Dueling 35/2 lenses

[tom_elessar]

<p>Sarah Fox:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In fact I sometimes toy with the idea of jumping ship. I haven't changed much in my wants/needs, but Canon is busy changing its entire ecosystem and essentially abandoning me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On the other hand, <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/lensrentals-repair-data-january-july-2012#more-9311">Nikon's repair costs jumped at the time they stopped providing parts to independent dealers</a>. So the grass may not be much greener, so to speak. <br>

<br />To me, the most interesting company right now is probably Sony, mostly due to their in-body image stabilization (IBIS), especially in the A99. IBIS looks like a huge win, and I haven't seen any evidence that IBIS is worse than in-lens stabilization. At the very least, IBIS is available with all lenses. <br>

Canon and Nikon have huge install bases, however, so I don't think we'll see many changes at the margins. But if I were starting from scratch, I'd be tempted by Sony's A65.</p>

[jake_cole]

<blockquote>

<p>To me, the most interesting company right now is probably Sony,...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To me Fuji is the most interesting company right now, but Sony is the doing the most to shake up the industry.</p>

<p>Still, I like/love Canon. There camera interface has just always worked for me, and I've been very happy with any Canon lens I've actually bought. Right now I've bought a few too many and need to find field time for the recent purchases. I bought too many at once and then took a break from photography, so I lean on my old standby lenses, but starting to investigate the new lenses. </p>

<p>I remember when Canon was leading in sensor and in-camera processing technology, years ahead of their competition. I think they might be in that position again one day soon, as technology like everything else moves in cycles. Although not likely with the same large lead as they did in the past, I think there is a very high probability they will lead again in the technology. I think they still lead today in the overall system.</p>

<p>I think the prices of the recent 24mm, 28mm, and now the 35mm IS lenses have been the first that really surprised me. I'm also surprised by the price of the 5D3, but it a way I'm happy I don't feel the need to upgrade at this point. The price of the new 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, was a surprise at first, but I'm starting to think that this might be justified, but it appears to work best on a new body, and I've not bought a zoom in more than a decade. If I was to buy a Canon zoom, I would probably buy this one <em>(Technically I just bought a Fuji zoom, but they have not released it yet).</em></p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>If you look at the old Canon wide primes, the 20mm, 24mm, 28mm & 35mm. The one that seemed to get the worst reviews was the 20mm. I would have thought the 20mm would have been the first one they would have replaced with a new IS model. Plus there seems to be less competition at the 20mm focal length. Who knows, it It might be coming in the future.</p>

[dogbert]

<p>I would have been happy with a USM version of the current 35 f2 withoutn IS for about $400. At No way am I buying into an IS version for $850.</p>

<p>Canon users are really starting to pay the price for lens based IS (and Canon's insane pricing policies). In M4/3 you could get three sharp primes for this much and the in-body stabilisation in the Olympus bodies works just as well as any lens based IS system I've tried.</p>

<p>It appears to me Canon is giving up on the enthusiast market, pitching their product either at entry level or well heeled pros. Where is the fun in one of these lenses for people like me, who see them as grown-up toys, when you have to sell a kidney to afford it?</p>

[dogbert]

<blockquote>

<p>In economic terms, I think you have that precisely backwards. Companies faced with serious competition do not prosper (with only extremely rare examples to the contrary) by <em>raising</em> their prices - they must either <em>increase the perceived value of a product at its current cost</em> level or provide an <em>equivalent or better product at a lower cost</em>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1</p>

<blockquote>

<p> That's where Canon is starting to lose me. Picking a manufacturer is somewhat like getting married. You don't want to find yourself married to a company going through a serious bout of mid-life crisis.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1 again except that Canon and I are already on a trial separation, with possible divorce pending.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I'm sure that Canon view adding IS as increasing the perceived value of their product. Basically I think they are right to think this, but whether it is worth the extra cash is up to the individual.</p>

[tom_elessar]

<p>@G Dan and others: I wonder if Canon is seeing the low end of its market fall out from under it and into m43s and other mirrorless cameras, while what remains of that market is content to use the kit lens. If so, then Canon may simply be targeting the high end of its market, with some exceptions (like the 40mm f / 2.8 pancake). <br>

I'm not saying this is a good thing—quite the opposite, actually—but it may be happening. <br>

@Jake Cole: I certainly see your point. But it appears, after a cursory Google search, that the X Pro 1 and x100 don't have IBIS or an equivalent, which is really important to me. As always, YMMV. But Fuji is certainly doing interesting stuff, and Canon, at least to my eyes, isn't. <br>

But I'm reluctant to get a divorce, as Sarah Fox said, because I have close to ~$1500 in Canon gear and doubt I'd get more than half that back. Yet I'm also reluctant to put more in our joint checking account, in the form of a flash, though I'd like to. </p>

[w_t1]

<p>I don't think you can blame Canon for price increases, as someone intimated. In my experience the price of most everything has gone up. A loaf of bread used to be cheap. Haven't had a raise since 2006 in my white collar job...I hear inflation knocking.</p>

<p>I can relate to what Sarah said though, when I started photography in 1980, I picked a Canon At-1 with a 50 1.4 lens, if I recall it was over $100 less than the Nikon FM, and I was a poor college student. After many years I never dumped any FD equipment, lost some in saltwater and tripod "blow-overs", now I'm using those fd lenses on u4/3. Until a couple of years ago I never considered any system but Canon eos and fd in 35mm format, so my loyalty is over for future purchases.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>About the price increases, two thoughts. First, the newer lens does provide features not on the earlier 35mm f/2: easier accommodation of AF/manual focusing and an effective IS feature. Second, if I'm correct, Canon often tends to introduce new lens models at higher prices but then to not raise the price all that much during the life of the product.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[anders_carlsson]

<p>There's another aspect to this discusson. Some of us (probably) wouldn't be complaining as much about lens pricing if only Canon, hands down, could also provide the best image sensors. Right now, they don't. In comparison to my 18MP crop sensor camera, I'm amazed by how well the little Sony RX100 handles shadows (no ugly chroma noise or banding). I agree with all the criticism against DxO's views if things but they do show that Nikon outperforms Canon as far as dynamic range is concerned. I think overall Canon has some explaining and work to do and it's not a good sign that enthusiasts here and elsewhere are considering jumping ship.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>This is the cost of high resolution sensors ... the lenses have to be gradually updated so that pixel-peepers who look into the corners will be happy with what they see. Increased optical complexity is required, and as you necessarily increase cost, buyer base gets smaller and a further increase in price is required to make at least some profit. At the time the EF 35/2 was introduced, the fast zooms had not yet established themselves (AFAIK) as the standard photojournalist's tool (the 35 + 85/100 were that before). Thus they could design a lens for extremely high volume and due to its optical simplicity and high volume production the cost was low even when it was new. If you now inflation correct the price of the EF 35/2 from the time it was introduced, to today's dollars, you will see that the price increase is probably in line with expectations given the added features and presumably increased image quality.</p>

<p>What so many people seem to forget is that the dollar isn't what it used to be. The realignment of prices happens for the most part when a lens is revised. Nikon has the same issue - the f/1.4 primes seem astronomically expensive when you compare to the prices of the old primes (which are not at all the same thing). Get used to it - it's the price to pay for higher performance. What you need to do is work harder to produce something of higher quality yourself so that you can charge more for what you do, and that way be able to afford the new equipment, if you want it. Being not able to afford something new is normal.</p>

[andrew_fishkin]

<p>This lens is terrific. I've had it for about three months now and it is 95% as good as my Leica 35/2.5 Summarit. Nice bokeh and very sharp.</p>