Interesting take on lens shortages

[tim_price2]

<p>Interesting read from lensrentals.com, which buys a lot of glass:<br>

<a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2009.04.24/state-of-the-slr-industry-2009">http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2009.04.24/state-of-the-slr-industry-2009</a></p>

[JDMvW]

<p>An intelligent and sensible discussion, I think. Worth a look.</p>

<p>The overall economic trends are, right now, <strong>de</strong> flationary, so what is going to be the resultant vector in terms of price is a crap shoot</p>

<p>As my Magic Eight Ball says, "Outcome uncertain, ask again later".</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>I don't believe any of it. I think they're clearing out their stock and they're going to release video-compatible lenses. Goodbye, EF.</p>

[marc_felber1]

<p>I guess if the EF goes by by, so does the high prices for the 500mm lens since it will not work with the new mount, which they will need to replace it. But that if they come out with a converter than the EF mounts would actully increase in the used lens market.</p>

[tim_price2]

<p>I am hoping that is tongue-in-cheek sarcasm..........</p>

[peter_dalton]

<p>" I’m expecting pretty small rebates on fewer items" .. this didn't quite come true. I was surprised at the broad range of popular lenses getting rebated.</p>

[smarksphotography]

<p>I thought the read was interesting, but I am pretty far out of the loop. What is a video compatible lens anyway?</p>

[peter_dalton]

<p>I also note many retailers are having the usual problem with rebate math .. e.g. big L lens was $1400 last week, now only $1350 after $100 instant rebate.</p>

[peter_wang6]

<blockquote>

<p>they're going to release video-compatible lenses. Goodbye, EF</p>

</blockquote>

<p>1. Define "video-compatible." Specifically, in what ways are existing EF-mount lenses not "video-compatible," and what desired optical and functional characteristics are found in "video-compatible" lenses that do not exist in the EF-mount lenses?</p>

<p>2. In the context of item #1 above, you presume that one or more such characteristics of this hypothesized new generation of lenses will necessitate a new mount technology. If this is the case, what evidence do you have to substantiate this claim?</p>

<p>3. In the context of item #2 above, you also presume that any new mount technology that might be developed to meet the hypothetical design requirements described in item #1 above would be of such a nature that backwards compatibility would not be possible with the existing EF mount. Again, what evidence do you have to substantiate this claim?</p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>. Define "video-compatible." Specifically, in what ways are existing EF-mount lenses not "video-compatible," ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Still camera lenses don't have to be silent when focusing.</p>

[mathew_gardella]

<p>maybe the new lenses will have a blue ring!</p>

[c jensen]

<p>Peter Wang -- I am guessing you are either a lawyer or an engineer. Am I right?</p>

[david_wu6]

<p>PW seems more a physist than an engineer.</p>

[zml]

<blockquote>

<p>I also note many retailers are having the usual problem with rebate math .. e.g. big L lens was $1400 last week, now only $1350 after $100 instant rebate.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nothing unusual: good old greed. B&H has just adjusted their after-rebate prices upwards(I'm sure they'll blame it on Canon but, ehem, this is getting old...) Say, Canon EF 200/2: $5300-$500=$5099 :-))) Surprisingly their math skills were quite good yesterday (i.e. the same lens was $4800 after rebate.)</p>

[peter_wang6]

<blockquote>

<p>Still camera lenses don't have to be silent when focusing.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<ol>

<li>Many EF mount lenses have FTM focus.</li>

<li>A built-in microphone isn't exactly my idea of audio quality.</li>

<li>Why would you want to turn a dSLR into a glorified wide-aperture version of a home video camera anyway? If you're going to make it "pro" equipment, you have other things to worry about than relatively quiet focusing noise--it wouldn't be a factor in production.</li>

<li>Your point, though marginally valid, still does not address the other issues I brought up.</li>

<li>I am neither a lawyer nor engineer. I'm just a logical thinker, or a pedantic pain in the *ss, take your pick :)</li>

</ol>

[bill owens]

<p>Tim, thanks for bringing that article to photo.net's attention. Roger Cicala has written one of the best industry assessments I've ever read, and done so in a surprisingly logical and clear style.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>Interesting and thoughtful article from someone who clearly knows the market. I suspect what he has not taken account of over rebates is that offering rebates on items you can't supply is quite a cheap way of advertising!</p>

<p>I don't for one moment believe that the EF interface is at risk. What may happen is a forwards and backwards compatible development (old lenses work on new bodies, new lenses work on old bodies, but additional capabilities are available only with new kit). We've seen that in a small way with the introduction of IS and of distance reporting, and, for those with VERY long memories, with the change from FL to FD. If the lesson of the four-thirds world is any guide, the issue may be that lenses designed for phase-detect AF are not all that effective with contrast-detect AF. With current EF lenses, especially long slow lenses, Canon's contrast-detect AF in Live View is slow and unreliable, with a great deal of hunting, although it is accurate if and when it locks on. If at some point Canon are going to introduce a non-SLR body taking EF lenses and using only Live View, with an electronic viewfinder (it's going to happen; whether, and if so when, it will supersede the mirror/pentaprism paradigm is another matter), then they may need a new generation of lenses to take full advantage of (= work round the problems of) contrast-detect AF. But I would expect current EF lenses to be as useable on such a body as they are with existing contrast-detect AF on current bodies, and "new EF" lenses to work fine on current bodies.</p>

[anders_carlsson]

<p>Whatever the reason is for this current lens shortage, it sure makes me wonder. B&H has pumped up the price of the US-warrantied Canon EF 35/2 from $240 to $299 while marking it as out of stock. That's close to 25 percent according to my math. Now: Did Canon or B&H cause that? Either way, it's fishy practice.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Suppose my speculation is true. Suppose Canon is scrambling right now to make video-compatible lenses. I would think it's just a matter of firmware to get a lens to rack between two focusing distances, change aperture on the fly, and such. If so then I would think that the new lenses will be backward compatibe, and one would hope that old lenses will be forward compatibe to some extent. Will Canon offer to update firmware on older lenses like Sigma has in the past?</p>

<p>I'm just speculating, though. I also speculate that we're soon going to see a firmware update for the 5D2 that addresses video capability, and I would not be surprised if Canon launches video-compatible lenses at the same time.</p>

[cabbiinc]

<p>I think that one big thing not hit on by the article linked is the lack of credit to people in general. I'd speculate (assume) that most high $$ lenses are bought on credit. With no credit no ones buying. With no one buying the manufacturer quits producing. A few months later you find that you can't find some lenses. Manufacturers are leary of producing a lot given the current economic situation globally and are watching their interests closely. No body producing lenses means no ones buying means no credit is asked for means no credit gets flowing means none is available.... vicious circle kind of thing.</p>

<p>Just my opinion. I'm by no means an economist.<br>

I sure hope Canon doesn't change the mount like with the FL/FD to EF. I still hear about it from my Nikon friends and that was long before I ever got into photography.</p>

<p>I was thinking about the video compatible lens and the aperture on the fly thing. The aperture already moves pretty quickly but if you set your camera to Av, press the DOF preview, and change the aperture you'll see it moves pretty instantaneously. Too instantaneously. Quite jerky in fact. If you were trying to use an aperture fade in video it'd be quite noticable. But why couldn't the next EF lenses come out with a smoother aperture? It should be possible to do that without having to change the mount IMO.</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>I bought one " L" lens thirteen years ago. Still works as new. Bought another four years ago and another about three years ago. I expect them all to last at least twenty years. I have had numerous others, too many to count. The same with EOS bodies. The profit is obviously in bodies that change almost with the seasons. Like the airplanes I used to fly these are just tools to get the job done. If I get good pictures I am happy. I am not particularly concerned with the subtleties as long as the job gets done. I am very pleased also with a little ole 18-55 IS lens that I just bought for cheap that combines with an xti that weighs about a pound and a half althogher. I am soooo tired of lugging five pounds of lens and bodies around or rather my old neck is so tired. Anyway, I think this has an effect only on those who want or need a lens right away. Based upon my experience it is cost effective to buy lenses that really last. It was a good knowledgable analysis from someone who is pursued by purveyors rather avidly I would suspect.</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>Tell us something we don't know. Its mass market dynamics and smart inventory control. Why would a manufacturer make to inventory, when he can make to a firm order. Sounds smart to me.<br>

Anyway, I have never bought new. Just look at the crippling depreciation on digital cameras. My last purchase was a mint D300 for A$1500. Am I going to update to a new D700 at A$4500. No. I'll wait till the ass drops out the price in a year or so.<br>

And just to make our digital eyeballs bleed, a used FM2n just sold for US$1050 on eBay. Another is listed for sale at A$950 at European Camera Specialists here in Sydney. The last one they sold for A$450 and it was gone the day it was listed.<br>

Are we seeing a renewed interest in film maybe? Or are we seeing smart people buying quality cameras that appreciate?</p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>Are we seeing a renewed interest in film maybe?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, I think so, at least amongst the enthusiast set. Mostly I think it's simply that everything old is new again. 135 format film certainly has nothing much technically going for it relative to current digital cameras.</p>

<p>Whomever closed on the FM2n probably just got caught up in the bidding frenzy. $300USD is about right for this camera in the States.</p>

<p>Arguably, the real jewels of the old camera equipment set are the lenses. M42, Minolta MC/MD, and perhaps Canon FD glass are especially good values because their ubiquity and orphan status. Mating these to a current digital camera (especially as mirrorless mounts like micro-4/3 hopefully gains popularity) instantly brings them into modernity.</p>