-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
The missing Canon normal EF-S prime
- Thread starter mattr
- Start date
Exactly.
For example, I noticed that there are quite a few landscape photographers on this forum how use a 24/1.4LII for shooting at f/5.6 or f/8. If Canon would have updated the 24/2.8 with stopped down performance at least as good as the L and with USM, a lot of those would probably have purchased the smaller and cheaper lens.
Of course not. But I think the number of reviews should correlate with the number of sales similarly for Nikon and Canon lenses.
I don't leave any reviews on Amazon.
Joe Photo Lover
Senior Member
Yes, the five aperture blade design just isn't very desirable for bright backgrounds and pleasing bokeh.
Shorthand
Senior Member
For $100, I ain't complainin' about how many aperture blades there are.
As for the whole discussion on cannibalization of other product lines, the fact of the matter is that cannibalization of higher-end lenses is where the 3rd party lens makers keep Canon honest.
If Sigma and Tamron are willing to make MFT lenses, they should also be willing to make EF-S-specific lenses (as opposed to reduced imaged circle lenses with FF-sized back focus distances). After all, there are many more EF-S compatible cameras than MFT cameras.
I still think that a $150 EF-S 30mm f/2.8 or better would have incredible sales volumes and should be reasonably profitable even at that price. I'm imagining a lens with a gaussian optical design, little to no aspherical glass, and a simple micro-motor focus mechanism - a "dirty thirty" if you would.
The lenses would be small and the short back-focus should substantially simplify the design of such a lens.
As for the whole discussion on cannibalization of other product lines, the fact of the matter is that cannibalization of higher-end lenses is where the 3rd party lens makers keep Canon honest.
If Sigma and Tamron are willing to make MFT lenses, they should also be willing to make EF-S-specific lenses (as opposed to reduced imaged circle lenses with FF-sized back focus distances). After all, there are many more EF-S compatible cameras than MFT cameras.
I still think that a $150 EF-S 30mm f/2.8 or better would have incredible sales volumes and should be reasonably profitable even at that price. I'm imagining a lens with a gaussian optical design, little to no aspherical glass, and a simple micro-motor focus mechanism - a "dirty thirty" if you would.
The lenses would be small and the short back-focus should substantially simplify the design of such a lens.
eh, canon was basically the last company to jump on the AF SLR bandwagon in the 1980s and came out with easily the best implementation. you can be a market leader being last to market in order to learn from everyone else's mistakes. heck, apple was hardly the first player in the smartphone market (which is really a PDA with a cellular modem, so they'd actually failed in the market with the newton), but they learned from everyone else's mistakes, turned the market on its head, and now everyone plays catchup with them.
jitteringjr
Senior Member
Back when everyone had a full frame camera, Canon thought there was a market for 3 different normal primes: 50/1.8, 50/1.4 and 50/1.2.
I think if they had three updated normal prime lenses now it would be great. EFS 35/1.8 priced like the Nikon, a EFS 35/1.4 USM at $500 and the currrent 50/1.2 for Full frame with the 35/1.4 II for full frame wide
David C Harris
Leading Member
Not much room to stick a lens between the Canon 35/2 and Sigma 30/1.4.
Maybe Tamron should start making primes other than macro lenses -- something like a 32mm f/1.8 USD with the same optical quality at f/1.8 as their 17-50 non VC at 32mm wide open and AF speed like the SP 70-300 VC USD (or faster). VC would be nice but not necessary. Price and size similar to EF 35/2 this would be perfect.
David C Harris
Leading Member
The consumer hath spoken and hath said:
"I like zooms"
True story : I was at a birthday party a couple of months ago and another parent was taking a picture with a friend's body and my Sigma 50/1.4. She was trying to take a group picture, but rather than moving her feet (backing up), she kept trying to turn the "zoom" ring, which was actually the focus ring. Despite very politely telling her in many different ways for about 30 seconds that there was no zoom ring, that it was not a zoom lens, to please try backing up, etc.,., she kept turning the focus ring (and half-pressing the shutter to AF focus) while keeping her feet planted. She never budged, but she eventually pressed the shutter and gave the camera back to my friend.
Keep in mind the people on these boards (us) are a tiny, tiny sliver of the SLR lens market. The vast majority has literally no idea what a prime lens is, what aperture is, what "zooming with the feet is", etc.,. nor do they care to learn. They just want a fancy or fancy-looking camera to take nice pictures with in the easiest way possible:
- full auto mode
- feet planted
- zoom for framing
- direct flash
We can learn a lot from Nikon. Nikon saw fit to introduce TWO NEW 35mm lenses within TWO YEARS of each other--the DX 35/1.8 and the FX 35/1.4. The people that want the extra bit of sharpness, the "L color," the metal body, etc., will pay the premium for the L version. People who don't would pay for the less expensive lens. Nobody is saying it has to be L quality. Nobody is saying it has to be last word in sharpness or color or bokeh, but something that feels a little up-do-date, with the same build quality as, say the 15-85, would be welcome. Canon has a very easy way of preserving the market for the upper level stuff: make the new lens EF-S.
Sure, there are people that have the money for a 35/1.4 but would opt for the cheaper lens. There are also a lot of people that "have the money" for a 5D mkII but buy a compact camera. I would wager there are a lot of people that don't have the money for a 35/1.4 but would have the money for a $200-ish EF-S 30/1.8.
And, please, somebody tell me that the only reason that Nikon introduced the DX 35/1.8 is because they didn't have a prime that would autofocus their low-end bodies--that will quiet all the commenters who say that Rebel owners only want slow zooms.
And why would Canon do that?
I agree with you, but that doesn't mean that the market is nonexistent. The 35/1.4L is also not for THAT market, but everyone seems really concerned about maintaining the market share it DOES have.
jitteringjr
Senior Member
How I wish you were wrong but know that you're not.
"This" market? Just about everyone I know who enjoys photography and has a DSLR would jump on a cheap good quality 35mm (50mm) 1.8 prime.
antoineb
Veteran Member
I enjoyed your humour ;-)
zooms CAN of course be good, for example for those situations where you physically cannot back up (wall etc) or for those other situations where you cannot move forward enough (detail of a landscape), among others.
I confess to leaving my 18-200 on most of the time, and taking out my 85mm f1.4 or my 35mm f1.8 out for more special occasions. But then of course the shots I get from these are often either more interesting, or more pleasing.
But frankly, what can be the cost of developing a 35mm f1.8 like the one I have on my Nikon? That lens has surprisingly nice bokeh for the price, but the AF is not fast, and kind of noisy, so clearly this isn't something out of this world.
zooms CAN of course be good, for example for those situations where you physically cannot back up (wall etc) or for those other situations where you cannot move forward enough (detail of a landscape), among others.
I confess to leaving my 18-200 on most of the time, and taking out my 85mm f1.4 or my 35mm f1.8 out for more special occasions. But then of course the shots I get from these are often either more interesting, or more pleasing.
But frankly, what can be the cost of developing a 35mm f1.8 like the one I have on my Nikon? That lens has surprisingly nice bokeh for the price, but the AF is not fast, and kind of noisy, so clearly this isn't something out of this world.
antoineb
Veteran Member
while I said that I didn't think Nikon must have spent much developing the 35mm f1.8 for APS-C (DX), clearly going to 1.4 at 35mm is another story.
but again, this would only be an excuse for not having 1.4 let alone 1.2 35mm's, not an excuse for not having an affordable 35mm f1.8.
but again, this would only be an excuse for not having 1.4 let alone 1.2 35mm's, not an excuse for not having an affordable 35mm f1.8.
MM1
Senior Member
Indeed Canon does compete with itself. They tremble in fear that some lower specced Canon camera woud cannibalize the sales of their precious 1D line...
Why do you think NO non-1D Canon body comes close in AF performance to 1D (well, recently 7D came a bit closer)?
The answer is simple: segmentation, segmentation and motivate people negatively to buy the most expensive stuff. Do you think there is any real technical reason that 430EX flashgun cannot rotate its head 180 degrees to both sides? I don't think so. It was made to nag you to buy 580EX instead, or simply suffer inconvenience if you don't want to pay. The same thing is missing firmware option of MFA on 60D. You also cannot set focus priority for one-shot mode on any Canon body except 1D.
--
Cheers,
Martin
brightcolours
Forum Pro
Funny one would take that photozone image as example. In general, all 35mm lenses have rather nervous bokeh, partly to do with their focal length and partly to do with that all of them are quite old designs.
But... showing one difficult case, from only one lens, one really can't conclude that the 35mm f2 has bad bokeh for a 35mm lens. In fact, it does not. The Nikon 35mm f1.8 DX has way more nervous bokeh (it is worse). The only thing it does better is that it has rounded highlights.
Showing the bokeh of the 35mm f2 on APS-C:
Very smooth for a 35mm lens, no weird transitions, no weird lines or double lines.
With 12mm extension tube. Smooth bokeh, just very clear 5 sided aperture. Which I happen to like, but that is personal.
Again, smooth bokeh, no nervousness.
But... showing one difficult case, from only one lens, one really can't conclude that the 35mm f2 has bad bokeh for a 35mm lens. In fact, it does not. The Nikon 35mm f1.8 DX has way more nervous bokeh (it is worse). The only thing it does better is that it has rounded highlights.
Showing the bokeh of the 35mm f2 on APS-C:
Very smooth for a 35mm lens, no weird transitions, no weird lines or double lines.
With 12mm extension tube. Smooth bokeh, just very clear 5 sided aperture. Which I happen to like, but that is personal.
Again, smooth bokeh, no nervousness.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum