What the hell is wrong with CANON?

<p>WHY WOULD canon make two more very expensive tilt shift lenses.<br>

It is pretty obvious that Canon has not spent any time on this forum reading the threads about which lenses we want next. <br>

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.</p>

<p>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.<br>

Where is the 200-400L IS that every body wants? where is the EF-S FISH EYE? Where is the the 24-70L IS?</p>

<p>Especially now when people are spending less money, it just does not make sense to buy these lenses.</p>

<p>I really think they dropped the ball on this one.</p>

<p>What "we" want?</p>

<p>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.<br>

24-70 IS on a crop body its an odd focal length if you ask me. Go with the 17-55 2.8 IS<br>

200-400 you know there's a 100-400 right?<br>

They have around 70 lenses. I don't have time to check but that's probably more than any other manufacturer.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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)</p>

<p>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 <em>I</em> would like to know is will the TS-E 24 Mk II be worth my upgrading to it?</p>

<p>so, to answer the first part of your question, no, I don't think anything is wrong with Canon.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p>These lenses were years in design and development, long before the current economic debacle.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p>Canon has to get money on its investments before bringing out new stuff.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p>Photography is not like the computer world, where a lot of components are developed independently. Nor is it on the Moore Cycle.</p>

<p> Canon has thoroughly spoiled us, and for that, they can't be faulted.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>[[it is pretty obvious that Canon has not spent any time on this forum reading the threads about which lenses we want next.]]</p>

<p>Thank the gods they don't. It shows sound leadership to not run a company based on random postings to internet forums.</p>

 

<p>Hopefully the prices for the other three Canon shift lenses will go down.</p>

<p>Quote: "Hopefully the prices for the other three Canon shift lenses will go down"</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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: <a href="http://www.aarondougherty.com">www.aarondougherty.com</a></p>

<p>Guess Canon likes me better than David B-I!</p>

<p>-A</p>

<p>By this token I guess I should be berating Rolls Royce for making cars I can't afford.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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?!</p>

<p >David…calm down, don’t panic!</p>

<p > </p>

<p >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.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >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. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >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.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >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. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >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.</p>

<p>You are right. Canon should put you on their staff as a (oh, heck, <em>the</em> ) consultant and only make the lenses that <em>you</em> want. Today. And stop making lenses that anyone else might want. Right now.</p>

<p>Chill pill, anyone? :-)</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>WHY WOULD canon make two more very expensive tilt shift lenses.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Why would I care what Canon makes as long as they make something I can use for what I need to do?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The 17mm satisfies the 30D user quite nicely, the 24mm was equivalent to a 38mm lens on the APS-C bodies.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

Nikon came out with a better product, canon matched it. What problem do you actually have here?<br>

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.<br>

What bit of this don't you get?</p>

<p>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. <br>

Canon must see a demand to make the lenses.<br>

It all depends on the photographer needs. I have no use for cropped sensor cameras. <br /> So to each their own.</p>

 

<p>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.<br>

In any case, this is welcome news for anyone doing architectural photography -- and I think we are as much "we" as anyone.</p>

<p>My my, David - you <em>are</em> given to hyperbole, aren't you?</p>

<p>I'm pretty sure that you haven't got <em>all</em> the votes in yet that would allow you to conclude with such confidence that <em>nobody </em> wants the T & S lenses, and that <em>everybody</em> wants the 200-400mm f/4.</p>

<p>If it helps though - you're right: <em>I </em> don't want a new T & S, but <em>I'd</em> like a 200-400mm f/4 a lot.</p>

<p>Well done.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>this is just a guess, but after reading others reactions I guess we will not see David justifying his above position further</p>

<p>i'm more upset that they havnt released a body that can compete with nikon's d3 than their lens lineup.<br>

time to get a body out that has good iso performance.. all the ones they have out now kind of sux compared to nikons.<br>

and what is with the 9 AF points still, nikons have 51 points in their prosumer bodies already, time to step up canon!</p>

Hmmmm ... I would like a TS 17mm ....