Tri Tran wrote:
Hi Ron, he bought the 70-200 IS about 8 years ago. I am not sure when the 70-200 IS came out, and if his lense belongs to that first group
Dawei Ye wrote:
But the 85L (and 35) win when at f/1.8. The 50 f/1.8 can't actually go to f/1.2, and neither can the Rokinon.
The 35L and 85L also have USM motors that give a good hit rate with AF, and have good quality builds
At the end of the day, no matter how slightly better or cheaper an alternative lens is, the Pro OEM lens brigade can always default back to the "We have AF" rhetoric
I've been checking out the reviews/comparisons on the 85 f/1.4...to be honest I am unconvinced that it is optically superior to the 85 f/1.2L II. Is it better value if you don't need f/1.2 or AF? Definitely.
But Value is a ratio of utility and price. What's the point of a low price if its utility is also low? ...Show more →
I could afford the 85L but decide not too. The AF is not that fast, well not fast enough to shoot the type of shots I want anyway. I am getting better at MF now, I could probably compete with the AF on the 85L.
Yes, even if the 85L is stopped down to f1.4 it is not as sharp as the Rokinon wide open.
I guess what I am trying to say is there are more than 1 way to skin the cat. If you think the 85L is the best lense ever made then more power to you.
Dawei Ye wrote:
And that's a disappointing thing that after 50 years of Optical Innovation and Technology and $Millions if not $billions invested by the world's leading optical companies, a Zeiss 21 f/2.8 developed in 1961 is still claimed to be the sharpest wide angle lens
Just doesn't seem right to me
I don't know who you imply as one of "world's leading optical companyies" if not CZ, but
I think you should spend more time on learning than typing here on FM. There was no 20 mm SLR lens available yet in 1961 and Nikon F was introduced just two years earlier. Contax version of CZ 21/2.8 appeared in 1994 and it was the first time ED glass was used in a wide-angle. Canon/Nikon followed suit by putting ED in their wide-angle zooms but CZ's is still the only 20/21 mm with such sophisticated design. Having a big market-share does not guarantee performance when it comes to quality of glass, coating, manufacturing tolerances, QC (or lack of it for certain manufacturers), etc.
Please excuse my ignorance, I just realised it was the 25 f/2.8 that was introduced in 1961, not the 21 f/2.8
Posting on FM is my way to learn do you imply that we don't learn anything from these forums? See I just learnt that:
"There was no 20 mm SLR lens available yet in 1961 and Nikon F was introduced just two years earlier. Contax version of CZ 21/2.8 appeared in 1994 and it was the first time ED glass was used in a wide-angle. Canon/Nikon followed suit by putting ED in their wide-angle zooms but CZ's is still the only 20/21 mm with such sophisticated design. Having a big market-share does not guarantee performance when it comes to quality of glass, coating, manufacturing tolerances, QC (or lack of it for certain manufacturers), etc"
rscheffler wrote:
And what is the problem with this? Why should everyone be able to afford this stuff? If it's simply a matter of want rather than need, if you can't afford it, you don't buy it. If you need it, you find a way to afford it. $500 is not in the realm of being independently wealthy. Stop buying $3 coffees for 167 days and suddenly one has $500. Sell the car and take public transit instead... There are always solutions, it just depends on your priorities.
The problem is if someone USED to be able to afford a lens, but suddenly it's replaced by an IS version that is $500 more and the old non-IS version is discontinued, it suddenly becomes very inaccessible. The 100mm Macro lens is a great example. At ~$500, it was slightly affordable. With the 100mm IS Macro version at ~$1000, it's suddenly far less affordable. In which case, Canon has pulled the rug from underneath them.
I'm not arguing against IS. I'm arguing against the giant markup that is associated with feature creep in photographic equipment. That being said, I don't buy stuff I can't afford, which is why my collection is full of "consumer" equipment (which seems to be generally derided on this board) and manual focus.
thedigitalbean wrote:
Not true, the 18-55 II (precursor to the IS version but after the original) was sold as not part of a kit, I believe it ran $140.
rhyder wrote:
Yeah, the new lenses are more expensive than a Canon (not a big surprise), but you only need to buy one to get a good one...
Sadly, that's not true... I had to try four or five copies of the Nikon AF-S 14-24mm f2.8G before I found one that didn't have a problem with the zoom mechanism, and unfortunately, the copy I ended up buying turned out to be not so great in the corners at any aperture (worse than the 17-40 example posted on the first page of this thread). Pretty disappointing, considering it cost three times as much as the Canon.
Like they say, the grass isn't always greener on the other side of the fence...
kakomu wrote:
The problem is if someone USED to be able to afford a lens, but suddenly it's replaced by an IS version that is $500 more and the old non-IS version is discontinued, it suddenly becomes very inaccessible. The 100mm Macro lens is a great example. At ~$500, it was slightly affordable. With the 100mm IS Macro version at ~$1000, it's suddenly far less affordable. In which case, Canon has pulled the rug from underneath them by making certain realms of photography that used be accessible inaccessible.
Well, to be fair, the old 100mm is not discontinued right? At least not yet anyway.
I'm drawing parallel between this and the 60D discussion. Over there, the argument is that there is a market for 60D because there are people who will want the ergonomic/pentaprism/etc. but find the 7D AF and FPS unnecessary.
Well, using the same logic, obviously there is a market for non-IS lenses for people who don't need IS, except the argument here is that if you don't need the IS, you can just turn it off eventhough you've already paid extra for it.
Now, I wonder if the people who said that would be willing to pay extra for the 7D unnecessary features should the X0D body be discontinued just like a non-IS lenses that could be discontinued after an updated IS version is available.
molson wrote:
Sadly, that's not true... I had to try four or five copies of the Nikon AF-S 14-24mm f2.8G before I found one that didn't have a problem with the zoom mechanism, and unfortunately, the copy I ended up buying turned out to be not so great in the corners at any aperture (worse than the 17-40 example posted on the first page of this thread). Pretty disappointing, considering it cost three times as much as the Canon.
Like they say, the grass isn't always greener on the other side of the fence...
Man, you are cursed. I've owned 27 lenses over many years. The only problem I've had with any of them is a stickie aperture in a 55 micro that I rarely used (knock on wood). I feel your pain.
n0b0 wrote:
Well, to be fair, the old 100mm is not discontinued right? At least not yet anyway.
It's not listed on Canon's main EOS site any longer (and last time I checked, it was listed in the archive section). I suspect that means it's officially done.
n0b0 wrote:
Well, using the same logic, obviously there is a market for non-IS lenses for people who don't need IS, except the argument here is that if you don't need the IS, you can just turn it off eventhough you've already paid extra for it.
The argument in this thread seems to be "if you can't afford it, you don't need it".
kakomu wrote:
It's not listed on Canon's main EOS site any longer (and last time I checked, it was listed in the archive section). I suspect that means it's officially done.
The argument in this thread seems to be "if you can't afford it, you don't need it".
Discontinuing the non-IS 100mm seems like a very strange move on Canon's part. However, I would once again suggest that the IS is but a relatively small part of the price increase and the rest is Canon's desire to make more money. In fact, this move may be the best indication that we have seen on where Canon is going with their lens pricing and it has nothing to do with adding IS. At best, that is an excuse to add a much bigger mark-up to each lens sold and accepting lower volume.
Consider the logic, if both the non-IS and IS yielded the same return (which is what would happen if the price difference merely reflected the inclusion of IS) then they would be fools to eliminate the less expensive lens as that would sell at higher volumes and thus yield a higher return.
I suspect, no, I actually know, that you would be seeing huge price increases anyway. Last spring I was going to upgrade my 85L to the MKII but at decided not to. At the time the MkII was $1600ish. Thought about doing it again last week and checked B&H and gaged when I saw it was $1970.00. No IS, no new model, no nothing different other than a huge price increase.
Dawei Ye wrote:
And that's a disappointing thing that after 50 years of Optical Innovation and Technology and $Millions if not $billions invested by the world's leading optical companies, a Zeiss 21 f/2.8 developed in 1961 is still claimed to be the sharpest wide angle lens
Just doesn't seem right to me
I am not sure what "Just doesn't seem right". Any engineer will tell you design is both science AND art. Sometimes you just get lucky (if you define luck as when preparation meets opportunity).
Keep in mind that a modern camera lens are not really a single lens, but is composed of both multiple elements (which are single lens) and groups (which are groups of single lens.
The Sigma 12-24 is listed as having 16 elements in 12 groups. Here is a link to the specs for that lens with a nice pix of how the elements and groups are put together.
I was able to pass Optics and Light I and II many years ago, so I am no expert on lens design. But I can tell you that it would be quite possible to design a 12-24 with a different combination of elements and groups; and that some of the designs work better than others (and some would work worse). In the case of the Zeiss 21 the design worked much better than others; and so far no one has been able surpass it.
All of this is putting aside economics. When I first started photography the Pentax Super Takumar 50mm or 35mm lens was a very standard choice for the K1000; almost every Photo I student had that camera and the 35 (unless you had a rich daddy and could afford Nikon stuff). The Super Takumar lens still are in demand on ebay. Pentax simply designed a good lens and using economies of scale was able to sell it at low prices. Canon sorta does the same thing with the Nifty Fifty; they know the R&D will pay for itself with the sales volume of this lens.
The problem is that even if Canon wanted to do the same thing with a WA or UWA lens they would not be able to sell that lens in volume. From a profit stand point the R&D for a high volume kit type lens will be returned in short order; while the R&D for a much harder to design and much lower sales volume UWA will take much longer to be returned.
As others have pointed out improvements at the margin can be quite expensive. The Canon 16-35 I is a fairly good lens from what I have read. LL compared the 16-35 I and II and concluded the II was probably not enough of an improvement to justify the cost of an upgrade; but if you were buying new the II would be the choice.
My less than a week old 16-35 II has been more than satisfactory. I suspect the Nikon 12-24 is a better lens from what I have read; but I am not sure I would be able to tell the difference in IQ between the Nikon and my Canon lens. Even if I could tell the difference I don't think it would be all that much; and I would have to give up AF and use an adapter to put it on my Canon, not to mention the difference in cost.
I don't mean to sound like Krusty the Clown; but for lots of peeps a non Zeiss 21 UWA in not just good; it is good enough.
Hrow wrote:
SNIPThought about doing it again last week and checked B&H and gaged when I saw it was $1970.00. No IS, no new model, no nothing different other than a huge price increase.
Have you checked the change in the dollar to yen conversion rates lately; that is what is different? I am not happy about some of the price increases; but lots of them are due to the devaluation of the dollar.
keithreeder wrote:
Welcome to capitalism and the free market economy...
Sure, that the world we live in and it's almost always better than the alternatives, but.....
my point is that as with all "gotta have it" goods, we're paying a premium that when you stop to think about it is often unwarranted and unjustifiable. I know the mfgs love it, and as long as there are sheep to be herded and willing to bleat their way down the road to paying the big premiums it will continue, same as it ever was. They (the sheep) often imagine it's going to make a big difference in their work; sadly, it often doesn't.
One thing there's never been a shortage of in the population is bleating sheep willing to buy anything a company tells them is "better", or even as one large American sheep herder likes to call its computer products, "awesome". They're not...
I got tired of being herded I guess, or to put it another way, I've decided the emperor often really isn't wearing any clothes......
It seems that we all want better lenses with higher quality optics for the same price as the old ones. Although this is possible for the camera bodies , due to the fact that they are more similar to a computer unit, i'm so sure about the same happening with glass. If we want a glass to be able to resolve 30-40mp then i'm afraid we'll have to pay the price that comes with it.
Those who find 17-40 good enough will save their $$. Those who want more, will pay more.
Sorry for the off-topic but :
ragebot wrote:
I don't mean to sound like Krusty the Clown; but for lots of peeps a non Zeiss 21 UWA in not just good; it is good enough.
what's with this Zeiss 21 F2.8 ?
I really don't get why people love it so much. I would rather have a TS-E 24 MarkII for that kind of money, or a 24F1.4 II if i wanted large aperture
ragebot wrote:
Have you checked the change in the dollar to yen conversion rates lately; that is what is different? I am not happy about some of the price increases; but lots of them are due to the devaluation of the dollar.
That's my point, that adding IS is not the sole contributor to the difference in price. Lots of factors at play.
Tri Tran wrote:
Nikon announced 16-35f4 VR and 24f1.4, the Nikon forum is in euphoria.
But, in my opinion it is not that exciting. Canon has an excellent 17-40f4 for years, all they need to to is some little updates and add IS. The 24mm L is in its second edition.
Nikon does have nice zooms (14-24 and 24-70)
Isn't this a Canon Forum? So why are we talking Nikon?
rhyder wrote:
Man, you are cursed. I've owned 27 lenses over many years. The only problem I've had with any of them is a stickie aperture in a 55 micro that I rarely used (knock on wood). I feel your pain.
It has nothing to do with luck or being cursed... just about being able to tell the difference between a good lens and a bad one.
And sticking, bent, frozen, or jammed aperture mechanisms on Nikon lenses are nothing new, thanks to their antiquated system that requires a lever to slam down on a pin in the back of the lens every time the shutter fires... although the problem is a lot less common nowadays thanks in part to the new lubricants they use.
molson wrote:
It has nothing to do with luck or being cursed... just about being able to tell the difference between a good lens and a bad one.
And sticking, bent, frozen, or jammed aperture mechanisms on Nikon lenses are nothing new, thanks to their antiquated system that requires a lever to slam down on a pin in the back of the lens every time the shutter fires... although the problem is a lot less common nowadays thanks in part to the new lubricants they use.
Mine was a lubricant problem and lack of use. Just kidding about the cursed part, I thought you'd figure that out. Lighten up, this is the internet not REAL life....or is it
Is there anybody that hasn't noticed that the cost of WA and UWA primes has just about doubled in the last few years?? Compare the Canon 24mm F1.4 Mk I (and the like) to the new stuff.
You are paying a whole lot for super speed (and a bit better edges). But with ISO 3200-12800 when do you need it?? It sure doesn't make much sense to pony up $1700-2200 for a lens that's set at F2.8 and above. Too Little, Too Late, TOO much!
