Camera Labs

So what is Canon doing? First they take the the 28mm put IS on it and go up $300.00 plus add the 24mm with IS. they do the 24-70L f/2.8 II without IS which causes an up roar with some expecting to get it but then do a 24-70L f/4 with IS which questions the life span of the 24-105L which to me sounds like a better general lens. Now they take the great 35 f/2, toss on IS and USM and more than double the price. I have the 35 f/2 and love it. I would have bought a new one JUST to get USM but I can't pay that for IS. Now I'm scared, there is rumor of a new 50, possibly replacing the 50 f/1.4. I want this lens next year when back from Afghanistan but if they put IS on it and double the price, I just don't see it happening. I always though Canon had such a good line of primes and a good price, are they going to do this to all of their primes?

_________________
Mike "The Squirrel"
Canon 550D | Canon EF 35mm 1:2 | Canon 50 f/1.8 II | Sigma 18-125mm DC OS | Tamron SP 70-300mm Di VC USD | Canon 430EX II
Military Issued Canon 40D | Canon 55-250mm IS

I read a quite interesting article, authored by someone with a large lens rental etablishment, who indicated, with real data, that the newest generation of Canon lenses have better AF accuracy, when used on the newest generation of Canon full-frame DSLRs. Photozone.de posted a very favorable review of the new 28mm lens with IS, which supports this. Folks shooting video really seemed to be demanding wide primes with IS, and Canon is responding.

As for the 24-70mm 2.8L, one of the the goals was for it to be lighter than its predecessor, and IS adds weight. The 2.8 maximum aperture lessens the needs for IS.

The newly-announced 24-70mm f/4 can be considerably lighter and slimmer by not having a large maximum aperture, and therefore IS can be added without such a weight penalty.

As I see it, each of these new lenses does make sense. This is not saying I see a need to acquire all or many of them, but Canon is certainly responding to the market, as Nikon as been refreshing their lenses that they neglected for so long. Canon also has to keep Canonistas engaged, as Nikon seems to have pulled ahead in the MP war with DSLRs.

_________________
Canon 7D/5D/40D/1D2N; Nikon F6, FM3A, & Coolpix A; Canon 40mm Pancake, 135L, 50L, 35L, pre-II 50mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8L Macro, 10-22mm EF-S, 28-135 EF, 400mm 5.6L; Nikkor 50mm 1.2 AI-S, 50mm 1.4G, 50mm 1.8D, 16mm 2.8D Fisheye, 180mm 2.8D, 100-300mm 5.6 AI-S; Tokina 17mm & 100mm 2.8 Macro

As shocking as it may be, I don't think the recent new lens high prices are high. All the old ones are too low. Since the global economic wobbles started, the yen has rocketed and the $/€/£ have fallen. Not surprisingly prices for everything went up a bit. But I don't think they went up to stand still enough based solely on exchange rate effects.

For existing lenses, I think they deliberately tempered the rises so they didn't give a severe shock compared to past prices. For new lenses, there is no historical precedent, so they can place them where they need to be from an economic standpoint. Of course, compared to similar older lenses, they will appear expensive. Basically this isn't Canon's problem, it's the Western world economy collapsing you need to blame and fix if you want the good old days of low priced imported goods. Actually, since the world is so connected, it will eventually drag everyone else down to some degree too, so it may level off a bit in some years.

Of course I don't like the current situation either. Even going back 5 years prices for much stuff was lower. But you can't ignore the economic reality and you have to do what you can.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

The world economics isn't my concern when I decide if something is cheap or expensive, I look at how much money I have in the bank and if I think it's worth it.
If they set new standards as to how sharp a lens can be in their category, then it just might be worth it. If a 24-70 mm is sharper than all of the primes in that range, then you could end up saving some money by not having to buy any primes
Some of the lenses they are replacing are pretty old by now, and even if they did a good job, it might be that much better today - even though iPhone 1 was an excellent smartphone and set the new standards for smartphones at that time, you wouldn't buy one today, just because they are cheaper - because the standards of today are much higher.
That being said there better be a huge wow-factor to justify those prices, economic crisis or not.

IS should in my opinion be on every lens.

I think in time it will be in some form or another. I cant see the advantages of not having it....

_________________
Canon 550D, Canon EFS 17-85 IS USM, Canon EF 75-300 IS USM, Canon EFS 10-22mm USM, Canon EF35mm F2.

Got some of the gear but really still no idea...

Weight is the only disadvantage that I can see. Also I think USM should be included in almost every lens, and let the new STM motors be for the expensive lenses.

_________________
Gear: Canon SX20 IS, Canon Rebel T3i, Canon EF-S 18-55mm
Wishlist: Canon 50mm f/1.8 II, Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II
Visit me and leave me a comment in My Flickr

And IS would make it even more expensive - but I agree that it would have been a good idea.
But seeing the need for IS at 35 mm lens, but not on an even longer lens, doesn't make sense, especially when it's such an expensive lens.

I agree, I think that it is to compensate for the slower aperture. Well at least for the 24-70L, I see no need for IS in a 35mm f/2 lens, it's bright enough to be ok without IS.

_________________
Gear: Canon SX20 IS, Canon Rebel T3i, Canon EF-S 18-55mm
Wishlist: Canon 50mm f/1.8 II, Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II
Visit me and leave me a comment in My Flickr

it depends on the purpose, I have been inside a cave and got better shots with my 15-85 is usm then the 50 1.8.
The dof on the 50 1.8 was to small and when I increased aperture the shutter speed become too slow.
With the 15-85, I had no dof issue and with IS could hold it at much lower shutter speed, so no motion blur.
We were in a group and no tripos were allowed.

I could easily see a use for a IS on a 30 prime lens for landscape or indoors with low light.
Would I want it on a 85 1.8 prime, haven`t really come across a situation where i would need it at that range.

_________________
Canon Powershot S95, Canon 7D, 15-85, Canon 85 1.8 USM, Sigma 30 1.4, 50mm 1.8, Canon 100 2.8L IS Macro, Canon 70-300L IS USM+Kenko 1.4 Pro 300DGX, Canon 430EX II and RS 4 Classic

You do have a point, it does depend on purpose, but how many people use it for that purpose? In order for a product to sell, there has to be demand, and for there to be demand on a lens, there has to be people who use it for a certain purpose. So therefore I think that either Canon researched about lenses people are demanding but yet they do not exist, or they're just attempting to make a wild guess and see if they're right.

That's just my opinion though

_________________
Gear: Canon SX20 IS, Canon Rebel T3i, Canon EF-S 18-55mm
Wishlist: Canon 50mm f/1.8 II, Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II
Visit me and leave me a comment in My Flickr