coffeeshakes wrote:
If the performance is truly there, I think the price is very reasonable. This is a professional tool, and the price and performance are targeted towards people making money with their gear. Who cares what the last one cost, I used to have it, and I no longer do... It didn't perform (for me).
I think that is the key. A number of people liked the 24 mm focal length but were unhappy with the performance of the lens. If the performance of the new lenses is good they will sell quite a few of them (at least for a TS lenses).
BTW, I assume the new lenses are manual focus like the old TSE lenses?
jjlphoto wrote:
Nikkor lenses made quite a reputation as lens leaders in the 1930's because one of Zeiss's lens gurus fled to Japan and assembled a team there. (Nikons cameras were not up to snuff unfortunately at that time) In fact, Canon even asked Nikon to make some lenses for their own camera line.
After WWII, Zeiss was broken up into an East bloc and West bloc company. Of course, the US and UK helped wisk away the top scientists first and get them settled in Oberkochen, leaving the lesser skilled scientists left in Jenna. As a result, Zeiss/Jenna floundered and never was able to do the Zeiss name justice and eventually dissolved.
Lens designers at Leica have their own design philosophy. Most of those lenses are designed to have edge to edge sharpness at wide open aperture, where-as all other companies lenses need to be stopped down a couple stops to achieve perfect edge to edge sharpness.
Pentax developed a method that could mass produce multi-coated lenses in the early 1970's. Zeiss wanted in on that, and traded their 15/3.5 lens design in exchange for rights to that technology.
Where is all this going? Lens designers are sort of practitioners in the black arts. One just doesn't press a button that says 'great lens' and one pops off the assembly line. The lens diagrams you see published are only that. Diagrams of shapes. Refractive indicies of the glass, the elements in the glass, the coatings, the degree of precision in machining the surfaces, etc, etc, all enter into the equation. These guys are of an ultra-elite club and there are very few of them....Show more → All that was before computers could be used to calculate and optimise optical designs - it's no longer a black art only practiced by an elite but a cost/benefit excercise available to any optical manufacturer.
jerrykur wrote:
I think that is the key. A number of people liked the 24 mm focal length but were unhappy with the performance of the lens. If the performance of the new lenses is good they will sell quite a few of them (at least for a TS lenses).
BTW, I assume the new lenses are manual focus like the old TSE lenses?
Yes, Manual Focus.
What seems to have gotten lost in this discussion as well is the handling. Apparently there is new handling for switching the orientation of the shift vs tilt, which is well appreciated. Not everything is lp/mm
jjlphoto wrote:
n0b0,
.... what about the 24mm? It has the same aperture size as the Mk.I right?
The aperture may be the same, but the image circles for both lenses have increased to 67.2mm - compared to the old 58.6 mm.
That should significantly help the shifted edge performance over the old lens.
The old 24 had 11mm of shift, but 8mm - 11mm was marked red - due the the significant fall off in quality.
I hope the new lens will give greatly improved edge performance for the entire 12mm of shift.
For anyone not interested in this, the old 24mm will be a great bargain in the used market
n0b0 wrote:
Yes they are expensive but I'm not saying the 24mm MkII is overpriced because it costs $2,200 to buy, I'm saying it's overpriced because the MkI is only $1,100.
Do you really know how expensive? A Leica 15/2.8R is $8995. The Leica 28mm Shift lens goes for $3895. (Only a 62mm image circle, and shift only, no tilt)
Makes no difference what Canon's MKI retailed for. The MKII is a whole new lens.
n0b0 wrote:
Yes they are expensive but I'm not saying the 24mm MkII is overpriced because it costs $2,200 to buy, I'm saying it's overpriced because the MkI is only $1,100.
The Mk II allows you to change the alignment of the tilt and shift functions. The MkI has tilt and shift aligned or at a right angle. So you need two Mk I's to get the same functionality. $1100 times two equals $2200. And the Mk II is probably a bit better (optically) so in fact it is a bargain! ;-)
wkfwkf wrote:
The Mk II allows you to change the alignment of the tilt and shift functions. The MkI has tilt and shift aligned or at a right angle. So you need two Mk I's to get the same functionality.
n0b0 wrote:
Yes they are expensive but I'm not saying the 24mm MkII is overpriced because it costs $2,200 to buy, I'm saying it's overpriced because the MkI is only $1,100.
David, a few things. This a considerably more complex lens than the mk I and assuming the higher performance is born out in real life, then it would have cost a lot more. Also the super rotator feature will add cost. So at best this lens would be 50-60% dearer. Also as said R&D and manufacturing costs have to be recouped and most of these L lenses have intial prices that are much higher than they are after a few years. Also we are in a period of price increases due to the strong Yen, so all in all it's not unexpected, aslo given Canon's pricing on recent L lenses. In a few years this will probably settle down to $1600, which is probably fair in comparison to the $1100 mk I.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Also we are in a period of price increases due to the strong Yen, so all in all it's not unexpected, aslo given Canon's pricing on recent L lenses.
That situation probably won't last, given Japan's precarious economic situation. We're not talking the "R word" here either: we're talking the "D word". I don't think we can make any accurate forecasts of what the prices will be like until the world economy has stabilised a bit.
mh2000 wrote:
I don't agree, it pushes them to have a more complete line of lenses than anyone else, period. Canon likes that... so do most people.
Kind of a late reply, but I couldn't agree more... Reaching back to when I started, Canon's lens line was a big chunk of what drove me to their product.
jerrykur wrote:
How does the screwdriver help you align them at 33.3, 45, 67.7, 80, or any other arbitrary number of degrees. This is a pretty big change.
The original TS-E could be set at any degree of rotation but had indents at 45deg intervals to lock it there. Altering the tilt and shift axis was just a matter of removing 8 screws that held the center tilt sectionand rotating it 90deg and replacing the screws. Most DIYe'r just rotated the front section but this puts undue strain on the flexible electrical connection.
shirozina wrote:
The original TS-E could be set at any degree of rotation but had indents at 45deg intervals to lock it there. Altering the tilt and shift axis was just a matter of removing 8 screws that held the center tilt sectionand rotating it 90deg and replacing the screws. Most DIYe'r just rotated the front section but this puts undue strain on the flexible electrical connection.
Yes that would be a delightful exercise to do several times a day in the field.
I guess reading up on 9 pages of posts - the final outcome on the 24mm will depend on image quality and price - will Canon exceed expectations with sharper corners and a well corrected lens and will Canon price the lens to compete with the Nikon 24mm TS-E.
Canon has the edge regardless with the 17mm TS-E - this is the widest available from Nikon or Canon right now.... but the final performance and price will dictate if these two lenses can really cut it out.
Slightly off topic: Whatever happened to the 24mm f1.4 Mk II --> too quiet - was the Mk II any better than the Mk I
