Would you be happier or angrier if Canon updated every lens every year?

[TheHoff]

Some people complain when their favorite lens gets an update as now their current copy is somehow worth less to them. More people complain when a lens is not updated when they think it should be (24-70, 100-400, etc).

What if Canon and other manufacturers had the ability to update the manufacturing process of every lens every year so that in 2009 you knew you would be buying the latest coatings, AF, IS, and build that Canon could make?

Would that lessen the value of your 2008 equipment in your head? Or would you welcome this new vintage system where you have the latest technology on every lens? I'd bet that in the future as high-tech manufacturing techniques improve, they will be able to keep lenses current in every aspect, similar to a car manufacturer that creates model advances with every year, even if minor some years.

[Yohan Pamudji]

Whether it would lessen the value in your head, it certainly would on the used market! Bad for those who like to chop and change a lot, but not so bad for those who don't, although it's always nice to have equipment that keeps its value.

I disagree that manufacturing tech will make a difference though. The way I understand it, what takes the longest is the design, and there's no way to farm that off to a completely automated process in the near future. In other words it's man-power driven, which means it requires man-hours. Up to a certain point the more people you dedicate to the task the more you can get done. It's pretty clear from Canon (or any other manufacturer's) yearly lens output that they only have so many people working on it and can only manage so many lens updates per year, which technology won't change until we have computers that can design lenses.

I don't think an every-year update would be in anybody's best interests. But an update, say, once a decade sounds feasible. At least revisit each lens a decade from introduction and see if it needs updating. The 100-400 would be on the shortlist of lenses needing an urgent update by that standard. Others that wouldn't despite being old enough are the 35L & 135L. Not saying they couldn't improve those, but I think general consensus is they're plenty good enough, while the 100-400 could do with a few updates--newer generation IS, non pump design, weather seals, optical update, new AF mechanism... heh, just completely redo it already.

[grego]

Well there definitely are some popular lens that could use some updates. They'd probably sell well and provide even more incentive for people to buy and stay with Canon. So in some cases, it would be good.

[Perry Ge]

The RIGHT answer of course is that it shouldn't matter - something new coming out doesn't change how your old stuff performs in any way, so if you're happy with the lens, there should be no complaints - and if a new lens offers you something you need, then it's great to have the option of upgrading.

As to how I'd actually feel, I have no idea :p. I don't think I'd care too much since I like to buy used anyway, so if anything, by lowering the used prices of older equipment more frequently, I could afford and buy cooler stuff, so it's a good thing!

[tkbslc]

I really can't think of too many people that would buy a new lens every year. Maybe 2% of the shooters that are rich and spoiled. Lens tech is not really improving that fast. Some lenses from 30+ years ago are as good or better than the best from now. I think the improvements would be so minor, that what's the point? Maybe a 5-8 year replacement cycle is adequate.

Sigma seems to be on quite the kick lately with new versions every 2 years.

[nicksan]

I'd be sad and happy at the same time...Sappy.

[FlyingPhotog]

Some people complain when their favorite lens gets an update as now their current copy is somehow worth less to them. More people complain when a lens is not updated when they think it should be (24-70, 100-400, etc).

What if Canon and other manufacturers had the ability to update the manufacturing process of every lens every year so that in 2009 you knew you would be buying the latest coatings, AF, IS, and build that Canon could make?

Hoff, you might have the answer to save the American auto industry...

Why release new models every year? Why not every other year? Or even every three years?

I'd be sad and happy at the same time...Sappy.

Others would just be "Had" ;)

[skygod44]

Think Perry has said it clearest:

What you're using at that moment doesn't suddenly stop working...and since I'm happy with my current set-up, I wouldn't give a left-handed letter-opener, even if Canon brought out updates every month!

As to the "value" of our gear. I've only got one "L" lens at the mo', so if prices dropped, I might be able to more easily add to it.....but I wouldn't, unless I actually needed to.

* I'm DETERMINED not to become a gear-head *

[brianch]

I'd be sad and happy at the same time...Sappy.

sappy

[MischiefK9s]

I think I would be happy. I wouldn't be upgrading my current lenses every year, but at least I would know I was getting the latest upgrade to the lenses that I did add to my collection.

[BigBlueDodge]

I think one of the reasons why resale value on lenses is high, is because Canon doesn't update lenses very often. Therefore people have high confidence that if they buy used, they won't be obsolete in 18 months like they would if they bought a body. I for one don't want to see frequent updates. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue? We'd start seeing posts like this

"Need Help. Can't decide between 24-70L MKI vs 24-70L MKII vs 24-105L MKI vs 24-105L MKII!"

or

"So confused. Looking for new lens. What should I do 70-200 f/4 vs 70-200 f/4 MKII vs 70-200 f/4.0 IS vs 70-200 f/4.0 IS MKII vs 70-200 f/2.8 vs 70-200 f/2.8 MKII vs 70-200 f/2.8 IS vs 70-200 f/2.8 IS MKII"


For me, I look at longevity. When Canon refreshes a lens, they start phasing out support for prior versions (300 f/4.0 IS, 80-200 f/2.8, 28-70L 2.8, etc). By keeping lenses relatively stable, there's a high degree of confidence that Canon will continue to support and fix lenses 10+ years from now. I think that the more frequent a lens is change, the shorter the supported lifetime of that lens will be.

[TheHoff]

But you do see people doing that with automobile years, anyway, right? Manufacturers make incremental upgrades each year, even if they don't do a refresh or a redesign. So gearheads (car gearheads) likely argue about model years just like you describe above.

I'd rather buy a 2009 version of a lens with the new coatings, new AF, new IS, etc, without having to wait 10 years, on average, for an L lens to be redesigned. I'm not talking about redesigns of the glass groups each year, just update the coating or AF switch or IS mechanism if the new ones are available instead of putting lesser old-style parts on your "new" lens (that is really 10 years old in design).

[JAlexander]

I wouldn't like it because I don't think lenses would hold their value as well for reselling.

[Persephone]

It would flood the used market, that's for sure. One point of avenue that I've been trying to convince my parents is that, if photography doesn't pan out, I can sell the higher end equipment at a relatively small loss. Yearly releasees would make that meaningless, although if it lowered the used prices a lot more, then I might like to pick up more lenses used...hmmm...can't decide...

[lowcrust]

Happier. Although EVERY lens EVERY year would most likely be difficult to pull off in terms of improvements. The first couple of years would be easy on a lot of lenses; first year add IS, next year update AF motor to newest technology. But then the years after that they'd take turns in adding new coating one year and then update the IS the other. After a few years the new AF motor could spice things up, but overall it would probably not only be kinda boring and predictable, it would probably hurt sales too.

They certainly need to update more often than the current offering, in my opinion.

[John_TX]

Every year is way too often...but they've got a number of lenses that haven't been touches for at least 10+ years. With the significant developments in Canon's IS technology, they shouldn't be selling ANY lenses, fresh off the assembly line, with 1st or 2nd generation IS.
Everything should have the new 4 or 5-stop IS.
The IS component seems pretty compartmentalized, and I would venture that 80-90% of its parts are compatible with IS components across at least the L-line (the EF-S IS lenses probably are a much different design since it's elements are much lighter).

[Sean]

I'd be ok with it, but I wouldn't rush out and get the next best thing. With lenses I'd rather them perfect the lenses before upgrading them.

[badgerW]

I think that I would like it. Yes, the price on older gear would drop every year.... but for people like me who pretty much only buy used gear, this would be a good thing. I wouldn't mind having a 4-year-old lens if it was half the price of a new one, if I knew that only relatively minor changes had been made in the meantime. There are plenty of us out there who have bought or own the 16-35 I, the 28-70 f/2.8L, etc. These lenses don't degrade with time; their usefulness stays constant.

Also, it is clear that people already grade lenses by the year they were made. The first question always asked in any lens thread in the For Sale forum is "What's the date code?" I don't understand it personally, but I guess maybe there are subtle differences or improvements that Canon makes over time?

[silvex]

It would be complete financial chaos...not that we are far from it. Imagine the parts logistics for very year to create a new set of spare parts. It sounds good in principle, but how are you going to improve all ready great lenses (200L f2?). I can see it happening for the lower end....creating new models and killing older models. Still it takes a LOT of research to do so. Why not just make BETTER lenses optic wise, but the L have the military grade build (water, dust, beer, salt proof).

How about a new model of the 800L...600L...chaos man chaos!!!!

[dolina]

I like the way Canon (and Nikon to their extent) are handling the Mark II upgrades. They're slow and deliberate at a rate of 1-2 lens bi-annual upgrade and an annual introduction of a new EF-S lens.

Any faster and my cc may catch on fire.

Cars are more comparable to camera bodies than lenses. People buy less bodies than lenses.

I wonder whether the 35L, 135L and 180L will be upgraded this year or the 300/2.8L IS, 400/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS and 600/4L IS.

I'm thinking the 300/4L IS and 400/5.6L will get upgraded by 2H 2010 or 2011.

Other than a supply chain nightmare there are too many lenses to have any meaningful upgrade at all. Trying to complete the fast L lenses are already a nightmare as it is.

[DStanic]

I think some lenses need updating, some don't. They just need to look at their lineup and see where Nikon and other brands have a product that Canon doesn't have.

They could make a 24-70 f/2.8 with IS, I'm sure everybody would agree with me on that. They could also make a 50mm f/1.8 mk3 that would be better built and have USM and better autofocusing in general (and still be cheaper than the 50mm f/1.4).

[Jim G]

Sure. Why not? People would worry less about the age of lenses then, perhaps... each change would likely only be incremental and there would be less stress about a new one coming out straight after you buying the old one.

[Stealthy Ninja]

Happy, then you could stay 1 or 2 steps behind the latest lens (buy 2nd hand) and save heaps of money.

Of course, if they updated them yearly, that would probably make the writing on the lens a bit long after a few years:

Canon 24-105mm f/2.8L IS DO USM Mk XVIII