What the hell is wrong with CANON?

[jose_angel]

<p>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.<br />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.</p>

[david_b15]

<p>First of all I would like to thank everyone for commenting.<br>

I will not thank those that made personal attacks at myself. (GET A LIFE) </p>

<p>Unfortunately I will not be able to respond to all of you, so I will just say a couple of things.<br>

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.</p>

<p>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. <br>

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)<br>

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. <br>

Thats just how I feel.</p>

<p>Also I would have to say that I completely agree that canon need to improve their 20/24 mm prime lenses. (NOt L)</p>

<p> </p>

[bjscharp]

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.

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>"I will not thank those that made personal attacks at myself. (GET A LIFE)"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Get a life": Now <em>that's</em> funny, David! The very definition of irony.</p>

<p>See? You <em>can</em> write something worth reading.</p>

<p>Now look up the phrase "pot calling the kettle black" and bear the definition in mind as you consider launching into your <em>next</em> pre-pubescent hissy-fit.</p>

<p> </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>You can straighten out lines and handle the barrel effect in photoshop, nowadays</em></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><em>there is a tiny market in architecture photography that is sensitive to convergence</em></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>A 6mm F5.6 Fisheye listed a 895 in 1969; thus today it might be 7 times more; ie 6265 dollars.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Having a shift lens is usefull in digital; one can shift and stitch together the pieces.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Minimum wage as 1.60 in 1968; a non national chain burger joint would hire folks all the time at 1 buck per hour.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[desmond_kidman]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>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. </p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>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.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>when a complaint of a supposed defect in a current product starts taking off like wildfire.</em></p>

<p>Are you suggesting that people should keep quiet about an expensive item that doesn't work?</p>

[alfonso_bresciani1]

<p>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! :)<br>

The words "good and cheap" optical glass don't go together very well BTW</p>

[desmond_kidman]

<blockquote>

<p><em>when a complaint of a supposed defect in a current product starts taking off like wildfire.</em><br>

Are you suggesting that people should keep quiet about an expensive item that doesn't work?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I certainly did not try to give that impression.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

[danbliss]

<p>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</p>

[jay_abramson1]

<p>If you do not want to buy Canon, don't. You get what you pay for.</p>

[sf_photo1]

<p>I would settle for an affordable fixed (<strong>no shift</strong> ) 17mm that offered better performance than my 16-35.</p>

[desmond_kidman]

<p>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. </p>

[photo_dark]

<p>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?!</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Ikkla posted:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>You can straighten out lines and handle the barrel effect in photoshop, nowadays</em><br>

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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2007/09/16/a-test-correcting-lens-distortion-in-post-processing">A Test: Correction Lens Distortion in Post Processing</a> .</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>And, no, I do not "only photograph for the web." I make careful and good size prints.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6425079-lg.jpg" alt="" width="972" height="484" /></p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>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.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[desmond_kidman]

<p>Hello Dan,</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p> </p>

[images_in_light_north_west]

<p>Dan, I have to agree with Desmond, try that on a cityscape I think you might be supprised how much you lose.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>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.</em></p>

<p>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. </p>

 

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>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.</p>

[marco_hidalgo]

<p>Manuel,<br>

Just to follow up your 20mm. f2.8 inquiry.<br>

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.</p>

[desmond_kidman]

<blockquote>

<p><em>kinda curious what is wrong with my 20 mm f/2.8 lens</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That would be a different thread (with lots of fun opinions and fireworks I bet). </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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...</p>

<p>Dan</p>