Jump to content

Why can't/won't canon create a normal lens for the 1.6 folks?


stillbound

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"...in the sense that I want Canon to keep the APS sensor, but design some good format-

dedicated glass for it, ..."

 

Like the EF-S 10-22mm? It's a very sharp high-quality lens that's just as good as the

16-35mm f/2.8L (although not as fast).

 

Or the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro (a prime!)? Very, very sharp. And, like the 180mm Macro,

it's internal focusing which is very nice on a macro lens.

 

Or how about the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS? All the reviews I've read rate this lens as good

as or better than any L zoom in this range. Plus, with a 27mm equivalent FOV at f/2.8

*and* 3 stops of IS there's nothing like it in "full frame".

 

I'd say Canon is doing a pretty good job so far providing us with some high-quality EF-S

format specific glass.

 

-Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joseph - I am with you all the way. As Bob and others have explained, a 30mm lens is a little trickier to make than a 50mm, so I would expect to pay a little more for one, but that fact alone shouldn't be a show stopper. Maybe there isn't sufficient market demand for an EF-S '50mm equivalent' lens for 1.6 crop. But if the lens was a normal full frame one, it would benefit both full frame AND 1.6 crop users.

 

IMHO an upgrade to Canon's range of prime lenses around this focal length is long overdue. The 35/2 and 28/2.8 are good value but archaic; lens design has come along way since these were introduced 20 years ago. The 28/1.8 is more up to date with better build quality and USM, but mediocre away from the centre (and this is important to some people, not everyone takes shallow DOF portraits where only the centre needs to be sharp). The 35/1.4 sounds great but is big, heavy and extremely expensive.

 

I find it interesting how posts on this subject appear on here so regularly. Maybe if the 28/1.8 was as good a performer away from the centre as the 50/1.4, this thread wouldnt exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems the choir is singing, "Not enough market to make it profitable." I agree because

Canon seems to focus the less than FF frame camera buyer on zoom lenses than a single

fixed focal length lens(es).

 

Personally I would like to see Canon market a FF 45mm "normal" lens, not just the tilt-shift

lens they now market. I prefer that focal length than 50-55mm. Why can't they just take the

tilt-shift of that lens and market it "plain" lens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...I did not see the macro you listed. Great lens, but slow."

 

An f/2.8 lens is now considered "slow"? Oh, my goodness.

 

Y'all need to go out and shoot some 8x10 with a 300mm "normal" lens. Load it up with some

Fuji RVP Velvia 50 and you'll learn what slow really is. ;-)

 

-Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...Why can't they just take the tilt-shift of that lens and market it "plain" lens?"

 

It's not that easy.

 

First, the TS-E lenses are all manual focus.

 

Next, since these are designed to shift, the image circle produced by the lens is much

larger than necessary for a non-shifting mount. This makes the lens much larger

and heavier than needed in non-shifty mode.

 

And, lastly, it's "only" f/2.8, which apparently isn't especially desirable nowadays in a short

focal length prime.

 

So, Canon could do this, but it'd be large, heavy and probably cost over $1k.

 

Canon would be better off doing a 45mm from scratch.

 

Again, it's not a technical question -- they can do it -- it's a business one. While they

might sell "a ton" of cheap fast primes, there's probably more profit in one 16-35mm L

zoom than a hundred 50mm f/1.8 primes.

 

Welcome to the new business world of photography being a subset of the consumer

electronics industry. ;-(

 

-Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joseph, I think the suggestion above to "just get a 5D" is likely your best option. A little financial pain, and then lots of normal and wide lens to choose from.

 

I agree, it is frustrating. Maybe the manufacture of a fast prime around 30mm focal length is more difficult than a 50mm? There is the clunky 35mm f2.0, and the 35mm f1.4. The latter is reputedly a very sharp lens with little light fall-off, but pricey and heavy.

 

Funny thing, I made a point of getting a 50mm f1.4 when I got my 5D, and: it *does* seem a boring perspective, after getting used to zooms like the 24-70. Though, tt is really handy for lowlight, compact, bright in the corners, sharp. I'm thinking now to get a 35mm prime for full frame, as a preferable perspective, for walk around. The 35mm f1.4 isn't that heavy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never even know where to start if it's been a few hours between reading...

many folks here don't read the original posts or just choose to ignore them based on some other agenda's...I don't want to offend anyone so I won't point out those that I think do read and those that don't but here goes...

 

I don't need an efs sized lens...I want it to be a full frame "cheap/affordabel" lens that would be normal on 1.6 and maybe even would serve as a nice wide fast lens for full frame and 1.3 cams...

 

In regard to the "soccer mom argument...ummmthe kit lens is an 18 - FIFTY FIVE - not exactly a telephoto and SLOW to boot...if it was an 18 - 135 like nikon makes (which to be perfectly honest is such a better kit lens than either companies 18 - 55) then I'd hear your soccer mom arguement

 

All in all thanks for some thoughtful arguements and even for the other ones...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I don't need an efs sized lens...I want it to be a full frame "cheap/affordabel" lens that would be normal on 1.6 and maybe even would serve as a nice wide fast lens for full frame and 1.3 cams..." <p>Sounds like you're describing the current 28/1.8. But I don't see how that could be made cheaper - Bob A's argument.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In regard to the "soccer mom argument.."<p>I think Rob's point was that it was a zoom - period. You tell the average, did-no-research, 1st time DSLR buyer that there getting a "zoom" lens - even if it only zoomed from 18 to 28 - they'll pick it over a prime any day. And as to the "SLOW" comment, they'll prob be like "Huh, you meant is focuses slowly...?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all a crock. Maybe *you* can't work with shorter normalish lenses, but that doesn't mean everyone can't. As to the lowly 50/1.8, either you have a defective copy or you don't know how to work with shallow DOF, mine goes head to head or beats my 24-70L... yeah, it'd be nice if it felt like my Summicron, but it can still turn out a great photo... and my Summicron ain't AF (which is sometimes nice).

 

>>" I like a 35mm lens as my "Normal" walk around lens." Ok, so take a trip to the Zoo, and only use a 35mm or 50mm and nothing else. You will come back with a bunch of stupid, amateur looking shots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, no need to be rude -- it certainly happens that some copies of lenses aren't as good as

others. It's possible to get a bad 50mm f/1.8.

 

And while a "normal" FOV lens ain't my cup of tea, it fits the needs of many. I bet lots of folks

have decent 50mm zoo pics they could share with us.

 

-Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Y'all need to go out and shoot some 8x10 with a 300mm "normal" lens. Load it up with some Fuji RVP Velvia 50 and you'll learn what slow really is. ;-)"

 

It just so happens that is what I do...not Velvia, though. I use the Slow Efkes (25, 50, 100) and Fuji color 160 neg. films for that with a 300 Ektar f/4.5...that is I did until my rickety old camera became to unreliable to use and I dumped it on El Bay. I am now looking for a replacement so I can start again, as it is such fun. Will probably bite the bullet and try to find an older model P, hopefully with all three rear standards.

 

Back on topic, though; I am talking about "slow" for hand holding a 35mm camera, so yes, 2.8 is slow in my book, for a 35mm camera. For a large format lens...of course not. I feel blessed with a rare 4.5 lens fr large format. I could not shoot 75% of what I shoot with an f/2.8 max. aperture. Even in light that would let you hand hold easily, sometimes I want a faster shutter speed than the bare minimum, so I like 1.4 and 1.2 lenses for that. I realize this is not true for a lot of people, but I'm sure there are a good deal of 35mm shooters who shoot at f/stops lower than 2.8 quite often.

 

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<I>>>" I like a 35mm lens as my "Normal" walk around lens." Ok, so take a trip to the Zoo,

and only use a 35mm or 50mm and nothing else. You will come back with a bunch of stupid,

amateur looking shots.</I> <br><P>Let's see. There once was a photographer named Garry

Winogrand who walked around the zoo with a 28 & a 35 and made a charming little book

called The Animals. I don't believe they were "stupid, amateur looking shots". It is not the

camera

you're carrying around, it's what you <I>see</I>.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all i can say is this...(i never expected this to go this way) but I sell these cameras and the number of "soccer moms" and intro level buyers that see the difference between the quality of the 1.8 and the 18 - 55 and take the 1.8 is numerous... truthfully I end up selling tons of the 1.8 in addition once they see the "portrait effect" (what they all seem to call bokeh) of the prime.

As for the 24 - 70 vs. 1.8 i didn't even want to get into that as I think mine is nearly as sharp as well...but some people think that zoom is the sharpest thing ever so i bit my tongue. I go to the zoo I take three lenses. 100 macro, 50 1.4, and the 70 200...at many of the "inside" exhibits the 50 is the only choice if you don't want to jack up the iso and it give excellent pics with plenty of pop at 1.8 and 2.0 that even the zoom can't match

JC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Keith Lubow: >> "But, the kit lens that came with my 40D is sharper than any of these primes I have seen(50 1.2,1.4,1.8)"

No; It's not.

Keith.

 

 

Keith - How can you sit behind a computer screen and tell me what "My" lens IS or IS NOT. My 50 1.8 is very soft. Dont argue with me about my lens when you havent used it.

 

 

 

To Colin Southern: >>> About the only thing the kit lens is sharper than is the bottom of a Coke bottle used as a lens, and even then the vote wouln't be unanimous.

 

 

Colin - You dont even know what lens my 40D came with and you are spouting your mouth off about how sharp it IS NOT. It happens to be a 28-135 IS USM, which is very sharp compared to my dull 50 1.8. No its not a fast 1.8, but much more usefull to walk around with than the 50 1.8.

 

 

 

To Joseph Carey: >>>> In regard to the "soccer mom argument...ummmthe kit lens is an 18 - FIFTY FIVE - not exactly a telephoto and SLOW to boot...if it was an 18 - 135 like nikon makes (which to be perfectly honest is such a better kit lens than either companies 18 - 55) then I'd hear your soccer mom arguement

 

 

Joseph - Not all cameras come with the 18-FIFT FIVE. Mine as stated above is a 28-135. Lets see someone isolate a soccer player to make a nice composition of a soccer player with a 50 prim. Wont happen. I shoot soccer for parents and they dont want 10 other kids in the shot with their kid. They want the kid with the ball and the other 1 or 2 trying to take it. Cant do that with a useless 50 prime.

 

 

 

To Mark Hahn: >>>>> This is all a crock. Maybe *you* can't work with shorter normalish lenses, but that doesn't mean everyone can't. As to the lowly 50/1.8, either you have a defective copy or you don't know how to work with shallow DOF, mine goes head to head or beats my 24-70.

 

 

Mark - I asure you I can work with a shallow DOF. I have done focus tests with the 50 and its centered. Its just dull. Simple as that. Maybe the glass is defective, I dont know. None the less, it sucks. Maybe you have a bad copy of 24-70, which if you read the posts, there seems to be more of those than the highly praised primes. People ask about a Normal walkaround lens so they can have a lens to leave on their camera that can be used for many things. The 50 or 35 can not. Its good for a wide angle shot in low light. But who the hell makes landscape shots at 1.2. I've accidentally did this and immediately after seeing the photo, knew by how dull it was, and what happened. Take a 35, 45, 55 or whatever and move in close to something and it has a distorted look. Something else, 1.2 isnt everthing. Yeah its nice to get some extra shutter speed in low light, but you need some DOF. If a portrait is taken with the head slightly turned and you focus the eyes, then the other eye will be out of focus. Which is why most portrait shots are taken at 5.6 or so. These are only usefull if its a must for shutter speed.

 

For the rest of you guys that love the idea of just a camera and a 35 or 50 prime and thats all to walk around with, whats your motivation to take a picture. Do you just prance around in open space clicking away at everything you see no matter the distance or composure or subject isolation. As a photographer, you should take the shots that have something worth looking at in them. Do you just run up to everything you see and ....click.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why some guys get so nasty in their dislike for a normal length lens. If it doesn't work for you, that is fine. Many many of the best and most famous photos were taken with a normal lens. My take on it is that it is a "vision thing," if you walk around and everything looks miserable and boring to you you need to distort it with wide or long lenses to make it interesting. If you find things in the world interesting as they are, they you are happy to capture your vision with the same perspective that you actually see it. AA was already mentioned in this thread, so I guess that calls for the standard HCB come back... given two coffee table books laid out in front of you in a waiting room, which do you pick up? For me it would always be HCB... with every single shot having been made with a 50mm lens... and much less boring than the bulk of AA's work.

 

As to my Canon lenses, my 50/1.8 and 24-70L are both good lenses. By f2.8 my 50 is about as sharp and my 24-70L @50mm. No, the Canon 50 is nowhere near as sharp as my Leica Summicron 50, but by f2-2.5 it is already "good enough," but then, when I shoot in low/available light, my expectations are not that of detail product work.

 

The Sigma looks nice to me and I am happy enough with my 35/2 which is very sharp... sharper than my EF 50/1.8, but with less pleasing (to my eye) rendering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmm, I'm the one being rude when I respond to, "Ok, so take a trip to the Zoo, and only use a 35mm or 50mm and nothing else. You will come back with a bunch of stupid, amateur looking shots."

 

I actually would go to the zoo with either a 35 or 50... and I don't think that my shots are all stupid and amateur looking!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>For the rest of you guys that love the idea of just a camera and a 35 or 50 prime and thats all to walk around with, whats your motivation to take a picture. </i><P>

<P>

What does the focal length of the lens have to do with the motivation for taking photos?<P>

<i>As a photographer, you should take the shots that have something worth looking at in them. Do you just run up to everything you see and ....click. </i><P>

I generally try to take photos that are worth looking at, no matter what the subject. And, yes, I do happen to walk around (not prance) with a 50 or a 28 (on a 5D) most of the time, and walk up to subjects and take photos. Is there something wrong with that approach?<P>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...