Why is Canon so slow updating (legacy) lenses?

[Neeneko]

What seems odd is the 24IS and 28IS. Why two lenses so similar, but we still have a 50/1.4 and 1.8 that are long over due for an overhaul?

Probably because of how sucesful the current versions of the 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 are. Outside L-fetish pretty much any time a newbie asks 'what lens should I get' these two come up a highly regarded and many people start with one of these two lenses. There is little need to 'fix' them to draw more people in, while the 24IS and 28IS are much less common and thus would benefit form incremental improvements to increase interest in them.

 

[unfocused]

Didn't vote.

I don't know anything about optics, but I suspect that lenses don't get updated all that often because the technology is fairly stable. There may be incremental design improvements, but lenses are at heart physical tools for gathering and directing light. They seem to be governed by the laws of physics, which don't get changed very often (as opposed to electronics).

Besides, I used to want to see new lenses, but since each "II" version seems to require at least a doubling or even tripling of the price, I'm much less interested. Good example: I really wanted to get a new version of the 100-400 zoom, but when I learned the replacement would be $3,000, I lost interest.

What difference does it make if a lens is updated if the updated version is far beyond what I am willing to pay?

 

[NWPhil]

did not vote
yes, it's all about business - mainstream zooms do sell and make bodies sell as kits.
the USM and Is technology - yes graet, but do add cost and lens life expectancy - classic case with wth 50mm 1.4
So, my take would be:
- zooms do benefit of IS and USM - updates on them are priority
- long focal primes do need IS and USM - pro's and pro-hiring companies can absorb the cost that will give them an edge/better IQ
- anything below 50mm as a prime: skip the IS and drop the USM - yes MF only - upgrade lens coating, seals and shellcase, and ofcourse any real technical optical improvement is welcome( less flare, CA)

 

[DavidRiesenberg]

- anything below 50mm as a prime: skip the IS and drop the USM - yes MF only - upgrade lens coating, seals and shellcase, and ofcourse any real technical optical improvement is welcome( less flare, CA)

If Canon would actually dare to release a MF prime they will probably charge extra for it. They'll sell it as some super duper mad-skillz-pro-photographer must have lens.

 

[wickidwombat]

What seems odd is the 24IS and 28IS. Why two lenses so similar,

probably because there was only some marginal design and manufacturing differences so it was easy to bring the 2 to market together looking at them there isn't a great deal of visual differences

I would have made sense to have done the 50mm first though since the 24mm 28mm is already covered by tons of great L glass

 

[Daniel Flather]

- anything below 50mm as a prime: skip the IS and drop the USM - yes MF only - upgrade lens coating, seals and shellcase, and ofcourse any real technical optical improvement is welcome( less flare, CA)

If Canon would actually dare to release a MF prime they will probably charge extra for it. They'll sell it as some super duper mad-skillz-pro-photographer must have lens.

I'd like to see your CAD Canon camera come to life. FF 50 fast prime, no mirror.

 

[birdman]

My guess is that:
1) The lenses still perform very well
2) There is way less money in these inexpensive lenses versus the 300, 400, 500, & 600mm primes that sports photographers world-wide use and demand!!
3) They are waiting to see how sensors will evolve and how to maximize IQ based on lens & sensor combinations

If you study their R&D, they make their own Fluorite elements. The higher end teles and primes are astonishing in IQ. Even the 85/1.8, 135/2.0, and 200/2.8 are still very highly regarded...and very freaking OLD!!

notice the 50/1.2, 24/1.4 II, 85/1.2 II, and 70-200 VRII have been upgraded in the last 5-7 years? They'll get around to updating the "cheaper" lenses for the "cheaper" shooters. Your time is coming, so be patient

 

[prestonpalmer]

Your time is coming, so be patient

But I want them NOW!

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

My guess is that:
1) The lenses still perform very well
2) There is way less money in these inexpensive lenses versus the 300, 400, 500, & 600mm primes that sports photographers world-wide use and demand!!

The short tele primes, e.g. 85mm & 135mm, do perform very well. I would think thrice before spending money on upgrading my 85mm f/1.8 - it's just good. The shorter primes aren't bad, but I think it's time upgrades with better IQ.

As for profit -

1. I'm sure super teles are more profitable per unit than shorter ones, but can the same be said per model, after taking number of units sold?

2. Sigma is making several primes in those focal lengths (30mm, 50mm, 85mm, 105mm macro, 150mm macro), and Samyang makes a few manual primes as well (24mm, 35mm, 85mm), and those compete with Canon's non-L primes. Those lenses compete with Canon's primes, and apparently sell those well enough.

 

[NWPhil]

- anything below 50mm as a prime: skip the IS and drop the USM - yes MF only - upgrade lens coating, seals and shellcase, and ofcourse any real technical optical improvement is welcome( less flare, CA)

If Canon would actually dare to release a MF prime they will probably charge extra for it. They'll sell it as some super duper mad-skillz-pro-photographer must have lens.

I'd like to see your CAD Canon camera come to life. FF 50 fast prime, no mirror.

I have to ask: what's CAD Canon camera?

 

[Daniel Flather]

- anything below 50mm as a prime: skip the IS and drop the USM - yes MF only - upgrade lens coating, seals and shellcase, and ofcourse any real technical optical improvement is welcome( less flare, CA)

If Canon would actually dare to release a MF prime they will probably charge extra for it. They'll sell it as some super duper mad-skillz-pro-photographer must have lens.

I'd like to see your CAD Canon camera come to life. FF 50 fast prime, no mirror.

I have to ask: what's CAD Canon camera?

http://davidriesenberg.com/

Go to Portfoilio, then you'll see the Canon AE-D CAD drawings. If you don't know CAD is Computer Assisted Drwaing.

 

[Daniel Flather]

- anything below 50mm as a prime: skip the IS and drop the USM - yes MF only - upgrade lens coating, seals and shellcase, and ofcourse any real technical optical improvement is welcome( less flare, CA)

If Canon would actually dare to release a MF prime they will probably charge extra for it. They'll sell it as some super duper mad-skillz-pro-photographer must have lens.

I'd like to see your CAD Canon camera come to life. FF 50 fast prime, no mirror.

I have to ask: what's CAD Canon camera?

http://davidriesenberg.com/

Go to Portfoilio, then you'll see the Canon AE-D CAD drawings. If you don't know, CAD is Computer Assisted Drwaing.

 

[NWPhil]

I have to ask: what's CAD Canon camera?
[/quote]


http://davidriesenberg.com/

Go to Portfoilio, then you'll see the Canon AE-D CAD drawings. If you don't know, CAD is Computer Assisted Drwaing.
[/quote]

Thanks - actually I do work with CADD software every day, that's why when you said "CAD Canon camera",it did get my attention.
However is not really a CAD file, but a rendition image that come out from a cad software program - I could throw a few names, but for sure is not Autodesk or Bentley - would be nice indeed to see the 3D model of it, as Inventor or SoildWorks can do
Cool stuff that DR has on his website btw
Thanks

 

[JR]

I think another option in the original post vote could have been:

because Canon is too busy announcing video centric product and are losing sight of the traditional still market segment.

 

[Marsu42]

because Canon is too busy announcing video centric product and are losing sight of the traditional still market segment.

I absolutely agree, the same thought came to me when looking at the new cinema announcements - but I didn't think of it back when I made the poll. However, it seems to fit with the most-voted opinion "older lenses are a cash cow" because in the old market segment Canon is still strong while they want to expand into new ones.

 

[Bennymiata]

I think the reason they haven't updated the 50mm 1.8, is because it is so cheap and cheerful and sells by the bucketload just as it is.
If they did update it, it's cost would go up by at least a factor of 2, and then the sales would plummet.

Updating lenses means new tooling and new systems to manufacture it, and with the older lenses, you are paying for yesterdays tooling costs, and not today's, which would be significantly higher.

Canon need some low-cost lenses in its line up as not all DSLR users are prepared to pay for L lenses and I would say that the greater majority of their lens sales are the cheap, kit lenses anyway.
Ask any camera retailer which lens sells in the highest volume, and they will tell you that the cheaper lenses outsell the L glass by 3 or 4 times, both in volume and $$$ sales.
It's a bit like cars.
We all want a super high performance, gorgeous looking car, but most of us drive smaller, cheaper cars.

Don't forget, we are on this forum because we are real enthusiasts, and enthusiasts who are prepared to spend big money on stuff are only a small part of any consumer market.

 

[JR]

because Canon is too busy announcing video centric product and are losing sight of the traditional still market segment.

I absolutely agree, the same thought came to me when looking at the new cinema announcements - but I didn't think of it back when I made the poll. However, it seems to fit with the most-voted opinion "older lenses are a cash cow" because in the old market segment Canon is still strong while they want to expand into new ones.

Yeah...too bad for us!

 

[NWPhil]

I think the reason they haven't updated the 50mm 1.8, is because it is so cheap and cheerful and sells by the bucketload just as it is.
If they did update it, it's cost would go up by at least a factor of 2, and then the sales would plummet.

Updating lenses means new tooling and new systems to manufacture it, and with the older lenses, you are paying for yesterdays tooling costs, and not today's, which would be significantly higher.

Canon need some low-cost lenses in its line up as not all DSLR users are prepared to pay for L lenses and I would say that the greater majority of their lens sales are the cheap, kit lenses anyway.
Ask any camera retailer which lens sells in the highest volume, and they will tell you that the cheaper lenses outsell the L glass by 3 or 4 times, both in volume and $$$ sales.
It's a bit like cars.
We all want a super high performance, gorgeous looking car, but most of us drive smaller, cheaper cars.

Don't forget, we are on this forum because we are real enthusiasts, and enthusiasts who are prepared to spend big money on stuff are only a small part of any consumer market.

+1

if is not broken, don't fix it.


Yet, a large percentage of enthusiasts still are driven by the mega-pixel race, and pixel-peep of every shot they take.
Some of my friends have no problem spending $200 on a new phone that will be outdated in a few months, and then will be looking to replace with a new one at great loss.
With lenses, once you buy quality - that you need and use - it's a keeper. You don't really need to update just because a new version is out.
If indeed a lens is an underperformer,, then most likely you already got ride of, or you never got it.
The average Joe, considers a lens above $500 already very expensive...yet, has no problems in paying over twice that in G4 phone/ wireless internet access charges
Priorities...that's a bitch

Canon's prioities: stay alive and make money, whitout loosing position in the market/ratings
For me, a product that needs constant update, just means was not done right to start with...

 

[swrightgfx]

Why people feel the need to "update" their glass when a new version comes out is beyond me.

Rumor has it that Canon uses other glass/coating in for the digital generation lenses - so that would be one reason to "update". The other reason is that some 80s tech is just crappy today - talking of non-usm af motors... and Canon did update some lenses like the 24L but didn't do the same for the 35L for reasons unknown to me.

True, there are differences in coatings. Having said that, I am not sure it always justifies an upgrade. New lens versions are most relevant to first time buyers of that lens model or focal length or if lens improvements (like IS) are necessary to certain groups of users' shooting style.

I certainly won't be rushing out to replace my 35 1.4L with a 35 1.4L II, even if it gets IS, as that lens is already and always will be a stellar performer and, in my opinion, one of if not the top lens in the Canon line-up for what I use it for. If I had Parkinson's or shot low-light sports, then maybe adding IS would swing me, but I won't be parting with my cash at a likely inflated cost for something that has little relevance to the way I shoot or for mild improvements in coatings on a lens that is already contrasty and good at handling flare.

Manufacturers know that customers will buy updated lenses based almost solely on a II or III designation and "new, revolutionary, 'game-changing' coatings" or "extra large rubberised grip for extra grip...piness" - they make a killing out of it; they get two or more lens sales at the same focal length or ranges as well as new investments in additional focal lengths or ranges.

It is kind of opposite to micro four-thirds, where they have an over-abundance of body versions all using the same mount, but few quality lenses from the camera manufacturers. (Though one could argue that they also get access to thousands of adaptable MF lenses.)

Unless there are dramatic modifications or improvements, updates should be reserved and the research and development budget spent elsewhere - for the development of new lenses (perhaps more tilt-shift, anyone?) or sensors. Maybe a range of cameras that don't have the appearance of 90s office telephones, too.

 

[Marsu42]

I certainly won't be rushing out to replace my 35 1.4L with a 35 1.4L II, even if it gets IS, as that lens is already and always will be a stellar performer and, in my opinion, one of if not the top lens in the Canon line-up for what I use it for.

I agree that good lenses are a keeper. The reason for me thinking about "updated" lenses is another one: With my limited budget, I'd be be not very happy if I get a 35L that has been in production for quite a long time the day before the 35L2 is announced. If I knew there was an "update" coming, I'd rather wait and buy an used 35L1 for a lower price - so please sell it once the new version arrives, will you ?

Imho the one thing that does justify an "update" is a sturdier construction and weather sealing - the latter should go without saying with any lens costing 1000+ bucks because missing weather sealing (as well as a plastic body, see 100L) threatens the investment under harsh conditions.