Canon's Zoom Lens Range is Rational!

[derek_linney]

I decided to try and position Canon's zoom lenses with the surprising

result that the categorisation made a lot of sense. I grouped them into:

L f2.8 / L f4 / Prosumer / Prosumer(APS-C) / Consumer /

Consumer(APS-C) and into Ring USM + IS / Ring USM / Non- or Micro-USM

and adjusted APS-C results to give 35mm/FF equivalent FoV.

<p>

The result is attached.

<p>

The most obvious conclusions were:

<p>- The 70-200 f4 L really ought to have IS

<p>- The 24-70 f2.8 L probably ought to have IS

<p>- Consumers don't get anything wider than 28mm (35m equiv.)

<p>- Perhaps Canon know what they are doing!

<p>

I cheated slightly by including the 100-400 L IS into both L ranges.<div></div>

[thomas_sullivan]

you're missing a bunch of zooms in your line up. 28-105 3.5/4.5 USM II for instance.........still on Canon's website lens line up..........among many others. So, I guess I dont get the point of this. If you're justifying Canon's zoom decisions, you need to include them all.

[cnhoff]

I don't want to frustrate you, but i also don't quite get your point...

[jbq]

I guess that makes me the third one to not get the point... A Canon lens brochure tells me more...

[KenPapai]

Nice diagram Derek; first time I've seen it so graphically displayed. Good job.

[jon wilson]

i dont get it either

[isaac sibson]

Interesting, but was there really any doubt that the biggest SLR camera manufacturer knows what they're doing?

 

The 100-400 doesn't belong in the F2.8 category.... The Great White Lenses do. Zooms only get you so far. Of course, that's not to say that owners of an F2.8 zoom should not buy the 100-400; it's not as rigid as that.

 

Yes, there are plenty of lenses many of us here would like to see canon produce which they don't, but canon will go where the money is. As much as the enthusiasts would like a 50mm F1.2L or 35 F2 USM these lenses will never be big sellers. The very fact that canon are NOT producing every single lens that someone on the net says they want suggests that canon do know what they're doing, and have far better information than anyone with regards what sells and what does not.

[bill_tuthill]

In the L f/2.8 category, photographers would likely buy a

300/2.8 IS because with teleconverter it's better than a 400/4 DO IS.

In the L f/4 category, the 300/4 L IS is an excellent choice with

much higher optical quality than the 100-400.

I agree that the 70-200/4 L ought to have IS and assume it will

within a few years. For prosumer you forgot about the 70-300/4-5.6 IS,

which is being reissued with faster autofocus. Whew, I didn't even

know about the 90-300!

 

However to be fair, many of these zooms are me-too models that mimic

zoom ranges of earlier lenses introduced by Minolta or Nikon. Also

your bars show overlap of focal length where there is none, but thanks anyway.

[derek_linney]

Ok, I forgot the 28-105mm so I will need to add it. What that does is show that there is a lot of overlap in the prosumer area for mid-range zooms with 24-85 (bit wider), 28-105 (bit longer), 28-135 IS (bit more cash).

<p>

My point was simply that we gets lots of people asking "what lenses for my SLR?" type questions and when you look at Canon's list of lenses it looks complicted. But if you look at the chart then if you are happy with one lens and want more reach then the one in the same category will probably do you. If you aren't happy then look for the equivalent lens in the next grade up.

<p>

Perhaps too many of us are so familiar with all the lenses that a simple chart isn't needed!

[gary_fan]

Very nice presentation.

[peter_white2]

There's a 55-200 EF-S?

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

I don't agree that the 100-400 is on the same level as the f4L's, it's pricing and target market, like the 28-300L, is for the professional in the field and is bought as such. The f4L's are marketed at the pro/am market.

[andre_mcnichols]

The 55-200 is EF, not EF-S, fills a small gap in the consumer lens range... There's also the EF 75-300 f4.5-5.6, cheaper than the 55-200.

 

Now, can you do the same with primes? There only 9 days between christmas and my birthday, I need to get working on my gift list!

[lester_wareham]

"The 24-70 f2.8 L probably ought to have IS"

 

The new 24-105 f4L IS address the f4 whole and adds IS. Upgrade to 24-70 expected.

 

"- The 70-200 f4 L really ought to have IS"

 

Yep, like the 24-70 upgrade expected soon. Probably the most glaring L zoom odd one.

[derek_linney]

Thanks for the comments. I have updated the chart with your suggestions / corrections.<div></div>

[jtk]

Making fun of "consumers" and then using the term "reach" seems weird.

 

With good resolution and the spectacular films we have, why do people mince around avoiding cropping? Do they shoot for slide shows?

 

Superia 400, scanned at 4000ppi: you can throw away half the image without noticing an increase in grain on 8.5X11...no loss of "sharpness" if you begin with sharp optics because that's ONLY a 12X20 enlargement: not extreme from a decent negative/decent lens.

[jtk]

Pardon me again. I got snappy on another thread as well.

 

I exaggerated: Nobody "made fun" of consumers. Except I do think the marketing of that huge array of optics, rather than emphasizing high quality and promoting photographic skills, is consumer ripoff...and yes, that chart DOES prove that Canon "knows what it's doing."

[peter_albrian]

IS is always nice and worderfull but most miss the fine print. It adds weight and price, usually alot of price.

 

the 70-200 F$ should have IS. yes maybe but if its gonna cost as much as the f2.8 version then no deal for me.

 

i don't see why canon IS in their new lens. F4 lenses were loved becuase they wre great lenses and 1/2 the price of the f2.8 bros.

 

i'm afraid that all new lenses will have IS, so the new IS f4 will still hte """"""cheaper""""" then the new IS f2.8.

 

personally i hope the non is versions are still available, unless the price of extra IS goes a lot down.