Has Canon ditched the fast lenses

[hjoseph7]

<p>It seems like the only new lenses coming out of Canon these days is F4.5-F5.6. Is this a new trend ?</p>

[ejchem101]

<p>Could be due in part to the High ISO capabilities of today's DSLR.<br>

Could be due to more consumers having DSLR's.</p>

<p>Those are probably my best 2 theories.</p>

[dave_hoffmann]

<p>There OLD fast lenses work great, why would they need to come out with new ones?</p>

[joe_allebaugh]

<p>There have been many upgrades and additions during my recent memory: the 50 1.2, the 85 1.2 II, the 200 2.0, the 24 1.4 II, the 16-35 2.8 II, the 70-200 2.8 IS II, the 100 macro 2.8 IS, the 24 3.5 TS/E II, the EFS 17-55 2.8 IS, recent extender and tele upgrades,... What's "fast" or missing? Are the older 1.0s to 2.8s no longer adequate?</p>

[phule]

<p>The Mark II versions of the 300mm f/2.8 and 400mm f/2.8 don't count either? </p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>There OLD fast lenses work great, why would they need to come out with new ones?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed.</p>

<p>Maybe you've found <em>another</em> bug, Harry - this time in Canon's <em>brand new</em><em> lenses</em> line-up...</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>they just came out with a new 300mm f/2.8L and 400mm f/2.8L. I hope you're willing to sell you first born though.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>"Maybe you've found <em>another</em> bug, Harry - this time in Canon's <em>brand new</em><em> lenses</em> line-up..."</p>

<p>I virtually have to cherry-pick the f2.8 lenses !<br>

<a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup">http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup</a></p>

[marlon]

<p>The new EF-S lens announcements are annoying since I shoot with a 5D, but you have to cater to your consumer. Though, with a 4-5.6 lens it's much harder to focus in low-light.</p>

<p>I heard the reason they're not announcing new lenses (35mm 1.8 please?) is because they're having some problems at their lens factories and are concentrating on putting out the new announced lenses before they start making a demand for new lenses they can't provide.</p>

[jim_larson1]

<p>I would love a 35/1.8. . .if I could afford it. When was the last non "L", under $1500, prime released? Look. . . I like primes . . .I have several. . .but speaking as a hobbiest who doesn't make a nickle from this stuff . . . $1500 is a pile of money for a <em>prime</em>.</p>

<p> </p>

[peter_j2]

<p>Canon makes it's money with the 'consumer' line of slower zoom lenses. There is nothing wrong with the current faster lenses for today's bodies.</p>

[acedigital]

<p>Harry, are you under contract from Nikon :) Stop looking for problems and go SHOOT some great pictures!</p>

[PuppyDigs]

Slow EOS zooms have been popular and plentiful since the mid-80s. Nothing new here. And, like others have

mentioned, there have been many recently refreshed fast primes and zooms, and is business as usual.

[desmond_kidman]

<p>As a prime user for life (the only zooms I have had have disappointed me) I was ready to jump into a narrow range zoom, wondering if Canon made something like a 35-80 fast zoom, like 2.0. I was so surprised to see that the most expensive zooms were still only 2.8.....hardly fast enough to get really nice background blur. If it had really good optics I would pay several thousand for such a a lens. For everyone who says "zooms have caught up" I offer this up as just one example of how they have not....you can't even buy a really fast one no matter how much you are willing to pay. </p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>I heard the reason they're not announcing new lenses ... is because they're having some problems at their lens factories</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps there's some source for this statement? <br>

I did a Google for several combinations of "Canon, lens, production, factory," etc. and the only thing I found was a rumor that <strong>Nikon</strong> was having production problems. Some Brit ignorant of international exchange rates did ask if the explanation of Canon's increased prices was that the factory had "blown up."</p>

<p> </p>

[PuppyDigs]

<blockquote>

<p>Des writes, "...wondering if Canon made something like a 35-80 fast zoom, like 2.0. I was so surprised to see that the most expensive zooms were still only 2.8.....hardly fast enough to get really nice background blur.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure they could make one but a FF version would be the size of a small bazooka and cost your firstborn and left big toe. It might be more feasible in cropped format, especially the 2.0X croppers like the 4/3 system.</p>

[MathewDH]

<p>The price for the fast lenses with or without IS is simply due to the value of the dollar in currency trading. The dollar is worth 80 cents to 100 yen. If they were par again, then I would expect the prices to drop back to the $1200 range for the standard f2.8 models.</p>

<p>CHEERS...Mathew</p>

[jim_larson1]

<p>With all due respect: Baloney.</p>

<p> The only reason prices are going up is because market demand will support the higher prices. Production cost and currency rates only set a <em>floor</em> on prices; not a cap.</p>

<p>Just a shame that every jumps on the "II" band wagon. Seems like whenever a "II" version of a lens comes out, the market will support a 50% increase in price.</p>

<p>I better buy that 100-400 before they upgrade it as well. . . ..</p>

<p> </p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>A lot of the L optic buyers are well-heeled gentleman amateurs and price is not much of a concern. Having the newest "II" version means a new toy and a few hours of fondling and entertainment. The 50% premium is a good deal for the joy it brings! Compared to their other hobbies--boats, airplanes, motorcycles, vintage guitars, women, etc.--L optics are almost free.</p>

[mark_lewis2]

<p>I'm at a loss as to how I'm going to produce any images unless some new lenses are released soon! While some of my lenses have a "II" on them, I'm certain that a "III" lens will produce better shots. It's all in the gear, right?</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>Well put, Puppy Face!</p>

[colin carron]

<blockquote>

<p>A lot of the L optic buyers are well-heeled gentleman amateurs and price is not much of a concern.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just curious, but in Puppy Face world who are all these 'well heeled gentlemen'? I am an amateur and aspire to the best lenses and even occasionally slap down my hard earned cash and buy one. But price is always a concern. And the people I know who have also shelled out for 'L' glass are much the same as me - not so well-heeled that the price doesn't cause a bit of eye-watering. I am sure the 'well-heeled gentlemen' of PF world do exist but in my experience are outnumbered by those with average footwear for whom price is a major concern.</p>

<p>So about those 'well heeled gentlemen' - as Wikipedia would say -<strong><em> citation needed</em></strong>.:-)</p>

<p> </p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>Some Brit ignorant of international exchange rates did ask if the explanation of Canon's increased prices was that the factory had "blown up."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Steady, Teddy - what does being a "Brit" have to do with anything there?</p>

<p>Plenty of "yanks" on this thread are demonstrating similar "ignorance" and I've felt no need to point that out, so keep your prejudices to yourself, OK?</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<h2>Colin - I am assuming that PF meant that the L market is not held up by professionals who generally weigh up if they can recoup the high cost on increased photo sales as a result of owning/using those lenses, but by amateurs who simply 'want the best'. And given the price of many of the lenses, many such amateurs will be well-heeled. I think your comment "I am an amateur and aspire to the best lenses and even occasionally slap down my hard earned cash and buy one. But price is always a concern" illustrates just that.</h2>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>No idea what just happened to the text on my post just then!</p>