How about a new lineup of primes from Canon?

Great Bustard · Oct 21, 2011

What I'm talking about is the folllowing lenses:

17 / 2
24 / 2
35 / 2
50 / 2 1:1 macro
70 / 2
100 / 2

Now, I own, and love, the 100 / 2, so I'm going to use that as the standard. I'd want all of the aforementioned lenses to have AF and IQ as good as the 100 / 2 throughout the aperture range. Actually, a bit better, since, well, let's redo the already outstanding 100 / 2 just for kicks.

I know it's not a stretch to ask for high IQ from the 24 / 2 wide open, but maybe I'm reaching asking for high IQ for the 17 / 2 wide open, given Canon's history with wides. Still, maybe they can hire someone who knows something about designing wide lenses.

The thing is, I'd prefer to have sensor IS. But, since we know that Canon is too heavily invested with their whole "lens IS > sensor IS" BS, then I want IS in the lenses.

Not sure how much IS will really help at 17mm and 24mm, but even one extra stop helps, right? And if they don't milk us for IS just because they can (I mean, look at the price of the 18-55 IS and 70-300 IS -- just how much can it cost?), then IS shouldn't add much to the price.

Anyway, I'm thinking this would make for a really nice prime setup that is relatively small and light. And f/2 is pretty fast. It's not f/1.4 or f/1.2, but it is fast, and if the IQ is there right from f/2 (as it is with the 100 / 2), then that's pretty good.

Anyone else, or is it just me?

Montana500 · Oct 21, 2011

Great Bustard said:
What I'm talking about is the folllowing lenses:

17 / 2
24 / 2
35 / 2
50 / 2 1:1 macro
70 / 2
100 / 2

I'd like to see a 10mm 2.8 for EF-S. I'm guessing Sigma will be the one to do it. They seem to have a bit more of a sense of what people are looking for these days.

My list of what I'd own:

10 / 2.8
18 / 1.8
30 1.8
50 / 1.8 III

Great Bustard said:
The thing is, I'd prefer to have sensor IS. But, since we know that Canon is too heavily invested with their whole "lens IS > sensor IS" BS, then I want IS in the lenses.

I agree. Lens IS is a thing of the past save for long telephotos. The in-body IS is HUGE for video and for everything below 200mm, and should be a must have.

Great Bustard said:
Not sure how much IS will really help at 17mm and 24mm, but even one extra stop helps, right? And if they don't milk us for IS just because they can (I mean, look at the price of the 18-55 IS and 70-300 IS -- just how much can it cost?), then IS shouldn't add much to the price.

Anyway, I'm thinking this would make for a really nice prime setup that is relatively small and light. And f/2 is pretty fast. It's not f/1.4 or f/1.2, but it is fast, and if the IQ is there right from f/2 (as it is with the 100 / 2), then that's pretty good.

Anyone else, or is it just me?

I'm all for more non-L primes. The current primes are way too old, and I often find the L primes defeat what I like about primes: the low weight and inconspicuous look.

--
Grizzly bears of Glacier National Park
http://www.parkcamper.com/Glacier-National-Park/Glacier-grizzly-bears.htm

jitteringjr · Oct 21, 2011

I am with you and wouldn't complain about updates like that but I shoot crop so I would like to see:

EFS 15/2 USM
EFS 20/1.4 USM
EFS 35/1.4 USM
EF 50/1.4 USM II with real ring USM
Your 70 idea is cool too.

Great Bustard · Oct 21, 2011

jitteringjr said:
I am with you and wouldn't complain about updates like that but I shoot crop...

...'cause I was talking about a real camera. You know, FF.

jitteringjr said:
...so I would like to see:

EFS 15/2 USM
EFS 20/1.4 USM
EFS 35/1.4 USM
EF 50/1.4 USM II with real ring USM

The question is, however, would any of those lenses be substantially smaller for 1.6x than for FF? If so, you have a definite point, since 1.6x is more popular, by far, than FF. Still, the FF lenses will work on both FF and 1.6x, so there's a bigger market for the FF lenses, and I doubt the cost would be any different.

jitteringjr said:
Your 70 idea is cool too.

You may have noted the geometric progression of sqrt 2 (~ 1.4):

17.5mm x sqrt 2 = 25mm
25mm x sqrt 2 = 35mm
35mm x sqrt 2 = 50mm
50mm x sqrt 2 = 71mm
71mm x sqrt 2 = 100mm

I suppose we could do the same for 1.6x:

11mm x sqrt 2 = 16mm
16mm x sqrt 2 = 22mm
22mm x sqrt 2 = 31mm
31mm x sqrt 2 = 44mm
44mm x sqrt 2 = 62mm

So maybe:

10 / 2
15 / 2
21 / 2
30 / 2
45 / 2
60 / 2

in EF-S size.

Chev Chelios · Oct 22, 2011

sadly Canon are in this business to make as much money as they can from us. So for FF users like us, they know most of us will eventualy buy their nice expensive L-primes in the FL range you are talking about. And for crop users, they know 99% of them want zooms, not primes.

I have the excellent 35/2, but I would love the same IQ in a version that has USM and nice rounded aperture blades. And I'd be willing to pay twice as much as the current 35/2 costs (i.e. still half the price of the 35L).

But Canon would never make such a lens because i suspect most of the folks who have bought the 35L would have been perfectly satisfied with a decent 35/2 USM lens. So for that reason they won't bother upgrading the curent 35/2. Likewise, with the 50/1.4 they won't ever give that proper USM. Because if they did, they'd know that people like me (and possibly you?) wouldn't have forked out four times as much money for the 50/1.2 (as much as I love my 50L, I could manage perfectly well wilth a modern non-weather sealed f1.4 version that has proper USM).

I used to have the 135L, but decdied to switch to the smaller, lighter and faster focusing 100/2. OK, IQ may not be as good as the L in specific situations, but most of the time you can't really tell these lenses apart by looking at their images).

So yes, I'm all for a new non-L prime lens lineup!! But I don't think we'll ever get one

Great Bustard said:
Anyone else, or is it just me?

Rick Knepper · Oct 22, 2011

EF 19, 20, or 21mm
EF 35L II
EF 24-70 II
EF 24-105L II
EF 100-400L II

And come to grips with the ridiculous pricing of their long lenses.

R2D2 · Oct 22, 2011

+1

jitteringjr said:
EF 50/1.4 USM II with real ring USM

Heck, I'd be satisfied with just a stellar 50mm f1.4!

R2

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.

http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

Chez Wimpy · Oct 22, 2011

I suspect that when (not if) they release a mirrorless camera, getting out a whole new line of lenses - smallish primes included - will tie up the company's design resources. Even if it didn't, given the current lethargic pace of (re-)releases (they haven't updated any non-L EF primes in ages) I don't know why they would take an interest now .

The m43 prime lineup is pretty impressive though, even Samsung and Sony are starting to catch up.

--
-CW

gipper51 · Oct 22, 2011

Canon may assume FF buyers are wanting only uber-expensive primes for these bodies, but there is now a large user base using the older bodies purchased second hand that are not loaded with cash. I'm one of those customers, and I would love to buy some cheaper primes in the wide to normal focal ranges, but don't see enough benefit in purchasing the outdated lenses they currently offer. The wide L primes are just too expensive for me, and unless I win the lotto will probably never own them.

C'mon Canon, where's the modern, quality primes your average workin' man can afford?! You only need a couple of them to fill the gaps.

--
Check out the new site:
http://www.gipperich-photography.com
Or the portrait gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/portraits

Great Bustard · Oct 22, 2011

Chez Wimpy said:
I suspect that when (not if) they release a mirrorless camera, getting out a whole new line of lenses - smallish primes included - will tie up the company's design resources. Even if it didn't, given the current lethargic pace of (re-)releases (they haven't updated any non-L EF primes in ages) I don't know why they would take an interest now .

The m43 prime lineup is pretty impressive though, even Samsung and Sony are starting to catch up.

Yeah, if Canon goes mirrorless FF, that would be awesome for me, 'cause I'm not a long shooter, and mirrorless should allow much smaller and lighter fast wide primes.

Howard Roark · Oct 26, 2011

If you expect Canon to refresh the entire line of primes, why would you ask for a slower aperture?!?

F1 or F1.2 or F1.4 accross the board would be reasonable.

Take some vitamins!!

--

35mm Film for it's wider DR, smoother graduations; digital for it's higher resolution, economy of time & money.

Lemming51 · Oct 26, 2011

Great Bustard said:
What I'm talking about is the folllowing lenses:

17 / 2

Nope. f/2.8 or not at all.

Great Bustard said:
24 / 2

eh. 50mm has enough demand for 3 max apertures (1-1.2, 1.4, 1.8-2). 24mm not so much.

Great Bustard said:
35 / 2

Yes, more/rounded aperture blades and USM I'll grant you this one.

Great Bustard said:
50 / 2 1:1 macro

f/2 or 1:1 macro. Pick one.

Great Bustard said:
70 / 2

Not much call for it. How does the 85/1.8 not satisfy this one?

Great Bustard said:
100 / 2

Why? An EF 100 f/2 USM II would not be better, just more expensive.

IMHO,YMMV

--
Unapologetic Canon Apologist

Tinu_ch · Oct 27, 2011

Great Bustard said:
What I'm talking about is the folllowing lenses:

17 / 2

This would be one massive piece of glass. If it should be affordable with sharp corners, f/4 is more to the point. But it had to be a much sharper lens than 16-35L II and 17-40L to find even a small niche in the market.

Great Bustard said:
24 / 2

Olympus made a Zuiko 24 / 2 back in the 70's weighing about 280g. Small, fast and good. It was a top of the line product, though, not entry level. Before the 24L 1.4 II it was quite sought after and used with adaptors on FF EOS cameras. 24mm is also a nice focal lenght on crop and at f/2 a very interesting one too.

Great Bustard said:
35 / 2

Upping the old version would compromise the sales of the 35L. Unless Canon has a 35 1.2 L up its sleeve.

Great Bustard said:
50 / 2 1:1 macro

Nice idea but it might be bigger, heavier and costlier than you think, look at the Tamron 60 / 2 Macro, and this is "only" a crop lens. I did not quite understand why Canon made the 60 Macro not a fullframe lens and retired the aged 50 / 2.5.

Great Bustard said:
70 / 2

An odd length on full frame. I do not think it would sell well.

Great Bustard said:
100 / 2

Nothing much wrong with the actual one as you say yourself.

Great Bustard said:
Now, I own, and love, the 100 / 2, so I'm going to use that as the standard. I'd want all of the aforementioned lenses to have AF and IQ as good as the 100 / 2 throughout the aperture range. Actually, a bit better, since, well, let's redo the already outstanding 100 / 2 just for kicks.

Being 100mm it is a quite simple design. For the EF bajonett lenses shorter than 45mm have to be more complex retrofocus designs making it more difficult to get stellar performance into the corners anyway, almost impossible at f/2.

Great Bustard said:
I know it's not a stretch to ask for high IQ from the 24 / 2 wide open,

I would like to know what you know then

Great Bustard said:
but maybe I'm reaching asking for high IQ for the 17 / 2 wide open, given Canon's history with wides. Still, maybe they can hire someone who knows something about designing wide lenses.

Oh, they know how to design wide lenses, but they decide to make them work with all kinds of filters too (at least most of the time) and keeping flare in hand. This forbids the use of those bulbous front lenses you see with most "sharp" SWA lenses.

Great Bustard said:
Not sure how much IS will really help at 17mm and 24mm, but even one extra stop helps, right? And if they don't milk us for IS just because they can (I mean, look at the price of the 18-55 IS and 70-300 IS -- just how much can it cost?), then IS shouldn't add much to the price.

I don't know how the low-cost IS solutions for these slow lenses would work with fast ones. When comparing the 18-55IS with the 17-55IS I first thought the former had centering issues until I found out it only affected shots where the IS most probably has kicked in. I have never seen that with the 17-55IS.

Tinu

--
If the text above reads like real English, it must be a quotation

Some of my pictures: http://www.pbase.com/tinu

Vigy · Oct 27, 2011

today i'm using 3 lenses: 24-105L most of the time, 35/f2 & 50/f1.8mk1.
would like to have 50/f1.4 with better IQ and better usm...
--
Be Happy

Vigy
My Gallery at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rotemvigy/

MoreorLess · Oct 27, 2011

To upgrade these primes with USM would push them into a market between the current models and Canon's L lenses. Out of the reach of those wanting a cheaper large appature option and potentially taking away sales of the L's from those with more money to spend.

The most likely prime updates are I'd say the 45mm and 90mm TSE lenses and the 35mm 1.4.

Robert Krawitz · Oct 27, 2011

MoreorLess said:
To upgrade these primes with USM would push them into a market between the current models and Canon's L lenses. Out of the reach of those wanting a cheaper large appature option and potentially taking away sales of the L's from those with more money to spend.

The most likely prime updates are I'd say the 45mm and 90mm TSE lenses and the 35mm 1.4.

In general, I see primes becoming more and more a specialty market (macro, extremely wide aperture, supertelephoto, perspective control, and fisheye). Macro has fairly broad market appeal, as does fisheye, but the others simply aren't things that are likely to be in much demand for non-professionals. Low light performance of sensors is probably about 3 stops better than the equivalent in film (400 speed film was what you used when you needed acceptable performance; ISO 3200 on the 7D, and probably more importantly the 60D and 550/600D is roughly as good. So from a speed performance, something that you used to need f/1.4 for now only needs f/4. Obviously that doesn't take into account selective focus, but I suspect both Canon and Nikon figure if that's important enough to you, you'll shell out for a much more expensive lens). And even in extreme telephoto, we're seeing zooms like the Sigma 120-300 and 50-500 that are highly practical and perform quite well.

I still use my 50 and 85 f/1.8 lenses quite a bit. I don't use my 200 f/2.8 any more, now that I have a Sigma 70-200, even though the former is quite a bit lighter. If I want a wider angle fast prime, I'll go with the Sigma 30 f/1.4 (which would be a standard prime on my 7D), but in general, I'm not likely to buy more prime lenses.

Great Bustard · Oct 27, 2011

Howard Roark said:
If you expect Canon to refresh the entire line of primes, why would you ask for a slower aperture?!?

Size, weight, and cost.

Howard Roark said:
F1 or F1.2 or F1.4 accross the board would be reasonable.

Except they'd be large, heavy, and expensive (save a 50 / 1.4).

Howard Roark said:
Take some vitamins!!

Or eat my Wheaties!

Great Bustard · Oct 27, 2011

Lemming51 said:
Great Bustard said:

What I'm talking about is the folllowing lenses:

17 / 2

Click to expand...

Nope. f/2.8 or not at all.

Sigma makes a 20 / 1.8, so I don't think a 17 / 2 is unreasonable.

Lemming51 said:
Lemming51 said:

24 / 2

Click to expand...

eh. 50mm has enough demand for 3 max apertures (1-1.2, 1.4, 1.8-2). 24mm not so much.

The 24 / 1.4L is among my most used, but a 24 / 2 that matched or beat it at f/2, that was a lot smaller and lighter, might pique my interest, and certainly pique the interest of others, like landscape and street photographers.

Lemming51 said:
Lemming51 said:

35 / 2

Click to expand...

Yes, more/rounded aperture blades and USM I'll grant you this one.

Glad we finally found a lens to agree upon. So, sure, let's make that the first redo.

Lemming51 said:
Lemming51 said:

50 / 2 1:1 macro

Click to expand...

f/2 or 1:1 macro. Pick one.

Tamron makes a 60 / 2 macro for APS-C, and it seems to be well reviewed.

Lemming51 said:
Lemming51 said:

70 / 2

Click to expand...

Not much call for it. How does the 85/1.8 not satisfy this one?

True, as you note, but 70mm is more in line with the geometric progression of the focal lengths, is a common focal length (24- 70 , 70 -200, 70 -300) that people seem to use, and I love my 70 / 2.8 macro not just for macro.

Lemming51 said:
Lemming51 said:

100 / 2

Click to expand...

Why? An EF 100 f/2 USM II would not be better, just more expensive.

I see your point, and cannot disagree. But, if they could make it better...

Great Bustard · Oct 27, 2011

Tinu_ch said:
Great Bustard said:

What I'm talking about is the folllowing lenses:

17 / 2

Click to expand...

This would be one massive piece of glass.

Larger than the Sigma 20 / 1.8?

Tinu_ch said:
If it should be affordable with sharp corners, f/4 is more to the point.

I'm down with that -- sharp in the center at f/2, sharp in the corners by f/4.

Tinu_ch said:
But it had to be a much sharper lens than 16-35L II and 17-40L to find even a small niche in the market.

The extra 1-2 stops over those two lenses give it the niche.

Tinu_ch said:
Tinu_ch said:

24 / 2

Click to expand...

Olympus made a Zuiko 24 / 2 back in the 70's weighing about 280g. Small, fast and good. It was a top of the line product, though, not entry level. Before the 24L 1.4 II it was quite sought after and used with adaptors on FF EOS cameras. 24mm is also a nice focal lenght on crop and at f/2 a very interesting one too.

Glad we agree!

Tinu_ch said:
Tinu_ch said:

35 / 2

Click to expand...

Upping the old version would compromise the sales of the 35L. Unless Canon has a 35 1.2 L up its sleeve.

Well, I'm sure there's a new 35 / 1.4 II on the way (don't know about f/1.2).

Tinu_ch said:
Tinu_ch said:

50 / 2 1:1 macro

Click to expand...

Nice idea but it might be bigger, heavier and costlier than you think, look at the Tamron 60 / 2 Macro, and this is "only" a crop lens. I did not quite understand why Canon made the 60 Macro not a fullframe lens and retired the aged 50 / 2.5.

Agreed.

Tinu_ch said:
Tinu_ch said:

70 / 2

Click to expand...

An odd length on full frame. I do not think it would sell well.

Lots of zooms begin or end with 70mm, and my 70 / 2.8 macro is used for a lot more than just macro.

Tinu_ch said:
Tinu_ch said:

100 / 2

Click to expand...

Nothing much wrong with the actual one as you say yourself.

Yeah.

Tinu_ch said:
Tinu_ch said:

Now, I own, and love, the 100 / 2, so I'm going to use that as the standard. I'd want all of the aforementioned lenses to have AF and IQ as good as the 100 / 2 throughout the aperture range. Actually, a bit better, since, well, let's redo the already outstanding 100 / 2 just for kicks.

Click to expand...

Being 100mm it is a quite simple design. For the EF bajonett lenses shorter than 45mm have to be more complex retrofocus designs making it more difficult to get stellar performance into the corners anyway, almost impossible at f/2.

As I said above, sharp in the center at f/2 and sharp in the corners by f/4 is easily a win. The corners are rarely within the DOF until f/4, anyway.

Tinu_ch said:
Tinu_ch said:

I know it's not a stretch to ask for high IQ from the 24 / 2 wide open,

Click to expand...

I would like to know what you know then

Sharp in the center at f/2, sharp all over by f/4.

Tinu_ch said:
Tinu_ch said:

but maybe I'm reaching asking for high IQ for the 17 / 2 wide open, given Canon's history with wides. Still, maybe they can hire someone who knows something about designing wide lenses.

Click to expand...

Oh, they know how to design wide lenses, but they decide to make them work with all kinds of filters too (at least most of the time) and keeping flare in hand. This forbids the use of those bulbous front lenses you see with most "sharp" SWA lenses.

Ah!

Tinu_ch said:
Tinu_ch said:

Not sure how much IS will really help at 17mm and 24mm, but even one extra stop helps, right? And if they don't milk us for IS just because they can (I mean, look at the price of the 18-55 IS and 70-300 IS -- just how much can it cost?), then IS shouldn't add much to the price.

Click to expand...

I don't know how the low-cost IS solutions for these slow lenses would work with fast ones. When comparing the 18-55IS with the 17-55IS I first thought the former had centering issues until I found out it only affected shots where the IS most probably has kicked in. I have never seen that with the 17-55IS.

As I've said time and time again, sensor IS is the answer that Canon refuses to implement.

nekrosoft13 · Oct 27, 2011

very true, as we can see from recent 18-55 kit, or 55-250 lens, the new trend is to make newer lenses cheaper, not better.

Chev Chelios said:
sadly Canon are in this business to make as much money as they can from us. So for FF users like us, they know most of us will eventualy buy their nice expensive L-primes in the FL range you are talking about. And for crop users, they know 99% of them want zooms, not primes.

I have the excellent 35/2, but I would love the same IQ in a version that has USM and nice rounded aperture blades. And I'd be willing to pay twice as much as the current 35/2 costs (i.e. still half the price of the 35L).

But Canon would never make such a lens because i suspect most of the folks who have bought the 35L would have been perfectly satisfied with a decent 35/2 USM lens. So for that reason they won't bother upgrading the curent 35/2. Likewise, with the 50/1.4 they won't ever give that proper USM. Because if they did, they'd know that people like me (and possibly you?) wouldn't have forked out four times as much money for the 50/1.2 (as much as I love my 50L, I could manage perfectly well wilth a modern non-weather sealed f1.4 version that has proper USM).

I used to have the 135L, but decdied to switch to the smaller, lighter and faster focusing 100/2. OK, IQ may not be as good as the L in specific situations, but most of the time you can't really tell these lenses apart by looking at their images).

So yes, I'm all for a new non-L prime lens lineup!! But I don't think we'll ever get one

Great Bustard said:

Anyone else, or is it just me?

Click to expand...

How about a new lineup of primes from Canon?

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Active member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts