I was thinking about this today.....seeing more advances being made in image noise, letting future cameras achieve insanely high ISO's without much consequence.
Of course faster glass will have its uses, ISO has its own as well. If super-ISO performance is just part of the camera's features, I don't think anyone would complain.
As for the previously mentioned 50/1.0 and 200/1.8.........I would LOVE to have one of those lenses. Who cares if there was lead in them, I don't plan on eating it or anything.
Fast glass has its use but think of what is Canon best interest (aka make more money)?
1) Should they dedicated more resources to make faster lens? While only a minority (all of us on FM) will appreciate it, the casual user is not going to be that bothered because they have no idea what aperature, DOF is. In fact, faster lens means more glass, more weight. That translate to more $$$ raw materials and transportation fees for Canon. Consumers do not want to hold on to heavy lens or keep on switching lens.
2) Should they dedicated more resources for "software upgrades" aka ISO performance and IS? A resounding yes.
I think it is easier and cheaper to make a camera better at higher ISO then create a faster lens. The high ISO performance can be easily duplicated across all the cameras in the line-up (Digic 2 in the 1D mkII, 20D and 350D). Making a lens faster by one stop means research on just one lens and it will not be that easily translated to other lens. Not to mention you have to develop new manufacturing processes to make these new faster lens. For a better ISO camera, you just have to make a better chip and we have all seen how cheap silicon is.
In addition, faster lens means more potential user error because the lens is less toleratnt to mis focusing. This means more problems for canon as people will complain their camera is soft, etc.
I would welcome any fast lens with IS but i hardly see that possible. The trend is know for slower lens with IS and a high ISO body to match. Canon knows its business
smaniscalco wrote:
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?
Nope. I do bird photography (500/4, 1.4 TC) and still life shots (50/2.5 macro). I use 17-40/4 for all other things, but it's only 10% of my shooting. Medium zoom will not cut it for good contrast, good quality products shots. Same goes with enlarged wildlife pictures. Same kind of answer you can expect if you place the question to portrait-, news-, street-, fashion-, sports-, whatever photographer...
I personally would like to see canon make some high quality slower glass.
A 24/2.8 L or a 14/4 L with nice edge-to-edge sharpness and contrast would be nice. I personally feel that many contemporary manufacturers emphasize maximum aperture at the expense of overall quality. I guess maximum aperture is like megapixels in some regards. It's easier to market a number than "quality".
One of the reasons I think the emphasis will be on ISO performance is that I suspect the vast majority of potential customers want a "clear" picture i,.e. a photo where everything is in focus. To be able to get that in less than ideal lighting could be a big selling point.
I second Jim Dawson's comment about AF speed, which doesn't seem to have gotten much comment in this thread. AF speed is of course a big deal for certain kinds of action shooting. Lack of f2.8 and larger apertures can result in OOF problems while striving for tight composition in sports shooting, for example.
steve_t wrote:
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.
While I understand what you are saying, isn't it a bit weird to claim that there will not be an improvement when you don't know what the future can bring.
If you're talking about within the current system, then forget what I said
John Power wrote:
One of the reasons I think the emphasis will be on ISO performance is that I suspect the vast majority of potential customers want a "clear" picture i,.e. a photo where everything is in focus. To be able to get that in less than ideal lighting could be a big selling point.
Unfortunately, I do tend to agree with this for a number of people. I remember shortly after the 1D Mark II was released. Someone had a post where they said "I just bought the 1D Mark II and the 70-200 f/2.8L IS and whenever I take pictures the background is all blurred. How do I fix this?"
Regarding the loss in AF speed and lower brightness in the viewfinder, I totally agree but then again as i mentioned, Canon knows its market.
I will apply the same logic that is makes more economical sense to improve camera software to improve AF then design faster lenses. Writing code and using more sensitive is way cheaper for canon than designing a faster lens.
As for "brighter viewfinder" arguement, most casual consumer do not really complain about their 3.5-5.6 zoom being too dark and I doubt they will make that big a fuss because most of them will never look thru a lens with an aperature faster or equal to f2.8.
In a nutshell, Lens design is very expensive and the current line-up of lenses is fine for most purpose. Canon will develop their cameras to take advantage of the lenses with better ISO and better AF because it is cheaper. As for newer lenses, my crystal ball points to slower lenses with IS because less QC and tolerance is needed and it is appealing to the new user when they see a new lens WITH IMAGE STABILIZER.
discreet wrote:
In a nutshell, i think we should just accept the fact that fast aperature is not "in" anymore.
Fast aperture hasn't been "in" since the start of AF and consumer oriented SLRs when 90% of lens purchases became zooms with max apertures of f3.5 or 4. Before that time 'consumer' lenses were often primes with apertures of f/2.8 and faster. These also (especially back then) had much better resolution and contrast than the zooms.
It amazes me what people will give up for convenience.
John Power wrote:
As the technology improves, will the increased ISO performance eventually eliminate the need for the far more expensive 2.8 or less lenses?
The answer is very straightforward: No.
Apart from the additional control over depth of field given by a large aperture, apertures of 4.0 or even less mean that the digital camera cannot be used at its full potential: If your camera is capable of a clean ISO 1600 or even 3200, 4.0 is still 100% slower than 2.8, which greatly reduces the advantage of high ISO.
Conversely, if your camera deliver great results at high ISO, you are going to have even more possibilities for freezing subject motion if you have a fast lens. In order to freeze the motion of people in a living room, 1/250 sec. is a minimum, if there are fast movements 1/500 may be desirable.
Slow lenses are going to reduce the advantages of a capable camera, fast lenses are going to enable you to utlilize your camera in every possible lighting situation.
lordarka wrote:
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.
Yes, imagine how much more effective the latter combination would be in freezing subject motion in available light. But it does not have to be 1.4 either: Even a 2.8 lens would permit a shutter speed which is twice as fast as the 4.0 one.
I believe most of the beginners who become more advanced will discover the advantages that go with faster glass, and migrate to lenses with larger apertures.
Antony wrote:
Fast aperture hasn't been "in" since the start of AF and consumer oriented SLRs when 90% of lens purchases became zooms with max apertures of f3.5 or 4. Before that time 'consumer' lenses were often primes with apertures of f/2.8 and faster. These also (especially back then) had much better resolution and contrast than the zooms.
It amazes me what people will give up for convenience.
That is only until they get more experience. It devolves upon us to inform people about these things: That there is no substitute for a fast lens, and that IS does not eliminate the need for lens speed.
Problem is my wallet's probably not going to be able to support both.