Lenses over camera bodies: any takers?

[canoflan]

Please forgive me for the following rant.

I wish the focus of Canon was more on lenses, than on camera bodies. The worth of another 4 megapixels (and you know people are going to fall for this) over the 5D's approx. 13 or the 30D's 8.2 is just negligible. Yes, we all want the quality of ISO 100 at 3200, but this will never be because of the way cameras simply work. We all know this. This will improve, but negligibly again. I think we would agree that 5 fps and AF are reachable in price now days and that we should all be able to focus more on image quality through the lens, because the quality in the camera body simple is not increasing materially (law of diminishing returns).

My point is, basically cameras are much more static than lenses because you can use the same camera body anywhere, but lenses work in far more limited circumstances; therefore, the market demands more variety (preferable of the "L" kind) in more usable ranges with better "true to view" representation in the photographs (i.e. less vignetting, CA, etc...). One rumor that has been started is about a 17-80mm 2.8L and I would perhaps include both the IS version and the non-IS version. Why non-IS? Well, you know that it isn't as sharp because most shooters that are not taking still photos, are shooting moving subjects and the lens gyros inside move slower than a lens without them. Regardless, someone stated that this lens would be hard to carry (weight and all), quality would diminish at the widest and longest ranges, and very expensive. This makes my point exactly. Canon should work on this type of lens to reach our needs. We can achieve this via not buying the lenses that really don't get us there (i.e. f/4, slide apertures like 3.5-5.6, etc...). They charge what they do because we will buy them that way and we cannot make lenses ourselves right. We all have a certain budget, but there are plenty of threads about how the person taking the picture really is the determiner as to whether the picture is worth anything right (eye of the beholder and all that stuff...). I think a respite is worthwhile for Canon on cameras; but this will not going to happen for they have sold us all a bill of goods that YOU NEED that extra megapixel and the stick shift version of the 600D ultra mochlatte Rebel MCMLXI camera.

All in all, any buyers on this logic?

Please forgive the rant.

[sergi2]

I agree

[jedwards]

I don't think the same engineers are working on both lens technology and camera body systems. Canon can work on both at the same time.

Improvements in Camera bodies is more important, and there is much more to improve . I wouldn't mind seeing lens correction software built-in on camera bodies - fixing CA in software (like DXO) automatically based on the characteristics of the lens in use. Also, increasing sensitivity, dynamic range and bit-depth of the sensors could lead to much better photos than a more flexible zoom range IMO.

A 17-80 lens would have to include some compromises, and no one lens will ever suit all shooters.

[Seefutlung]

For the non-professional market ... Cameras sell lenses (period). So in order to capture a goodly share of the lens market, one has to sell a goodly amount of cameras first.

Cameras, like most non-essential expensive items sell on hype ... presently, MPs are a big part of the hype factor that most people grasp, albeit incorrectly, as more MPs = better IQ (when actually ... more MPs = bigger picture).

So for marketing purposes Canon needs to sell cameras in order to sell lenses. In order to sell cameras, Canon needs for people to buy into marketing hype ... of which MPs is a big component.

[amonline]

I agree with many of these posts... Yes, I wish more lenses were developed... unfortunately, cameras sell lenses... unfortunately, manufacturers compete for market of cameras... unfortunately, cameras come first... :(

[goforphoto]

Take nikon for instance, look at the D50 the body is kind of low end but the kit glass they put on it make it worth buying (for nikon users) Nikon puts more effort into their glass because thats what their customers want. I would love to see canon follow suit.

[cdifoto]

Please forgive me for the following rant.

I wish the focus of Canon was more on lenses, than on camera bodies. The worth of another 4 megapixels (and you know people are going to fall for this) over the 5D's approx. 13 or the 30D's 8.2 is just negligible. Yes, we all want the quality of ISO 100 at 3200, but this will never be because of the way cameras simply work. We all know this. This will improve, but negligibly again. I think we would agree that 5 fps and AF are reachable in price now days and that we should all be able to focus more on image quality through the lens, because the quality in the camera body simple is not increasing materially (law of diminishing returns).

My point is, basically cameras are much more static than lenses because you can use the same camera body anywhere, but lenses work in far more limited circumstances; therefore, the market demands more variety (preferable of the "L" kind) in more usable ranges with better "true to view" representation in the photographs (i.e. less vignetting, CA, etc...). One rumor that has been started is about a 17-80mm 2.8L and I would perhaps include both the IS version and the non-IS version. Why non-IS? Well, you know that it isn't as sharp because most shooters that are not taking still photos, are shooting moving subjects and the lens gyros inside move slower than a lens without them. Regardless, someone stated that this lens would be hard to carry (weight and all), quality would diminish at the widest and longest ranges, and very expensive. This makes my point exactly. Canon should work on this type of lens to reach our needs. We can achieve this via not buying the lenses that really don't get us there (i.e. f/4, slide apertures like 3.5-5.6, etc...). They charge what they do because we will buy them that way and we cannot make lenses ourselves right. We all have a certain budget, but there are plenty of threads about how the person taking the picture really is the determiner as to whether the picture is worth anything right (eye of the beholder and all that stuff...). I think a respite is worthwhile for Canon on cameras; but this will not going to happen for they have sold us all a bill of goods that YOU NEED that extra megapixel and the stick shift version of the 600D ultra mochlatte Rebel MCMLXI camera.

All in all, any buyers on this logic?

Please forgive the rant.

Your logic is flawed. Lenses are pretty much tried and true, with few exceptions. Addition of lens coatings for digital senors adding IS to a non-IS lens, etc are pretty much the only updates you'll have. Not everyone will be happy with all lenses no matter what ranges are offered. That's why there are already so many lenses out there. Typically IQ diminishes in lenses with 4x and up zoom ratios. Sigma 18-200 come to mind? Paying for an excellent non-L prime but getting kit lens apertures and image quality...or how about the 28-300L? Huge range but slow and not much to brag about...and expensive & heavy as all get out; f/2.8 with similar zoom ratio would be even bigger. The 24-70L is already heavy enough to walk around with and it doesn't have IS. You get used to it but compromise that build quality to make it lighter and add IS and I wouldn't touch it.

Camera bodies come and go...and image quality beyond the lens is improved as developments are achieved. If Canon had used your business model we'd still be buying and using the DCS-3. They were great in their day but look where we are now...only 11 years later. 11 years is nothing when you look at the history of photography as a whole.

Give me a 10 year old short range L zoom and a current Digital Body any day over an old cumbersome slow noisy sensored dSLR and the biggest spankiest newest to market white glass anyday.

[cdifoto]

Take nikon for instance, look at the D50 the body is kind of low end but the kit glass they put on it make it worth buying (for nikon users) Nikon puts more effort into their glass because thats what their customers want. I would love to see canon follow suit.

You say that as if Canon glass sucks... :rolleyes:

[drookie]

Doesn't Canon already have the best lens lineup on the market? From what is available, I don't think they are lacking on the development front. Price is another conversation altogether.

I am much more comfortable buying a $2,000 lens than a $2,000 body. With the lens I am buying 90% hardware (glass, gyros, etc.) and 10% technology (information processors). With the body, the ratio is reversed. Body technology is still in its adolescence and will tcontinue to evolve very quickly and thus be outdated quickly. The manufacturing processes for glass, gyros, etc. are already mature. I don't expect leaps of technology in lenses. Thus I expect to have my Lenses through my next 3-4 bodies or possably for the rest of my life.

[drookie]

Doesn't Canon already have the best lens lineup on the market? From what is available, I don't think they are lacking on the development front. Price is another conversation altogether.

I am much more comfortable buying a $2,000 lens than a $2,000 body. With the lens I am buying 90% hardware (glass, gyros, etc.) and 10% technology (information processors). With the body, the ratio is reversed. Body technology is still in its adolescence and will tcontinue to evolve very quickly and thus be outdated quickly. The manufacturing processes for glass, gyros, etc. are already mature. I don't expect leaps of technology in lenses. Thus I expect to have my Lenses through my next 3-4 bodies or possably for the rest of my life.

And one more thing. Don't buy ef-s crop factor lenses. I expect full frame to win out over the long haul. You can use normal lenses on a crop factor body but you can't use crop factor lenses on a FF body.

[CoolToolGuy]

Your logic is flawed. Lenses are pretty much tried and true, with few exceptions. Addition of lens coatings for digital senors adding IS to a non-IS lens, etc are pretty much the only updates you'll have.

I understand your argument, but I think your logic is flawed - The EF 500 f4.5L became the EF 500 f4L, which became the EF 500 f4L IS, and the EF 28-70 f2.8L became the EF 24-70 f2.8L. There are numerous other Canon lenses, both prime and zoom, that went similar routes to today's offering, some beginning with an FL mount in the early '70s.

Have Fun,

[cdifoto]

I understand your argument, but I think your logic is flawed - The EF 500 f4.5L became the EF 500 f4L, which became the EF 500 f4L IS, and the EF 28-70 f2.8L became the EF 24-70 f2.8L. There are numerous other Canon lenses, both prime and zoom, that went similar routes to today's offering, some beginning with an FL mount in the early '70s.

Have Fun,

Natural progression but no drastic optics changes. Sensors, software, processor chips, etc go through major "overhauls" improving image quality even moreso than glass itself.

[ScottE]

And one more thing. Don't buy ef-s crop factor lenses. I expect full frame to win out over the long haul. You can use normal lenses on a crop factor body but you can't use crop factor lenses on a FF body.

You are joking, right?

The format that makes up the vast majority of DSLR sales is going to disappear and the format that only a few professionals and photo-enthusiasts buy is going to take over. Not likely if Canon wants to remain a mainstream camera company.

As for the topic of Canon developing more cameras that lenses, that is in response to competition. Other companies are developing cameras with new and improved features and Canon has to match and exceed their efforts or lose market share.

The full frame lenses have been around for a long time and there has already been many years of development put into them. They have been developed to best meet the needs of photographers who use full frame 35 mm film and digital sensors and it is very difficult and expensive to improve on something that has been developed to that extent. EF-S lenses are another matter. Other companies are bringing out very attractive lenses that only work on APS-C sensors. For example Sigma now has a 50-150 f/2.8 DC HSM lens that mates well with Canon's EF-S 17-55 f/2.8. Canon is going to have to respond to challenges like that or they will lose market share in lenses.

As for a 17-80 f/2.8 EF lens, that would either be too big and expensive to sell, or it would require a technological breakthrough. Canon has been able to develop a 17-85 lens, but it only covers an EF-S sensor, is only f/4-5.6 and optical quality is not up to L lens standards. The closest they come to 17-80/2.8 is the 17-55 f/2.8, which matches L lens optical quality, but only covers an EF-S sensor. That seems to be the current limit of Canon's lens technology. That does not mean the limit will hold forever. Who knows what the future will hold with either diffractive lens or liquid lens technology?

[CyberDyneSystems]

This said,
Canon still has the most AF lens offerings for there bodies available.. they are second to none in that dept.
So it's not as if they are sitting on there laurels.

[canoflan]

Well...some great thoughts out there on this topic. I have read them all and learned some great things.

For myself, my progression was to start with the 30D, get a couple primes (85mm 1.8 was very sharp by the way at 2.0) and get a 17-55 EF-S. I then got a 10-22 EF-S and a 70-200mm L 2.8 IS. Then Canon comes out with the 5D $600 rebate (when buying mulitple items) and I of course want all my lenses to fit that body, so I dump all the EF-S and get a 17-40, 24-105 and 24-70, all L glass and use a mix and match of that with 30D and 5D, depending on my situation and I have myself covered.

You may ask why the 24-70 and the 24-105, because the 24-105 (although f/4) gives the 5D more range on the long end then the 24-70 and has IS. The 24-70 works great on either. My shooting situations can require both at once, believe it or not.

I'm done unless the fluid lens technology develops to a marketable point (I make this point to ensure you know I am on topic).

Thoughts on the fluid lens technology being discussed?:D

[drookie]

ScottE: I said stand by my prediction that FF will win out long term as FF comes down in price. I think there are more like canoflan who will become converts and have some ef-s glass for sale.

Welcome canoflan and nice glass! Wish I could afford to have the 24-105 next to my 24-70. I used a 24-105 for a day and got some great shots.

[joegolf68]

You are joking, right?

The format that makes up the vast majority of DSLR sales is going to disappear and the format that only a few professionals and photo-enthusiasts buy is going to take over. Not likely if Canon wants to remain a mainstream camera company.

As for the topic of Canon developing more cameras that lenses, that is in response to competition. Other companies are developing cameras with new and improved features and Canon has to match and exceed their efforts or lose market share.

The full frame lenses have been around for a long time and there has already been many years of development put into them. They have been developed to best meet the needs of photographers who use full frame 35 mm film and digital sensors and it is very difficult and expensive to improve on something that has been developed to that extent. EF-S lenses are another matter. Other companies are bringing out very attractive lenses that only work on APS-C sensors. For example Sigma now has a 50-150 f/2.8 DC HSM lens that mates well with Canon's EF-S 17-55 f/2.8. Canon is going to have to respond to challenges like that or they will lose market share in lenses.

As for a 17-80 f/2.8 EF lens, that would either be too big and expensive to sell, or it would require a technological breakthrough. Canon has been able to develop a 17-85 lens, but it only covers an EF-S sensor, is only f/4-5.6 and optical quality is not up to L lens standards. The closest they come to 17-80/2.8 is the 17-55 f/2.8, which matches L lens optical quality, but only covers an EF-S sensor. That seems to be the current limit of Canon's lens technology. That does not mean the limit will hold forever. Who knows what the future will hold with either diffractive lens or liquid lens technology?

Intelligent, well thought out, professionally written. Thank you for your insights.