize that people work magic with it on a regular basis. I'm just saying that I have much more faith in even non-L glass like my 28 f/2.8 IS and 35 f/2 IS to do what I want it to do. I recognize those aren't nearly the same AF ask as a 50mm f/1.2 lens, but those little guys are fire and forget and never let me down. In comparison, the 50L -- even at more pedestrian apertures -- whiffed somewhat regularly.
- A
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:privatebydesign said:
My second rental with it, actually, but my experience was similar both times.
Your comments are fair. I make no proclamation that I have mastered how to handle the 50L by any stretch, and working with small DOF absolutely has it's challenges. And yes, it definitely net some very nice shots for me. It didn't miss all the time!
But I still believe that a photographer -- throwing out all artistic ambition / composition / judgment / intuition for a moment -- should be able to say 'I want to nail my nephew's eyes at f/1.4 (when he's not moving)', commit to accomplishing that task and repeatedly accomplish it. That was not my experience at all, and such, I actually do hold the lens accountable in this case. I expected a far-from-perfect hit rate towards the wide-open end, but I also experienced misses at f/2, even f/2.8 on non-moving subjects with decent available light. That's borderline inexcusable to me.
I'm not categorically indicting the lens, and I fully recognize that people work magic with it on a regular basis. I'm just saying that I have much more faith in even non-L glass like my 28 f/2.8 IS and 35 f/2 IS to do what I want it to do. I recognize those aren't nearly the same AF ask as a 50mm f/1.2 lens, but those little guys are fire and forget and never let me down. In comparison, the 50L -- even at more pedestrian apertures -- whiffed somewhat regularly.
- A
did you use an Eg-s focus screen?
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
Ah.. I forgot the 5D3 won't let you. Point is on my 6D (+Eg-S) I'm finding that my wasted shot rate has gone down compared to my last camera as I can see more easily if it's missed focus, so I try again rather than take a shot I know will be off.
Upvote
0
how do propose that we determine which lenses most need updating?
Potential revenue growth for Canon (we would need to see market data), potential improvement in IQ (we would need to talk the guys in the lab - sorry ladies), ones we would like to see updated soonest because we want a new / updated lens. The latter question we can answer
Potential revenue growth for Canon (we would need to see market data), potential improvement in IQ (we would need to talk the guys in the lab - sorry ladies), ones we would like to see updated soonest because we want a new / updated lens. The latter question we can answer
Upvote
0
RGF said:how do propose that we determine which lenses most need updating?
Potential revenue growth for Canon (we would need to see market data), potential improvement in IQ (we would need to talk the guys in the lab - sorry ladies), ones we would like to see updated soonest because we want a new / updated lens. The latter question we can answer
It's also a system
Canon recognised the substantial weakness in their landscape lens segment and have well and truely fixed that with the 11-24 and 16-35 f4
They've produced the best 70-200 on the market and have a great choice for lesser budgets/biceps, and the rest of the big whites are, between them, out of this world, so sports and wildlife are pretty sorted (minus a 600-150)
The "wedding primes" is where some questions should be asked. the 35LII is the best available if I win the lottery I'll buy one the same day, while the 50L and 85L produce the best boke but are a comprimise in other respects.
Mid zooms are great, nothing to really complain about there, though IS on the 2.8 would be welcomed.
The mid-lenses is where things get a lot more troublesome. The 35f2 might be reasonably good but the 28f1.8 really needs an optical update, though mechanics are good and AF has nothing wrong that better optics wouldn't fix. The 100F2 is fine.. the 85 is not as good as the 100 and is more in need of an update, though I'd happily upgrade my 100 to get IS and reduced logitudinal chromatic abberation. The 501.4 though is just awful.. optically way behind the curve, mechanically it's just a joke, unlike the 50STM which for the money is a fine lens.
Point is as a SYSTEM, the mid primes are not what they need to be in 2017, and the 50L/85L let it down in some respects.
Upvote
0
rfdesigner said:
Interesting way to slice it, RF. My take, as a system (EF only):
UWA primes --> Underwhelming. It's not exactly Zeiss with different prime FLs every few mm or so. The 14L is fine, but a new 20L to replace the ancient non-L 20mm f/2.8 would be welcomed I think. As a niche/specialty comment, Canon (and most everyone else!) can't seem to make a fast + ultrawide + coma free lens -- there's astro business to be had if they could offer such a lens.
UWA zooms --> Canon threw the house at improving here and it paid off. They have killed it with their recent high quality releases. We can debate the 16-35 f/2.8L III's 16mm vignetting as an inexplicable 'what happened?', but sharpness-wise, the 11-24L and both recent 16-35 Ls are all fine instruments. Some bellyache about the lack of an f/2.8 IS UWA zoom or something wider than 16mm @ f/2.8, but most everyone else is pretty pumped at what Canon's been doing in this segment.
Standard primes, L --> Good, but aging and not without room for improvement. The 50L and 85L have been outclassed with third party offerings in recent years. We're just starting a refresh cycle here on the 24/35/50/85, but if the new ones are as good as the 35L II, we're in business.
Standard primes, mid-level --> This is the sucking belly wound of the portfolio. The 24/28/35 IS lens refresh was a home run (esp. once prices came down), but the original USM line of 28(1.8 )/50/85 are old enough to drink in the US now. ;D We can debate the need for a fast 28mm lens, but in no uncertain terms the 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 need to be updated.
Standard zooms --> The most options but also the most butt-hurt / complainy market. The 24-70 f/2.8L II is apparently top drawer but it has no IS. The 24-70 f/4L IS is terrific, but should cost $600. And some 24-105L II folks seem to believe that a 4.5x zoom should punch its weight versus the 24-70s... and possibly be tack sharp throughout the range... and possibly go to 120mm while they are at it. And yet others think Canon should offer huge faster-than-2.8 glass for those that will pay for it. But I'm hard pressed to think of a company with more options here. Objectively, f/2.8 IS is the only clear missing piece in this segment.
Short tele black primes (100-200, not including the 200 f/2) --> All good, but aging and in need of a refresh. The 100 non-L non-macro, 100 non-L macro, 100L macro, 135L, 180L macro and 200L are 26, 17, 8, 21, 21 and 21 years old, respectively. I recognize we're moving into lower volume sales areas, but one could argue only the 100L and legendary 135L are worth buying new in 2017.
Short tele zooms (70-200, 70-300) --> Great. More options than anyone at a host of price points and they all perform quite well. There's a lot of competition in the 70-200 f/2.8 space as it's a staple pro tool, but Canon acquits itself awfully well here.
Big White primes --> I've never owned or shot one, but Canon's reputation is based on them and they are coveted. The only downside is dollars -- there are only a few 'affordable' options in there, though, and folks have been screaming for IS on the (wonderfully inexpensive) 400mm f/5.6 for a long time now.
Big White zooms (100-400, 200-400) --> the gaping hole in the lineup. Those two lenses are terrific, but currently, those are all we have. I flag as a red because there's no way to shoot Canon glass past 400mm on FF without the drawbacks of a teleconverter or some $9k leaving your pocket. A 'modestly-priced' zoom option ($2-3k) up to 600mm is sorely needed, though many have done the 600mm / 5.6 math and doubt Canon can offer one so inexpensively.
On aggregate? Fuhgeddaboudit. Nikon has some special lenses and m43's semi-standardization has led to a lot of lens development, but on aggregate, Canon coasts to victory here.
T/S, Video-centric lenses, 5x macro, etc. --> Not really my wheelhouse. Can't comment.
Curious to see how others assess the strengths and weaknesses of the lens portfolio. Please don't quote the whole post in replying to one point or people will stop reading this thread very quickly.
- A
Upvote
0
Similar threads
