Why Canon didn't come out with a 12-24 f/4 like Nikon

[andy10]

I was just wondering why canon didn't come out with a 12-24 f/4L like

Nikon did with its release of 12-24f/4 IF ED Lense... This lens is

specially designed for DSLRs and gives a wonderfull 18mm - 36mm

equivalent.. That might help all the Digital SLR owners to go as

wide.. there is a small note though from Nikon.. "Note: We do not

recommend use of DX Nikkor lenses with 35mm (135) or IX240 format

cameras"

 

Any idea why is that so.. I was just wondering what it would be like

viewing through a 12mm lens on a film camera. Cant imagine that..

[NK Guy]

This lens is designed for subframe cameras such as most digital SLRs and all APS

SLRs, which have image areas smaller than 35mm cameras.

 

If you were to use it on a 35mm film camera I understand you'd get black areas

around the edges, as the image circle it projects isn't big enough for a full 35mm

frame.

 

Canon probably isn't releasing such a lens because they don't want to confuse their

lineup with lenses designed for smaller sensors. Especially since they currently sell a

full frame digital SLR whereas Nikon, as yet, do not.

[oliver_biggadike]

Just speculation on my part, but Canon seems to be heading in the direction of full frame digital sensors, while Nikon has stuck with the smaller ones. Maybe they thought it didn't make economic sense to develop a new lens design to solve a problem that might not exist in a few years. I certainly wouldn't pay USD500-800 for a slow lens that won't work well on future DSLRs or on current film cameras. Other people probably have different perspectives on this.

 

The reason the Nikon 12-24 is cheaper than a lens intended for 35mm is that its image circle is smaller. If you put it on a full frame camera, the lens wouldn't expose the corners, giving you more or less the same image on film after cropping away the unused negative that you'd get on a DSLR.

[photobyalan.com]

I disagree about Canon "seeming to be heading in the direction of full-frame sensors". Canon has exactly one "full-frame" CMOS chip camera in their lineup and their newest digital SLR, the EOS 10D has a smaller CMOS chip. Seems like you're making soup with an awfully weak broth.

 

Judging by the interest in the EOS 10D since its release, there are going to be a lot of them in use very soon. It's a terrific camera, but one thing that may be keeping a number of photographers from buying one right now is the unavailability of a really wide-angle lens (the 14mm is the widest currently available and that only translates to roughly 23mm in comparison with a film body). I would be very surprised if these complaints were falling on deaf ears at Canon. They have already responded by introducing the 17-40 f/4L which, when used on the EOS 10D, is, coincidentally (?), roughly the equivalent of a 28-70mm lens for film.

 

Lenses that cover less than the 35mm frame can be less expensive because it's easier and cheaper to design a lens that has less coverage. In the world of large format, the image circle is a major factor in the price of a lens and the lens that covers 8x10 will usually cost considerably more than a similar lens that only covers 4x5.

[andy10]

you are right that canon is heading towards full frame DSLRs. But they have made recent investments in existing DSLRs and a huge number of canon users have upgraded from D30-D60-10D lineup.. It makes sense for canon to listen to these users.. Usually most of the amateurs will like to get a 20mm persepctive and a zoom like 12-20mm gives all exsiting DSLRs a great option.. They could think of releasing a 12-20mm f/4L lens next.. a decent price may be little higher than price of 17-40 f/4L would be great.. And they should keep up with the tradition - compatibility with all EOS bodies including upcoming full frame DSLRs.

[dave_boyce]

We can argue about what Canon might do in the future, but I think the answer's really quite simple. One of the main selling points of the EOS range is that every lens will work with every camera body, they will work in exactly the same way, and all the lens functionality will be available. The EOS brand sells *consistency*, and if Canon suddenly decides to bring out a one-off lens to solve a particular problem on a couple of bodies, then that consistency is out the window.

[rendra_kartadinata]

D-SLR development is very rapid changing... AFAIK, Canon is consistently retains the compatibility between all of EOS SLR camera lines (35 mm, APS, Digital) which are very helpful for us. I think the technology trend for D-SLR will be FF like 1Ds which Nikon lacks so far until today. My reason is : D-SLR development is like Intel CPU development which every time has a faster and faster speed & capacity.

 

I don't think Canon will develop a special lens such 12-24mm which not compatible with previous EOS body. This is a big plus for Canon users which retain the existing system they have.

[isaac sibson]

Dave and Rendra are correct here. EVERY canon EF lens from 1987 on (when the system was introduced) works FULLY with EVERY canon EOS body.

 

Since Nikon's "compatibility" is a complete mess (eg the D100, F80 etc can not use lenses as far back as 1987), putting in a little more incompatibility is no big deal.

 

Look at what happened when APS was introduced. Nikon released a series of "IX Nikkor" lenses (shades of "DX Nikkor" anyone?), which were sub-frame. And totally incompatible with other things, including the present sub-frame DSLRs in the nikon lineup.

 

In contrast, Canon did NOT release any sub-frame lenses, instead introducing the 24-85 USM and 22-55 USM lenses.

 

It seems clear that canon's strategy is toward larger sensors. They only have one full-frame camera at the moment, but that's because of the state of the art, and reasonable cost. Given that the 1DS is significantly cheaper than 6MP sub-frame cameras of only a few years ago (DCS 1 for example), you can see that progression is very fast. Where will it be in 5 years time? FF sensors could well be the norm by then.

 

And where will that leave the 12-24 DX? I don't know about you, but I don't have £850 (or £120 MORE than a 17-40 F4L, or at today's exchange rate, US$1400) to spend on a lens that isn't compatible with my film body (I have both EOS 3 and EOS D30) and won't be compatible with whatever digital I buy to replace both of my present bodies (perhaps a second-hand 1DS in a couple of years, perhaps the ever rumoured EOS 3D).

 

Simple fact of the matter is that Canon know where they're going with digital. They know where they're going with the EF system. If they thought such a move was ultimately worthwhile, they'd do it.

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

Why does bringing out the 10D mean that they arn't going for FF sensors? At the current rate, a new model to replace the 10D is about 3 years away give or take a year either way. So until the cost of FF cameras goes down enough, or becomes common enough that a $1300 dollar camera will have it to, well if you were canon wouldn't you want to cash in in the meanwhile? Even if FF sensors are their main goal, to keep the same line of lenses and not have to invest in a whole new line it makes sense, but why not make money on cameras like the 10D and the 17-40 lens to keep everyone happy for a few years?

[alain_chan]

I think the problem for Canon is that they have different size of sensors in their line up. Ranging from 1x with 1Ds, 1.2-1.3x for 1D and 1.6x for D30, D60 and 10D. So, should they design a lens for 1.6x sensor or 1.2x??? But I were Canon, I will stick with 1.6x senor for pro-sumer grade DSLR and design a wide angle zoom for it just Nikon.

Alain

[oliver_s.]

I'm with Dave, Rendra, and Alain on this. EOS compatibility is a unique selling point.<p>Btw you can physically mount the Nikon 12-24mm on a 35mm SLR. (There were "collision" issues with IX lenses on normal SLRs.) I've seen it done; you get huge vignetting, i.e. completely dark corners, at focal ranges below 18mm; at 18-24mm, that zoom's image circle covers 24x36mm.<p>And if you feel like needing a 19-38mm lens on your 10D, get an <a href="http://www.cameraquest.com/adapreos.htm">adapter for Nikon lenses on EOS bodies</a>. Be warned that the Nikon 12-24mm f:4.0 shows heavy light falloff and considerable distortion.

[berg_na]

The person who claimed that Canon lenses are more backward compatible than Nikon is just full of it! Unlike Canon, Nikon has not changed its F-lens mount over the years. While I can attach and use an old 1977 manual macro lens on my D100 digital camera, you'd be out of luck if you want to fit any Canon FD lens on an EOS body.

[umd]

I agree compatiblity issues in Nikon line is highly misunderstood, there is not any compatiblity problem in current Nikon line with any bodies and lenses (excluding manual), incompatibility case with N80 and D100 are with very old lenses, you can not even MOUNT as old Canon lenses on contemporary Canon bodies.

 

That said, sooner or later Canon will have subframe lenses. One advantage of subframe is wide angle coverage and the other is WEIGHT and SIZE issues in telephoto. Most PJ work does not need high resolution but greatly benefit from portability and ease of use in the field. I think we are likely to see really handholdable, image stabilised and affordable telephotos for the PJ guy.

[r_n]

"I think the problem for Canon is that they have different size of sensors in their line up..."

 

Good point, but I prefer to look at this as an opportunity. My pet theory is that the next upgrade to the D10 will be pretty much the same on the camera side, but will have a larger sensor with the same pixel density, something on the order of 9 MP with only a 1.2x cropping factor, for a lower price than the current model. By supporting FF, Canon can introduce models with progressively larger sensors as they become economically viable.

 

The approach that Nikon is taking will look better if 5 years from now sensors at or near full frame are not available at an attractive price point. But my guess is that larger sensors will get cheaper fast. We shall see...

[Ken Katz]

Since Canon manufactures their own CMOS imaging chips, I would think that the have a good prospective on the economics of producing full frame chips, and have based their marketing plans accordingly. With respect to lens compatablity, I don't think that N70, 6006, 8008, F4, and N90s (all perfectly good/excellent, modern, AF cameras) users are thrilled with the prospect of using G lenses without aperture rings, or are happy that they are shut out of VR technology.

[bobatkins]

My guess is that Canon are giving the little guys a chance. They're presenting a golden opportunity to Sigma to make a small, light, cheap 12-24 zoom that covers the D30/D60/10D frame. They could slap a Nikon or Canon mount on it, even a Pentax if their DSLR ever sees the light of day and even an Olympus if their 4/3 sensor body comes out before it's obsolete. If I were lobbying for such a lens, I'd think I had more chance of Sigma making one than Canon. Canon's philosophy is clear I think. ALL EF lenses will work with ALL EOS bodies. Sonner or later all digital cameras will have full frame sensors. Those wanting small sensors and a whole new bag of smaller, lighter lenses will be shopping elsewhere. My take on the "smaller light DSLR" business is that if full frame sensors were available at a reasonable price (which they will be) nobody woul give the idea a second thought. Anyone with a brain would have learned from the APS fiasco. Smaller, lighter cameras, smaller lighter lenses. Yeh, that one really took off didn't it!

[adam_kuan1]

The only reason for FF sensor existance is for the 35mm lens and view angle compatibility. Having FF sensor does not always mean better,

it is just more expensive to manufacture. CMOS or CCD sensor

is like an IC chip, you want smaller and denser for better price

perfomance ratio. The comparison of APF with DSLR with sub FF sensor

is like comparing apples and oranges. The advantage of FF DSLRs are 35mm view perspective and lower noise. The later however can be improved in sub FF sensor with better technology and manufacturing process.

[markci]

>> Having FF sensor does not always mean better, it is just more expensive to manufacture.

 

Actually it always means better, given equal technology.

[jim_larson1]

The key to good pictures is not the sensor behind the lens: It is the eye behind the viewfinder :)

 

A full size sensor in prosumer DSLR is one option. But consider this scenario: If Canon develops a better CMOS sensor, one could expect the top line body to have a larger sensor (and be full frame) while the prosumer DSLR would logically have a smaller sensor (and have a crop factor. . .) Is that not essentially what we have now?

[bobatkins]

No. If a FF sensor becomes cheap enough (and it eventually will), all Canon DSLRs will have FF sensors. There's nothing to be gained by a smaller sensor except reduced cost. When the sensor cost becomes a small fraction of the total camera cost instead of the major cost, it won't be much of an issue.

[majid]

Regarding affordable full-frame sensors, they may come sooner than we expect. Imaging sensors are not like microprocessors where a single defective transistor renders the whole chip useless. If the sensor is designed well, the defect will only disable a single pixel, but the chip will still be usable with firmware interpolating around the missing pixel.

 

I suspect this will raise yields and that the sensors in future DSLRs will all come from the same production line, with the rare flawless sensors being reserved for expensive pro cameras, and the more common sensors with a couple of dead pixels or so used for cheaper midrange models. Intel does the same thing with its microprocessors - a part that does not test at 3 GHz is retested at 2.4 GHz and if it passes sold as such.

 

People who want a 12-24 for Canon EOS should try the Sigma 15-30. It is not as sharp as the Canon 16-35 L, but much cheaper, and good enough on a 1.6x crop sensor like the D30, D60 and 10D.

[adam_kuan1]

Why go FF? There is no reason to go FF except for current 35mm compatibility. It is more cost efective to produce a 1/2 size 11MB sensor than a FF 11MB sensor. Who said FF is the optimum size for sensor. If you believe it then why not use medium format size then for

sensor. Assuming equal performance, would you choose 1/2 size 11MB sensor or FF 11MB sensor? If price was no object most of us will choose the later because we can use current lenses and will give same

35mm angle of view. The fact is, a smaller sensor will give more yield and be less expensive to manufacture and require less bulky lenses

(and camera bodies). We probably see in the not-too-distant future

non-SLR digital cameras sensors that can outperform even current FF sensors.

[paul beiser]

The likelyhood of a FF sensor eventually becoming cheap enough is of course pretty high. The debate of course centers on when that will be :-) and what is "cheap enough", and based on what I have read, it will be a long time!

 

I am not a silicon expert, and I am sure there are lots of people on this forum who know a lot about the economies, related to yields and size of the individual chips. Let's hear from you all!

[bobatkins]

I'll say two years to the first DSLR with a 10MP+ FF sensor under $2000.

 

Those who want smaller, lighter camears and lenses based on reduced image size should have heavily invested in APS when they had the chance...

[jim_larson1]

Bob; I take your point regarding the APS system and why it failed. In that case, if I recall, the reduced negative size resulted in inferior pictures. Further, wasn't the equipment comparably priced to regular film SLR's? That's not a formula for success.

 

I also agree that we may well see a 10MP FF DSLR for under $2000 in two years. At the same time, we may also see a 6MP camera with cropping for under $700. While the FF camera would be "better", the rub may well be that both cameras may have superior quality to anything we have available today. These factors could result in successful cameras at both ends of the lineup.

 

The point where I do not share your view is that I tend to think the sensor size may be a major cost factor for a few more years down the road. Time will tell. ;)