New 35/2 IS beats MTF of 35/1.4L

Started Nov 6, 2012 | Discussions thread
RuJapan
New MemberPosts: 17
Like?
Re: New 35/2 IS beats MTF of 35/1.4L
In reply to rrccad, Nov 8, 2012

rrccad wrote:

meland wrote:

Dan_168 wrote:

It doesn't take much to beat that 35L in 2012, the 35L was great for 1998 but technologies have advanced quite a bit over all these years, I have the 35L myself for many years, it served me well for in door low light and out door portrait for a long time but never really like it for my landscape works, so I had been searching for 35mm lens with great local contrast and edge performance, and I settled with the Zeiss 35 F2 and later the Zeiss 35 F1.4, now I hardly touch that lens any more. Sounds like about time for Canon to update that dinosaur.

Perhaps we tend to get 'locked in' to the idea what are considered appropriate and useful focal lengths. Me, I'm of an era when a balanced kit was considered to be 28mm, 50mm and 70-210mm. My old photo teacher believed in nothing but 35mm, 50mm and 75mm and to him zooms were the spawn of the devil (Leica user).

Recently when revising my personal kit I tried to analyse what I actually would use, rather than simply replacing like with like. And although it initially felt very weird I just went with the 24-105 f/4 on a FF body mainly to see what I would miss most. Surprisingly I didn't miss much at all - certainly not the weight of carrying under-utilised lenses around.

Canon also find themselves in the midst of changing attitudes. If you go through their current lens line up you will in fact find quite a few lenses that have not been manufactured for several years (many Canon lenses are made in batches rather than in continuous production). So while they have sufficient stock somewhere, either in Japan, or in some national distributor's warehouse, they can continue to be sold. But when it gets to the point of only a certain number left in stock, then comes the decision of whether to start up production again, re-design or improve the lens with the benefit of new materials and technology, or to just can it completely.

The 35/1.4L is a case in point. State of the art at the end of the '90s it is arguably just OK in 2012. But what to replace it with? In some respects it's a pretty niche lens now that the sensitivity of modern sensors has made many users realise they can use a modern zoom with 35mm in the range and get equivalent results (yeah, yeah I know zooms don't offer f1.4 but how many 35mm focal length shots were / are actually taken at f1.4?).

And then you've got the IQ above all else crowd with their high quality manual focus 35mms. Fine for specific uses but the market for them is too tiny to be viable for Canon.

So let's assume Canon feel there is a market for a new 35 f/1.4L. Well even if there is, and I wonder about that, then that replacement has got to be pretty damn special, especially as just to directly replace that lens today is going to cost probably double the current version, what with inflation, exchange rates, the inclusion of IS and whatever. So there's the rub - don't update it and many say but it's a dinosaur and desperately needs replacing - replace it and we all bleat about the high price.

Canon can't win really can they!

nope. they actually produce lens upgrades at the same price without inflation adjustment but ship it around the world based upon the currency exchange rates.

The 35 1.4L Mark II will float around 2100 USD or so (205,000) - and that's if canon's R&D, manufacturing costs,etc decrease dramatically from the first version's (because we aren't even accounting for inflation) - and you will still have alot of people crying and gnashing teeth and claiming canon's gouging, etc,etc,etc.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/wide/ef_35_14l_usm.html

205,000 Yen = around 2100 to 2500 USD right now.

a good example of this is the 24-70 2.8L - originally it came out at 220,000 Yen .. the Mark II came out at a modest increase at 230,000 Yen.

Unless Canon moves it's manufacturing to the united states, or to some other country that isn't reliant on the Yen as it's basis of manufacturing, R&D and production costs - the fact remains a strong Yen hurts us alot on new lens releases.

This is very true - and its hurting all of Japan's exports at the moment. It is frustrating as the Yen is artificially strong at the moment, partly because it is seen as a safe investment in an uncertain market. While this is true, you are going to see Japanese products prices increasing.

I don't think inflation has much to do with pricing Japanese made lenses, as Japan has been in either very low to zero inflation, or even deflation, for such a long time. Prices of products and services in Japan has basically remained the same for a long time (except where there has been government intervention or supply / demand changes like fruit/vegetables in a bad year). This also means wages of Japanese workers has stayed the same, or (in many cases) decreased over the past decades.

I also don't think R&D costs would be as much for the version II, as its building on the design of, and leveraging, the version I. Hopefully, the sales of the version I would have recouped those costs, so the pricing of the version II should be based on the costs of making that lens.

So any increase you see in the US, should be largely because of currency or pricing policy changes in the company.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow