However, by all accounts the last generation super-teles were all fantastic. What is the point in updating them? Especially when Canon's deficiencies at the wide end are well known. My dream lens (and that of a lot of other folks) is the Nikon 14-24, which Canon has not answered. What about a 24-70 with IS (which again, Nikon has)? Would be a bread and butter lens for so many working photogs. 17-40, 35L, 50 1.4, or 135L would all make sense as well. Yes Canon gave use TS lenses last year, but again exotic (in both price and utility). Unless I am mistaken, there has been only one mainstream lens update over these last two years.
I don't expect that Canon must cater to my every need. I'm just surprised. Seems to me that they are skipping over mainstream needs to provide exotic options. But of course I don't look at the profit margins, sales figures, etc. ...Show more →
The so called deficiencies that Canon has on the wide end are more and more becoming nothing more that internet parrotting.
The Nikon 14-24 is over-rated. Not because it isn't a fine lens, it is. Its a stellar optic. However it isn't the flawless gift from god that the cult of the 14-24 would have everyone believe. It has optical deficiencies, namely geometric distortion and annoying field curvature which seems to change as the lens is stopped down. Furthermore, there is no mechanism to attach filters (yes, when Lee's system actually starts shipping this will be addressed) which is important for landscape shooters.
The Nikon 24-70 doesn't have VR (which your post implied, though I suspect that might not have been your intention) and a good copy of the Canon 24-70 performs very close to the Nikon (except maybe at 70mm wide open). The trick of course is finding a good copy of the Canon.
I say this as someone who has extensively shot with both systems, including having owned and shot with every recently released Nikon lens.
But what about 50MP or 120MP sensors? Canon announced them in 2007 and a few days ago. They are in the pipeline within the decade or two.
I expect Canon to come out with the 14-24 much later.
Nikon does not have a VR 24-70. The current 24-70 was marketed 2002.
The 17-40 out in2003
I do agree that the 35L (1998), 135L (1996) need updating. The 50/1.4 may be introduced as an L as demonstrated by the 100L Macro IS & 70-300L IS.
The just refreshed 300/400/500/600 were last refreshed in 1999 a year before the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney. This time it was prompted by the 2012 Summer Olympics in London.
I personally was expecting the long lenses to come out before the 2010 World Cup or 2011, oh well.
ScooberJake wrote:
However, by all accounts the last generation super-teles were all fantastic. What is the point in updating them? Especially when Canon's deficiencies at the wide end are well known. My dream lens (and that of a lot of other folks) is the Nikon 14-24, which Canon has not answered. What about a 24-70 with IS (which again, Nikon has)? Would be a bread and butter lens for so many working photogs. 17-40, 35L, 50 1.4, or 135L would all make sense as well. Yes Canon gave use TS lenses last year, but again exotic (in both price and utility). Unless I am mistaken, there has been only one mainstream lens update over these last two years.
I don't expect that Canon must cater to my every need. I'm just surprised. Seems to me that they are skipping over mainstream needs to provide exotic options. But of course I don't look at the profit margins, sales figures, etc. ...Show more →
M Vers wrote:
A 15 FE replacement makes sense, given the lenses age and the competition, but I don't know where the heck the 70-300 L came from. Perhaps Canon figured they were loosing too many 70-200/4 sales to the 70-300 IS and so they designed an L to insure it wouldn't continue to happen? I agree about an updated UWA zoom--this is a must IMO. With the recent releases I think Canon is beginning to show their cards--I honestly don't think the EF (non-L) line has a future. If we do see a 50/1.4 USM it wouldn't surprise me at all to see it in either EF-S or L form. As for the 24-70, I still have hope for an IS version or at the very least an MKII to role around....Show more →
I think you're right--the non-L EF line is being phased out. If you look at Canon's EF Lens Technologies page (link), you will notice that the lenses are broken down into several categories: Ls, EF-S, and Specialty (macro, T/S, fish, and softfocus). There's no category for standard, non-L, EF lenses. And as has been noted already, Canon has been replacing normal EFs with Ls (100mm macro, 70-300 IS) and discontinuing others overlapping with existing Ls (e.g., 20-35 discontinued around 2008, 24-85 discontinued around 2009, 28-105 recently discontinued, etc.).
If true, it will be interesting to see how things play out. Surely Canon doesn't want to leave a large gap in its lens lineup for Sigma and others to fill (unless it just can't compete with them, which isn't true at present). Perhaps Canon erroneously believes that consumers only want APS-C cams and FF bodies are being purchased only by those with exceptionally deep pockets. Or perhaps Canon intends to have two lines of Ls: enthusiast (e.g., 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 f/4, 300 f/4) and pro.
Some have mentioned that Canon doesn't need to sell affordable super-teles anymore because of the large used lens market. We consumers may not need them to continue selling affordable super-teles, but Canon would be stupid to give up that entire segment of the market. It doesn't make a cent off of used sales. If the goal is simple price discrimination, it should continue to sell Mk I lenses in addition to the IIs, for those in need of the added performance. And maybe it will.
I certainly think that Canon has lost one of its primary selling points for enthusiasts vis-a-vis Nikon: affordable high quality glass.
That said, the 85/1.2LII is only four years old and the 50/1.2L is 3 years old so I'm not sure what else could be updated. Maybe the 135L.
....
Oh, come one. Updating the 135L would make about as much sense as updating the nearly optically perfect super-teles - oops! That's what they did, didn't they?
I again repeat - 24-70 f/2.8 IS, UWA with good corner performance, updated 50 1.4 with USM. That would appeal to alot more buyers.
thedigitalbean wrote:
The so called deficiencies that Canon has on the wide end are more and more becoming nothing more that internet parrotting.
The Nikon 14-24 is over-rated. Not because it isn't a fine lens, it is. Its a stellar optic. However it isn't the flawless gift from god that the cult of the 14-24 would have everyone believe. It has optical deficiencies, namely geometric distortion and annoying field curvature which seems to change as the lens is stopped down. Furthermore, there is no mechanism to attach filters (yes, when Lee's system actually starts shipping this will be addressed) which is important for landscape shooters.
The Nikon 24-70 doesn't have VR (which your post implied, though I suspect that might not have been your intention) and a good copy of the Canon 24-70 performs very close to the Nikon (except maybe at 70mm wide open). The trick of course is finding a good copy of the Canon. ...Show more →
I have certainly not used both system extensively, so I'm not a good judge. And I hope that you are correct about the wide angle issues only existing in the ether. But I will be purchasing my first FF by the end of the year, looking to get a wide angle (17-40) right away and a standard (probably 24-70) down the road. It appears that finding a good copy of either of those lenses is a bit of a crap shoot.
I'm sure the 14-24 is not a perfect lens. Is it significantly better than the 17-40 or 16-35 for landscape shooters? By all accounts yes. I guess I was hoping to not have to play the lottery for BOTH of my most used lenses when going FF, a wide and a standard. And frankly, I don't think I should have to. Perhaps it is not as bad as it is put on these forums, again I wouldn't know myself.
cohenxa wrote: I figured that investment in great travels returns more good photos than investments in new L's
ditto
Yea there have been numerous studies done to confirm this. Basically, what it came down to was that money spent on a physical item led to only short periods of contentness where as money spent on experiences (such as travel) generally led to much longer periods of happiness.
David Baldwin wrote:
I'm sure this is going to make me sound small minded, but how many people are there on the planet who need a full frame fisheye zoom??
All the people who do VR panos and virtual tours......
I am looking forward to it along with the new extenders for the telephotos....
thedigitalbean wrote:
Yea there have been numerous studies done to confirm this. Basically, what it came down to was that money spent on a physical item led to only short periods of contentness where as money spent on experiences (such as travel) generally led to much longer periods of happiness.
I think this is pretty obvious. Regardless of what your camera is able to see, the sights that you will capture on a trip will be more than you ever will capture. Besides, your eye is at least many times the resolution of the most advanced camera. Your memory is more secure than any combination of backup harddrives and discs. Who cares if your camera can't capture anything. You don't need to prove it to anyone else, only yourself.
According to Wikipedia, the 300mm f/2.8 L IS introduced in July 1999 had an MSRP of $5,737.35 (don't ask me how Wiki got that absurdly precise price). Today, 10 years later, it retails at B&H at $4500 (that is not the lowest price in the market).
So maybe the Mk11, $7000 today will be a wee bit more affordable $5490 by 2020
Arun Gupta wrote:
According to Wikipedia, the 300mm f/2.8 L IS introduced in July 1999 had an MSRP of $5,737.35 (don't ask me how Wiki got that absurdly precise price). Today, 10 years later, it retails at B&H at $4500 (that is not the lowest price in the market).
So maybe the Mk11, $7000 today will be a wee bit more affordable $5490 by 2020
$5737 in 1999 has the same buying power as ~$7507.00 today, according to the CPI Inflation calculator:
Arun Gupta wrote:
According to Wikipedia, the 300mm f/2.8 L IS introduced in July 1999 had an MSRP of $5,737.35 (don't ask me how Wiki got that absurdly precise price). Today, 10 years later, it retails at B&H at $4500 (that is not the lowest price in the market).
So maybe the Mk11, $7000 today will be a wee bit more affordable $5490 by 2020
The probably got the price, in Japanese Yen, on the Canon museum site, then converted it based on the currency exchange at that time.
??
