Originally Posted by danm
Well, that's the thing. L-series lenses are 'top drawer' for a reason - they have larger apertures, better IQ, and better build quality than mid-range lenses of similar focal lengths. Larger apertures and better IQ mean bigger glass and more elements to correct aberrations, meaning more size and weight, and better build means more weight. It's just physics, and to throw in a Star Trek reference, "Ye<span>cannaechange the laws of physics!"
I'm a physicist, so I would never do that. Unless it suited me, of course []
But Canon could still make, say a 50mm L lens, f/2, that was crazy good, relatively small and light. F/1.2 whatever must have a paper sheet thin focal plane. Does anybody really use it at that setting? My f/1.4 is usually unusable at f/1.4.
They must feel that they have to differentiate by making some crazy wide open lens. Seems like there's room for a competitor here.
I think the f/1.4 has good enough IQ to be an L, it just lacks build quality. Same goes for the 85 f/1.8. Probably if these lenes were built like L lenses, they wouldn't be so light.
But your point is taken: high quality slow lenses do not seem to be in style.
Perhaps it getting an excellent figure on a lens is expensive, and if it has to be expensive anyway, might as well make it fast. Perhaps there is no market for slower lenses than the ones they make already. It is something I've wondered about, too, but I don't know the answer.
I'm not sure, but the way I see it: I think building an F4 cheap, but L-quality lens is probably not much more expensive than an F2.8 lens with the same quality. I guess there is more cost involved in getting a high IQ by eliminating lenserrors and fualts than by making it just a little bit faster. My guess...
Plus of course, you don't want to give L-quality to people who buy the cheapest camera...marketing...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote