I guess I'm also unclear about what the wide guys want. I almost never use wides, so the whole issue is lost on me. Assuming that the quality has to be great, is it speed or really wide angle that you're looking for?
I know this: if Nikon came out with a 700mm f/4 IS for the price of Canon's 500mm, I wouldn't waste any time badgering Canon about it. I'd get Nikon's lens and also get a Nikon body to stick on the back of it. There's no law that says every single piece of my equipment needs to be from the same company.
Guy Mancuso wrote:
You know Canon just screwed the pro’s again , no wide angle , no pro body but another version of a 1.6. The only thing that may and I mean may be good is the 85 1.2 but how much better optically is it from the old one. I am betting not much and the price is out there on a limb for no one to buy it at 2100.00 that is leica prices , what are they nuts. But the bottom line at the end of the day they did not even come close to solving the wide angle issue except throw another zoom at people . All the complaints and all the talk of wide angle issues and still we are left holding the bag. Frankly I am glad I switched , they really don’t deserve a dime from pro photographers and they sit there and scratch there head wondering why pro’s or advanced hobbyist are buying Zeiss and leica lenses.
Guy's got a point here. Canon's best ultra-wide prime isn't a prime at all - it's the 16-35L zoom. And that isn't perfect either, but it's the best thing wider than 24 mm that I've used. Canon needs something in the 18-20 mm range that has low distortion, minimal CA, and full-frame corner-to-corner sharpness in the f/5.6-f/11 range.
I am no where near the quality of a photog as you are but I too have to agree with you. They need a serious Wide angle lens. Hell, its even worse on the 1.6x sensor ! So much ranting about the 10-22mm , but I used one and it was simply the worst piece of crap I ever laid my hands on. Now a 17-55mm ok it fills a gap,, but EF-S What the heck are they thinking .... Now lets insult the prosumer some more lets put it on the market for above $1K just because it has IS ? How often are you going to use IS in this focal range ??
Scratching my head and wondering who smoked what when they thought of this one.
With the 85L and the 85 f/1.8, Canon already had the 85mm prime length covered with very high quality glass.
Therefore, it's puzzling why Canon did not address the glaring wide angle hole in their line-up, rather then concentrate on a focal length that was already covered.
Well, maybe next time...
Edited by Phil Bonner on Feb 21, 2006 at 01:32 PM GMT
I am no where near the quality of a photog as you are but I too have to agree with you. They need a serious Wide angle lens. Hell, its even worse on the 1.6x sensor ! So much ranting about the 10-22mm , but I used one and it was simply the worst piece of crap I ever laid my hands on. Now a 17-55mm ok it fills a gap,, but EF-S What the heck are they thinking .... Now lets insult the prosumer some more lets put it on the market for above $1K just because it has IS ? How often are you going to use IS in this focal range ??
Scratching my head and wondering who smoked what when they thought of this one....Show more →
I'm not sure why you would think that an EF-S mount is a problem. If this new 17-55 were a full-frame EF lens, it would be incredibly complex, and image quality would be considerably below that of the 16-35. The design and manufacture of an ultra-wide to normal lens is much more difficult than that of a wide - to - short telephoto.
In other words, you aren't likely to ever see a 17-55 f/2.8 full-frame lens from any manufacturer.
Frankly, the 17-55 f/2.8 IS may be the best thing to come out of this announcement, for it fills a gap for a fast normal zoom, and offers something that its competitors don't - IS.
Actually, I don't agree WRT the 10-22 either - as zooms go, it's a stellar lens in terms of IQ, and really competes well with all the other offerings of its competitors (Tamron, Sigma, Tokina). No, it's not built like a brick outhouse, but that isn't detrimental to most that use it.
Buy the right tool for the right job... whatever your job is. I needed a camera that would pick up a football player on the opposite side of the field, track him running at me up the sidline, shoot at 8 fps, and not hit the buffer before he reached the endzone. So, I bought a Canon 1D Mark II N and a 400mm f2.8L IS. I do not feel the need to yell at Leica because they cannot produce a camera with autofocus, fast frame rate, and huge buffer.
Some day, hopefully not too far in the future, Canon (or maybe a Zeiss EF mount) will address the wide angle problem. Will Leica address their's sooner? I don't think so. Canon is the most versatile system right now.
Ive got to agree with Greg. Canon cant be the best at everything and for alot of working pro's like myself who make our livings with sports, the Canon system is the best in the world.
70-200 2.8 IS, 200 1.8, and 400 2.8 IS and two mkII bodies plus a 1.4x TC and Im all set. Canon equipment has only helped my career.
I also do a bit of wedding and concert/event work and the 35 1.4, 24-70L and 85 1.2L work flawlessly in low light.
Ive done very little product shooting but my 45 and 90 TS/E's have proved very useful as well
I just dont really need wider than 24mm so I sure dont feel screwed over.
I guess Canon for product, wedding, concert/event, PJ's and Sports shooters
Lecia or some other brand for those with highly specialized needs.
Its foolish to say that "Pros" are screwed over though by Canon when in reality Canon makes all the tools I need to do my job
Seems to me that the current Canon lineup delivers more than 35mm film ever did. Why don't those that need high-resolution wide angle shots that are sharp to the corners do what photographers have always done - move up to a larger format? Why must Canon's 35mm digital system be the solution for every photographic scenario? Why do the current lineup and announcements constitute "screwing the pros"?
I think, I've figured it out. Canon Marketing is reading the DPR Canon lense board than think that's the market.
I've had a 5D less than a week and all ready see where I would love a really nice fast 21mm. I've planed for a 35L and the 16-35L zoom this year but see where a 21mm would be very nice.
Guy Mancuso wrote:
Manoj you have to realize they have been having issues with wide angles since the the orginal 1ds came out and that was 4 years ago and yet they know of all the issues folks have had with the FF sensor and there wide angles.
Actually that is not a completely accurate statement. I remember when I switched to Canon in the mid '90s people were complaining that the 17-35 was not good enough and Canon really needed to do something about the wide coverage. Canon reps promised something was coming, but it never did. Still the same debate and the only change is one extra mm on the wide end, but quality is the same.
Don't feel bad for anyone Guy, just get ready to make a lot of room for people in the Alternative Forum. Nikon made an announcement that they are not going full frame and I think in some way this is Canon's way of showing their direction. We'll see what Photokina brings, but I'm not holding my breath.
So with that out of the way, the 30D is the right camera at the right time. Canon couldn't care less what you, me, or any other pros want. I'm guessing that the 30D is a proactive strike on Sony. Canon knows about the different levels of the consumer market, has undoubtably spent more money on market research than they spend on R&D for the pro bodies, and probably expect the 30D to be a slightly "more pro" camera than what Sony is likely to put out. Think of it less as what Canon can produce and more of what they expect Sony to produce. Then, when Sony comes out with their camera lineup, Canon still has room to go with a 1.6 crop, reasonably priced body before they risk stepping on the 5D.
All speculation of course, but I'm guessing that the 30D is more of a calculated business move than just a camera that didn't really deserve a new name.
Brutus_B wrote:
Its foolish to say that "Pros" are screwed over though by Canon when in reality Canon makes all the tools I need to do my job
Exactly. Canon makes most of the pro's tools so they must be doing something right. You're not going to please everyone. And I'm not a big fan of people (let alone pro's) complaining that so and so company isn't making the right tools.And what, holding them back?
Guy Mancuso wrote:
I am betting not much and the price is out there on a limb for no one to buy it at 2100.00 that is leica prices , what are they nuts.
Hey, how fast do those Leica lenses autofocus at that price?
To be fair, Canon is a large company that is in business for it's shareholders. If it's a better business decision to release the lenses they did, so be it. I can't really blame them too much for focusing on the long lenses instead of wide angles, after all.. a large number of big white lenses on the sidelines of major sporting events is great advertizing that hits a huge number of potential customers. How do you fault them for concentrating on the area where they'll get the best ROI?
Canon services the mass market... if your needs aren't in line with the general needs of that market, you need to look for a company interested in servicing your nitch market. They aren't screwing anybody... just looking out for their own best interests.
Guy Mancuso wrote:
You know Canon just screwed the pro’s again , no wide angle , no pro body but another version of a 1.6. The only thing that may and I mean may be good is the 85 1.2 but how much better optically is it from the old one. I am betting not much and the price is out there on a limb for no one to buy it at 2100.00 that is leica prices , what are they nuts. But the bottom line at the end of the day they did not even come close to solving the wide angle issue except throw another zoom at people . All the complaints and all the talk of wide angle issues and still we are left holding the bag. Frankly I am glad I switched , they really don’t deserve a dime from pro photographers and they sit there and scratch there head wondering why pro’s or advanced hobbyist are buying Zeiss and leica lenses.
Just my take on the whole PMA announcement from Canon
I honestly feel bad for you guy's , they solved none of there issues.
Okay i am sure i will get flamed but before you do , look at the big picture not just your needs. Also i like Canon a lot this is just sad to see what market they want to make money off of. That 85 1.2 should be 1500 and not a nickel more...Show more →
Guy, you are given a dedicated forum just for yourself to talk about Leica and Zeiss. And you still came down to the mortal world to scold Canon. Was it really necessary ?
im 100% with mancusa. i need the absolute best in wide angle optics, but canon doesnt have it for me. there bodies are great the telephotos are incredible they just need some excellent extreme wide agles....come on canon remember me the professional? give me some pro wide optics
Pondria wrote:
Guy, you are given a dedicated forum just for yourself to talk about Leica and Zeiss. And you still came down to the mortal world to scold Canon. Was it really necessary ?
I think Canon needs some scolding from on high based on the lenses they came out with at PMA. More EF-S junk and a product improved 85L and that's it.
What the heck are they thinking .... Now lets insult the prosumer some more lets put it on the market for above $1K just because it has IS ? How often are you going to use IS in this focal range ??
*
* I love it. Well said.
