Originally Posted by Sean Setters
I'll bite: what makes Nikon CLS superior?
I'll bite: what makes Nikon CLS superior?
We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.
EF 800mm f/11 L IS. $1,700. Manual focus only. (Same 72mm aperture as 400mm f/5.6, just longer.)
EF 20mm f/1.2 L, $4,000.
EF 12-24 f/4 L, $2,500.
EF 135mm f/2 L IS, $1500.
EF 300mm f/5.6 L IS Macro, $1,500.
EF 35mm f/1.2 L, $3,000.
EF-S 16mm f/1.2 L, $3,000.
EF-S 31mm f/1.2 L, $2,000.
That would be awesome. :-)
Also 100/2.8L Macro IS USM and 180/3.5L Macro IS USM
I like all of your suggestions, particularly the 800mm f/11 manual focus, though the above quoted items, I was wonndering why they'd have to be so expensive. Short focal lengths, even at a wide aperature, shouldn't need that much glass, should they? Particularly if it's an EF-S format. Aside from going a little wider (in a zoom) and a little faster (on the wide angles), are we getting something more to justify the price?
Not trying to be critical, just interested in your thoughts.
Part of it is the recent trend for Canon to have much higher prices on new lenses without increasing the price of their existing lenses much. In other words, the current lenses are much more of a bargain. The other factor is my guesses based on a limited understanding of costs related to f-number, focal length, aberration correction etc. I'm not a lens designer or marketing exec, so take this with a big grain of salt.
EF 20mm f/1.2 L for $4,000: he Leica 20mm f/1.4 is $5,000, but it's low volume and you pay more for the brand name. I think a Canon equivalent would be much less, IMHO, but I'm talking about f/1.2 which is much more, and Canon has to clear a much longer flange focal length, with means retrofocal design, more elements, and more correcting elements, such as at least one additional UD or asph, so we're back up to $4,000 for the 20mm f/1.2. Plus I think the base price will be high enough to restrict the volume, which means and even higher price as R&D is amortized over fewer units.
My guess on the 12-24 f/4 L is about focal length and sharpness. That last 2mm at the wide end is a *lot*, and if quality isn't compromised then I guess cost would go up. Also, since the Nikon 14-24 is eating Canon's lunch and mopping the floor with their ultrawides, it will have to be even better, which again will boost the cost above Nikon's $1750.
The 35mm f/1.2 L. Look at the the 85mm f/1.2: it is one stop faster than the 85mm f/1.8, and build quality, for 5.2X the cost. The 35mm f/1.4 already has good build quality. If it were new today (no changes), I think it would be $1,500 instead of $1,200. If a full stop costs 4X the cost, I'd guess that a half-stop of aperture costs 2X the cost: $3,000.
The EF-S 16mm f/1.2 L for $3,000 is basically the same story as the 20mm f/1.2, with a few differences: slightly longer focal length (cheaper), longer flange focal distance relative to lens design (more expensive), wider market appeal (chaper), higher resolution required for higher pixel densities (more expensive). In the end I think it comes out to 25% cheaper than my guess for the 20mm f/1.2 L.
The EF-S 31mm f/1.2 L for $2,000. This is the same story as the last lens, except we start with a $1,400 base price of the 50mm f/1.2 L, and factor in flange focal length problems and higher resolution required.
Of course, it would really nice to have an actual lens designer to comment on the real costs and marketing executive to comment on the true relative margins and pricing strategies.
Why would canon create an "L" series lens in an EF-S mount? Such astheEF-S 16mm 1.2 L mentioned in one of the last posts? In my opinion it defeats the purpose of an L lensbecause it couldnt be used on a pro body. Just a thought.
All the suggestions made so far are great. I would really like to see a camera body with a internal flash command.
thanks
For the same reason they do everything else: to make money. They could also come out with a "pro body" for the 1.6X format, just like Nikon did, which would be better for sports and wildlife shooters than a full frame body.
Not exactly true, they had a super-zoom with an L glass: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonpro1/
If they had a non-SLR body with an L lens, I don't see a reason why not an L EF-S... Canon: WAKE UP!!!
It would be nice to have a "pro" body in a 1.6 non full frame sensor, if I remember correctly the 1D Mark II and II N where a non full frame 1.3 but a newer "pro" body with a 1.6 would be nice. It would be nice also to have better weather sealing on the next XXD series as well as the next XD.
Oren sense that super-zoom have they created an L series lens on a non-slr? It would be nice to have new L series lenses that didnt cost a small fortune, but having them as an EF-S would make them obsolete if you moved to a full frame sensor.
Thanks
But image quality suffers when you try to put a high number of pixels into a smaller space - less light hits an APS-C rectangle than an APS-H rectangle than an APS rectangle, and that light has to get divided amongst all of the pixels. I suspect that's one of the main reasons that the 1Ds3 has one less stop of ISO than the 1D3. If image quality suffers, less pros will buy the body, and they won't make (as much) money.
We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote