As the technology improves, will the increased ISO performance eventually eliminate the need for the far more expensive 2.8 or less lenses? I see the newest lens is F4 and am wondering if this is a sign of things to come.
It'll sure make things lighter and cheaper for us.
Two problems here. Firstly the push for more M pixels (without increasing sensor size) increases noise. They're running out of technical improvements to counteract this.
Second if you want a narrow DOF then you either need a fast or longer lens. Standing further back (because of the longer lens) isn't always (or even normaly) an option.
My guess is the new lenses are aimed at all the new hobbiest photographer (i hate the word "prosumer") market who are embracing cameras like the 20D, 350D etc. We want higher quality glass, but aren't as willing to shell out top dollar for fast, high quality glass.
Slower glass is cheaper to manufacture, and so they can be sold for less.
Even though it has been said several times, I can't emphasize enough my feelings about wanting faster glass. I would love clean ISO 6400, but I will still love the fast glass on a camera that could do it.
Also, matter how much better they make higher ISO shots, the lower ISO ones will still look better. If you are comparing the new 24-105 f/4L IS at 50 to a 50 f/1.4, you will need 8 times as much light for the same picture on the f/4 if they are both taken wide open. Another way to look at this, is that it will turn an ISO 400 shot into an ISO 3200 shot. This is a huge difference.
Also, IS doesn't stop action so it doesn't make up for the slow aperture either.
I think that the camera makers are thinking the cleaner ISO will greatly reduce the need for faster glass...perhaps it will for some, but it won't for many others...like me. Don't get me wrong I love clean high ISO shots. I just look at these as compimentary items not an either or type of scenario.
I think the future points to slower lens and faster ISO.
Why? Because the majority of canon's clients (Clueless Consumers) do not appreciate DOF and a slower lens and faster ISO makes photography easier.
The majority of consumers out there have simple wants in their photography. They most probably use P&S and are upgrading to DSLRs and IMHO, the reason is for better image quality. I dont think most upgrading consumers look at their P&S photos and say hey, i need a more shallow DOF, gotta buy a DSLR. They do not even know what DOF is.
Imagine the average user used to his little P&S camera, shooting at f2.8 or f4. If he gets a 2.8 lens on a DSLR, the chances of misfocusing is going to much greater than with say a f4 or f5.6 lens. These average users are not going to admit that they cannot use the camer properly and blame Canon or Nikon for making a "DSLR that cannot even take sharp photos like their old P&S".
So it is in the best interest for canon to make lens with IS and camera with better ISO. Also to save costs (make the shareholders happy), they are not going to be that interested in making faster lens UNLESS the majority of users out there demand it. If f-stop was like mega-pixels, we would have our f1.8 zoom lenses and sub f1.0 prime lens (maybe eh?).
I am not saying that I agree with the direction that Canon, Nikon etc are taking but I just accept it. We are going to see ISO performance trumping aperature unless there is some zany marketing scheme or consumer awareness to lift the importance of aperature to normal consumers.
Let me give you example, I bet that most people out there are tell you how many megapixels their P&S have. Most will know whether they have IS, VR or OS. A few might know their focal length. Even less even know their maximum aperature.
In a nutshell, i think we should just accept the fact that fast aperature is not "in" anymore.
I think discreet is right for the most part. Fine by me, really. It's in my own interest for the uneducated masses to be amazed by my photos and puzzled why they can't produce the same kind of images.
The Big Bad wrote:
Why would people stop wanting shallow DOF though ?
Sure we could have a very clean iso 6400 and shoot indoors with a f5.6 lens but 5.6 will never get that great bokeh that you get from fast glass.
You never shoot lenses like your 85 1.8 for the purpose of shallow DOF John ?
Yes I do. I did forget about that aspect. However, I wonder if this is really a concern with a lot of week-end warriors like me. It definitely is a non-issue for my work-related stuff since I try to shoot at at least F8 for that or I am using flash...
One thing that higher ISO will trump is needed so much flash power in many cases. simple 300w/s strobe setup will give all the power you need even with large SB's when you can just bump the ISO a stop
The Big Bad wrote:
One thing that higher ISO will trump is needed so much flash power in many cases. simple 300w/s strobe setup will give all the power you need even with large SB's when you can just bump the ISO a stop
Agreed, but most consumers do not even have a external flash what more a strobe system. I want faster lens as they give me the option of stopping down, but sigh....... the masses will rule and determine how Canon develops their products....
Sometimes, i wish i can convince myself to buy a LF monorail camera and shoot polarids and scan them so i have insanely shallow DOF!!!
Weekend warriors probably will not be investing in fast glass anymore because of the prevelance of more than capable, slightly slower zooms and cleaner high ISO. But there has and always will be a market for fast lenses. As more people are introduced to the world of SLRs, many of them may start with slow (f4) zooms. Some will recognize the inherenit benefits of faster glass and step up and purchases them.
With film fast glass was for a niche market (advanced amertures and pros) within a niche market (SLR users). With digital, that niche market (SLR) users is growing, likewise I would expect the market for fast glass to grow slowly with it.
Like people have said, there are somethings that higher ISO just can't give you. Namely shallow DOF.
If fast glass is really going to go by the way side, maybe I should start hording fast primes?
I agree. Fast glass will always be there to support the needs of the pro market, but I am all for the emergence of more high quality f4 optics. While it is great to have the shallow DOF of a 2.8 or less lens, when you're travelling or carrying it on your back a 300/4 or 400/5.6 is alot easier to tolerate than a 300/2.8 and 400/2.8.
Quality f4 optics bring the price point down markedly as well making better quality lenses available to more people which for Canon or Nikon is a good thing. The addressable market for them at a ~$1000 price point is probably many times greater than at the $3500+++ market owned by the fast super-teles.
Edited by jflynnpa on Aug 19, 2005 at 01:53 PM GMT
I personally do not think any of Canon's fast primes are going to discontinued if that is what you are implying. As mentioned, fast glass is a niche market and Canon has already earned back the R&D costs into designing fast glass like the 24/1.4L, 35/1.4L 50/1.4 85/1.8 85/1.2L 100/2 135/2L.
Unless someone finds some illegal substance (remember the Lead in the 50/1.0L and the 200/1.8L) in the glasses or there is absolutely very low demand for the glass, Canon will continue to manufacture them as they do not cost much.
But then again who needs an excuse to hord fast primes :-D
Seems obvious that there is room for both high-slow lens and fast lenses and I don't think the line will fall right at the consumer/pro division.
How about an every day bag containing the following:
17-40 f4 (10-22 for 1.6x cameras)
24-105 f4 IS
100-300 f4 IS (I want someone to make this lens!)
Sure, you'd want to have fast primes at your favorite FLs too (depending on your specialty), but couldn't you get the vast majority of your shots with that bag...pro or not?
I tend to agree with alot of you guys about this issue. First and foremost, the narrow DOF that can be achieved on these fast lenses cannot be attained by F4 and above optics. If anything, i believe that advancement in sensor technology resulting in high ISO levels with minimal noise will benefit those shooting fast action, low light shots. (indoor sports and such). Retaining a fast shutter speed is crucial in these scenarios in order to stop action, and the only way to adjust for proper exposure is via F-stop and ISO settings. It'll be awesome when i'll be able to shoot an indoor sporting event at ISO 3200 with the noise levels of shooting at say ISO400, and set the aperture to whatever my heart desires. (will that day come soon enough, or will it ever!?)
Another question for you guys is, will improved ISO performance affect a photographers use of image stabilization?
If a usable 6400ISO camera combined with f/4 glass would be a great low light machine, imagine how much better that same camera would be if you put an f/1.4 lens on it.
Further, shallow DoF imaging is only possible on faster glass.
There's no substitute for fast glass, but its continued manufacture does unfortunately depend on the demand in the market, as Discreet as already mentioned. Given that, I would not be surprised if Canon does not release any new fast primes, and instead releases more zooms to complement the hobbyist kits.
I think you're reading too much into the release of the 24-105/4 L IS. This lens fills a gaping hole in Canon's lineup. We now have an f/4 range and an f/2.8 range - 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 f/4 and 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 f/2.8. We still need IS adding to the 70-200 f/4 L to better match up the two ranges. The introduction of the 24-105/4 doesn't signify a move to slower lenses, it's just filling a gap. And they still make the fast primes for those who want them.
I think the primes are pretty safe. It seems to me that the primes are only discontinued due to lack of sales, whereas zooms are discontinued to make way for new zooms. ie, the trend is that Canon will usually only drop lenses when they're superceded by lenses in the same or similar range.
Flipping through the first lenswork book, I can see two primes that have been discontinued:
50 f/1.0
200 f/1.8
Compare that to the zooms:
20-35 f/2.8L
28-80 f/2.8-4L
35-80 f/4-5.6
35-105 f/4.5-5.6
35-135 f/4-5.6
70-210 f/3.5-4.5
80-200 f/2.8L
80-200 f/4.5-5.6
35-350 f/3.5-5.6L
100-300 f/5.6L
This isn't even a complete list, since I'm not going to bother looking through Lenswork II and III. (nor have I double checked to see if the lenses I think are dropped have actually been dropped, or vice versa)
Lenswork I was published in 92, so in 13 years, Canon has only dropped 2 or so primes compared to over 10 zooms, half of which were L zooms.
I think it's safe to say that Canon knows the difference between the lenses in it's lineup.
Takes decent pictures, btw. 
:-D