What the hell is wrong with CANON?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by david_b|15, Feb 19, 2009.

  1. WHY WOULD canon make two more very expensive tilt shift lenses.
    It is pretty obvious that Canon has not spent any time on this forum reading the threads about which lenses we want next.
    First of all there is going to be a small amount of people who are interested in theses lenses and then there will be a small amount of people who will fork over 2500 each! People want cheap and good optical glass. Not expensive never going to use glass.
    Considering that most of Canon's consumers, Considering myself and my 30D use canons prosumer cropped bodies, why would they release more lenses that we would not use.
    Where is the 200-400L IS that every body wants? where is the EF-S FISH EYE? Where is the the 24-70L IS?
    Especially now when people are spending less money, it just does not make sense to buy these lenses.
    I really think they dropped the ball on this one.
     
  2. What "we" want?
    Maybe if anything a EF-S fisheye, but there are options from third parties. Besides its just as or even more specialized than a 17mm or 24mm TS-E.
    24-70 IS on a crop body its an odd focal length if you ask me. Go with the 17-55 2.8 IS
    200-400 you know there's a 100-400 right?
    They have around 70 lenses. I don't have time to check but that's probably more than any other manufacturer.
     
  3. They make great cameras and great lenses so I would say not much, if I had the money the tilt and shifts would be on my shopping list.
     
  4. There are things for the bulk and there are things for the few. Do you own a lens such as the EF800? I think there will be more TS-E lenses sold than that lens. Perhaps you will not see the need for one, but as an owner of a TS-E 24 and 90 I can see the benefits of the lens. In fact I think that my real question is will I dispense with my 4x5 system and obtain a high density full frame camera. (my real answer though is that now I can not justify the spend)
    I like the perspective control afforded, and if I were doing more wide angles (such as real estate photography with interiors) I would probably buy the 17mm too What I would like to know is will the TS-E 24 Mk II be worth my upgrading to it?
    so, to answer the first part of your question, no, I don't think anything is wrong with Canon.
     
  5. I will add a wide T&S lens for crop sensor will be very difficult to build because of the short focal length. If the crop sensor camera were originally made with a shorter optical register, flange to film, there would have been a chance. But forward compatability of lenses was more important.
     
  6. There is nothing wrong with Canon. It has had T&S lenses as far back as I can remember. As you correctly point out, those are not everyday optics, but they're the kind of optics that complete a system, specially for pros.
    These lenses were years in design and development, long before the current economic debacle.
    For $650 (street) one can buy a Rebel XSI with features that $5,000+ bodies lacked at the time. The G-10 is an incredible camera for the money. The average amateur today in a lens like the 17-55 has in his hands all that is needed to become a new Robert Frank, William Eggleston, Sam Abell, Garry Winogrand, etc. The current level of technology is not what is keeping anyone here from greatness as a photographer, pro or amateur.
    Canon has to get money on its investments before bringing out new stuff.
    Canon has a long tradition of being good to the amateurs, particularly for intro'ing new technology at the bottom end. Hang in there with your outdated, magnificent, pro-quality "L" lenses, David.
    Photography is not like the computer world, where a lot of components are developed independently. Nor is it on the Moore Cycle.
    Canon has thoroughly spoiled us, and for that, they can't be faulted.
     
  7. [[It is pretty obvious that Canon has not spent any time on this forum reading the threads about which lenses we want next.]]
    Thank the gods they don't. It shows sound leadership to not run a company based on random postings to internet forums.
     
  8. Hopefully the prices for the other three Canon shift lenses will go down.
     
  9. Quote: "Hopefully the prices for the other three Canon shift lenses will go down"
    Given the insane price increase for these T/S lenses, I doubt that you would see any price reductions on the older versions - used ones might even go up in price - just like the Leica Noctilux price increase drove up used prices as well.
     
  10. Never going to use?! Reason I bought a 22 meg camera is to use a 24mm TS 90% of the time - it's what I do, mostly: www.aarondougherty.com
    Guess Canon likes me better than David B-I!
    -A
     
  11. By this token I guess I should be berating Rolls Royce for making cars I can't afford.
    Seriously, why complain about Canon making lenses YOU don't want? I will buy the new 24mm T/S soon and the 17mm T/S eventually. By all means complain about lenses that you would like to see that weren't made, but why bitch about them making lenses that other people have been asking for?
    Personally I wouldn't be in the market for a 24-70mm 2.8mmL IS or a fisheye, but if they made them I wouldn't be up in arms about it and complain that they "dropped the ball"! Get a grip man, how spoilt ARE you?!
     
  12. David…calm down, don’t panic!
    Had Canon NOT announced lens, would we be reading a post from you? They DID announce lenses after all; even if specialized lenses most of us consumers can not afford. I doubt many of us consumers would be able to afford a 200-400L IS. It would be a highly specialized lens and highly desirable, but I doubt EVERYONE wants one.
    I though the 17mm TS lens looks to be awesome even if I will not be able to afford it. Should be a great lens for architecture.
    That said, I do feel Canon needs an updating of their older lenses. Nikon, being as small a company as they are, are very impressive with their releases. You would think Canon with much larger resources, would be far quicker to release updated cameras and lenses.
    However, I do think Canon is starting to listen and I expect more releases in the future, and hopefully that will include updates along with totally new releases.
    I generally carry a 17-40 and 70-200 L 2.8 lenses as standard equipment whether to do landscape or high school sports. If doing photography with my son, he will have his favorite lens, the 10-22. We trade off on the wide zooms. I am from the old school I and think that two zooms in ones camera bag is plenty enough. I don’t feel a need to cover every silly mm via a zoom lens. Any additional lenses should be reasonably fast prime lenses. Now that the 10-22 has been around for some time and proven itself an excellent lens, I feel it is time for Canon to release a wide prime such as an 11.5mm EF-S, or perhaps a 15mm EF-S prime. Although I doubt many people would go for this.
     
  13. You are right. Canon should put you on their staff as a (oh, heck, the ) consultant and only make the lenses that you want. Today. And stop making lenses that anyone else might want. Right now.
    Chill pill, anyone? :)
     
  14. The 17 TS in particular will get snapped up by every architecture shooter who uses Canon cameras. Its expensive but there's nothing else like it for full frame DSLR cameras. And its not so expensive when it gets used on every job. I can't wait to get my hands on one. It'll save me a lot of stitching frames together in Photoshop.
    On the other hand, I have no use what-so-ever for a 200-400 zoom or a cropped sensor DSLR camera. But I do recognize that many folks might want that gear and find it extremely useful for their needs. Canon makes lots of cheap gear for the masses so why get upset over them making something thats very useful for a different group of customers?
     
  15. it

    it

    I reckon if they did it, there must have been demand from the trade. I agree with Henry, every pro architecture shooter will buy it. When you factor it against a year's income, it's cheap. And the results will be incredible.
     
  16. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    WHY WOULD canon make two more very expensive tilt shift lenses.​
    Why would I care what Canon makes as long as they make something I can use for what I need to do?
     
  17. The 17mm TS-E is one where there is no equivalent anywhere.. No Nikon, No nothing. You would have to go to large format to fill the same niche. It is a unique selling point.
     
  18. The 17mm satisfies the 30D user quite nicely, the 24mm was equivalent to a 38mm lens on the APS-C bodies.
    Canon launch new consumer and keenly priced L lenses all the time. The improvements to the tilt-shift 24mm makes the new lens more of a competitor for nikons very recent model. The 17mm satisifies a unique gap in the market.
    For TSE shooters (generaly who will spend a lot more money on their kit that 30D users) they can now stick with canon or buy into canon.
    Nikon came out with a better product, canon matched it. What problem do you actually have here?
    You don't use TSE lenses, I do. That is the beauty of an SLR system, the same body can be used to shoot an aeroplane passing the moon or a 5x life size bugs eye view.
    What bit of this don't you get?
     
  19. Get a 5D and the tilt shift lenses would be nice to have. Tilt-shift allows some nice control of perspective and distortion. The 17 TSE and 24 TSE would be very nice lenses.
    Canon must see a demand to make the lenses.
    It all depends on the photographer needs. I have no use for cropped sensor cameras.
    So to each their own.
     
  20. Who's "we"? I waited for a long time for a 17mm T-E lens. Unfortunately, I bought a full-frame body just a week before this announcement, and the price of the new lens is a tad high.
    In any case, this is welcome news for anyone doing architectural photography -- and I think we are as much "we" as anyone.
     
  21. My my, David - you are given to hyperbole, aren't you?
    I'm pretty sure that you haven't got all the votes in yet that would allow you to conclude with such confidence that nobody wants the T & S lenses, and that everybody wants the 200-400mm f/4.
    If it helps though - you're right: I don't want a new T & S, but I'd like a 200-400mm f/4 a lot.
    Well done.
     
  22. David complains, "Where is the 200-400L IS that every body wants? where is the EF-S FISH EYE? Where is the the 24-70L IS?"​
    I don't want any of those lenses. Hell, the stuff they have is near enough. They have over 30 lenses is nearly every size shape and form--hardly a lineup to ponder "what the hell." Nevertheless, I wouldn't mind that 24 TSE in my bag. True it's a bit expensive but maybe a used 24 TSE MKI will be more reasonable now.
     
  23. this is just a guess, but after reading others reactions I guess we will not see David justifying his above position further
     
  24. i'm more upset that they havnt released a body that can compete with nikon's d3 than their lens lineup.
    time to get a body out that has good iso performance.. all the ones they have out now kind of sux compared to nikons.
    and what is with the 9 AF points still, nikons have 51 points in their prosumer bodies already, time to step up canon!
     
  25. Hmmmm ... I would like a TS 17mm ....
     
  26. nikons have 51 points in their prosumer bodies already, time to step up canon!... time to get a body out that has good iso performance​
    What a friggen lightshow and nightmare! I only need one good AF point and I'm good to go. Ah dunno, 5DII high ISO is pretty damn good at twice the MP...
     
  27. "i'm more upset that they havnt released a body that can compete with nikon's d3 than their lens lineup.
    time to get a body out that has good iso performance.. all the ones they have out now kind of sux compared to nikons.
    and what is with the 9 AF points still, nikons have 51 points in their prosumer bodies already, time to step up canon!"
    Do you enjoy quality or quantities ?. Is there anything you can't do with 9 points AF ?
     
  28. if you look at the pictures side by side of the nikons vs the canons at iso 6400 you can clearly see which is better.
    and ill take a 10 mp picture with little noise over a 20 mp noisy picture anyday.
     
  29. as for the autofocus points, it is not the auto focus point themselves what i want, but the other things that piggyback on top of the autofocus that is interesting.
    just read the post near the middle of this thread by nick walker
    http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=31125
     
  30. [[if you look at the pictures side by side of the nikons vs the canons at iso 6400 you can clearly see which is better.]]
    "Clearly see" ? Hardly. The differences between the two cameras are minuscule. I'd bet good money that you couldn't tell one print from another.
     
  31. Ummmm EF-S fisheye would be nice; so would a EF30mm/f2 IS.
     
  32. Hey John - Don't forget that both Rolls Royce and Bentley nearly went out of business and were bought out by larger, more consumer-priced oriented car companies (BMW and VW, respectively). I'll never argue with the T/S lenses they brought out, but I can't help thinking that some updated consumer lenses would have been welcome (and more profitable)...
     
  33. Canon currently offer over 60 lenses for use with EOS cameras!
    These lenses cover focal lengths from 10mm-800mm!
    What In The H are you complaining about? Does it really bother you that Canon has just given us even more choices?
    Cheers! Jay
     
  34. Well the grass always looks greener on the other side, maybe you should try ? :D
     
  35. Yeah, please leave me out of your rant...
    17mm TS-E.... FANTASTIC! Want it!
    24mm TS-E... Excellent upgrade if it deals with the CA issues.
    Both lenses now allow easy reconfiguring the allignment between tilt and shift.... IT'S ABOUT TIME! This is the way all the TS-E lenses should have been made to begin with.
    Also leave me off the list for 24-70/2.8 "I.S.".... Don't have or need I.S. on that focal length now. It would just be a waste of money, IMHO, especially with higher and higher ISO capabilites in cameras. Ialso hear people whining they want an I.S. macro lens... Well buy the Nikon VR 105mm and you'll find out why Nikon doesn't claim very much improvement with VR at macro distances. It doesn't do much to help!
    The lenses Canon most needs to get I.S. into are the 135/2, 200/2.8 and 400/5.6.
    200-400/4 will be a $5000 lens, like the Nikon version is. You saving up? It'll be big and heavy, too, just like the Nikkor. I'd much rather have the 200/2, and I already have the 300/2.8 and 500/4. I'm saving up to get an 800mm when I get full frame DSLRs (now that the lens' price is starting to drop a bit).
    Canon already offers the deepest and widest selection of lenses to fit your (or my) 30D. You can use all their EF-S *and* all their EF lenses. More than any other manufacturer. Well, Nikon is not all that far behind, but a lot of Nikkors - the non AF-S ones - won't autofocus with the less expensive Nikon bodies. OTOH, there's finally an AF-S 50/1.4 Nikkor... But that's your only 50mm choice in the system. Canon let's you choose from 50/1.8, 50/1.4 and 50/1.2L... Or even a 50/2.5 Macro, if you prefer.
    Canon's strength is in their lenses and the choices they offer , plus a number of specialty lenses that no one else comes close to offerting....Like the TS-Es, in fact. Or *four* 70-200s! Compare that to one at most in other brands.
    Besides, they had to respond to the three new Nikkor PC lenses, which seemed to take an awful long time to come about (there have been PC Nikkors for a long, long time, in AI/AI-S lenses and even earlier). Those oh-so patient faithful Nikonians. But hey, they finally got a full frame camera (actually three), too! Only had to wait six or seven years for the first one.
    Not that Canon is perfect by any means. I wonder if they'll ever respond to the 14-24/2.8 Nikkor? Canon should have built an EF-S 12-24/4 a long time ago, too.
    Now I'd really like to see Canon pay attention to the 50/1.4 "Mark II", come up with a USM/upgrade version of the 35/2 and perhaps upgrade the 24/2.8 (or a 24/2) to USM. With the Sigma 50/1.4 and the new Nikkor, I bet we'll see a new EF 50/1.4 soon, too.
    Want more focus points? Buy a 1D-series camera. But, it's not the number of points that matter, it's where they are located. My EOS-3s have 45 points (same as the 1 series cameras), and I keep it turned down to using 11 or 13 (I forget which, without going and looking). But this does allow linking spot metering to the active point, something only the 1D series can do now. I'd really like to the the 9-point systems able to do that.
    Frankly, I looked at a D700 and found the tight cluster of 51 AF points in the center of the viewfinder somewhat distracting. I could get used to it, but with my cameras I'm using the center point or another pre-selected single AF point and the * button (CFn 4/3) most of the time anyway. If there were 51 points and I were only using one like that, I'd probably feel like I'd wasted my money! ;-)
    Again, Canon ain't perfect either. The 5D MkII's AF points look awfully centered to me.
    Sigma makes two fisheye lenses specifically for crop sensor. Tokina makes a fisheye zoom.
    Some have whined about the price of the 24mm TS-E Mark II. I looked up the original when it was introduced in 1991 and factoring for inflation, it was $2000. The new lens will very likely settle down from this initial "list" price over time, much the same way the current models have.
     
  36. How about updating the 20mm and 24mm lenses ? I don't need overpriced L lenses.
     
  37. I think the T/S lens would be great to own but I just don't have a use for them.
    EFS fisheye? Nope
    200-400? Nope.
    50mm f/1.4 MK II? YES!
    $1000 full frame body with weather sealing etc? Yes!
    I'm actually quite happy with Canon's offerings, 30D/50D, 10-22, 17-55 IS, 50 1.8, 70-200 f/2.8 IS, 300 f/4 IS, 1.4X
    My needs are pretty well covered.
    Thanks Canon!
     
  38. WHY WOULD canon make two more very expensive tilt shift lenses.​
    Obviously because they will make a profit on them. Its what every company in the world aims to do.
    First of all there is going to be a small amount of people who are interested in theses lenses and then there will be a small amount of people who will fork over 2500 each! People want cheap and good optical glass. Not expensive never going to use glass.​
    There will no doubt be a large amount of people who do buy them, considering that the 17 is the first of its kind.
    If YOU want cheap and good quality, i suggest you buy some regular primes.
    And lastly, its going to get a lot of use. My guess is that architectural photographers will use this lens daily and, that many might switch to cannon for these lenses.
     
  39. I'd be as angry as you are, if they wasted their time making Fish Eye lenses, for any size sensor. The fish eye is the most worthless, tragically tacky focal length/lens type ever created.
    Whatevah. I can't agree with you, either, that there is ANY manner of consensus from "the people" about what lenses are needed. I, personally, have no need for any zoom, nor a lens over 135mm, much less a 200-400 zoom. A 24-70L IS? Sure. Why not.
    What I want:
    50/1.4 IS
    35/2 L
    28/2 L
    85/1.4 L IS
    I certainly don't expect, ever/within my lifetime, to see these primes with IS. But, those are about the only lenses i'd be interested in, other than what i already have. I do have already the 35/1.4L, but i'd appreciate a smaller, high quality prime. I think there's room for it, even alongside the 35/2 EF. Just like Leica has a 35/1.4 Summilux and a 35/2 Summicron - both are elite lenses. You choose based on size, aperture, and signature....
     
  40. Yeah...stop complaining, Canon users. Here is some insight:
    It's falling on deaf ears. Japanese product planners don't trawl the net to gauge end users wish lists. They go to the distributors and resellers and ask: Hey, if we produced "this" sort of lens at a certain price point, how many would you be able to sell, and thus how many will you order over what period of time? That's how Japanese companies work. I should know, I work for one. they don't build to an inventory level, they build to distributor order.
    MITI in Japan dictates that every Japanese company that exports more than 50% of its product needs to have a 5 year plan approved by them. Thats split into 10 semesters, and thats how they budget revenue and expenses. No surprises please in Tokyo. I know for a fact that this current semester will see the finalisation of the replacement of the 1Dxxx range. Thats where resources are being allocated. Last semester, July to December 08, it was the 50D/5D2. They are quite happy with the lens range...a bit of tweaking here or there, maybe.
    There are many in the corridors of Canon who see the threat of Nikons 3D and 3Dx and the coming M1/MX as very very serious, just as at Nikon, there are many planners who are acutely aware of the breadth of Canons lens range, compared to Nikons. So expect to see more lenses from Nikon, but right now they are focussed on getting the final specs and pricing right for the MX/M1. That may well change the whole highend digital game. I'm hearing it will be half the price of the Leica S2. If that's the case, and if the lens range is correct, then the whole studio market may be stood on its head.
    Canon do not want Nikon to leapfrog them into affordable MF digital territory, as it will position Nikon as the innovator. This is the problem in deciding the specs of the 1Dxxx successor. Should they just tweak it and move resources to counter the MX/M1, or should they try to neutralise the D3/D3x? I'm glad my whatsits are not at stake. Its also made more difficult because Canon is in the red right now, but Nikon is comfortably profitable. You also need to have worked for a Japanese company at Head Office level in Japan like I have, to know what collateral damage can occur if you project a loss in your semester budget. In more than one case I personally know of major division MDs with the big office overlooking the Imperial Palace, who ended up running a washing machine factory, west of Beijing. It's ruthless and career destroying , or you can be a hero....Not much in between.
    Either way we, the consumer, will have an exciting six months. (Now I wonder what Sony is going to do, but they are in the red too?....Fascinating).
     
  41. They did it David to just Piss you off, and it worked. But from the responses on your thread looks like there are more people that want those lenses then you thought. I personally think they are great addition to their lens line up. Get over it and stop complaining, better yet sell all you Canon gear and go Nikon, I'm sure if you write Nikon and tell them what lenses you would like, they will make them for you.
     
  42. I think you all are talking about the tilts and swings that were on the old bellows cameras back in the day before most of you all were born.I used the old ground glass 4x5 inch press camera for architectural shots. Kept parallel lines from converging along with a lot of other cute tricks. So it's in the lens now. How quaint. You can straighten out lines and handle the barrel effect in photoshop, nowadays. I think Canon is going to lose on that lens. It is not really needed. Wait a few months and you can probably get it cheap.
    lennyaeger
     
  43. Hahahaha Leonard you're too funny...cheap...hahaha
     
  44. They did it David to just piss you off, and it worked. But from the responses on your thread looks like there are more people that want those lenses then you thought. I personally think they are great addition to their lens line up.​
    Motion seconded. I was seriously thinking of moving to Nikon if Canon didn't update the low end of its T/S line -- the three TS-E lenses are among my most used, out of a couple of dozen EOS lenses -- and yesterday's announcement both blew me away and persuaded me to stay with Canon.
    It's actually a very shrewd move by Canon, because it persuades a lot of advanced photographers who spend a lot of money on lenses (even if they don't personally use T/S lenses) that Canon can still innovate with its optics. That keeps those big spenders committed to the brand, and now - between the sales success of the 5DII and these announcements - it looks like the deathwatch for Canon was a bit premature.
    It's fun to watch the momentum pendulum swing back and forth between Canon, and Nikon, and Canon, and now it's Nikon's turn to volley again. (I hope Stephen's right about the medium-format Nikon; I will be all over that!)
     
  45. "WHY WOULD canon make two more very expensive tilt shift lenses?"
    Because they can. And there are people who will buy them, and perhaps a few who will even use them.
    After all, isn't that what capitalism is all about: creating needs where there were none before, and in the process transfering money from the less fortunate to the privileged?
    I'm cognisant of all of this, and yet I still ship my money to Canon's board of directors. Why? 'Cause I find that Canon's gear is the gear with which I can best make my photographic art. And can you imagine photography without capitalism?
     
  46. as for those that want TS lenses. I want a 24mm one....and if wishes are being taken, make the next one a max aperture of 2.8 please....heh
    Also, I work at a major camera store in NYC. During the conversations that occur with customers, and when you only consider the "Pro" and "serious amateur" types (ie...not your family oriented pics of kids and birthday parties and vacation types) you would be amazed at the amount of photogs that have TS lenses. I know I was.
    Though, like Harry, I sure hope it brings down the price of the old ones....$800 for a 24mm TS would be awesome.
     
  47. Before I read the above comments, I was wondering myself how much demand there would be for these new lenses. Now, I will definitely be watching for an opportunity to pre-order. I would give anything to have the new 17mm lens in time for my trip to China. Can you even imagine the fun of it?
    David is probably correct that most of Canon's customers are amateurs. (I think that's what he's saying.) What he's overlooking is the fact that the pro and semi-pro market is huge itself. The company is known for innovation, which eventually benefits all of its customers.
     
  48. can you imagine photography without capitalism?​
    Yes, it was called VEB Pentacon.
     
  49. I'm disappointed these new TS-E lenses don't have IS. What if I want to photograph a church during an earthquake?

    ;-)
     
  50. Oh dear B.J.,
    Tilt shift lenses are used on tripods. You frame the scene and fiddle with the little knobs and slide the lens on its adjustment axes ever so carefully to adjust out the convergence of straight lines. Its not a hand held exercise at all.
    There are some wide zoom lenses which are actually designed to do this through lens construction...but there is a tiny market in architecture photography that is sensitive to convergence. Nikon has these lenses and now so do Canon.
    I really can't think of a less exciting announcement, really.
    00SW5R-110727584.jpg
     
  51. I`m not a Canon user but, do Canon people really want an EF-S Fisheye and a 24-70 with image stabilizer? Don`t you prefer to have updated 17mm and 24mm TS lenses? I`m surprised.
    I can understand that some could desire to have a Canon version of the 200-400/4. As a Nikon user I would like to have a 24-105/4 IS.
     
  52. First of all I would like to thank everyone for commenting.
    I will not thank those that made personal attacks at myself. (GET A LIFE)
    Unfortunately I will not be able to respond to all of you, so I will just say a couple of things.
    I agree with some of you and disagree with some of you. Some of you have even convinced me that I was wrong in my thinking.
    So Dont get me wrong, I Like my canon camera, and I like my lenses. In fact I have my first flash in the mail, so I am a canon guy, for the record.
    The problem is, canon has a couple of basic lenses out there that need fixing and instead they come out with complicated lenses that most consumers and amateur photographers wont be able to use. These are probably great lenses but mostly geared towards Pros. I am not a pro, so I will not think Like a pro and I dont care about pros.( no offense, but I look at photography as a hobby)
    I am a proponent of cheap, high quality prime lenses that anyone can use and I feel that canon should update those lenses before anything else.
    Thats just how I feel.
    Also I would have to say that I completely agree that canon need to improve their 20/24 mm prime lenses. (NOt L)
     
  53. Stephen, note the winking smiley in my last post. I wasn't serious.

    I'm puzzled by your statement "now so do Canon". Canon has had an extensive TS-E line up for years.

    To people who keep saying that there are a lot of lenses that NEED updating: Not really. Newer lenses are fun, and USM is nice, but the old-style primes are still very usable (I prefer my 50mm 1.8 Mk 1 over my Mk 2, for example). As said before, Canon covers pretty much the entire range from 10 to 800mm, and for many focal lengths you can choose between several lenses.

    I'm not complaining, I have a hard time choosing as it is.
     
  54. "I will not thank those that made personal attacks at myself. (GET A LIFE)"​
    "Get a life": Now that's funny, David! The very definition of irony.
    See? You can write something worth reading.
    Now look up the phrase "pot calling the kettle black" and bear the definition in mind as you consider launching into your next pre-pubescent hissy-fit.
     
  55. You can straighten out lines and handle the barrel effect in photoshop, nowadays
    You're kidding, right? There is quite a bit of loss in image definition if you do a significant amount of correction for converging verticals in an image editor. You can get far better results with a view camera or a tilt/shift lens. If you only photograph for the web, then maybe the image editor approach is ok, but for reasonably large prints? I prefer to do it optically.
    there is a tiny market in architecture photography that is sensitive to convergence
    Many landscape (with trees, for example) and architectural shots need perspective correction to look reasonable. I think keystoning in architectural shots is in poor taste. People take lots of pictures of architecture, e.g. when traveling. So the market is hardly "tiny", but quite large. The only thing that prevents these lenses from being very popular is that most people are clueless and just don't know how to do photography properly. Yes, they are expensive but if you really want to do good work, you'll find a way to fund them.
    What gives me the creeps is how people spend significant money on superwide angle zooms to create exaggerated perspective effects to "beef up" mundane subjects instead of spending it on PC/TS lenses that make it possible to do quality work.
     
  56. With tools; specialized one cost more and are often made in low volumes; they cater and are made for a subset of users; mostly pros.
    One can go back 40 years ago to say 1969 with Nikons PC-Nikkor 35mm F2.8 Shift lens; it listed then for 257 dollars; back when gasoline was 20 to 25 cents; and 1st class stamps 6 cents; today stamp are 42; going to 44 in May 2009. Compared to stamps the 1969 Nikkor would be 7 times more; ie 257 *7 = 1799 dollars today.
    A 6mm F5.6 Fisheye listed a 895 in 1969; thus today it might be 7 times more; ie 6265 dollars.
    Thus the comment that the a modern computer designed wide angle shift lens being absurd at 2500 bucks is flawed; it really is not out of line with 100 years of len making.
    Having a shift lens is usefull in digital; one can shift and stitch together the pieces.
    Shift lenses were brought out for Architecture work inside and outside and some product type shots. The 2500 dollar is in the noise compared to a locations shooters extra van; plus extra van full of lighting gear; gels; kickers; filters; masks; reflectors; stands; tripods etc.
    A 257 dollar list price was expensive back in 1968 too; My dad sold our 1961 Plymouth that year to my brothers friend for 100 dollars; they drove it another 7 years.
    If 257 dollars sounds cheap today remember one could buy a 100 foot roll of tri-x for 3 to 4 dollars; 100 sheets of 8x10 paper for 5 to 10 bucks; a used Leica IIIc for 28 dollars; a used Nikkor 5cm F2 in LTM for 9 dollars; a new dinky Jonan mini hand held self powered meter was 4 bucks; a roll of 120 tri-x at kmart 39 cents.
    Minimum wage as 1.60 in 1968; a non national chain burger joint would hire folks all the time at 1 buck per hour.
    For cutting somebodys lawn for Jr High kids; the going rate was about 1.5 bucks; maybe 2 with a big tip; for a 1/3 to 1/2 acre lawn; 1 dollar for a small lawn.
    A low end mower with 3 Hp briggs was 23 to 25 bucks at Grants or Kmart; higher at Monkey Wards; Sears; or Western Auto. One would buy the Jr high kid the 23 dollar mower; after 12 lawns he was making the big bucks; all tax free.
     
  57. It is pretty obvious that Canon has not spent any time on this forum reading the threads about which lenses we want next.
    Sorry, poster, if it seems I am picking on you, that's not my intention. The above quote is echoed by many posters on many forums. The truth is, every manufacturer knows well that the opinions expressed on forums do not in any way represent a representative sampling of their buyers. As a manufacturer myself I stay completely away from the forums in my industry as there is so much misinformation I find it terribly frustrating. Further, by knowing my actual sales and by experience gained from when I used to try to follow the forums I know that the preferences of the posters of the forums in no way reflect the product mix I actually sell. The reality is that in all liklihood Canon's greatest concern over forums such as this is when a complaint of a supposed defect in a current product starts taking off like wildfire.
     
  58. In the 1950's a school I went too charged 1 dollar for the 5 school lunches; I worked in the school cafeteria and got free lunch; and pocketed the 1 dollar per week from my folks. A Pro Exakta VX was several hundred dollars new; to buy one with lunch money would take many years; thus I mowed lawns and bought a used VX slr. One made 25 cents to 50 cents mowing a lawn; a dollar was unheard of. My dad had this gas powered lawn sweeper; it pickup apples; pine cones; big clumps of grass. Folks would ask you to sweep the lawn; empty all the crap into their compost heap for anywhere from 10 cents to 25 cents; maybe 50 cents if the lawn had 6 apple trees and dead apples everywhere; all rotting on the ground.
     
  59. when a complaint of a supposed defect in a current product starts taking off like wildfire.
    Are you suggesting that people should keep quiet about an expensive item that doesn't work?
     
  60. I think the new tilt and shift lenses are killer and If I had the money to blow I'd get them in a heartbeat! :)
    The words "good and cheap" optical glass don't go together very well BTW
     
  61. when a complaint of a supposed defect in a current product starts taking off like wildfire.
    Are you suggesting that people should keep quiet about an expensive item that doesn't work?​
    I certainly did not try to give that impression.
    I merely mean that for manufacturers when a complaint starts gaining momentum it gets our attention. I chose the word "supposed" because some forum threads alleging a defect are merely user error or inflated expectations, some are true problems. Maybe I should have used the word "possible". In any case, of course folks should feel free to write about problems. I would never suggest otherwise.
    I do agree with Alfonso. Really good optics are often expensive. Let's also face facts about these new TS lenses. First, they are new designs and will be more expensive, having been developed at a different time, than the old designs. If the original TS lenses came out today they would be more expensive than they were when they came out, and the price never would come down to the levels that they are now. That's a fact of economic life. I have a product that has had a 20 year life. But if I had not come out with it 20 years ago and instead designed the exact same product today it would list for more than it lists for today. Old products were developed at lower development costs (it was a different time), vendors don't always raise prices for components they've been supplying for years, and manufacturers often do not raise the prices on old producst to fully reflect the increased build cost over the years. There are many reasons for this, but it is true. So, combine presumably better optics, the enhanced feature of being able to rotate the planes of shift and tilt (meaning greater mechanical complexity and cost), and being introduced at a different time (with horrible yen/dollar relationship) and the price is very understandable.
    I'm no Canon apologist (I hate the lack of focusing scales, I long for a great 50 1.4, and I have many other similar issues) but I am a realist know that specialty items will be expensive. If the optics are really good I will certainly buy one or both new models.
     
  62. It may not be the lens that everyone wants, but I will be saving my pennies (for a while) to get the 17mm TSE. With fast ISO and image stabilization, I think a lot of people have forgotten the joy of careful tilt and shift composition on a tripod. Having said that, I do kind of miss my old Linhof, but I am not going back to film. -Dan
     
  63. If you do not want to buy Canon, don't. You get what you pay for.
     
  64. I would settle for an affordable fixed (no shift ) 17mm that offered better performance than my 16-35.
     
  65. Kelly, I did not notice your post right above mine, your points are right on. When someone tells me one of my products is too expensive I think "It's nice to quickly find out that you are not my target buyer, and if you were you'd be saying that nothing at the same price comes close". Canon knows fully well that their target buyer is saying "That will make me money and yield a better product (image)". They make plenty of consumer lenses to satisfy folks who think these TS are too expensive.
     
  66. Yea what the hell is wrong with Canon? They didn't cater to MY personal SHORTCOMINGS! How the hell am i supposed to become a better photographer when all they give me is a stupid updated TS-E lens?!
     
  67. Ikkla posted:
    You can straighten out lines and handle the barrel effect in photoshop, nowadays
    You're kidding, right? There is quite a bit of loss in image definition if you do a significant amount of correction for converging verticals in an image editor. You can get far better results with a view camera or a tilt/shift lens. If you only photograph for the web, then maybe the image editor approach is ok, but for reasonably large prints? I prefer to do it optically.​
    It turns out that your assumptions about the level of "loss of image definition" is pretty much wrong. I'm guessing you just made that up.
    I used to make the same assumption that you make. However, eventually I decided to see for myself whether this was true or not, and if true how significant the loss in image quality might be. I have posted an example of what I discovered here: A Test: Correction Lens Distortion in Post Processing .
    In short, those who believe that post-processing correction of barrel/pincushion distortion, image leveling, and convergence will result in unacceptable degradation of image quality such that large prints cannot be produced... should reconsider. In fact, these corrections generally introduce very, very little image degradation.
    And, no, I do not "only photograph for the web." I make careful and good size prints.
    Dan
    For fun, below is a photo referenced at my link. In it a single small section of a corner from a 100% is presented twice side by side. One half is the original version and the other is the version with post-processing correction for barrel distortion. Two questions: Can you tell which is which? Since the sample is equivalent to a print five feet wide, could you detect a difference at half or a quarter of this size?
    [​IMG]
     
  68. One note about the photo in the post I just made above: PN downsizes it a bit. If you want to see the true 100% crop please click the link in that post.
    Dan
     
  69. Hello Dan,
    I am open minded to any tests, but we are talking about perspective control and making some pretty drastic corrections where your test is correcting for relatively minor lens distortions. Perspective control is a different animal. Have you done any tests relative to pretty severe perspective control corrections via PP verses using a perspective control lens?
     
  70. Dan, I have to agree with Desmond, try that on a cityscape I think you might be supprised how much you lose.
     
  71. It turns out that your assumptions about the level of "loss of image definition" is pretty much wrong. I'm guessing you just made that up.
    Lens distortion typically is of the order of 0.3-1.3% in a high quality lens, 3% in a lousy superzoom. If you correct for that, you'll see very little change in definition. However, correcting for converging verticals to the extent that these TS wide angles can manage typically requires between one and two orders of magnitude greater transformations than what is used to correct for lens distortion, resulting in quite obvious differences in detail between parts of the image.
     
  72. kinda curious what is wrong with my 20 mm f/2.8 lens? It ain't perfect but I did not pay as much for it as I did 135 L, or my 24L, or 24-105L or my 24-70L, or my 70-200 f/2.8L, it was more expensive then my 35 f/2.0, which other then a little noise cause no hsm is a wonderful lens.
     
  73. Manuel,
    Just to follow up your 20mm. f2.8 inquiry.
    This 20mm. lens is sharper than the 17-40L set at 20mm. when both lenses are used at f4 and f5.6, once you get to f8 the 17-40 gets sharper. So, there is some edge to the 20 over the 17-40 ( aside of a very useful f2.8 aperture), at least for the widest apertures. It would be interesting to test it against the L 16-35 II.
     
  74. kinda curious what is wrong with my 20 mm f/2.8 lens
    That would be a different thread (with lots of fun opinions and fireworks I bet).
     
  75. I am open minded to any tests, but we are talking about perspective control and making some pretty drastic corrections where your test is correcting for relatively minor lens distortions. Perspective control is a different animal. Have you done any tests relative to pretty severe perspective control corrections via PP verses using a perspective control lens?
    I've done quite a few prints (of urban and similar subjects) where I have done perspective correction in post with very good results. I do not have any posted examples in test form, but perhaps I can put something together this evening.
    I understand and agree that if perspective corrected architectural photography is your main thing that using a T/S type lens can make a lot of sense. I also understand that one cannot (short of focus bracketing techniques) mimic the tilted focus plane that you can achieve with the T/S lenses.
    That said, what is offered as "common knowledge" in photography discussions is often simply "common conception that has not been checked against reality." I'm positive about this in the case of corrections for barrel/pincushion distortions in post - I do it, I've tested it, and I make prints.
    I'm pretty certain about this in regard to perspective corrections. Again, I do it and I print. Here, though, I do not have a comparative test to offer. Yet. Perhaps this evening...
    Dan
     
  76. Now that we are being a little less serious, and for those who pay $4500 for their lenses (Leica Elmo 18) would it be better to use the right camera for the particular application, instead of expecting Nikon or Canon to cover the lot?
    If you want the ultimate in lenses with shift capability on the appropriate camera (and they can be had new for $700), then this is the lens. To the large format world $2500 is a fortune to pay for the best available, new. Well this is it, or one of its cheaper brothers. Read the specs and then look at the pic. Its smaller than a 1.8/50 in 35mm. This jewel is awesome.
    "This is an 80mm lens for use with film formats up to 5x7 inch, although its most common use will be with 4x5 inch film. The lens has a 105 degree field angle at f22, producing an image circle of 211mm at f22. This allows 39mm of shift vertically and 34mm of shift horizontally." Schneider Optics.

    I'm not pushing film, but you know what I'm getting at when you have seen a 4000dpi drum scanned image file from a colour slide, made by one of these. It makes your eyes bleed. Then tell me more about value.
    00SWW7-110833584.jpg
     
  77. That said, what is offered as "common knowledge" in photography discussions is often simply "common conception that has not been checked against reality."
    About this we concur completely. Many folks repeat "sharp as a tack" and "pin sharp", and all other kinds of comparitives and dogma, without having much experience with anything else. I've challenged some to send me the slides they used for the comparison...oops, nothing forthcoming. Likewise, I've offered to send the test results, the actual shots, not a dumbed down image on the forum. Oops, the challenger backed off.
    We all have to realize that there are many good folks on forums, but also many blowhards who make up information, putting unfounded and untested opinions out there, looking to make an "identity" as a guru. It can be hard to tell the two types apart sometimes.
     
  78. Stephen said, bringing large-format photography into the discussion,
    "I'm not pushing film, but you know what I'm getting at when you have seen a 4000dpi drum scanned image file from a colour slide, made by one of these. It makes your eyes bleed. Then tell me more about value."
    OK, I'll tell you more about value. Let's see: 4x5 Quickloads (color slide film): $3.50 per exposure for the film, plus $3.00 per exposure for the processing equals $6.50 every time you click the shutter. That 4000-dpi drum scan will set you back another $50-100 per image. Not exactly the same math as shooting with a digital SLR!
    Don't get me wrong: I shoot a lot of large-format film (8x10 and 4x5; that Schneider 80mmXL is among the less-well-regarded lenses in Schneider's XL series, by the way) and for many applications it's well worth it. But if it's a question of "value," most viewers won't be able to tell the difference in normal-sized prints between images made with that Schneider 80mmXL lens for a minimum of $6.50 per shot (after equipment is paid for) vs. images made with a 5DII and Canon's 24mm TS-E II lens for basically $0.00 per shot (after equipment is paid for).
    In other words, nice try but a bit off-topic, Stephen. Repeat after me: "Plaudits for a nice job, Canon. I look forward to seeing Nikon's next product introduction." Really. It's not that hard to admit that "the other company" - the one you don't like - has done something impressive.
     
  79. I have a boatload of the latest apo large format lenses as well as 2 Canon TS lenses used on 1DsIII. For work that requires large movements the TS might not be the right tool. For shots that are usable with the TS movements and only need enlargement to 30 inches the TS is certainly not the wrong tool. I've shot the same products with both, I know first hand. So, in many applications the TS is appropriate, and, as the above math shows, they pay for themselves in no time. Forgetting about time savings, in film and process costs alone I paid for the digital system very quickly and have more than satisfactory results.
     
  80. Flamed again!
    I have Nikon (film and digital), Canon (digital), Olympus (film and digital) and Linhoff (film). I can claim to be impartial. The point is that its horses for courses.
    Just using an example....must everyone who may have a technical knowledge advantage put down those who are still on the learning curve. My last post. And its documented here in the film forums.
    Yes, it costs a lot more to do large format development, BUT....
    Digital upfront costs, Australian $, and lets say you want to be in FX:
    Camera: D700, 5D2 $ 4500 (Plus $1500 updates every 2-3 years).
    Lenses: Say a 12-24 2.8 $2000, 24-70 2.8 $2000, 80-200 2.8 $2000 (Maybe a bit less)
    Computer: Intel or Apple with a good monitor: $2500 (Maybe much more)
    Software: Say Lightroom and Photoshop: $2000 (unless you say you are a student)
    A3 4000dpi printer: $1000 (maybe a bit more)
    I don't include the best paper and consumables, or the cost of CFcards.
    Thats $16000.
    or,
    I can buy a large format (or even medium format) camera and lens for $2000 max...$14000 difference can buy a lot of film, developing, pro scanning and printing. And if I wanted to go fully digital, I can get my money back. Just look at the used prices of digital. Its worse than the depreciation on your car.
    Finally, its not the cost that's at the core of things really, its the ease of use of digital . But no one can say digital is inexpensive. The smart people know that up to A3 size prints, a 12mp sensor is all you need. And it all gets back to the lens, and so friends, we are back on topic...lenses!
    00SWaI-110849684.jpg
     
  81. Since we are having fun veering wildly off topic... ;-)
    I have a friend who has a long career and a great reputation as a large format landscape photographer. He shot 4x5 color LF for many years but recently switched to MF digital backs. I can't exactly speak for him, but my impression from some conversations is that there were several reasons.
    One, strangely enough, is the decrease in costs! His figure was $4.50 per exposure with LF. We had a joking email exchange in which I pointed out that by switching to the (rather expensive high end) digital MF back that he had "saved" something like $2250 during one shoot of several days. His response, in general terms, was more or less along the lines of "I should have shot twice as many frames and saved $4500!" ("C," if you read this, yes, I know this alters the story a little bit...)
    It might only take a dozen shoots at that rate to "pay for" the digital MF camera and back. :)
    Dan
     
  82. The new 24 is definitely on my wish list, and I hope they upgrade the other TSEs before they go sticking IS in a short L lens. Get a tripod. Oh, and "cheap and good optical glass" is oxymoron.
     
  83. Lenses I have no use for:
    200-400L IS, EF-S Fish Eye, 24-70L IS.
    Lenses I would really like to have:
    17 TS, 24 TS
    If you're having trouble keeping your camera steady you may want to try a tripod. Old fashioned IS works surprisingly well on your non IS lenses.
     
  84. OK, this is based on a test I just posted at my site :
    Earlier someone wrote:
    There is quite a bit of loss in image definition if you do a significant amount of correction for converging verticals in an image editor. You can get far better results with a view camera or a tilt/shift lens. If you only photograph for the web, then maybe the image editor approach is ok, but for reasonably large prints?​
    And, as a follow up to my post of a contrary point of view, someone else posted:
    I am open minded to any tests, but we are talking about perspective control and making some pretty drastic corrections where your test is correcting for relatively minor lens distortions. Perspective control is a different animal. Have you done any tests relative to pretty severe perspective control corrections via PP verses using a perspective control lens?​
    While that point of view is widely held and often repeated, in my experience a blanket statement like this is not correct. I have found that in many cases the degradation of the image is so small as to be insignificant or even invisible at 100% magnification, and it is often completely invisible even in fairly good size prints.

    Rather than just accepting statements like this, I like to test them. In the past I've tested and written about the option of correcting for lens distortions in post- processing: A Test: Correcting Lens Distortion in Post Processing . Here I want to extend this concept to using post-processing techniques for the correction of perspective distortion and for leveling the image.
    (I will admit that the distortions in this image probably don't qualify as "severe," but this is the first example I could come up with. And there are still situations in which I completely understand the reasons for using a TS.)

    The photograph I'll use was shot handheld using a full-frame Canon 5D with the EF 35mm f/2 lens, one of my favorites for street photography. First a small version of the final photograph:
    [​IMG]
    Borch's Iron Works and Machine Shop - old metal shop building in the downtown area of San Jose, California. © Copyright G Dan Mitchell - all rights reserved.

    Next is the same image with the same post-processing, except that the corrections to horizontal alignment and perspective have been left out:
    [​IMG]
    Borch's Iron Works and Machine Shop - old metal shop building in the downtown area of San Jose, California. Uncorrected version. © Copyright G Dan Mitchell - all rights reserved.

    In this example we can clearly see several problems. First, the image is not level - it tilts down to the left. Second, the vertical lines begin to converge toward the top of the image. Third, since the camera's sensor was not perfectly parallel to the building wall, the right side of the building recedes and gets smaller as the horizontal lines become closer together toward the right edge.

    Yup, that's what happens when you shoot street and shoot handheld. ;-)

    The next image includes two versions of roughly the same section of the photograph at 100% magnification. The crops come from the lower left area of the full image and include the conduit on the wall in the area in full sun. Depending on your monitor, this resolution is equivalent to looking at a print of perhaps four or five feet in width.
    [​IMG]
    100% magnification from lower left area of 'Borch's Iron Works and Machine Shop.' © Copyright G Dan Mitchell - all rights reserved.

    I do believe that if you inspect this 100% crop very closely that you can detect a difference in the "sharpness" of the two photographs - but it is quite subtle even when viewed at 100%. In practical terms, however, this tiny effect that is just barely visible under close inspection at 100% in side-by-side comparisons on the screen is entirely insignificant in a print. Even with a very close inspection it would be quite invisible in a print of, say, 18" x 24" and probably even larger.

    This reinforces my belief that any degradation to the image quality that occurs when lens distortion, perspective, and/or horizontal level are corrected carefully during the post-processing stage can be very minimal and in virtually all situations will be invisible in prints.
    Dan
    (I'll still try to come up with an example in which the original perspective distortion was "severe.")
     
  85. Just a thought regarding price. I see that Amazon.com advertises the Canon TS-E 90mm lens with a "List Price" of $1,900, but a selling price of $1,150. That's only one example. Hopefully the TSE-17mm lens will follow the same trend and sell for something closer to $1,500.
     
  86. Canon's new TS lenses are an important step in the process of 35mm penetration to all areas of Professional photography. Manufacturers like Canon understand that while developing the 35mm full frame DSLRs they also need to address the optics and other accessories to match photographer's needs. Many pro's are already using the 35mm DSLRs for studio assignments. Now we will see more of the 35mm even in architectural photography. Bad news for MF photographers, good ones for 35mm enthusiasts (and for Canon...).
     
  87. Dan, that's a very minor convergence effect with a 35mm lens. This thread is about 24mm and 17mm tilt-shift lenses. Point your favorite superwide up at a facade, and correct in post. The effect to be corrected may easily be 30 degrees on each side. Your example has a few degrees. And do make that 18x24" print out of the digitally corrected superwide shot. Then review what you wrote above - I expect an apology.
     
  88. Interesting the way this thread has gone, I`m sure the OP David realizes he may not be the spokesperson to canon for this forum but, what could a 200~400 lens give more than a 100~400 (I don`t use that FL anyway) , I would have thought 200~500 more desirable. Fisheyes are just a toy, generally not bothered with in economic worrying times and when used for weddings or commercial, the proofs skipped like they were a booboo, 24 70IS? useless IMO on crop, in fact wider on FF than 17~xx on crop anyway. Now if canon only sold 10000 T/S 17mm lenses, long awaited for, how many consumer lenses would it take to make the same profit? I think canon is smart in its marketing. I agree with Dan M things can be done digitally to a certain extent, and appreciate Dans skills which are as I see ahead of many. For pro users tho doing the job up front with the right tools saves time and shortens deadlines. important in some competitive envirements. Sure some lenses are long overdue for improvements inc 50 1.4, my zuiko 50 1.4 focusses quicker in low light, but only constant complaints may get a change,as most who have them are satisfied. remember canon said most were happy with 9 point AF in 5dmk1, so had no reason to upgrade the AF in 5Dmk2. Forums are mainly ignored, I feel. it`s direct personal approach by many that brings change. Sure as hell stiirred a lil :)
     
  89. As to the 17mm tilt, I have 3 full frame cameras, 1Ds, 5D, and a 1V. I find that photography is a great stress reliver, for me anyhow. A couple of years ago I ran across a used 17mm Tokina f/3.5, immediately after buying that lens I sold my 17-40 L. I have not purchased the 24 TS-e because I did not consider it wide enough for the photos I enjoy taking. I will wait for the reviews on the 17 TS-e and if the reviews are as good as they are for the three existing TS-e lens, I will probably buy it. I think Canon is paying attention to some one and it ain't me as I have not been complaining.
     
  90. Cheap and high quality? Its not going to happen with any camera company. I'm sorry to say that. I work in photo retail. I'd put a TS on my 30D without a second thought.
    Why do everything in post? There are times when you have to correct things, but if you have the right tools from the start it's that much better. This might come from my years in the darkroom and shooting film, which I still prefer. I like to work with my mistakes and see what images I can make from them.
     
  91. Many viewpoints have been expressed, and it is true that the best solution for one person is not the best for another.
    I would not say that TS on a FF digital camera is best for everyone, and I would not say that large format is best for everyone. Maybe for some PP is the best answer. This all depends on the degree of correction, the volume of images (which determines the time spent and the film costs), the demands on time for getting results to the printer or publication (with no demands on time, with shots solely for personal use, if someone loves processing film, the preference of course can be completley different), and many other factors that you can easily imagine without my listing them all.
    In the end, for some folks, the new lenses will be very important. For others, they will be useless, not relevant to the format they use, and too expensive. That fact does not mean that Canon "dropped the ball on this one", quoting the original entry in this thread. From the miniscule sampling represented by posters to this thread (relative to the photographic market in general) it is clear that there will be buyers for these lenses.
     
  92. Many viewpoints have been expressed, and it is true that the best solution for one person is not the best for another.
    I would not say that TS on a FF digital camera is best for everyone, and I would not say that large format is best for everyone. Maybe for some PP is the best answer. This all depends on the degree of correction, the volume of images (which determines the time spent and the film costs), the demands on time for getting results to the printer or publication (with no demands on time, with shots solely for personal use, if someone loves processing film, the preference of course can be completley different), and many other factors that you can easily imagine without my listing them all.
    In the end, for some folks, the new lenses will be very important. For others, they will be useless, not relevant to the format they use, and too expensive. That fact does not mean that Canon "dropped the ball on this one", quoting the original entry in this thread. From the miniscule sampling represented by posters to this thread (relative to the photographic market in general) it is clear that there will be buyers for these lenses.
     
  93. Ilkka Nissila [​IMG] , Feb 21, 2009; 07:44 a.m.
    Dan, that's a very minor convergence effect with a 35mm lens...I expect an apology.​
    Don't hold your breath.
    I also wrote in this piece: "I will admit that the distortions in this image probably don't qualify as "severe," but this is the first example I could come up with. And there are still situations in which I completely understand the reasons for using a TS."
     
  94. what could a 200-400 lens give more than a 100-400​
    A 200-400mm F/4 (constant aperture) gives a whole stop of light and the ability to use a 1.4x natively on xxD bodies.
    Very significant advantages.
     
  95. Well: IN my Old eyes and I have used canon since the F-1 which my son has and use's, Canon has gone down Hill in the last few years ,Pentax and others Kicked them in the Fantail real good with good camera's as they listened and gave the people what they wanted , Now Nikon is kicking Canons Fantail , I have a EOS20D and have not planned to change to another Canon unless it a older model but not any of their newer stuff:
    As far as I am concerned canon is heading for weightside fast , becauise of Over blowen Ego
    Just my 1/10 of a cent !
     
  96. Other than looking for maximum satisfaction with minimum effort, nothing wrong with Canon, (we all do that)
    Most new technology is based decade old ideas that got the final go from the bean counters. Bringing to production such technology has risks because a more daring company might bring a newer technology to production, reaping benefits of quality and production technology.
    ~ If I had a zillion $'s I'd buy every lens available, every camera, every accesory. Anything redundant I'd simply give away. Anything crappy I' d smash to little tiny bits - and make a photo production - unless the items being smashed are required to make the best shots. I believe in this scenario I'd be doing more giving away than smashing - though I do love smashing things - and photographing things being smashed.
    Any product is a product - they all have features and limitations. Quality, demand and competition determine price. The name brand might carry an extra $10%+/-. I'm one who is usually grateful for the unusual products that come out to meet the needs of the few - though finacnces meake me wait a generation or two to scoff it it up on ebay.
    ~S~.
     
  97. What a worthless thread.
     
  98. example of image prior to perspective correction
    00SXMv-111053584.jpg
     
  99. perspective corrected in photoshop (note the shrinkage of the pillar to the left? My taste is that Shift lens is preferable
    00SXMw-111053684.jpg
     
  100. segment of uncorrected
    00SXMy-111053784.jpg
     
  101. corrected segment
    00SXMz-111053884.jpg
     
  102. Good examples Yoshio.
    It is quite obvious that computer generated PC creates a lot of noise in the image. Pixels are forced to fill in previously non existent gaps.
    Some may say this is pixel peeping, and of course this amount of noise may not be noticeable in small 10x15 cm prints. But will definitely not print nicely at 16x20 inches.
     
  103. I think that Canon makes enough different lens types for all users out there, but there is one thing I simply can't understand. Why doesn't Canon make stabilized macro lenses? By my opinion, there are very few people out there using macro lenses, that would choose a non stabilized 100 or 180mm macro over stabilized one.
     
  104. Once again someone criticizes Canon and once again all the usual fanboys come out to defend their beloved camera company.
    The plain facts are Canon has gone from being totally dominant in DSLR technology and the 200 pound gorrilla in 2003, to being behind Nikon in sales for several years. Quite an achievement for a company that was the number one slr manufacturer for more than a decade. The Canon fan club can say what it wants, but the market has spoken. IMO it has not been just one decision by Canon that has seen them slide to second place but a culmination of decisions, reflecting the poor judgement that can creep in when a company has been number one for too long and doesn't know where to go.
    Among Canon's poor decisions over the last few years in no particular order include:
    • The EF-S mount - why have a seperate mount when a 22 mp camera could still produce a 12 mp crop using a "digital specific" lens - Nikon got this right;
    • The 16-35 L mark II and 14 f2.8L Mark II, which got beaten straight out of the starting blocks by the Nikon 14-24;
    • Backing off on ring USM technology when they invented it - why doesn't it feature in the 70-300 IS or the 18-200 IS, when the Nikon equivalents have this?
    • Not migrating weather sealing down to prosumer level cameras;
    • The 5D mark II - 3 years in the waiting and all we got was a megapixel upgrade and a bunch of things that could be already done in software or had already debued on the 50D. It still has the same evaluative metering as the $200 EOS300 of 2000 and only one cross-sensitive AF point. Why no EOS 3D, why not an affordable FF 7D?
    • The 1D3 and 1.3 crop cameras, made obsolete within a week as soon as the D3 was announced.
    • A-TTL, ETTL, and ETTL-II - rather than revamping flash algorythms every few years just to prove the last lot did not work very well, why not just get it right the first time as Nikon did with its SB flash system.
    • Producing ever more esoteric lenses such as the 50 f1.2, 200 f2, 800 f5.6 and these tilt shifts., while persisting with over-priced, underperforming lenses such the 17-85 IS in key segments of the market. Nikon has had about ten 18-xx mid-range zooms in the interim.
    • DO technology - whatever happened to them?
    • ECF - whatever happened to that?
    • why has DEP mode died?
    • Darth Vader styling on their DSLRs
     
  105. Ernest, most macro shots are taken using a tripod. For that, you don't need a stabilized lens (actually you should avoid using stabilization option when the camera is mounted on a tripod). The extra stops IS will give you don't make the diefference for macro shots.
     
  106. BTW most architecture and travel photography is for real estate and travel brochures respectively which is not terribly demanding resolution wise. Serious landscape photographers are mostly using MF or LF film or MF digital.
    I assume these lenses are mainly aimed at studio product photography. I am not sure how big that market is. Probably not as big as the market for an affordable 35 f2 with USM or an affordable EF-S 18-60 f3.5-4.5 USM IS, like the digital version of the old 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM but with Canon's new cheap IS thrown in.
     
  107. Well said, Geoff !
     
  108. Geoff,
    Sounds like you want to switch to Nikon. They seem to fit you better. I wouldn't wait for Canon to answer your needs as they have their own ideas.
    Personally like some of the others, I would rather have the TS lenses just announced than some of the choices in the OPs post. Guess that's why competition is good!
     
  109. Once again someone criticizes Canon and once again all the usual fanboys come out to defend their beloved camera company.​
    And the usual moaning malcontents without the stones to take the obvious "right" step for them and get out from under such an apparently terrible company, crawl out from under their rocks and jump on the whiners bandwagon...
    I moved from Nikon to Canon as a result of the utterly appalling D200 and haven't regretted it for a minute since - the lesson there being that I realised that bitching on internet forums wasn't going to make my Nikon gear work the way I wanted it to, so I put my money where my mouth was and got out .
    Definitely one of the smartest decisions I've ever made. Nothing Nikon makes now - bodies or lenses - fits my needs as well as what Canon is doing; Nikon gear certainly doesn't produce a better end-result; and it surely doesn't make getting there any easier.
    Remind me again why Nikon is so great?
    Oh, and although I can't be bothered to pick apart the rest of your bulleted list of irrelevant trivia (although the suggestion that the 200mm f/2.0 and 800mm f/5.6 are "esoteric" is preposterous ), but the award for the daftest thing I've read today goes to:
    The 1D3 and 1.3 crop cameras, made obsolete within a week as soon as the D3 was announced.​
    By what possible measure did the D3 make the Mk III obsolete? Because the Noink is full frame?
    Stuff full frame. The Mk III is my dream camera, and your obvious bias won't change that - and in terms of IQ all the smart money favours the MK III over the D3.
    For God's sake just sell up and buy into Nikon - you'll soon see that the grass isn't as green over there as you think...
     
  110. Sorry if my post seems like a whine. It was not meant to be, rather a semi serious analysis of what has taken Canon from being totally dominant in DSLR sales just a few years ago to second place.
    We can all bitch and moan with if the grass is greener BS then why don't you switch, but that is not the point. The fact is that Canon despite the biggest lens lineup and the most comprehensive system has fallen out of favour with the buyers.
    Now either you think this is just a random occurence or maybe just maybe it has something to do with Canon's strategic direction.
     
  111. Geoff sorry the market statistics don't necessarily mean that Canon is doing something "wrong." Nikon is filling a need with their lineup. People that want great low light sensitivity in a 12mp camera like the D3 and D700 think Nikon is great. Does that mean Canon is off the mark with the 5d mark II with it being 22mp? Well for me the Canon makes more sense. I shoot mainly landscape and portrait type shots and love the ability to crop and still have a high res picture, you can't do that with the Nikon. The 5dII has pretty darn good light sensitivity as well. The point is there is no right or wrong, they are just different. I would rather have the video than a faster AF like the 1d3. They might be right or wrong for *you*. If so, then switch. That doesn't mean it's wrong for me. I could give a rats ass about a 200-400, but I think the new 17 TS lens is pretty cool. Obviously the OP doesn't think so. Who's right?

    Nikon is offering a different direction. For some it makes sense. For some sticking with Canon makes sense. There wasn't much of a choice before but now there is.
     
  112. It's the photographer who produces the photograph, not the gear s/he's using. This obvious point seems rather unobvious in this vitriolic thread.
    If we grant that Canon and Nikon produce the best SLR bodies and lenses, then it's quite arbitrary which system we buy into. Our technique and compositional abilities have much greater effect on our images than does our gear. If you see a great photograph, the last thing on your mind is which body and lens was used to produce it.
    I use Canon gear because the first SLR I bought was an AE-1, and I've always been happy with FD bodies and lenses and, more recently, with EOS bodies and EF lenses. Had my first body been a Nikon, I undoubtedly would be a Nikonian today. It's that simple, and that arbitrary...
     
  113. Thumbs up for Mark's words. Come on guys, the Nikon-Canon debate is soooooo Passe.
     
  114. Dunno who started the canon vs nikon Again.( to long a thread to bother) .don`t matter which brand used, end result should be the same, Niks just made a darn fine lens in 14 24, maybe canon will equal it, but meantime the lens can be used on canon anyway, so same result as usual :)
     
  115. BTW most architecture and travel photography is for real estate and travel brochures respectively which is not terribly demanding resolution wise. Serious landscape photographers are mostly using MF or LF film or MF digital.
    I assume these lenses are mainly aimed at studio product photography. I am not sure how big that market is. Probably not as big as the market for an affordable 35 f2 with USM or an affordable EF-S 18-60 f3.5-4.5 USM IS, like the digital version of the old 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM but with Canon's new cheap IS thrown in.​
    One of my responses to an earlier point about making 16 x 24 (or whatever big size it was) prints of architectural subjects shot with a TS on a DSLR was going to be along the lines of "shouldn't you be thinking about MF?"
    Sort of in line with your response, I think?
    And my only contribution to the tired and worthless "Nikon v. Canon" debate is what I always write: Outstanding photographers use the excellent systems from both Canon and Nikon (and others) to produce wonderful photography, and it is impossible to tell which brand was used by looking and the photographs.
    Let it go, folks. :)
    Dan
     
  116. I recant my initial post.
    After much reading and a new understanding of the tilt/shift lenses, i would have to say that I would actually want one.
    Except for the price they really are pretty neat lenses with amazing capabilities and optical quality.
     
  117. I am glad to see Canon is still making niche lenses one of the things that attracted me to Canon from Pentax back in 1980 was their lens range. I would be very disappointed if all they made were better mainstream lenses (e.g EF-S 18-55 or 18-250 stuff). I am however continually surprised by the desire for IS on lenses. Most optical tests suggest that IS degrades performance (how can it not) for example the 70-200 F2.8 IS is bigger, heavier more expensive and optically slightly poorer than the 70-200 F2.8 without IS. That said i do not object to the production of IS lenses and indeed I quite like the feature on my 300 F2.8 where handholding can get difficult in poorer light. I am surprised that people want in on shorter lenses (the 70-200 is a grey area). I use the 24-70 F2.8 and can see why it may be desirable but almost never need it and would prefer to spend the $500 premium on a prime lens rather than IS ( I calculate the $500 premim on the difference between the 70-200 F4 and F2.8 pairs it is $500 for the F4 pair and $510 for the F2.8 pair). When I see people looking for it on the 135 F2 and 35 F1.4 and 85 F1.2 I am quite surprised as these lenses on a DSLR are so fast that you can shoot at LV 1-3 handheld at their widest aperture and ISO 1600 (which even today is very good on a 5DII or similar and is likely to get better in the future). Since this is a the lightlevel of room lit by a Christmas tree i am wondering what people want to shoot. can someone who is looking for the extra three stops (i.e the kind of light provided by the aurora borealis) explain what they are trying to shoot that needs IS on these super fast lenses. This is half joking but half serious - I am really intrigued to understand the application of an 85 F1.2 IS. I have had the FD 85 F1.2 for many years (it is a really great lens) but even with Velvia 50 generally don't find that I need a faster lens. I can see that my aperture selection gets limited in low light buy over the years I almost never use this lens above F8 and generally shoot it below F2 - I can make similar comments about the 135 F2 which is another great lens.
     
  118. Philip
    One of the problems with this post is that most people assume that their needs are the same as everyone else. I tend to shoot travel, landscape and scenics. Most of the time I am trying to simulataneously maximise depth of field and shoot at the lowest possible ISO, ideally without a tripod. IS helps with this, which is why I would like it on every lens including fast primes or even better built into the body. Though admittedly I don't have a great need for speed.
     
  119. OK - now I understand. I also shoot a lot of landscapes although I tend to use wide angle or MF more. Over the years I have shot many with the 85 F1.2, 24 F2, 14mm f2.8, 35 F2 and 135 F2. Some of these lenses I have in FD fit, some in EOS and a few in both. Generally is use Velvia 50 but the only time I really have light issues is for sunrise or sunset - in this situation I generally take a tripod. My main issue is that I don't mind it when canon gives me the choice of IS or no IS on these type of lenses but I am concerened that we get to a situation where they all have IS and we pay $500 more for a lens that probably does notlast as long. I suspect that lenses like the EOS 85 F1.2 will not last as well as FD 85 F1.2 as it does not appear to be as well constructed and has a lot more electronics - the complexity of IS looks like something that will reduce the working life of a lens. In addition some of these lenses are not very good at small apertures - the FD 85 F1.2 is much better at F8 than it is at F16.
     
  120. Problem solved if they put IS in the body. Seems to be cheap to do. Judging from Pentax seems to add $50 to $100 cost to the body at most. Seems to work well for lenses up to 200mm.
    People replace bodies fairly often and you get the latest IS each time. Many of Canon's lenses still have first and second generation IS from the 1990s.
    Canon only charge $500 for IS in lenses where they think they can get away with it such as 70-200 Ls. The 18-55 IS costs about $15 more than they old 18-55 and has better optics too.
     

Share This Page