New tilt shift lenses

[desmond_kidman]

<p>It's a funny thing as a manufacturer (not funny as in "Ha ha") that no matter what you come out with you'll hear plenty of vocal folks tell you what you <em>really</em> should have come out with. If you do a 17mm you should have done a 21mm. Of course if you do a 21mm you should have done one without a protruding element. But then, if you don't optimize the lens (which a protruding element may help do, I suspect it's not there for style) you'll be chastised for the optical quality. And on and on......</p>

<p>I myself often want to ask my customers who criticise "Now how many products have you come out with in your own company?" Of course, they are not running manufacturing companies or deciding what product come out so they have no track record. Pity, they seem so confident in what a company should develop.......</p>

<p>Getting to the lenses, we all know that Canon's wides need help. Truth be told, until the new zoom, for all of the Nikonians bragging about Nilon's superior wides Nikon wides were not that great either. So, maybe these are the first steps in addressing wides. Like an earlier poster, the TS lenses, along with FF before Nikon came out with theirs (in both cases) caused me to go with Canon. Indeed, they allowed me to replace both large format and medium format cameras for product work. No, the TS lenses do not have full view camera movements, but it's enough for me to squeak by. So, there are 2 of us who went system wide due to TS. The market may be bigger than most posters on this forum would like to believe.</p>

<p>Therefore, I appluad Canon's releases of these products, provided they are superior to the current optics in Canon's wide angle range. If they are indeed superb performers then for me the $2k price is well worth it. We have to accept that if we want optics superior to the current offerings then they will be much more expensive. Look at the Zeiss 21mm...it was $1,500 or $1,600 I believe quite a while ago when it was discontinued. Now look at the new Zeiss price. It costs much more to do better products. If the new TS lenses are built just as well as the older series of TS then the build quality, plus superior optics (I'm greatly hoping the latter is true) would make both no-brainers for me.</p>

[aaron d]

<p>Oh hell yeah! I was getting a little envious of Nikon's new 24 PC. And then there are threats of a possible 700x - having just got a 5Dii... </p>

<p>The anti-reflective coating is just what was needed on the 24 - the "I" version lights up around bright lights really easily. And 17mm! Who'd a thought?</p>

<p>Anybody know if shift is registered in the EXIF data? That would seem to be pretty easy, and then distortion correcting with the likes of DxO would finally be possible like with every non TS lens...</p>

<p>Oh, yeah, and make that two votes for a 50mm 1.4L!</p>

[bob_prichard]

<p>The MTF graph on the new 24mm is stunning.<br>

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=156&modelid=18175<br>

The front element is 82mm vs 72mm for the present lens. The larger front element and other changes should greatly improve the corners, if the MTF graph is to be believed.<br>

Canon has apparently listened to our complaints that their wide angle lenses are lacking. The MTF curve at f8 looks like that of an 85mm lens. <br>

If the lens lives up to its MTF graph, it will be better than any Zeiss or Leica lens at that focal length. As such, it will certainly be worth the price they are asking.</p>

 

[desmond_kidman]

<p>An earlier poster mentioned that these lenses could put Canon at the top of the architectural heap. This point is good. Market research can yield results that would surprise many folks. And I think we have to assume that Canon is large enough to be able to perform effective market research. They may well have found out that the type of buyer who buys this type of lens, many of whom might use them professionally, is a buyer who, if Canon can attract them from another brand or another format, will be a buyer of other expensive lenses and bodies in the lineup. To those folks, especially if they are used to medium format pro systems, any Canon lens will look very reasonable in price. I'm so used to medium format pricing over so many years that any 35mm lens still looks like a bargain to me. Canon's TS lenses attracted me, as I mentioned in an above post, for purely professional reasons, and since then I have purchased $30k in Canon gear. The total cost still pales compared to the medium and large format systems used previously. </p>

<p>Many times I have read comments on the forums such as "Not many people are going to buy a $7,000 body......" In reality, there are far more than folks realize, and those buyers are likely to buy expensive lenses to go with the system, and keep updating the body. I suspect this top end represents a very important, as well as high profit, market segment to Canon. I think Canon is strongly going after the studio, architectural, and pro market in general. The 85 1.2 is other evidence of this. </p>

<p>I'm not going to complain about Canon's timing of which lenses come out first, I assume they know much more than I do about their business. But from a personal perspective, I agree with an earlier poster, I sure would love a great 50 1.4, but I fear Canon does not see this as an important draw to get folks to jump into the Canon line. </p>

[alan_myers]

<p>Folks, you might be interested to know that when it was introduced in 1991, the original 24mm TS-E linitial list price was just about $2000 (converting from yen, per the Canon Museum, and adjusting for inflation). I didn't look up the other two lenses, but I bet they were similar.</p>

<p>As far as I'm concerned, the new feature allowing easy realignment of tilt and shift in relation to each other , plus if Canon managed to significantly improve chromatic aberration control, the new version of the 24mm would be well worth $100 more relative to the old one. <br>

<br /> Will I buy one for $2100? No.... But, I'm not buying an 800mm yet, either. That lens started out at $12K last Fall and currently selling for around $10,600. All Canon lens "list" prices gradually drop after introduction. Sometimes faster, sometimes slower, depending upon demand for the particular lens.</p>

<p>I'm very pleased to see a wider TS-E lens, which will be very useful on both full frame and crop sensor cameras!</p>

<p>I'm hoping they do some more clever things and keep paying attention to their primes.</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>Many would regard a 400/5.6L IS as a no-brainer, and certainly it now looks very odd to have no IS on a lens that long.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Presumably because of the many "<strong>we don't need no steenkeeng IS..!</strong> " reactions that people post when folk (like me!) point out that one of the many advantages of the 100-400mm over the 400mm f/5.6 prime <em>is IS</em> !</p>

<p>;)</p>

<p>Can't have it both ways, I guess...</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>And then there are threats of a possible 700x</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>"Threats?"</p>

<p>Does that one come at you with a flick-knife, or something?</p>

[aaron d]

<p>Not so much a flick-knife as mean spirited taunting. I should just find another way home from school.</p>

<p>Nice site, KR - I'm anxious to see the gallery finished!</p>