|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
Canon's Lens Future
The source admits this is a wild concept and comes from a third party. The third party is in a position that this type of knowledge is possible.
I received the following information. Even the source says take it with a large grain of salt.
Over the next decade, Canon will go all “L” EF lenses and EF-S lenses. There will be no NON-L EF lenses produced.
The source claims the following. This is a direct quote.
50mm f/1.4 will be replaced by a new upgraded Pro-grade 50mm f/1.4L at $600-700, even at $700 its still about half the cost of the 50mm f/1.2L and in the reach of most people shooting for say, the 50mm f/1.4 Sigma…
It will offer faster AF than its bigger brother due to lighter focusing groups, and possibly better optical performance due to improvements in glass and coatings…
The old 50mm f/1.4 will be discontinued, as will the 24, 28 and 35 non-L primes, all of which replaced with a 35mm f/1.4 EF-S lens that will be less than $400 and feature a build quality close to the 15-85 (Ie very solid)
CR's Take
I have never heard anything like this previously. It may be worth discussing and drawing out other folks that may have some knowledge on the subject. This is a rumors site, this felt worthwhile posting, even if it's complete poppycock.
I will say the price points are likely way off. I can't see a 35 1.4 coming in under $400. The 50 1.4L with better optics than the 1.2L? I'm not sure about the likelihood of that either.
cr
wow im just reading all these posts FIRST.
If that’s the case then…. wow! This would leave all the third party lenses maker trailing behind forever ever.
I don’t really see this happening. I believe there is definitely a market for non-L lenses for bodies that don’t accept EF-S lenses. For example, the 85 f/1.8 is a great lens for the price…but it is not anywhere near the quality of the 85 f/1.2L. There is no way Canon could justify calling the f/1.8 an L lens.
It would sure slim down production/research costs, though.
I have my doubts about this simply because L has always implied a premium price for a premium product. Unless Canon plans to abandon the consumer end of the market (no more Rebels, maybe not even anything below the 7D), it doesn’t make sense for them not to have budget lenses available. Lots of people buy the non-L lenses because they can’t afford the Ls (and many of them are satisfied with their non-L, f/3.5-5.6 zooms and see no need to upgrade), and I don’t see why Canon would just throw their money away. Canon did not get to where they are in the industry by telling people, “If you want cheap lenses, go buy Tamron or Sigma — we have nothing for you.”
Now, I could almost believe that Canon was going to drop non-L prime lenses but keep the cheap zooms around. The average consumer probably isn’t a prime buyer for the most part, and as the 100mm macro shows, you can take a high-quality non-L prime and upgrade it to L without actually changing it all that much (better plastic for the casing, add IS, improve the optics a little). I could see this happening to the 28mm f/1.8, the 50mm f/1.4, the 85mm f/1.8, and the 100mm f/2. Some of the other non-L primes are very old designs (the 35 f/2, for example) and are more than ready for ugprades in any case.
All the budget lenses would be EF-S. They would not abondon that market. That would be a devastating decision, and that’s where EF-S lenses come in, and making the lenses EF-S would make the prices drop even further due to less glass needed and smaller design. They figure that anyone with enough money to buy a $2,500+ full frame or APS-H body could afford L lenses.
just get rid of the EF 24 & 28 f/2.8, add an EF 35 f/1.8 USM and update the 50 f/1.4 with real USM and better build. keep the 28, 85 and 100(s) non L. plus add an EF-S 35 f/2. done.
give us a fast normal (for APS-C) prime for Rebel, xxD and 7D please!
Well they certainly haven’t made many non-L/non-EF-S lenses recently. The 70-300 IS is about the only one worth noting in the last 10 years. Seems likely that they would put money into developing lens with better margins. There seems to be no shortage in demand for new L lenses. The lenses every one is clamoring for are almost always L or EF-S.
I think most people want really high quality glass or they have a crop frame body and want coverage i.e.:
18-135mm EF-S or the fast optics of the 70-200mm F2.8 IS II
Where do the EF primes fit in that market?
I believe this.
At the end of the day the L classification and the white colour are nothing more than marketing tools.
Furthermore, as technology improves, I believe more and more of Canon’s cameras will either have:
-crop sensors, due to better sensor technology
-or be mirrorless, thanks to better EVFs, etc
In either case, they would both support EF-S
My 3 cents
http://www.flickr.com/photos/47972369@N06/4702084768/
No one cares.
Its already that way to a certain extent. Except for the 50mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.8, I cannot think of a non L EF lens that is worth a crap. They got rid of the 100mm Macro and the tele-zooms are pretty much trash that are replicated in function with EF-S lenses. The 35mm and 28mm EF’s are not that great given their price and there is no tele-prime that is not an L series.
So, in a way, its close to this already.
I think I’m with you.
In the old days the only distinction between lenses was the speed. They were all built to the same quality, just some lenses were not as fast as others.
The “L” vs. “Non-L” designation always seemed weird to me. If you are putting your brand name on the lens, shouldn’t it be a quality product?
Do people really need a special designation to tell them that a $200 lens is probably not going to be as well-built as an $800 lens? And, if you are willing to spend $500 or more for a lens, shouldn’t you be able to assume it’s good quality?
I give credit to Tokina for starting this trend by building pro-quality lenses for crop sensor cameras. They tested the waters and now Canon and Nikon are figuring out that people who pay $1,600 for a crop sensor body want high quality lenses as well.
I own the 15-85 EF-S. The only difference I can find between it and the L lenses is it doesn’t have a red line around the barrel.
High end crop sensor cameras are here to stay and buyers want high-end lenses to go with them.
We may not like it, but it makes sense. I’d like to see nice 35mm f2 with USM, maybe in the $500ish range, but I’m not sure how much demand there would really be for it. I just can’t justify the cost of the 35mm L lens, and I’d rather have something smaller.
Otherwise, they could update the 85mm f1.8 and 100mm primes with new coatings (etc), add the L designation and raise the price to match the new 50mm f1.4 (whenever it finally appears).
And that would just about take care of it. About the only non L non EFS zoom that is left is the 28-135, and they just clear those out in kits with the 50D.
Ever use an 85 f1.8 or a 100 f2.0???
Those are the two of the worst Non-L lenses out there. 50/1.4 with its af that stops working after a dog breathes on it. The 35/2 is meh but it’s sharp and is reliable. The 85/1.8 and 100mm/2.0 are fabulous though.
I think Canon is going to introduce a class of Low-end L’s. Pick up a 100mm macro IS and you’ll know what I mean. It’s solid, but not 135mm solid.
It’s not that solid because it was made using material that is strong but lightwieght to help with handheld macro work.
you cared enough to reply, don’t feed the troll.
I hope you’re right.
I have a 5D body, I don’t have the money to buy L primes, and I’m happy with the 85 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.4 (not to say there’s no room for improvement).
Errrr… the current 50 f/1.4 already has better optics than 50 f/1.2L.
Hmmm….
Well, while this might be correct, neither of these lenses has particularly great optics, especially the 1.2, considering the price. Add in the by-design focus shift of this lens and it easily is a hot candidate for “worst price-performance ratio” in Canon’s current line-up.
Anyway, I agree that Canon needs a new 50 1.4 with better optics and AF, although I would not buy one since I have a 7D and I feel my (rather limited) prime needs are better covered with Sigma 30 1.4 and the ancient-but-excellent 85 1.8.
Considering the popularity of the Sigma 30 despite its own share of problems also illustrates that a contender to Nikon’s DX-only 35 1.8 is needed even more desperately in Canon’s line up, if only to serve as an entry drug to prime shooting for all those Rebel users out there.
That would leave all third party lens makers sweeping up the entry level market. L-lenses come with a price tag that is _not_ to the taste of all Canon users. Not even all FF users.
On the other hand, the trend is certainly going this way, at least for the primes. The 100 macro has just been Led. Except for Sigma (50 f/1.4) and Zeiss, no third has seen this as an opportunity.
The 5D2 is sold with an L-zoom in the kit. All other cameras (except the 1D(s) series, which will probably use L-lenses anyways) can live with EF-S.
So this decision would only affect zooms of the type EF 28-135 and EF 70-300. The former is essentially covered by the 24-105L. The latter can be replaced by an EF-S, forcing 5D2 users to either go 70-200L + 300f/4 L or Canon will make a new L-grade 70(100)-300 similar to the 70-200 f/4L. There is the 70-300 DO that apparently nobody wants to buy…
A dog breathed on my 35 f2 and the focus stopped working as well.
I bet the warranty repairs on the 35mm f2 and the 50mm f1.4 are a killer for Canon.
It wouldn’t surprise me if they wanted to get rid of both these lenses for this reason alone.
Keep the 20 f/2.8, please.
Actually, a moderate update of the optics and proper weather sealing of the present ring-USM non-Ls would move them pretty close to L territory.
Considering that this rumor actually just describes the current situation, I think it is likely to become true. What was the last non-L EF lens Canon introduced?
Anything in recent years was either EF-S or EF+L. I guess it is much easier to make people shell out the extra $€$€ for a new version of a lens if Canon added the red ring to the barrel — see the 100L IS Macro. Worked with me, I am very happy with this lens, despite many people complaining about the plastic used for the barrel.
I also think this is quite likely. The big question is will Canon start making a series of EF-S primes to replace the existing EF primes. To match the current 24-35-50 EF primes that would mean 16-22-31 EF-S primes. This is an area Canon currently lacks. Longer focal lengths are catered for by present EF lenses such as the 85/1.8.
Last non-L EF was the 70-300mm in 2005 which was close to L in price but has mediocre optics and AF for its price and needs an update and before that it’s the 100mm macro from 2000 that was just replaced.
“Over the next decade, Canon will go all “L” EF lenses and EF-S lenses. There will be no NON-L EF lenses produced.” pure BS and nonsense from a marketing point of view.
“The “L” vs. “Non-L” designation always seemed weird to me. If you are putting your brand name on the lens, shouldn’t it be a quality product?” – simply because there is quality and there is better quality. All non-L lenses have a certain standard of build and performance that has an acceptable “quality” for the price. L lenses have a better build quality and offer better performance for more money. That does not mean that non-L lenses are not quality products, that simply means that they offer basic quality as compared to higher L quality. All cars cannot be Ferraris.
I think it’s a great way to move forward. Lets say Canon make some higher class lenses then current “L”…
Btw most of the people who can afford DSLR can afford at least one L lens.
Sounds right to me; as others have commented it’s been going this way for a long time. And a really great 50mm 1.4 is both likely and desirable. If you want 1.2 the performance just has to be a bit compromised. But the latest tech ought be able to do a 1.4 that is both sharp wide open, and as good as slower lenses stopped down. Bring it on! And a 35mm f2 like that too; sharper smaller and cheaper than the excellent 1.4
It’s like toyota and lexus or volkswagen and audi. there may be a minor differences in quality, but the primary goal is making money and profit margins- Canon is a business after all, and they do have to report to their share holders.
if you think there is as much profit margin in the $100 nifty fifty as there is in the $2k 50 1.2, think again. also think again if they’re of the same quality.
not sure how you can compare your 15-85 EF-S to a majority of L series lenses… i pay more money for fixed apertures and fast lenses because of the low light capability and the bokeh. i’d like to see you compare your lens to the 24-70 2.8 at maximum zoom and maximum aperture. you would be better comparing the lens to the 17-55 2.8
“The 50 1.4L with better optics than the 1.2L? I’m not sure about the likelihood of that either.”
The current 50mm F1.4 is already sharper than the 50mm F1.2 when stopped down, so i don’t see the 50mm f1.4 out competing the current 50mm f1.2 at many f stops being a problem.
Nikon’s 35mm f/1.8 DX lens (EF-S in Canon terminology) is US $199 so I don’t see why Canon couldn’t build an f/1.4 version of that for $400 or less. Should be doable.
Well, this would simplify Canon’s lens line-up from three (EF, EF-L and EF-S) to two (EF-L and EF-S)…and it would indeed allow them to offer L-lenses at lower prices without losing too much face…although the prices mentioned do seem too low…unless Canon really wants to open the offensive against Sigma, Tamron etc.
It is also true that they would lose the exclusive premium status of the ‘L’ designation to some extent, but of course they would still be able to introduce a new premium line that’s even more prestigious and expensive (EF-P anyone?).
It will be interesting to see what’s going to happen.
Still waiting for refresh of 100-400 IS, 300/4 IS, 400/5.6 (Shorter MFD? IS?)…whatever the designation!
That could cannibalize some market for the APS-C shooters who now has to purchase 35L one…
Don’t worry, if Canon builds a lens in that FL range, they will make it no faster than f1.8, leave out USM (contrary to Nikon) and still ask 400$/€.
Call me a pessimist, but considering their recent pricing policy, this would fit right in.
Yes, Canon, give us a new 100-400, please. And keep your greed under control and maybe stick with a “moderate” (i.e. <20%) price increase this time, willy a?
I recently tried the old 100-400, and while I found the push-pull zoom okayish, the IS is simply not adequate any more (at least if you are used to something better).
I am now seriously considering getting the new 70-200 2.8 IS II together with the 2x TC instead and sell my 70-200 4 IS, which in the end would cost me effectively about the same as adding the 100-400 to my collection, but would give me a great new IS, an excellent and fast 70-200 f2.8 zoom, and a still adequate 140-400 f5.6.
However, it seems that at 400mm, the 100-400 wins, and since the 400mm setting is what I am actually after (well, for the most part, I would still ike the flexibility of a zoom and I want IS, so the 400 f5.6 is not an option)… tough decision
How many non-L EF lenses are interesting enough to buy?
Add in a 24-70/2,8IS on par with the 70-200ISII and the ever increasing sensors sensitivities.
Between a jack of all trades of such quality levels and true masters of their focal lengths there isn’t much place for budget lenses that are in sum just as or more expensive and bulky then the zoom while only offering fringe benefits.
Add a 50/1.4L and 85/1,4L, both at price points in the range of the new macro and the market for non “L”s is to small to be profitable.
It might be a bold move to say it loud, but take a look at the more or less recent release histories of both C and N. Two 70-300s and a 50/1.4G, not that such an announcement would change much in practice.
i dont’t think non-L lenses will dissapear because i don’t see how a entry-level camera will come with an L lense, because that will boost too much the price of that camera and will no loger be able to compete with other brands.
Alph & Mark, Agreed, with the increase in pixel density and the focus on quality sensors (inc 7D) the better glass is becoming a necessity to match the sensor capacity. I do beleive 3rd party vendors have good quality len’s too.
Maybe the increase in EF-s lens requirements signal more focus on aps-c developments in future.
I just got an email from a reputable inside source at Canon that a 70-200mm f/2 lens is coming out for the EF-S mount. Yes, f/2 on a zoom! They can do that since a crop sensor’s imaging area is half the size (keep the physical size the same but double the aperture with half the imaging area). Same size as 70-200mm f/2.8L IS but with less weight (no L-quality glass but does have some weather sealing) It’s going to be packaged as a kit with the 7D and will retail for $1,800 USD. I’ve been told Canon has room to drop the price to $1,500 but that would kill the L sales.
Then they figure wrong.
I’ve extended myself to buy a 5DmkII with three f/4 L zoom lenses doesn’t mean I need or can afford $1,500 L primes. It means I’ll settle for $500 small & light primes, and if those are not produced by Canon, then the money will go to Tamron, or Sigma, or whichever.
and you are a kid,
There’s a market but not for “so and so” lenses.
What we call “L” got tight sealing (dust doesn’t enter easily, no dust in my L lenses), weather sealing, smooth-big controls that doesn’t get hard/difficult to use after a year, awesome color response, awesome contrast and local contrast, good to awesome flare control, very low CA etc etc
EF-S got higher sharpness than most of L lenses, but most lack every build features, sealing, control smoothness durability, flare response, color transmission, contrast etc etc
And, they works only on APS-C bodies, so they’re not lenses for everything and specially not forever.
My 17-85 electronically died in 3 years, it had a lot of dust inside and was front-focusing in last months.
When it happened i searched on the web and many of them died soon, stucked diaphragm or electronic failure.
Some of them are nice, 10-22, 60 macro, 17-55 IS, maybe the 15-85, but you just can’t use them as you would use an L lens, for dust, flare, rain etc etc
I’m not buying a 17-55 at 900€, knowing it sucks dust and that it’s better if it don’t take a single drop of water.
Why can’t we have EF-S L? Canon called “L” a lens on a compact that had huge CA, so why not on the APS-C?
I don’t like the sensor but 7D’s body is awesome, how can we couple it with so and so built lenses, that are the only(togheter with primes and a few Ls) that returns a decent sharpness on the 18MP APS-C sensor?
I’m not english mother language (I hope it’s obvious :-)), so sometimes things comes out… in the only way I can build a sentence :-) i would like to be read as a contructive critics, not destructive.
My cameras are Canon and I would like that my next would be Canon too :-)
Agreed 100%.
While Canon has some things right, they seem to be super slow in overhauling their lens line-up. What’s wrong with the management?
Nice attempt, but f2 at 200mm means that the front lens diameter has to be at least 100mm in diameter (as the definition of aperture is independent of the image circle the lens illuminates). This would put such a lens size wise in or above the 200 f2 prime.
If you had chosen your focal lenght to be, say 50-135, it might have been more believable.
It would be sad only to have L- oder EF-S-primes:
L primes are tuned towards high max apertures. But where are the really sharp lenses like
EF 2.8 / 24 or
EF 2.0 / 100
And think about L-like technologies (Aspherical lenses, UD, Fluorite, special coatings) in lenses with reasonable high max apertures! An EF 2.8 / 24 with sharp edges straight from f 2.8 with a flare-less design and a close focus distance of 15 cm, ready to serve a 30 MPix sensor at full frame! (If Canon offers an upgrade EF L 2.8 / 24 at 550 $ / 500 EUR … o.k.!)
Or am I the only one who would like to have
– compact (= unobtrusive)
– leight weight
– ultra sharp
– distortionless
– flareless
prime at reasonable cost?
Well if resolution continues to climb then at some point current “entry” level lenses won’t cut it. Such lenses won’t be able to take full advantage of the resolution of the sensors. Even the starter lenses are going to have to be better to show the full potential of even the entry level cameras.
But who knows how far off in the future that is.
I think Canon will move all of their lenses to have a 1.2 aperture. All will focus to 1 inch. Yes.
Depends on who is buying – from a few to lots.
“I can’t see a 35 1.4 coming in under $400. The 50 1.4L with better optics than the 1.2L? I’m not sure about the likelihood of that either.”
Remember, technology marches forward, rarely backwards. Prices move in the other direction. Optics are no exception. The lenses we have available today are superior to and often cheaper than (after adjusting for inflation) those of 20 years ago. In the long term, we will see better lenses than we have today for less money.
That said, optics technology does not advance as fast as electronics does. The real revolution in photography over the last few decades has been because of electronics: autofocus, image stabilization, and of course digital cameras. Relatively speaking glass technology has stood still.
In fact, it has been so easy to improve photography by adding more and better electronics to the mix, that optics and mechanics have gotten short shrift. Canon and others have not invested as much as they could have in moving the state of the art forward: both upwards in capability and downwards in price. And that was a smart decision. Their return on investment has been much higher in electronics than it ever could have been in optics.
However we are hitting the point where further improvements in electronics and camera software are limited by the quality of the lenses. Pixels are already too small for all but the highest quality lenses, and while the megapixel race has slowed it hasn’t stopped. Further advances in camera electronics are blocked by the state of the art in lenses. This is even more obvious in the low end than the high end, where bodies we could only dream of a few years ago cost less than the cheapest professional L-series lens. I’m sure Canon has realized they need to start thinking about producing better lenses at lower costs; maybe not for the specialist lenses like macros and supertelephotos, but certainly in the 18-300mm range used by casual shooters.
Now whether Canon is going to release a new batch of better, cheaper lenses tomorrow I have no idea. But I fully expect to see lenses with quality equal or better to today’s L-series lenses for a few hundred dollars each within the next few years, especially in the sweet spot of 18-300mm.
I want a circular fisheye lens for Canon 5DmkII, not much different than the one Canon made for FD cameras.
I’m willing to pay price is close to that of the 15mm diagonal fisheye (= ~$700), but not the price attached to L primes (= ~$1,500)
That is a sale Canon will lose to Sigma.
What if one wants to photo portraits ?
According to the email above, users would have to choose between APS-C with too short EF-S 35mm / too long EF-S 60mm / too slow zoom, or FF with 85mm f/1.2 L
Would it surprise you that people would like an APS-C with 50mm f/1.8 mkII or 5DmkII with 85mm f/1.8 in the middle ?
[It wasn’t explicitly told the 50mm f/1.8 would be discontinued, but I think it’s implied.]
One thing they could do would be to compromise on lens quality (to keep cost down) and then make up for it with in camera correction for distortion and CA. They already have it for vignetting.
This is what the four-thirds cameras do… maybe Canon will do the same at the low end?
RE: “I own the 15-85 EF-S. The only difference I can find between it and the L lenses is it doesn’t have a red line around the barrel.”
Do you own any L-series lenses? I own both the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 and the EF 24-105mm f/4L – same cost, and both have excellent optical quality. But beyond the red ring, there’s a clear difference in build quality. The L can go out in the rain, the zoom ring feels noticeably smoother, etc.
I absolutely agree. I bought the 85 1.8 as I wanted to get started with primes. I am still primarily a (high-quality) zoom user and employ the primes only for specific purposes, but I never would have even considered trying out primes if the only options would have been the >1500€ Ls. So if it was not for the affordable non-L primes, someone else would have gotten my cash.
That’s exactly what happened with the next prime I bought: I wanted a normal-equivalent prime for my crop cameras, and all Canon has to offer is
a) the cheap-but-ancient EF 35 2.0 with its bee-hive AF motor and its plain horrible bokeh, let alone being only f2.0 thus living too little advantage over a good 2.8 zoom
b) the EF 28 1.8 USM, which has USM but which according to pretty much every source on the web is severely lacking sharpness below 2.8, so again no real advantage over the 17-55 or similar.
c) the EF 35L 1.4, which is just priced insanely high for most amateurs
So, in the end I got the Sigma 30 1.4, and I am quite happy with it. Yes, its AF could be a tad more consistent, but according to many tests (never had an 35L to compare to myself…) it holds up very well against the L, at about 1/3 the price. I would really have preferred buying a Canon lens, even if it was a bit slower but had a good quality and good AF, but faced with these options, only the Sigma came into question, and I don’t regret buying it at all. Great lens for low light candids, baby fotos whatever.
So if Canon really wants to leave this kind of revenue going to the third party vendors, they can have it.
I stopped reading after you said that all L lenses have weather sealing (they don’t) and that EF-S are sharper than most L lenses (lol).
quite close, i think. See how many of photozone.de’s lenses were close to failing on the 8 megapixel 30D they used. Expand that to the current 18 megapixels (which i expect the 600D and 60D to have), and guess what that leaves of performance. Very few lenses still outresolve the sensors of a 7D (i’d say the Big Whites do so, but even the 70-200L4 IS isn’t flawless any more). So, in a way, more megapixels are becoming far less useful, as well as a storage nuisance. And still, people buy them, because they look cool. I fear megapixels will go the way of computer power supply wattage… Nice to have a bit more, but only the abundant nitwits will go for the highest.
Then again, pushing the limits of lenses is nothing new, and perhaps the early L lenses were sharp in their times, some are clearly not up to the task of supplying current sensors with sharp images. They’re still good, but some get serious competition from current cheap APS-C zooms, with as only advantage their 2 more stops. The 17-35 and 20-35 spring to mind… )
I expect that Sigma (once they’ve sorted their quality control) and Tamron will cheer when Canon announces their departure from full-frame cheapies. Having to support less lenses might be worth loosing a full market, but far more 70-300 than 70-200L are being sold, probably making such lenses more profitable.
agreed …
I owned both as well. The EF-S 17-55 2.8 is the sharpest normal zoom made. It also has the best IS and focus, on par with the new 70-200 2.8. This lens really deserves to be built to L standards. It has only two problems: cheap feel for an expensive lens, and poor/nervous bokeh. I eventually sold mine (only because I moved to FF).
The 24-105 is a great lens, but not for APS-C. The range is ok, but it’s f4. An f4 lens general purpose lens is passable on FF, but I don’t like it for APS-C because you can forget about any shallow DOF at all. Even f2.8 is limited on APS-C. Primes are about the only way to consistently get shallow DOF on aps-c.
i think its bollox by not producing non L lenses they will shut out the biggest part of the market unless they drasticly drop prices on L lenses wich i also dont believe as the last 4 renewed lenses where atleast 40% more expencive then the old version so price reduction is the last thing on canons mind.
But they didn’t say all L will be >$1000 ;)
There’s plenty of nice lenses at around half that amount, which do their job admirably. True, a couple of nice primes could use a cheaper counterpart (24L II, 35L, and the other short ones), but it’s not as if a 17-40 costs the world.
Go on this, way, next time don’t even answer and I’ll be glad.
There’s no weather sealing in non L lenses, almost every L zoom go weather sealing.
I had both EF-S and EF L and EF-S on APS-C are sharper than every standard EF L zoom, 24-70, 24-105, 17-40, 16-35.
Retry another time.
Seeing a Canon EF-S 35mm f/1.4 USM would make many of us second guess jumping into full frame. Just saying… I certainly know I would.
I agree with Jumbogram, I’m only considering Full Frame, I won’t buy APS-C as it has a finite lifespan and know that I’ll end up upgrading to FF from APS-C so why waste extra money?
When I do buy a digital SLR it won’t be APS-C, and I’m only considering the mid range prime lenses, no zooms for me, one day I may spend money on L lenses but for the price of one 35L I can get a 35 f2, 50 f1.4, and an 85 1.8.
Which covers everything I’d need except maybe the 24 ts-e if i did have some cash to burn.
If you think Canon sells as many 1.2L as nifty fifty, think again :)
Profit margin times amount sold determines how happy your investors are, not just profit margin.
Don’t forget Joe Hotshot, who has the money to spend on a nice 5D2, but doesn’t want to pay for his lenses (yes, that’s incredibly stupid, but i’ve seen enough folks with a 5D2 and some cheap lens, like 17-85 or even a superzoom….).
Force him to drop another k on a big nice L, and he might bolt to Nikon, or buy a Sigma. Oh, and don’t forget those who buy a second-hand FF, like the 5D, or 1DsII, and need lenses for just that.
Who might constitute the targeted group?
The pros not only want the better build of the more expensive lenses, but also their status as CPL entrance ticket.
Bang for Buck goes to a high quality zoom, leaving us with the gear collector or the fixed focal enthusiast without the cash for the top line.
I see neither the profit margin nor the numbers to make a line of low cost lenses for high end bodies economicaly sensible, and in contrast to the TS- lenses you can’t even use system completeness as a strong argument.
You need more to support a claims that L lenses are less sharp than EF-S on APS-C than your anecdotal experience.
Totally agree with the super slow production. So long as it turns out right though i am happy. The 70-200 refresh is a diamond. It is my favorite lens. I cannot wait for a normal zoom refresh to match.
My dream line-up:
14-24 2.8
24-70 2.8 IS
70-200 2.8 II IS
300 2.8 II IS
24 tse II
50 1.4 IS
17-85 won’t mount on a 5D2
you’re right, but the nifty fifty and other affordable non L lenses are what get the ppl locked onto the Canon brand. Once they get a taste for it, they upgrade to the next model and the next model etc. i wouldn’t get a nifty fifty now that i’ve used better quality lenses with more capabilities.
there’s always a place for a low end budget lens and a high end L lens. i’m locked into Canon now, though i do admire the high ISO performance of the high end Nikon cameras. it would cost me over $20k to get an equivalent set up in nikon.
i started with the 20D and the 17-85 IS lens, moved to the 30D and the 17-55 2.8. now i’ve got the 5D II and the 7D along with about 4 L series lenses and the original non L lenses and the 50 1.4. i shoot professionally and will get the 50 1.2 when i have the budget. there are generally differences in capabilities, IQ and build quality that justifies a price increase (though not as much as canon charges) over the non L lenses. there will always be the stepping stones from the budget start up to the professional level equipment.
Deja Vu.
That article is basically from KenjiS’s comments in POTN forum.
they make a fortune on 50 1.8’s = that lens is going nowhere
What are you shooting with at the moment, if you don’t mind me asking?
Just goes to show how “incredibly stupid” these folks are!
What Canon L primes are there that cost about $500 ?
The “biggest part of the market” get a Rebel with a kit lens and a few of these may buy a cheap tele-zoom. Don’t forget, Canon know how many lenses of each model they sell, how much profit they make on each, what resources are tied up producing each model, and what the longer term trends are. We are not privy to that information, so how can we call it “bollox”? Selling fewer lens models with a vastly improved profit margin may well maximize profits. Whatever they do, it will be with that goal in mind.
“There will be no NON-L EF lenses produced.”
I can see that holding true for primes, but never for zooms.
I agree. A good quality, fast normal prime and maybe that rumoured 60mm IS macro will make Canon APS-C a very compelling and satisfying destination for many enthusiasts. I started out thinking I’d switch to FF some day, but the more time passes–several years, now–the more I feel that Canon APS-C is “good enough”(tm) for me.
The EF 70-300mm is great.
Oh and how about the EF 100mm f/2.8 macro. Awesome lens.
My thoughts entirely.
If they built them they would sell a lot of them.
You’re thinking of the 70-300mm DO lens. The EF-70-300 NON-DO isn’t L in price considering its zoom capabilities and its image stabilization. It’s pretty much always been a $600 lens. For the same amt of zoom AND image stabilization, you’d pay well over $1000 for l-glass.
No, it just means that you either pass on a 35mm or buy a third party prime. Or maybe just dump all your Canon gear and buy Nikon — remember these are just tools, not religious icons.
How about EF-FB? ‘Cause that is the demographic who would buy them.
We don’t expect these pricing figures to be accurate either.
The Olympus 35-100 f2.0 is the equivalent of 70-200 on a FF camera. It uses a 77mm filter and weighs 1,650g (3.63 lbs).
How about a 43.75mm-125mm f2.0/2.5 EF-S? (70-200 equivalent) Does this sound like a winner?
I’m unsure whether Canon would actually need to manufacture three full lines of lenses.
As example, in the 135mm focal length, the EF 85mm non-L could be bought in place of EF-S 135mm/1.6 – it close within 2/3rds of a mm.
The diagonal for a Canon APS-C sensor is 27.8mm, so I’d assume an EF 28mm non-L lens could double as a normal lens for APS-C bodies.
This could help sales similar to Nikon FX bodies accepting DX lenses.
1 thing, sharpness is only 1 of the many parameters, as i wrote in the 1st post, i’m not buying EF-S. Sharpness isn’t everything.
My consideration was more about a revision that it’s almost needed for both FF and APS-C sensors , last 24-70 review is on a 21MP 5DMkII, try to imagine the results on an hypothetical 32MP 1DsMkIV…
The Olympus is a crop 2.0 that means the lens has DOF equivalent of f4 on FF, yet it’s a simila weight and size of a FF f2.8
Sorry folks, Full Frame wins at everything except price, and possibly burst speeds. That doesn’t mean the crop is bad. The crop advantage always remains cost, and potentially, size
Don’t spoil the fun! I was waitimg for the “it’s not 15-70 f4 so i won’t buy it” comment
Nikon Allready has a EF-S type Prime lens.
It is the Nikkor AF-S 17-55 2.8 DX Lens.
It has a prime lens quality in Image and Construction.
Weather Sealed, full f2.8, FTM, USM.
Its like a 24-70 L but smaller.
I think we need “L EF-S” lenses for more serious EF-S bodies like Canon 7D.
I have a Tamron 17-50 2.8, and it is as good as any other L lens that i test, but Built Quality Sux…
By PRIME I refer to the “L” Class Quality.. not the fixed focal lenght.-
A 50mm 1.4 non L with new coating and a ring USM would suit me just fine..If they upgrade the 50mm L with new AF and focusing issues resolved then i will save bit by bit to get it in the long term..A 50mm 1.4 L would be nice but i really think its BS that it will maybe go ahead..If it does well then we have a total change of strategy in the camp.
Just give us the new USM in the 1.4 and sharp wide open and happy days!
Frankly I don’t care if they have an L red ring or not. I just want them to perform. Sharp (at max apertures) fast, accurate, punchy contrasty color rendition, low CAs, controlled flaring, low distortions, and IS. Keep costs reasonable and build quality high. $1000 seems fair for a prime lens that performs extremely well in those categories.
I wouldn’t mind seeing the non-L primes go the way of the L, as long as they stay in the $500-$800 range.
I had a 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/1.8 and both bit the dust. It’s hard for me to replace the 50 when there’s rumor of a new 50mm f/1.4 on the horizon. And for the 35mm I agree it’s not giving me enough advantage over the 24-70 to justify replacing. I may go with the 35L but if there was a new 35mm f/2 or 35mm f/1.8 for half the price then I’d consider that as well. It would obviously have to have USM, better construction, and better IQ than the old 35mm f/2.
Maybe they should come out with “L Lite” with a new stripe? :-)
I think the cheapest L prime is the 135mm f/2 and it’s a real gem. I have that one and it sucks it will cost another $3400 to complete the holy trinity!
Great non-L EF lenses:
EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
Funny, I discussed this very idea about a few months back on the POTN forums….
Got a lot of interest….
I doubt Canon will leave out USM on any lens from here on out. Even the cheap EF-S kit lenses have it.
^^ I take that back I was wrong. ^^
I would not stack TCs to get to 400mm if 400mm is your desire. At 400mm, the 400mm primes win, followed by the 100-400 zoom, followed by stuff with TCs. The 100-400’s IS is not that bad. If you have a camera that has good higher ISO, just bump the ISO a bit. The IS isn’t going to help stop a lot of the moving things you might shoot with that lens anyway.
The fact that the Olympus 35-100 is large and heavy is the point of my post. Sorry you didn’t get it.
Most of my work is shot at f8.0-f16.0 using mostly Profoto strobes. Usually in a studio. Paper thin DOF doesn’t cut it for product shots. The advertiser wants the consumer to actually see an in-focus shot of their product instead of some out-of-focus artistic blob.
I use crop, FF and 4×5 cameras. Always use the right tool for the job!
Umm, Yes it’s a rumours site, So can not always expect facts. But I think even rumours can be categories in usefull and useless. The last weeks the ‘quality’ of the rumours is declining. Better no posting than a useless rumours… I know it’s hard filter things out, but try to understand what I mean…..
Anyway, keep up. Your efforts is appreciated
200L2.8? Nice and sharp, and 10% of the price of a 200L2
Oh, and non-prime : 17-40L4 and 70-200L4 non-IS as well. Not top of the line, but certainly no slouches.
Faster optics? A stop can be pretty nice, ye know :) Oh, and don’t forget the weight, i think even 2 primes are lighter than a nice zoom. Price as well, the 24-70 is nice, sure, but i can have a few nifty primes for 1k (28,50,85 1.8 for example).
Don’t forget that consumer zooms are generally f/3.5-f5.6, so even f/2 is a good upgrade.
I just bought a Sigma 100-300 f/4 because its the range i want… If canon produces an L lens that is 100-300 f/4 or less for under 1500 i think its a winner…
To be honest, it seems like this is what they have already been doing for a while. Well if you change no non-L EF to no non-L EF primes. I’d really think they would at least keep a few EF non-EF-S zooms around.
And it would be hard to imagine that the optics on a 50 1.4 L would not be FAR better than the ones on the 50 1.2L! Seriously have you looked at the MTF charts for the 1.2L and 1.0L?? Ultra-fast lenses have a lot of compromises to get them to be that fast, the tend to care about bokeh, immediate center quality near wide open and the rest falls as it may.
Even the 50mm 1.8 has sharper borders at many f-stops (and center too).
It actually sounds reasonable to me. When is the last time they bothered to fix an EF non-L prime???
agreed
the 70-300 has rather good optics, but very, VERY poor AF
A 50/1.4 for 600-700 USD. Pricey… Nikon’s AF-S 50/1.4G goes for 440 USD.
Think back. Nikon introduced a 105/2.8 VR macro at 890 USD. Canon answered with a 100/2.8 IS macro at 950 USD. More, but only slightly more.
My guess is that the upcoming 50/1.4 will retail for just under 500 bucks.
As for non-L EF gear being phased out – maybe some, but I can’t see all of it being phased out. Why get rid of bestsellers like 85/1.8 and 70-300/4-5.6 If everything is L then L isn’t so special anymore.
I wouldn’t consider the 70-300mm a “best seller.” Most either go for a 55-250 IS to save money, or go with a 70-200mm of some kind (usually the f/4 non-IS, about the same price) and add a TC if needed.
common sense says theres a lot more people buying entry level dslr camera’s and lenses then that are buying 5d/1d series camera’s.
…as you are!
Problem is that I am hesitant to shell out the major bucks for the 100-400, knowing it will be replaced rather sooner than later. Yes, the replacement could still be years away, but I wouldn’t test my luck. And seeing how second hand prices of the old 70-200 2.8 IS plummeted after they introduced the new one, this means that I will be throwing quite some money out of the window.
Add in that I am not happy with its IS (which for birds or non/slow moving animals at 400mm COULD help a lot) and that I am not the luckiest person when it comes to participate in the lens lottery (an the 100-400 is notorious for having significant sample variation) I am simply very hesitant to go for the 100-400.
Plus I really lust for the 2.8 part of the 70-200. ;-)
Good EF-S lens that deserve to be converted to “L” lenses.
Lens Upgrades Needed
Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS -> Just need built quality.
Canon EF-S 55-250 4-5.6 IS -> Fixed f4.0 and built quality.
Canon EF-S 10-22 f3.5-5.6 -> Enhance Optices and Built Quality.
You misunderstood your source. There will no no new non-L *PRIMES*. All new *PRIME* lenses will be L-series lenses. Zooms will continue to be produced in the non-L variety. Notice that all EF-S lenses are zoom lenses.
If you understand that the source was talking only about prime lenses then it makes sense and is what Canon has been doing all along for the past 10-15 years anyway.
Excepting the speciality EF-S 60mm macro of course.
The 17-55 would be too big, the 55-250 could not be an L due to optics and the fact that Canon already has the IMMENSLY successful 5 lens 70-200mm series, and the 10-22 would not work for a full frame. The widest full frame lens is 12mm, unless it’s a fisheye.
If anything I would think the opposite. keep the primes, lose/upgrade the zooms.
If that 35mm f/1.4 is true, definate sale for me! Due to crop factors on my future 60d (If it waver bloody comes out!)
But come on Canon the 70-200mm is a great lense, but do you have to charge SO much for IS!
There’s one more side to this, which I think nobody commented so far:
If this rumor is true, wouldn’t that imply that Canon sees no market for a consumer FF in the (near) future? Say a 70D, or whatever, FF in 3+ years. Surely, someone buying such a camera, and I think lot’s of people would, would want non-L EF lenses? Unless of course they plan to significantly drop the prices of EF-L glass, which could hurt their PRO reputation…
Its the fact that entry level consumers who stick to the brand they had good experience with will make Canon move forward. I recently purchased 7D (first DSLR) with 28-135. So far I have no regret that I chose Canon. Its this experience that drives future sales of professional quality equipment like L series. I do not believe Canon can abandon affordable products for entry level at all.
I fear that this will reduce the quality of some of the “L” class of lens, isn’t the new 100mm Macro plastic (albeit “engineering plastic”).
The current L line-up is already made up of 2 classes of lenses mainly the f2.8s for the pros and the f4.0s for the rest (with the exception of a few of the longer primes) the change of branding will just provide more options in the second class lenses.
“I see neither the profit margin nor the numbers to make a line of low cost lenses for high end bodies economicaly sensible, and in contrast to the TS- lenses you can’t even use system completeness as a strong argument.”
The whole idea of dropping the entire non-pro line of lenses is absolutely fallacious based on at least two points:
1) The above statement hinges on the huge assumption that Canon will not release mid- and low-end full-frame bodies.
2) It would require Canon to reengineer dozens of lenses for the EF-S mount and such lenses would offer much worse performance. Part of the charm of using full-frame lenses on smaller crop sensor cameras is using their sweet spot, for example the nifty-fifty produces virtually no vignetting on the smaller sensor, an EF-S version of this lens would not offer such performance.
This is a BS, made up rumour not based on reality in any way, shape or form.
Canon has been on this policy for 5 years already. The last non L EF lens was the 70-300/5.6 IS USM in 2005. Before that the 2 50-200 lenses and the 22-55 is 12 years old. So unless I am missing some, that is only 4 nonL EF lenses in 12 years.
Yeah, whatever.
Just to add: Sony’s 50/1.4 costs 370 USD. A Pentax 50/1.4 costs 360 USD. 700 bucks for a 50/1.4 just seems like way too much.
Just release the 14-24 already!
You missed the non-L DO lenses.
I’ve received information from a very reputable source who tells me that Canon is discontinuing sales of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS EF-S at the end of August. In October they’re releasing the Mark II version of the lens which extends the long end to 60mm. It also uses the latest 4-stop IS and incorporates some improved optics. Expect the announcement in early September. You heard it here first.
Weak. Should be wider. 15-70 2.8 sounds about right. Not happening imo.
“1) The above statement hinges on the huge assumption that Canon will not release mid- and low-end full-frame bodies.”
Wrong.
Its not about the body, but about high quality standard zooms.
Cover the focal length range either with one good lens, or with a plethora of entry level lenses that are just as expensive, take up more room and offer only one stop advantage. If your’e regulary on assignments that require wider apertures you’d better not stop half the way.
“2) It would require Canon to reengineer dozens of lenses for the EF-S mount and such lenses would offer much worse performance.”
Performance: nothing that a bit of overengneering can’t fix.
And reengineering is called for anyway. Time doesn’t stand still, even using only the sweet spot those venerable designs show their age in comparison to say the EF-s17-55.
“made up rumour not based on reality in any way, shape or form.”
Made up, quite probably. :)
But not based on reality? Its been ages since I’ve seen the lenses in question outside a showcase.
And looking at the inventories of the local brick and mortar stores: all of them stock the common lenses, the bigger ones have some samples of the big whites, TS/MPE.
Most of the inexpensive primes: will be ordered on customer request.
Once the batches currently on sale are dried up Canon will have to decide: tie up a lot of money with another one, or build something different. I’d bet the latter option is the one generating more revenue.
I think thats wonderful. Why would I buy the $200 EF 70(75?)-300 to put on my 5DII (if i had one) ? I would say design moderately priced crop lenses that take advantage of the moderately priced crop sensor cameras, and design higher priced/higher quality L lenses for the higher priced/quality cameras. Makes perfect sense… The only people who would lose would be amateur film photographers, like students for example, who don’t want to buy L series EF lenses for their EOS film cameras.
I agree, the 2.0 zoom is large and heavy. I don’t see the point in a large heavy 2.0 zoom on crop factor 2 camera. Defeats the purpose of a small light format. You do everything better with a 70-200 2.8 on a Full frame, including f8 – 16 (or 22) product shots. So why waste time and money on a fancy lens for an Olympus crop camera.
If you’re itching for a 2.0 zoom on a crop camera, forget it. You’re better off in every way with a 2.8 zoom on a full frame. I just don’t see the point.
If that’s what you’re suggesting too, then I’m just agreeing with you.
As for crop, I’m not against them. I loved my 40D, and I think the 7D is an awesome budget sports camera and great for indie film makers. For now I’m quite happy with the 5DII. But I’m watching what else Canon does with the xxD line. I have no need for medium format though :)
Any 4/100-300 is the same size and league like the typical 2.8/70-200. The new price of original lenses in this class is more then 2000,- , so an original 4/100-300 will be also in the class above 2000,- ….
For me the “L” is not weird, because every other manufacturer is using special expressions for special lenses: ED, APO, ASPHERICAL …
Even Leica is using APO and ASPH expressions for better or newer versions of the lenses!
AS THIS IS A RUMOR SITE… POST THIS:
i heard that canon will buy nikon because the quarter results are very good.
canon will then over a period of 8 years replace all lenses with nikon and EF mount.
HEY POST THIS THIS IS A RUMOR AND THIS IS A RUMOR SITE!!!!!!!
yeah rigfht this CR guy will post every crap to get people on his website.
and i bet he makes most of this rumors himself!!!
24-105mm has “dust and moisture resistant construction” yet it still allows dust specs into the lens body, i know i have one :-(
Not all L’s are weather sealed! But then neither is my 400D.
Nobody says that they are going to abandon affordable products. The rumour–and it *is* a rumour–is that they will design new EF “L” lenses and new EF-S lenses and not much in between. It may be the case that Canon feel that this will serve the market better. More affordable EF-S lenses for the mass market and–if recent form holds–spectacularly good, but expensive, “L” lenses for those who are already shelling out thousands on FF bodies. There are several “ordinary” EF lenses that still have plenty of life in them, so maybe all this rumour means is that we won’t see many new “ordinary” EF designs, but that many of the existing designs, while remaining in production, will not be refreshed any time soon.
Glad I got cold feet and canceled my 17-55 mm order last month…there’s no way they can extend the range to 15-70 mm and keep the same constant aperture and front element size…in the past they have expanded by only a few mm (like 28-70 mm became the 24-70 mm)…any word on pricing or when I can preorder???
Yes, a 100-300 f/4 will almost certainly have the same weight, size and price as the 70-200 f/2.8.
But the present 70-300s top out at 300 f/5.6 – that would make it the weight, size and price of the 70-200 f/4.
Both would find buyers.
Sooner rather than later the increasing resolution of the sensors will run into a brick wall called “diffraction limit”. No matter how excellent the lens design, the only way around it is to increase the aperture – at the loss of DOF.
For the typical consumer zooms at f/4 and f/5.6, APS-C sensors with 18MP are getting close to the limit, even before imperfect optics (CA, etc) kick in.
On the other hand, as many people here have pointed out, nothing is lost by going to higher pixel densities, except that files become larger and max. frame rates might drop.
18MPix APS-C starts to begin being affected by diffraction at f/6.8 (theoretically), so I think we already ran into a brick wall you mention there. 18Mpix APS-C means 48Mpix FF, which is funny, because the largest FF sensors are half that resolution :) So IMO we don’t need 18MPix APS-C, 10-14 would do just fine (multiply it by 2.56 to get FF comparision, you will see that that’s still bit beyond current flagships’ resolution…)
Well put.
While the trend the last couple of years has been to only produce L and ef-s lenses, there is no evidence the trend will hold for many more years.
Imagine if the long time during updates and new production of these old nice lenses basicly mean that they are due to get upgraded? Perhaps the conclusion should be that a lot of non-L upgrades are comming?
EF 100/2 USM as well :)
prices are TOTALLY pipedream therefore, FAKE .
Entry level are APS-C, so they will still have EF-S lineup for those…
I think he meant those EF-S lenses to be converted to EF-S L ones :)
Engineering plastic is about on par with steel hardness, so what’s the deal? More a subjective perceptive feeling than a real “soft material” problem…
15-45/2.8 would just be fine, as a direct couterpart of 24-70/2.8L :)
I’ve heard conversations on this before and I’ve had CPS rep’s looking for feedback in passing on it, but they never indicated it was anything other than a passing thought within the CPS department to be passed onto management. CPS like the idea as it makes their entry requirements and the “who do we support” question easier for them when there is more of a pro/am differentiation, but the marketing team would hate it.
I doubt Canon as a company would go for it.
A Canon G7 and a Nikkormat FT2.
Hey, I heard it too. So it must be a CR2.
Yes Goobers really SUCK !!!!
This rumor was basically started from this guy’s theory from POTN.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=816842
Move along guys.
I disagree, the crop factor is the biggest drawback to going APS-C, they can do a 50mm normal equivalent (and should have had one out by now) but they will also need to offer 24/28/35 equivalent focal lengths, none of these lenses would be compatable with FF cameras so you wouldn’t have an upgrade path to the superior image quality and low light performance that 35mm sized sensors offer.
The options are:
Buy APS-C camera and EF-S lenses with no upgrade path. Sell those EF-S lenses in 3-5 years for about 50p each. (not going to happen)
or
Save more and get a 5DII/III and medium range glass.
or
Release the 60D as the first FF D-SLR, sell shed loads of them and more L glass etc
It’s up to Canon, if they had put video on the 50D they would have had a few more fence sitters spending £$€ on the cameras and lenses. They missed that boat, now everyone’s waiting for FF.
Ok. now the cat is out..!! Now we know who is the “Source” or “third party”, CR cooks his rumors from. And then, there comes this “take this with large grain of salt” add-on. Sometimes posting nothing adds to your credibility than wild guesses and wishlists morphed as CR1.
Strange co-incidence, admin at Nikon rumors does the same thing. May be it is the same person running both sites ?
Hmmm…. The sensor in a G7 is pretty small compared to APS-C–about a tenth of the area. Are you really sure that APS-C would be a waste of money? If you buy an APS-C kit you can sell it in a year for a loss of one or two hundred bucks. That’s a lot less than the cost of a FF system, to put it mildly. You can always pair it with EF lenses, so why not just take a minor plunge into APS-C DSLRs and find out if FF really is inevitable? At least you can have some fun while you are waiting.
Every now and then someone comes out claiming CR guy makes most of the rumors himself. Well, I don’t think so, no need to do this. Since he receives lots of daily input he could just random pick and post some of them here. Instead, I believe he carefully evaluates what to post. I’m sure if the admin invented rumors by himself he would be much more imaginative! ;-)
If I can express a critique, I would like him to take part more actively in the comments, I would really appreciate him chiming more often in the discussion. More or less like NR guy does.
Anyway, this site is fun as it is. Keep up the good work!
Most moderate-aperture lenses between 20mm and 135mm (e.g. f/2.8 prime lenses) don’t need any of the features that are used in an L-series lens. FWIW, the 45mm and 90mm tilt-shift lenses aren’t part of the L-series, even though they are priced and built similarly to the 17mm and 24mm tilt-shift lenses.
The 50mm L and 85mm L primes focus much more slowly than their slower counterparts since the AF motor must move the entire lens group.
get a ton of baloney emails from people who are desperate for the attention of having there info posted
carefully evaluate which piece of fake information to post
result is garbage
garbage in garbage out
But are still brittle.
Does the CR guy knowingly promote products that he knows does not exist except in someone’s imagination?
This here says many of the CR1 and CR2 are for entertainment purposes only.
”
That’s because he knows it’s partly for entertainment. That’s basically what CR1 and a lot of CR2 is.”
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=901917&page=2
Is the CR guy raising false hopes?
Save yourself some time.
First of all, the 50mm f/1.4 has better optics than the 50mm f/1.2L now. Why doubt that an ‘L’ replacement would be similarly superior? Second of all, obviously Canon is only going to be producing L and EF-S lenses from now on. Anyone with any doubt a) has no business sense and b) is apparently completely unfamiliar with Nikon’s lineup. The ‘L’ lens is a brand and Canon has cultivated it over decades. Now, as Nikon has upped the build quality of all lenses (they have no distinctive L-line), Canon will do the same. The EF-S line will still work for Rebels up through a high-level prosumer body (7D), while the ‘L’ line will expand to cover full-frame and APS-H users. The benefit to Canon? Prosumer and pro shooters assign intrinsic value to the ‘L’ brand marking and will pay more money for an ‘L’ lens even if the rest of the EF lineup is quietly and gradually retired. I fully expect a 50mm f/1.4L to be released in the coming year and guarantee we will not see another non-L standard EF lens. Just look at the lens line up now! There are practically no standard EF lenses left. Debate this all you want or talk to anyone with an MBA and a decent level of familiarity with Canon SLR business practices. This is a no-brainer, not a rumor.
“There are practically no standard EF lenses left.”
I counted 37.
Yes, 24-105 got a little cheaper build , doesn’t have weather sealing, and got dust “problem” more or less as the 100-400; 24-70, 16-35 and 17-40 got weather sealing, at least putting a filter on them.
Canon USA shows 21, including 2 TS lenses, 2 macro lenses, and 1 diffractive optics lens which might as well be an ‘L.’ Of those 21, there are ZERO wide angle zooms, 1 standard zoom, and 1 telephoto prime. Really the only non-L EF lenses are the wide angle and standard telephoto primes.