# Your lenses wishlist for 2011 - RESULTS



## kubelik (Feb 10, 2011)

I was very intrigued by the data that came out of the informal poll of wishlist lenses for 2011, and decided to compile the data to see if anything remotely meaningful emerges from it. yes, I realize it's nowhere near a scientific study, for so many reasons ... but at the same time, that doesn't neccessarily mean it's an utterly useless group of data.

at the very least, we can discern the inclinations of the people who frequent Canon Rumors, which is a surprisingly broad demographic (I believe) in terms of age, shooting style, profession, purchasing power, brand loyalty, etc. I've attached the data gathered from the "your lenses wishlist for 2011" thread, both in its entirely raw format, as well as grouped by similar type, and finally as a list sorted by quantity.

please note, all lenses are implied as being "USM" (true USM). we're already a decade in to the 21st century, there's no reason for Canon to be making anything with dingy little micromotor USM.

inferences from the data:

1. EF vs. EF-S

It's clear to see why Canon spends far more effort in designing EF lenses. out of 113 votes for lens requests, only 14 were for APS-C only lenses. that's a meager 12%, and I do think this statistic is telling. the people who are going to be puchasing and owning multiple lenses tend to be those who take photography seriously. if you're taking your photography seriously, you're likely to want to invest in better gear (quality over quantity). if you want the best quality, it looks like people still go to the EF lineup for it.

2. L glass

By comparison, 71 requests were for what would presumably be designated "L" glass, a huge 63%. Why would Canon be investing major effort in low-margin EF-S glass if they can be selling 5 times as much of the big expensive red-ringed stuff? I do believe this number is skewed somewhat by the type of people that frequent Canon Rumors, if you look at the signature lines of the people who post most often, it's clear that overall, "we" are not the people who are looking for their first non-kit lens. But from what I have seen of many first-time "what should I buy" posters on the site, they are very often considering, or purchasing, a 24-70 L or a 24-105 f/4 L IS as their step-up lens (a.k.a. gateway drug). even if L glass sells on a 1:1 ratio against EF-S lenses in the real world, I think that's reason enough for Canon to churn out L glass -- feel free to correct me (and there may be no way to prove this) but I believe Canon makes a much better ROI number off a 400mm f/2.8 L IS than off of an EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS

3. Primes vs. Zooms

Surprisingly, despite the fact that two of the most-wanted lenses on this list are zooms (guess which ones, it's pretty obvious), primes accounted for 69 votes (61%). again, I think this is influenced by the fact that the purchasing demographic here on CR, but at the same time, more and more I find that people looking to go beyond their first zoom lens are looking for either an affordable prime with a max aperture larger than f/2.0, or for a macro prime. people always whine and moan (to put it gently) that as a populace we are churning out more photography but less great work every day, but look at it this way: the more people that get into photography, for better or worse, the more likely our pet lens projects are going to get approved and funded by Canon HQ.

4. The CR Most Wanted

I think most of these are giveaways but everyone will still be interested to know how it panned out. I grouped certain lenses somewhat (for example there was a request for a 24-70 f/2.0 L IS, and a request for a 24-70 f/2.8 L II, I rolled these into the 24-70 f/2.8 L IS number), and here we go:

#1 - 9 votes - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS USM
#2 - 8 votes - EF 50mm f/1.4 II USM
#3 - 7 votes - EF 100-400mm f/4-5.6 L IS II USM (there were also two votes for an 80-400 version of this lens not included)
#4 - 5 votes - EF 50mm f/1.2 L II USM (there were also two votes for an f/1.0 version of this lens not included)
#4 - 5 votes - EF 35mm f/2.0 II USM
#5 - 4 votes - EF 135mm f/1.8 L IS USM
#5 - 4 votes - EF 35mm f/1.4 L II USM
#5 - 4 votes - EF 28mm f/1.8 II USM
#5 - 4 votes - EF-S 30mm f/1.4 Macro USM

nothing terribly surprising here, and the winner is somewhat inconclusive, based on whether or not you decide to group things differently. what is clear, is that Canon's breadwinners have not really changed. what's more surprising is that the feeling that there's still a strong need for a 100-400 replacement despite the 70-300 and 200-400 announcements. the conclusion I drew is that, if I were in Canon marketing, I'd be very excited. not only are you going to be able to sell plenty of 70-300s and 200-400s (based on initial reactions), but when you do come back around to slotting a 100-400 replacement in between the two, you'll have plenty of takers still.

lots of demand for the 50's to be replaced, personally I think that's next once Canon has finished cranking out this round of Big Whites. I'm also optimistic about a 24-70 replacement coming in the next two years. it seems that Canon is rolling through their breadwinning core and cranking out some fun/bizarre/awesome lenses on the side as they go along. with the 70-200 f/2.8 II out, and the 300, 400, 500 and 600 being replaced, clearly the 50s and 24-70 (and maybe 24-105) are next.

5. Budget lineup updates

There are a number of us looking for refreshes of the cheap wide (20-35mm range) EF primes, and a number of us looking for refreshes of the cheap EF L telephoto primes (basically, a replacement for the 400 f/5.6 L). How likely is that to happen? For the cheap EF primes, there were a total of 15 votes (13%). that's about the size of the demand for the EF-S-specific lenses. so we may see one or two drop over the next few years but I'd be very surprised to see a thorough refresh, once it's looked at in this light.

as far as a replacement for the 400 f/5.6 L goes, people have proposed a 400 f/5.6 L IS, 500 f/5.6 L IS, and/or a 600 f/5.6 L IS. I think we'd be pretty happy to see any one of these drop. so, grouping these votes together, there are 7 votes (6%) for a replacement for the little-but-sharp-as-heck 400. that's actually not a bad level of demand for a single lens (remember the 24-70 replacement garnered 9 votes). maybe we'll see this one get refreshed in the next 2 years.

That's it from me, folks, feel free to download the PDF and draw your own conclusions; share them here and let us know what trends you see coming from Canon based on market demands. Thanks for reading!


----------



## Randl (Feb 10, 2011)

I hope somebody from canon reads it)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 10, 2011)

Great summary, thanks for taking the time!

I'm going to disagree with one part, though:



kubelik said:


> even if L glass sells on a 1:1 ratio against EF-S lenses in the real world, I think that's reason enough for Canon to churn out L glass -- feel free to correct me (and there may be no way to prove this) but I believe Canon makes a much better ROI number off a 400mm f/2.8 L IS than off of an EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS



I sincerely doubt L lenses come even close to a 1:1 ratio to EF-S lenses in the real world. While it's certainly true that it takes a lot of EF-S 18-55mm lenses as kits to make up one EF 600mm f/4L IS II lens (~140, in this case!), I'd bet that Canon sells a few _thousand_ Rebel kits for every supertele that they sell. I think Canon makes a lot more profit from the EF-S kit lenses and their close cousins (55-250, 50/1.8 II, etc.) than from their L lenses, and likewise, I suspect the R&D effort to produce an L lens is greater than that for an EF-S lens.

Keep in mind the figure (and I hesitate to call it a fact, but it does seem reasonable) that 70-80% of Canon lenses are produced in Taiwan. That means more than 70% of lenses Canon makes comprise the EF-S 18-55mm, EF-S 55-250mm, EF 50mm f/1.8 II, and EF 75-300mm's. I'd venture a guess that the margin on L lenses is higher, but like the Rebel bodies, the >$300 lenses are the core of Canon's dSLR business. The high end gear (L lenses and xD bodies) don't generate the same level of profit...at least direct profit. But, the Canon gear in the hands of pros - at sporting events, shooting your wedding or portraits, etc., that's advertising for Canon. That leads to stronger consumer sales or Rebels and EF-S lenses, which in turn funds the next round of R&D for xD bodies and L lenses.


----------



## Admin US West (Feb 10, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Great summary, thanks for taking the time!
> 
> Keep in mind the figure (and I hesitate to call it a fact, but it does seem reasonable) that 70-80% of Canon lenses are produced in Taiwan. That means more than 70% of lenses Canon makes comprise the EF-S 18-55mm, EF-S 55-250mm, EF 50mm f/1.8 II, and EF 75-300mm's. I'd venture a guess that the margin on L lenses is higher, but like the Rebel bodies, the >$300 lenses are the core of Canon's dSLR business. The high end gear (L lenses and xD bodies) don't generate the same level of profit...at least direct profit. But, the Canon gear in the hands of pros - at sporting events, shooting your wedding or portraits, etc., that's advertising for Canon. That leads to stronger consumer sales or Rebels and EF-S lenses, which in turn funds the next round of R&D for xD bodies and L lenses.



+1

The DSLR Camera, Lens, and Accessory value to Canon continues to grow, In their latest Financial Report, the consumer FY 2011 projection is for 23% of their volume on a unit basis to be DSLR, lenses and accessories, and in income value, 69%.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 10, 2011)

Thanks for the analysis. It's fun to see.

I agree with Neuro and would add my own two cents worth. First, it's pretty hard to draw any conclusions when the total number of votes separating the #1 choice from last place is only five votes.

A few comments on EF-S lenses. Keep in mind that there is already a tremendous amount of redundancy in the EF-S line. Two-thirds of the entire line significantly overlaps. Photographers already have lots of choices in this line so, it's not surprising that there isn't a big demand for a "new" EF-S lens. 

Plus, EF-S lenses concentrate at the wide-angle end of the focal length spectrum. Beyond wide-angle lenses, it's easy to substitute a full-frame lens for an EF-S lens. Is a 70-300 mm lens a full-frame lens or is it an EF-S lens? It depends on the camera it's on. 

Finally, Canon has (In My Opinion) not done a really good job of producing enthusiast, prosumer or professional quality lenses in the EF-S format. That seems to be gradually changing and I expect it to change more as the 7D and 60D market expands and as Canon reacts to the more aggressive development of quality APS-C lenses by Sigma, Tamron and Tokina.

I did find Scale's chart very interesting. It's worth letting the numbers sink in: DSLRs account for less than a quarter of all cameras sold but represent more than two-thirds of the value of camera sales. I found that very reassuring because I sometimes worry that the DSLR market could be shrinking in relation to the Point and Shoots. Clearly Canon has a real incentive to invest in and grow their DSLR products.


----------



## traveller (Feb 11, 2011)

IMHO, two of these lenses are almost certainly going to happen in the next couple of years, these are: 

EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS USM
EF 35mm f/1.4 L II USM

I don't think I'm being controversial there. Three others are 'maybe's: 

EF 100-400mm f/4-5.6 L IS II USM (depending on how successful the strategy to split the market between the the 70-300L and 200-400L is) 
EF 135mm f/1.8 L IS USM (is IS possible on such a fast aperture FF lens? How many would pay the premium over the existing version?)
EF 50mm f/1.2 L II USM (current version is still a bit new for a prime)

I don't think that we'll see three of the other suggestions: when was the last time that Canon released a non-L EF prime (100mm Macro f/2.8 USM in 2000, unless anyone name a more recent example)? Come to think of it, when was the last time Canon released a non-L EF zoom (70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM in 2005, ditto above caveat)?

EF 50mm f/1.4 II USM
EF 35mm f/1.4 L II USM 
EF 28mm f/1.8 II USM

It does seem that from now on it will be either L-grade EF lenses, EF-S lenses or live with the back catalogue. 

Unfocused thinks that the problem is EF-S zoom lens overlap, I disagree. There were plenty of overlaps in the low to mid market EF film era lenses -the market for them was big enough; EF-S lenses are the modern equivalent of these. The real problem with the EF-S line-up is the lack of specialist lenses and gaps in the primes that can only be filled with old, sub-par EF primes, or with expensive and heavy L glass. The trap that Canon (as well as Nikon and, to a lesser extent, Sony) is caught in, is that the people who would be in the market for the more expensive EF-S offerings, are also the people who believe that they may soon want to go full frame. 

Finally, does the high demand for a new EF 35mm and EF 28mm mean that there is a demand for a small, light and inexpensive wide angle for full frame? Or can it be lumped together with those who are asking for a EF-S 30mm f/1.4 Macro (!) USM (surely a bit of a conflicting set of requirements) to show the desire for a fast prime that is 'normal' on APS-C (perhaps with the potential to be the former, if the owner ever decides to move to full frame)? 

Sorry for the long post!


----------



## ronderick (Feb 11, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Keep in mind the figure (and I hesitate to call it a fact, but it does seem reasonable) that 70-80% of Canon lenses are produced in Taiwan. That means more than 70% of lenses Canon makes comprise the EF-S 18-55mm, EF-S 55-250mm, EF 50mm f/1.8 II, and EF 75-300mm's. I'd venture a guess that the margin on L lenses is higher, but like the Rebel bodies, the >$300 lenses are the core of Canon's dSLR business. The high end gear (L lenses and xD bodies) don't generate the same level of profit...at least direct profit. But, the Canon gear in the hands of pros - at sporting events, shooting your wedding or portraits, etc., that's advertising for Canon. That leads to stronger consumer sales or Rebels and EF-S lenses, which in turn funds the next round of R&D for xD bodies and L lenses.




Just in case anyone's interested, here is another article from digitimes (in English) about that lens supplier... though it doesn't use the same figures, it does give you an idea of the numbers. My... 

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20110110PD238.html

"Canon produced about 4.1 million interchangeable lenses in 2010 and the volume is expected to increase to 7.12 million units in 2011, 9.5 million units in 2012." (from the article)

That's pretty intense! ;D


----------



## lol (Feb 12, 2011)

unfocused said:


> Plus, EF-S lenses concentrate at the wide-angle end of the focal length spectrum. Beyond wide-angle lenses, it's easy to substitute a full-frame lens for an EF-S lens. Is a 70-300 mm lens a full-frame lens or is it an EF-S lens? It depends on the camera it's on.


I was going to say that but there it is already.

I think the relative lack of interest in EF-S lenses is that most of it is well covered already. You have cheap zooms, wide and tele, and less cheap standard zooms too. What gaps are there? I think some cheap EF-S primes will help keep up with Sony and Nikon e.g. 30/35mm f/1.8 and a 8-16 would keep up with Sigma. On the long end, you can go EF lens easily.


----------



## ronderick (Feb 20, 2011)

Someone posted a link at Mobile01 a few days ago on an interview (Simplified Chinese) conducted by the Chinese media with Canon executives:

http://www.pcpop.com/doc/0/632/632009.shtml

According to the article, the Canon executives confirmed the following:

1. EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II is in development
2. No plans for mirrorless bodies for now
3. No plans for 3D consumer-level products for now
4. Plans to develop specific lens for EOS Movie (these lenses will probably be very expensive)
5. Pick up speed from 7-8 lens a year to 10 lens a year

There's also some figures they've mentioned, including that Canon claims 9 out of the world's top 20 best selling point and shoot cameras in 2010...


----------



## tzalmagor (Feb 20, 2011)

ronderick said:


> Someone posted a link at Mobile01 a few days ago on an interview (Simplified Chinese) conducted by the Chinese media with Canon executives:
> 
> http://www.pcpop.com/doc/0/632/632009.shtml
> 
> ...



Canon released no more than 6 lenses a year for at least a decade. Do they develop and dump a lens or two every year ?


----------



## Lawliet (Feb 20, 2011)

traveller said:


> EF 135mm f/1.8 L IS USM (is IS possible on such a fast aperture FF lens? How many would pay the premium over the existing version?)


Well, there is the 200/2IS, that third of a stop shouldn't be an insurmountable problem. 
The premium is an other story. Between the 70-200/2,8ISII and the 135/2 neither IS nor the marginally faster aperture would make it a mandatory upgrade.


----------



## lol (Feb 21, 2011)

tzalmagor said:


> Canon released no more than 6 lenses a year for at least a decade. Do they develop and dump a lens or two every year ?


As a random thought, would "lenses" on compact cameras count too?


----------



## Redreflex (Feb 21, 2011)

kubelik said:


> 1. EF vs. EF-S
> 
> It's clear to see why Canon spends far more effort in designing EF lenses. out of 113 votes for lens requests, only 14 were for APS-C only lenses. that's a meager 12%, and I do think this statistic is telling. the people who are going to be puchasing and owning multiple lenses tend to be those who take photography seriously. if you're taking your photography seriously, you're likely to want to invest in better gear (quality over quantity). if you want the best quality, it looks like people still go to the EF lineup for it.
> 
> ...



Nice post. However, I think it's worth bearing in mind that both these stats largely reflect the readership of this forum, particularly those who would respond to posts and have the knowledge and experience to come up with a wishlist. In fact, I wonder what percentage of DSLR owners regularly read up on forums?


----------



## epsiloneri (Feb 21, 2011)

Redreflex said:


> However, I think it's worth bearing in mind that both these stats largely reflect the readership of this forum, particularly those who would respond to posts and have the knowledge and experience to come up with a wishlist. In fact, I wonder what percentage of DSLR owners regularly read up on forums?



Let's make a poll and check: How many of you DSLR owners are reading this forum?


----------



## Lawliet (Feb 21, 2011)

Most user stay with the kit lens(es). Figures in the range of 1,5 or so lenses per body are floating around.

Yes, people interested in high end lenses are a minority, but so are people who would buy a separate lens in the first place. Those kit lenses are good enough for everyday use.

If you have the need for a better lens, your either a rather conscious shooter or simply a gearhead. The first group is better of with a FF camera and a quality zoom then a collection of EF-s primes. And thats also the way to make full use of those expensive f/1.4 lenses. 
OTOH a 35/1,8 could fill the role of a gateway drug.


----------



## tzalmagor (Feb 21, 2011)

lol said:


> tzalmagor said:
> 
> 
> > Canon released no more than 6 lenses a year for at least a decade. Do they develop and dump a lens or two every year ?
> ...



Looking at the variety of Canon compact camera lenses, I get the impression the variety is small enough to get into this count.


----------



## DrPizza (Feb 27, 2011)

lol said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Plus, EF-S lenses concentrate at the wide-angle end of the focal length spectrum. Beyond wide-angle lenses, it's easy to substitute a full-frame lens for an EF-S lens. Is a 70-300 mm lens a full-frame lens or is it an EF-S lens? It depends on the camera it's on.
> ...


I don't think this is true at all.

I know it may surprise some, but for a lot of us, APS-C is a virtue. For the same parameters (focal length, aperture, build quality, etc.) an APS-C lens will be smaller, lighter, and cheaper than an APS lens. Those are all good things.

To us, it's not a good answer to say "Oh, if you want a decent quality telephoto zoom just get one of the 70-200 mm or 70-300 mm variants". Doing that compromises on size, weight, and price. 

But just because we want smaller, lighter, and less expensive lenses doesn't mean we want to compromise on quality. Canon has plenty of cheap and cheerful EF-S lenses, but the high-end ones are rarer: the 17-55 mm (obviously), and the 60 mm macro. The 10-22 mm and 15-85 mm are also well regarded, but the lack of constant apertures IMO leaves me wanting.

As it stands, Tokina's got my money for an ultra-wide, and I think there's a good chance that Sigma will get my money for a telephoto (the new 50-150 looks very tempting). Likewise a prime: the Sigma 30 mm f/1.4 is probably the best option.


----------



## lol (Feb 27, 2011)

DrPizza said:


> To us, it's not a good answer to say "Oh, if you want a decent quality telephoto zoom just get one of the 70-200 mm or 70-300 mm variants". Doing that compromises on size, weight, and price.


I only seriously use crop sensor myself, but there is a point where diminishing returns kick in and there the disadvantages to making a lens EF-S start to outweigh the possible benefits. I believe you may be over-estimating the possible cost/size/weight savings from having a possible EF-S lens over a an EF lens of the same (actual) focal length and aperture range.

In simple terms, EF-S gets you two things:
1 - the rear lens element can be placed closer to the sensor. This mainly benefits wide(r) angle lenses, and would be of little value once you get to a 70-xxx zoom.
2 - the reduced image circle for a crop sensor. The front of a lens will be the same for both, unless you want to argue with the known laws of physics. I've lost that one every time I tried. e.g. an EF-S 70-200 f/2.8 will be the same size front elements as an EF 70-200 f/2.8. Now, the rest of the lens could be made smaller due to the reduced image circle, but if you look at the lens diagrams, those inner and rear elements are already smaller than the front section, so the saving would be small in proportion. At shorter focal lengths (wide to mid angles) the front element sizes are closer compared to the rear elements therefore the size/weight savings become more significant.

Combine the above two and you get the current situation. Crop sensor lenses from any manufacturer only exist for lenses of shorter focal lengths. I guess the only exception to the Sigma 50-150, but how popular is that? Even with the market to themselves it feels like everyone still goes for the 70-200 in preference.

That is not to say there couldn't or shouldn't be more EF-S lenses. Canon are still lagging around the 30-35mm mark compared to other manufacturers in providing affordable choices there.


----------



## DrPizza (Feb 27, 2011)

lol said:


> DrPizza said:
> 
> 
> > To us, it's not a good answer to say "Oh, if you want a decent quality telephoto zoom just get one of the 70-200 mm or 70-300 mm variants". Doing that compromises on size, weight, and price.
> ...


There may be such a point, but I don't think we're at it yet. The Sigma 50-150 (the current model, without OS) weighs about 780 grams. The 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS weighs 1310 grams. The crop-apropriate range (50-150 mm) affords big savings, IMO.



> Combine the above two and you get the current situation. Crop sensor lenses from any manufacturer only exist for lenses of shorter focal lengths. I guess the only exception to the Sigma 50-150, but how popular is that? Even with the market to themselves it feels like everyone still goes for the 70-200 in preference.


Going third-party is a crap shoot. Misfocus issues are persistent. That's a strong incentive to go for a Canon-brand lens, even if it's not exactly what you want.


----------



## traveller (Feb 28, 2011)

DrPizza said:


> Going third-party is a crap shoot. Misfocus issues are persistent. That's a strong incentive to go for a Canon-brand lens, even if it's not exactly what you want.



+1

This is what puts me off the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8, otherwise it would be the perfect lens for my needs. Personally, I don't really like the 70-200mm class on APS-C, they start just a bit too long. Of course, this is a good excuse to go full frame, where they are more at home IMHO; I'm sure this hasn't escaped Canon's notice!


----------



## lol (Feb 28, 2011)

DrPizza said:


> There may be such a point, but I don't think we're at it yet. The Sigma 50-150 (the current model, without OS) weighs about 780 grams. The 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS weighs 1310 grams. The crop-apropriate range (50-150 mm) affords big savings, IMO.


The weight "saving" going down to the 150mm lens I believe is mostly down to the shorter focal length, moreso than any further saving from being a crop sensor design.

Also, if you're going to start comparing crop sensor + lens vs full frame sensor + other lens, you might also want to start considering aperture equivalence too...


----------



## match14 (Mar 1, 2011)

EF-S 30mm 1.4 to rival the Sigma 30mm. Iknow the Sigma is good but it would be interesting to see what Canon could do.


----------

