why are (almost) all my canon primes so old?

Started Feb 3, 2013 | Questions thread
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Blastophaga
Regular MemberPosts: 109
Like?
why are (almost) all my canon primes so old?
Feb 3, 2013

I am shooting exclusively primes, normal, tele and macro.

My camera bag holds

5D Mark III

300L F4 announced 1991

50 F1.4 announced 1993

135 L F2 announced 1996

65 MPE announced 1999

100 L F2.8 IS macro announced 2009.

Within that range I dont want to upgrade the 300 F4 to a 300 F2.8, the weight is not acceptable for my use of photography. I dont want to upgrade the 50 to the 1.2 (announced 2007) because although the bookeh of the 1.2 is better, it is still very nervous in the background and I hate that nervous background and although the 50 1.4 is the least pleasant to use among my lenses. Within a year or two I will buy the 85 1.2 II (introduced 2006) because it corresponds quite well to how I take pictures.

I could upgrade the 300 to the IS version (announced 1997), though I would get IS but not better basic picture quality and it would still be a design for the previous century.

I use DPP as a raw converter, because all upgrades are free, so that even if it lags somewhat behind some other raw converters it catches up on previous versions of these. Another reason to use dpp is that there is no side car, the tratment information is embedded in the raw file so that picture is always associated with treatment. I have not looked seriously into more elaborate image treatment. However, in DPP if you use fulll lens data to increase sharpness, I really have the impression of loosing something important in terms of bookeh. Similarly examples of differences of treatment of images by different raw converters in chasseur d'images have convinced me that I prefer the artefacts generated by DPP comparatively to those generated by other raw converters.

So basically I have a feeling the users of primes that are not heavyweight lifters and do not relish in wide angles have been almost totally let down by Canon. When I see the beauty of the pictures that can be taken using these lenses, I am impressed at how they have hold their own and grown better with better cameras. The beauty of the bokeh achieved with shallow depth of field cannot be achieved with a zoom (if you like that type of pictures). I would be most happy to pay twice current prices and get updated modern designs on these lenses. Price is not the problem, these lenses do simply not exist.

I hope these lenses are on the canon roadmap, in a lightweight, gorgeous bookeh version.

Is the market share for primes just so small that it is not worth making these lenses?

Finn

ANSWER:
This question has not been answered yet.
Canon EOS 5D Mark III
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow