Evil DSLRs II - No Standard Prime ?

[ruben]

The second big surprise, out of my ignorancy vis a vis ny nephew Canon 30, happened when upon seeing him with zoom, I recommended him to buy a standard prime from Canon. Something like a 50mm f/1.4 in old SLRs.

Upon our calculations, it resulted we are looking in digital upon a 35mm lens.
Big Surprise! No prime digital of Canon around 35mm !!!

Fine. No, ugly in fact.

So let's see what Canon has to offer in their old 35mm line for AF: a 35 f/2.8 for around $300 of a 35mm f/2 only, for $1300
:bang: :bang: :bang:

And BTW, the whole line up of new Canon digital lenses is quite small. As if they expect catastrophe at any moment.

So do you want a standard prime f/1.4 for your digital - G0 SIGMA :bang:

Are these people for real ?

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Solinar]

I'm a Nikon user, but I'd go with the Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 rather than the Sigma 30/1.4.

 

[projectbluebird]

It appears so, ruben. I still shoot film with a canon 1v. The only 50mm EF L-series lens offered by Canon is the f/1.2. Not cheap. Of course, the other alternative is a full-frame 30D or 20D, but that is not likely to happen for some time.

 

[wintoid]

Eh? Canon make a 28mm f/1.8 which is reasonable and pretty good. They also make a 35mm f/2 which is cheap, but a bit buzzy on the autofocus, and an expensive 35mm f/1.4 lens which is wonderful.

I'm not aware of a 35mm f/2.8. Are you talking about FD systems?

 

[rxmd]

So let's see what Canon has to offer in their old 35mm line for AF: a 35 f/2.8 for around $300 of a 35mm f/2 only, for $1300
:bang: :bang: :bang:

I don't know where you have been looking, but in the current lineup there is a 35/f2 for $236 and a 35/f1.4 for $1,119 (Prices off Amazon.com).

In addition, there's a 28/f2.8 ($171) and if that's too slow a rather affordable and good 28/f1.8 ($392). Then there's a 24/2.8 ($275) and an excellent 24/1.4 (approx. $1300).

No shortage of fast primes as far as I can see. They aren't for free (but then try getting the same e.g. from Leica, or Zeiss for that matter).

Philipp

 

[rxmd]

I still shoot film with a canon 1v. The only 50mm EF L-series lens offered by Canon is the f/1.2. Not cheap. Of course, the other alternative is a full-frame 30D or 20D, but that is not likely to happen for some time.

I don't understand your priorities (or in fact what your are talking about). Neither the 20D nor 30D are full frame. And why does it have to be an L lens in 50mm? The 50/f1.4 is good, and cheap.

Philipp

 

[ruben]

The fact that the big camera manufacturers are investing more in camera gadgetery instead of in optics, is very suspicious.

And we were afraid about film....

 

[BillP]

The fact that the big camera manufacturers are investing more in camera gadgetery instead of in optics, is very suspicious.

And we were afraid about film....

Pardon????

Regards,

Bill

 

[bmattock]

The move from a standard prime to a kit zoom lens started long before digital existed.

In Pentax-land, the Pentax SF-1 was the last AF body that came standard with a 50mm f/1.7 AF lens - but you could also have it with a 35-70 kit zoom. Most purchasers went with the zoom.

This was in 1987.

Many manufacturers still make prime lenses, but they are not the default choice for inclusion with a body, and they are not the loss leader example of the highest quality lens a manufacturer can create anymore (as it was once rumored that manufacturers lost money on nifty fifties - to showcase their art).

This was driven by customer demand. I am always amused by suggestions that evil companies plot to sell only inferior goods to consumers. In a free market, consumers drive production, not evil marketing types.

 

[rxmd]

Not to mention that nobody is forcing zooms down your throat; in fact you can buy quite decent primes nowadays, and if you take inflation into account they cost less money than ever before.

My brother started photography with an EOS 10 and a 35-70/f4-5.6. That lens was shіt. Two years ago I gave him an EF 50/f1.8 that cost me 80 EUR, new, in a shop, with 2 years warranty, and he's been taking decent pictures with it. Are you guys serious that it's difficult to get primes nowadays?

EDIT: The 50/f1.8 costs $80 at Amazon. Warranty is one year. If this isn't a decent offer I don't know what is.

 

[Lord Fluff]

The fact that the big camera manufacturers are investing more in camera gadgetery instead of in optics, is very suspicious.

And we were afraid about film....

And what would the new Canon 14mm and forthcoming 200mm and 800mm primes be then? Not to mention the zooms such as the 16-35 II that have also come out recently, along with a 50/f1.2 and various others.

Canon have a huge range of prime lenses available, and most of them are good - quite a few are spectacular. And those who 'hate' lenses like the 70-200 f2.8 - get over it, they are tremendously useful and produce stunning results.

 

[gavinlg]

The fact that the big camera manufacturers are investing more in camera gadgetery instead of in optics, is very suspicious.

And we were afraid about film....

Ruben, you make some strange posts sometimes, not that I don't have a lot of fun reading them of course!


Here is the current canon PRIME LENS lineup, ALL OF THEM work perfectly on digital cameras.

EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM
EF 24mm f/1.4L USM
EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye
EF 20mm f/2.8 USM
EF 28mm f/1.8 USM
EF 24mm f/2.8
EF 35mm f/2
EF 28mm f/2.8
EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
EF 50mm f/1.8 II
EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
EF 50mm f/1.0L USM
EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM
EF 135mm f/2.0L USM
EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
EF 200mm f/2.0L IS USM
EF 200mm f/1.8L USM
EF 100mm f/2 USM
EF 135mm f/2.8 with Softfocus
EF 600mm f/4L IS USM
EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 500mm f/4L IS USM
EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM
EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM
EF 1200mm f/5.6 USM - one for sale at the moment at BH - $99,000us


The best of the Wide canon primes are the 24 1.4L, the 35 1.4L and the 50 1.2L is a SUPERB normal lens if you have a full frame camera, which are the 5d, the 1ds, 1dsmk2 or 1ds mk3. The 85 1.2L is possibly one of the best portrait lenses ever made, the old 200mm f1.8L was the sharpest lens ever tested - yes, sharper than leica or zeiss lenses tested.

Heres one more thing to prove my point - every single one of these works perfectly on canon digital cameras, as well as the EF mount film cameras.

 

[AzzA]

Hmm, there must be some confusion on the OP's behalf.
There are many Canon branded primes covering a large range of focal lengths. They continue to develop primes also, as for an example 2 more will go on market in April (200mm f/2L IS USM and 800mm f/5.6L IS USM).
When you refer to Canon "digital" lenses, do you mean the EF-S range? If you do, then i agree, theres not much in that range at all. But Canon digitals can take the EF range of lenses too.

Also, i'd like to see evidence to support the claim that big camera manufacturers are investing money in "camera gadgetery instead of in optics".


Edit: I cant type quick enough! =/

 

[gavinlg]

I would'nt argue, but when I bought mt Pentax*istDL over a year ago, I only wanted the body, but some shops were selling with the kit zoom cheaper than other shops for body only. So I bought with the kit zoom but never used it except to verify it's poor optical qualities.

You can only expect it to have poor optical qualities - it's a plastic kit lens probably worth $160.

You'd swiftly change your mind if you got your hands upon a nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VR or a 24-70 f2.8 from either nikon or canon.
How about the new olympus zuiko 14-35 f2?
All of the above zooms are spectacular and either match or very nearly match primes in performance.

The new nikkor 14-24 f2.8 is sharper than the zeiss distagon 21 f2.8 and the leica elmarit R super wide prime. It looks to have less distortion as well.

Start livin in the times!

 

[ruben]

The move from a standard prime to a kit zoom lens started long before digital existed.

In Pentax-land, the Pentax SF-1 was the last AF body that came standard with a 50mm f/1.7 AF lens - but you could also have it with a 35-70 kit zoom. Most purchasers went with the zoom.

This was in 1987.

Many manufacturers still make prime lenses, but they are not the default choice for inclusion with a body, and they are not the loss leader example of the highest quality lens a manufacturer can create anymore (as it was once rumored that manufacturers lost money on nifty fifties - to showcase their art).

This was driven by customer demand. I am always amused by suggestions that evil companies plot to sell only inferior goods to consumers. In a free market, consumers drive production, not evil marketing types.

Hi Bill,
If my memory or knowledge doesn't default me, between the end of the 60's and begining of the 70's there was an amazing flow of lenses, including zooms, and system parts, by the big manufacturers of that period.

This is not what i am seeing now, quite a few years since digital cameras are on the market. But, as stated, i am a big ignorant here.

Now, this or that folk can claim how wonderfull he is doing in adapting this or that prime manufactured some 30 years ago, but my instinct tends to tell me, that digital specialized lens should be better than any adaptation. Specially, digital primes.

Just my feeling.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[ruben]

.....

The new nikkor 14-24 f2.8 is sharper than the zeiss distagon 21 f2.8 and the leica elmarit R super wide prime. It looks to have less distortion as well.
.......!

This is much of my question. Wouldn't a nikkor prime 14 or/and 24 be even better than the whole package within a zoom ?

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[ruben]

Ruben, you make some strange posts sometimes, not that I don't have a lot of fun reading them of course!


Here is the current canon PRIME LENS lineup, ALL OF THEM work perfectly on digital cameras.

EF 14mm ........
EF 1200mm f/5.6 USM - one for sale at the moment at BH - $99,000us


The best of the Wide canon primes are the 24 1.4L, the 35 1.4L and the 50 1.2L is a SUPERB normal lens if you have a full frame camera, which are the 5d, the 1ds, 1dsmk2 or 1ds mk3. The 85 1.2L is possibly one of the best portrait lenses ever made, the old 200mm f1.8L was the sharpest lens ever tested - yes, sharper than leica or zeiss lenses tested.

Heres one more thing to prove my point - every single one of these works perfectly on canon digital cameras, as well as the EF mount film cameras.

The inference of your post is that Canon is developing its digital cameras to fit their big EF line up. This is exactly the "conspiracy theory" an amateur explained to me at my job, an hour ago. According to him, first they will try to milk from the consumers the most for what they have invested in research and manufacture of their old lenses. Then they will become serious with a new, specifically digital new line - The same game like with camera obsolence.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[gavinlg]

This is much of my question. Wouldn't a nikkor prime 14 or/and 24 be even better than the whole package within a zoom ?

Cheers,
Ruben

They made either a 14 or a 15 f2.8 and it was VERY average. It was very expensive and made in the last few years. It had a very strange curvature of field, and even stopped down to f5.6 was very sharp only in certain parts of a flat image - the rest was very soft. Also had average distortion and average CA problems.

If the new nikkor zoom is better than current super wide primes, there is no reason question it - especially if it's better than the zeiss 21, which first looks indicate it to be so.

I do some interior and architecture photography for agents and advertising/magazines. By having a (say) 15mm f2.8 prime, I'm limiting myself to that length. by having a 14-25 f2.8, of very near of the same optical quality, I have much more versatility in perspective and what I can shoot with 1 lens. Optical technology has gotten to the point where zooms are extremely good. It's true that the top primes are usually a bit better optically, but the thing is that the zooms can do more.

I'm a prime fan, but there are certainly places for zooms. and there are optically superb zooms around, thats for sure.

 

[rxmd]

Wouldn't a nikkor prime 14 or/and 24 be even better than the whole package within a zoom ?

Firstly, Nikon has primes on both ends already, a 14/2.8 and a 24/2.8.

Secondly to answer your question: not necessarily. A good lens is the result of a lot of R&D investment, regardless of whether it's a prime or a zoom. Apparently Nikon is under the impression that their present primes in that range are good enough and that customers want a zoom. So they put their R&D money into developing a good zoom in addition to the primes they sell already.

Nikon could also have developed a 24/1.4 or something, like Canon sells already. Nikon users have been calling for that for some time. The question is whether in addition to calling for it they would pay enough money for it to make it worth it. Apparently Nikon, at present, thinks they wouldn't, or rather they think that developing a good wideangle zoom makes more sense demand-wise.

Philipp

 

[rxmd]

They made either a 14 or a 15 f2.8 and it was VERY average.

Incidentally so is the Canon 14/2.8 from what I've seen from it, which, granted, hasn't been a lot. Apparently building a fast wideangle prime is quite difficult.

Philipp