seriously possible new/updated lenses

[badgerW]

Please, in this thread, try to take things seriously. Everything should be well within the range of physical possibility. No "f/1.8 10-300!" stuff. In general, zooms < f/2.0 -- don't even say it. Canon hasn't even come out with a zoom < f/2.8 yet, and if they were to come out with an f/2.0, its focal length range would definitely be very limited and probably centered around normal; 28-70 or even 35-70. If you think it might be possible, go ahead and say it; but if you are just joking, there are plenty of other threads filled with that stuff. So with that out of the way, here are lenses that I really want, and can't think of why Canon hasn't developed them yet:

1) A crop-factor "quite-wide-to-short-tele" zoom. 17-55 doesn't cut it for an all-around lens. I am looking for something equivalent to the 24-105 or at least the 24-70. Which is to say, 24mm (15mm EF-S) on the wide end is a sweet spot that Canon needs to hit. f/2.8 or f/4.0 fixed maximum aperture. AFAIK, there are no wide-to-tele zooms for Canon that go wider than 17mm. This has got to change. Even 1mm down there in the wide range can make a big difference. So, a 15-50, 15-55, 15-60, something like that is what I am looking for here, with IS and reasonable build quality. If the 17-55 were a 15-55, I probably would have already bought it. A 15-65 f/4 IS would be exactly analogous to the 24-105. Price it around $600 and Canon would sell a ton of them.

2) Update ALL Image Stabilized lenses to the most recent, 4-stop IS technology. I can't imagine why Canon has not been doing this all along. Keep the optics the same, but update the IS module. I realize they probably don't all use the exact same module due to differing sizes and whatnot, but surely the knowledge translates.

3) A range of crop-factor primes. 30mm f/2.0 "el cheapo" around $100 and 30mm f/1.4 for $350. 14mm, 12mm, something ultra-wide f/2.8 for under $400.

4) Update ALL EF primes (other than Nifty Fifty) to include ring USM. 50mm f/1.4 USM II is BEGGING to be made (would already have bought it if Canon made it -- am seriously considering the Sigma, and will definitely get the Sigma if I get a full-sensor body before Canon comes out with an updated 50/1.4). The 135mm f/2.8 is crying out for USM as well. Also, Canon should ditch Micro USM entirely.

5) All L zooms should have IS as an option. 24-70, 16-35, 17-40, and others -- ALL of them should be made as IS and non-IS versions. Zooms already have a lot of elements; IS elements won't add much complexity or degrade IQ noticably. I am more ambivalent about IS on primes. On telephoto primes it makes a lot of sense, and I would like to see IS "scattered" throughout the prime range (not just on L primes), but many primes have such a simple design (few elements) that the IS group could deteriorate IQ noticably. That said, it might be a worthy trade-off in certain primes, and I think a lot of people are waiting for a Macro lens with IS.

6) More non-L telephoto prime lenses. For example, I think it'd be neat if they brought back the old reflex 500mm f/8 manual focus. If it were $200 or so, I think they would sell a ton of them to budding birders and others who would like a cheap, compact super-telephoto lens for daylight use. Also, why not, say, a 300mm f/5.6 USM (non-L) for $400 with ring USM and high-quality optics (significantly better than the 70-300 zoom). All I'm saying is that I think it's kind of weird that Canon has such a solid lineup of affordable, high-quality consumer-level primes, but they pretty much stop at 135mm focal length.

So, there you have it. A pretty big list of lenses that Canon COULD make, today, without even pushing their engineering teams very hard at all.

[kevin_c]

I think you gave this thread the 'kiss of death' when you opened with "Please, in this thread, try to take things seriously" :-)

[TheHoff]

So, there you have it. A pretty big list of lenses that Canon COULD make, today, without even pushing their engineering teams very hard at all.

I'm not sure you understand what is involved in large-scale mass production of precision consumer electronics. I sure don't but I'd imagine changing the focus motor, IS module, or other small aspect of a lens completely changes the production line and therefore it must undergo re-tooling and then extensive testing of the lens to make sure nothing was made worse while something was improved. And then they have to weigh the cost of doing all that vs. the additional dollars generated from making a slightly new model.

I'd wager that there isn't enough money in doing the small updates you've listed vs. coming out with completely new designs.

[badgerW]

I think you gave this thread the 'kiss of death' when you opened with "Please, in this thread, try to take things seriously" :-)

LOL, yeah, I was wondering what happened :)

I'm not sure you understand what is involved in large-scale mass production of precision consumer electronics. I sure don't but I'd imagine changing the focus motor, IS module, or other small aspect of a lens completely changes the production line and therefore it must undergo re-tooling and then extensive testing of the lens to make sure nothing was made worse while something was improved. And then they have to weigh the cost of doing all that vs. the additional dollars generated from making a slightly new model.

I'd wager that there isn't enough money in doing the small updates you've listed vs. coming out with completely new designs.

You're right that I really have no idea what goes into making a lens on a factory line, but I do know that Canon has 28 cameras in their US PowerShot lineup, and probably half of those are new within the last year. So that makes approximately 15 consumer point-and-shoots updated year in and year out, changing body designs, circuit boards, imaging sensors, LCD displays, optics, image stabilization units, etc. Much of this updating is "no-brainer" stuff like putting in the latest DIGIC processor, the newest image sensor with the target number of megapixels, the latest-gen IS, the biggest LCD screen.

Now, looking at the EF and EF-S lens lineup from a couple of years ago, there were 28 zooms and 33 primes, for a total of 61 lenses, not counting teleconverters and the like. I think it would be reasonable to update 1/10th of those lenses every year -- 6 lenses per year, on a "no-brainer" basis like updating IS in lenses that already have it, adding ring USM to lenses that don't already have it, and mostly leaving the optics (the real "hard part") alone. These are all "solved problems" that have been put into production in other lens models, it's just a matter of propagating them. Yes, there is a retooling cost, but how much does it cost for them to keep making the moldy oldy two-stop Image Stabilization that goes into the 28-135 IS USM, when other lenses are using 3rd or 4th gen IS? How much does it cost for them to keep making separate micromotor and "USM" micromotor drivetrains, when consolidation could save money in the long run? I realize that P&S consumer level cameras are much higher sellers than DSLR lenses, but DSLR lenses generally sell for more and are probably more profitable (since it is a less competitive market overall, and Canon body owners are mostly locked in to using Canon lenses, while P&S buyers can choose among many brands).

The quality and breadth of the lens lineup is what has made Canon the 800-pound gorilla of the DSLR market. They are starting to lose out on that, even within Canon-mount lenses. With Zeiss now making EF mount, and Sigma moving upmarket with things like the 50mm f/1.4 (a Sigma that's actually more expensive than the equivalent Canon!), Canon needs to have a gameplan for keeping their lenses current.

I kind of look at it like Ford or GM with cars. They make incremental updates every year, and every 6-10 years they come out with a completely revamped model. I am not saying that Canon needs to have this amount of turnover in their lenses, but I think the approach is sound overall. Incrementalism. It's what they do with P&S cameras and DSLR bodies; it's what they should be doing with DSLR lenses, or else they are going to lose their competitive advantage in that area.

[Jim G]

I'd definitely like to see an updated 50mm 1.4 and some cheap, wider primes... An 18/20/21mm f/2 prime would be awesome. I don't see them adding IS options to the whole lineup anytime soon, though.

[Ade H]

Write to Masayo Maeda, c/o Canon Japan, and maybe you will see something from your wishlist.

In an interview with DP Review, he commented that one of his priorities is to look at the current range, ensure that it matches up to the high pixel counts for which Canon has been reaching lately, and continue to add new technology to lenses.

It was in response to a question about the use of such high pixel counts, but it stands to reason that the mechanics would be reassessed if the optics were to be modified. So you never know - we may just possibly see a few updates of older lenses trickle in next year.

I would certainly like some of the wide angle non-L primes to be updated.

[surfjungle]

I agree with Mr. Hoff. Mass production of anything with precision is a great feat. Just a few points:

1. I absolutely agree with points 3 and 6. We do need more non-L primes and there are many current primes that are sorely in need of updates. This may not be a priority for Canon at the moment as they seem to be focusing on getting their L's updated.

2. Few people seem to realise this but the 70-200 F4 L IS is not the 70-200 F4 "just with IS". The optical configuration (# of elements in groups was changed) resulting in even better IQ. This may have had to have been redesigned from the ground up. So where does this fit in? Consolidation of technological upgrades. Some of those bigger telephotos are only 2 stop IS, but Canon may also want to update the optics / lens coatings and even element materials. It would make more sense from a cost-benefit point of view to do all at once. They could be waiting for a few more technological improvements before they decide to bring out a mark 2 of anything substantial.

3. About having an IS version and non-IS version. This would result in too many lenses in the lineup. Canon seem to have more (35mm) lenses in their lineup than anyone. Again, it's probably down to production costs and demand. I can understand the principal of this - the 70-200 has 4 versions for example. However, for some lenses it does not make sense to have IS. Take the 17-40 or 16-35 - they are too wide for IS to be effective. Canon know that many croppers are using the 17-40 as a standard walk about lens, so their answer was probably have way between these two (17-40 and 16-35) with the 17-55. However, for whatever reasons (cost, etc) it's and EF-S. Remember, Canon will probably look at many of the L's (especially the expensive ones) in terms of full frame format, or at the most 1.3 cropped.