# Affordable, non-L, Prime Lenses from this century please!



## nwj82 (Feb 21, 2011)

Why does Canon introduce a new Rebel every year but cannot seem to update there current line of affordable, non-L primes? Most of those lenses are pushing 15 to 20 years since there release date! Come on Canon, you can still make money on us non-rich guys. People would eat up a new version of the 50mm f/1.4 and I would love to see a 35mm x/f with USM. 

Surely im not the only one who feels this way.

Please Canon, im begging you!

Any thoughts or comments?


----------



## FatDaddyJones (Feb 21, 2011)

It makes me wonder how many of Canon's executives and developers look at forums like this for ideas of what the public actually wants. 

I'm sure there are plenty of market studies that they listen to and use as fodder for their future development and marketing strategies. I wonder if Canon rumors is one of them. ?????


----------



## /dev/null (Feb 21, 2011)

I also want to buy some more medium range primes, but am put off by the age of the designs. I love my 20 f/2.8 and 85 f/1.8. The 50 f/1.4 is already one step down. I'd like to replace the crappy 28 f/2.8 with something more serious (an update to the 28 f/1.8 would be great!), maybe add a 35 (certainly not the old 35 f/2).

The L-range is too heavy and expensive for my use. Maybe I'll try out a Zeiss. For wide angles AF is not soo important, but there is hardly any advantage over the price of the Ls.

Canon, please stop updating the entry level zooms every 3 months. Nobody cares. The people that would notice the difference would never buy such a lens anyways, and the ones that do buy them in a kit - well, 95% buy them because they are in the kit. Put your engineers to work on something more dignified.

Oh, the executives will look a some market research done by someone who takes pictures with his iPhone, and the developers are not given a choice what to develop.


----------



## tzalmagor (Feb 21, 2011)

Once upon a time, I decided to send such feedback to Canon. The Canon site has the Contact Us go through local "sales offices and support", so I did. The answer I got was "what do you want us to do with this ?"

It seems evident to me that (i) Canon does not want feedback directly from customers, and (ii) it doesn't expect "local sales and support" to forward it any such feedback.

In the 4th world country I call home, every company's web site has a better 'contact us' form. Granted, the form is usually connected to /dev/shredder, but at least there's the pretention of listening to customers.


----------



## sp1497 (Feb 21, 2011)

It is slightly ridiculous just how old the non-L primes are and I'm completely stumped on why they've not at least made a new 30-35mm lens, something to rival Sigma's 30mm f1.4.


----------



## kubelik (Feb 21, 2011)

I would love to see a couple of the old non-L prime lenses refreshed with new builds/components/optical quality (especially the 28mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/2).

however, I have to approach this issue from a realist perspective. I believe there's a few basic reasons these haven't seen refreshes in years/decades:

*1. Priorities*

it's clear canon is upgrading nearly their entire lens lineup to make them work with new and future sensor technology. however, all of the recent new releases have been big white L glass. that's simply a business decision: those are the lenses that bring canon the biggest prestige, those are the customers that absolutely require canon to be at the cutting edge of technology. I personally believe that Canon also makes a huge profit off of these lenses (especially off the high-volume L lenses like the 70-200 series, where both enthusiasts and professionals will want to buy and be able to afford it) despite the higher initial cost of R+D and production, and the limited volume. canon can only drop so many new lenses each year, so the non-L primes may very will be on their list, but they just haven't gotten around to it yet. be patient.

*2. Because you can't expect Canon to listen to everyone/anyone on a forum*

people hate to hear this one, but that's the truth. everyone feels like their idea is The Best Idea, but then again, so does everyone else. unless you are offering to purchase 2 million copies of your own lens design, there is no reason for Canon to get jumping on your idea because you emailed/called them and said "hey, this is a great idea!" Even if you see a crowd of people on a forum jumping up and down over a lens concept, that's no guarantee the general public will agree that it's better than sliced bread and buy it by the truckload. we've seen plenty of very vocal but very minority voices on this forum that I strongly doubt are reflected in the overall marketplace. this forum is a very skewed slice of the canon consumer base. I bet if you picked the top 50 posters on the memberlist and looked at their equipment list it would look nothing like the median equipment list of a canon customer. if you are on this site, you are not just into photography, you are into photography equipment. you are so into photography equipment you enjoy spending more time than appropriate thinking about your next equipment purchase. (of course, I'm included in this).

*3. Because they're actually fairly well placed*

this is the other reason that nobody wants to hear. if you are an enthusiast but also a novice, looking to get your first prime lens beyond the standard kit zooms, the fuddy-duddy non-L primes still get the job done pretty well and at a reasonable price. Iâ€™ve seen a surprising number of professionals shooting with the 28mm f/1.8. lots of us are perfectly happy with the 50mm f/1.4. I know plenty of others that think picking up a 50mm f/1.8 was the best $100 theyâ€™ve ever spent. sure, everything would be nice if it was better. are they Good Enough for the market, however? the painful truth is, yes, they are.


----------



## /dev/null (Feb 21, 2011)

You forgot 

*4. Because there is no competition*

Hardly anybody makes mid-range primes. Only recently Zeiss, Sigma and Nikon have started producing something remotely similar.

Now that the competition has made a move, maybe Canon will make a move, too. (wishful thinking, I admit)


----------



## kubelik (Feb 21, 2011)

dev, excellent point -- but I think that list of competitors may actually be even shorter. I don't think you can qualify the Zeiss lenses as affordable, which is what the post is asking for. so it's really just Sigma and Nikon. most other systems only have macro or portrait primes.


----------



## Policar (Feb 21, 2011)

*Is there really a market?*

Fast primes were designed largely so that the operator could handhold, or get close to hand holding, in natural light at 100ISO (now 400ISO). With digital, you can shoot 3200ISO okay and IS works incredibly well. The "need for speed" isn't quite what it used to be, lens-wise. It's obvious where the money is now: zooms, f2.8 zooms for professionals and wealthy amateurs, kit lenses for the rest of us. Zooms cover the majority of functionality across just a few lenses and the current ones are great. I don't think it would be worth the money developing equally optically advanced primes. First of all because old primes work well enough, secondly because they're more of a specialty item.

The really useful primes are there: fast 85mm and 105mm for portraiture, 17mm and 24mm t/s for architecture and 90mm t/s for products. I don't think there's much of a market for the rest, except as specialty items for wealthy amateurs, which is what all the MF Zeiss lenses are. I would like to see a 35mm f1.8 EF-S IS or something at a reasonable price, but the plastic 50mm and it would probably cannibalize one another's sales.


----------



## kubelik (Feb 21, 2011)

policar, I disagree with the assumption that the only reason people are interested in fast standard/wide primes is for low light photography.

wide primes do two other things that no f/2.8 zoom lens can do regardless of your ISO ceiling: isolate subject and freeze action.

I believe that's why a lot of people step up from the kit lens, it's not because they want to take photos in the dark, it's because they want to have photographs that are visually impactful and look like they weren't shot with a kit lens.


----------



## Admin US West (Feb 21, 2011)

There are many reasons as to why people like the fast lenses. However, as I recall, back in the 1960's, canon advertised those superfast lenses like the f 0.95 as low light lenses for journalists. 

The wide aperture can give you a nice blurred backgrounds and let you highlight a feature by having only it in sharp focus, and then, many buy the high priced lenses because they want the best, and if it costs more, than, its the best.

My main reason for buying a wide aperture lens is low light use, even at ISO 3200, and f/1.4 I often am wanting more light.

Last night, while shooting my friend's car at a monster jam, they turned out the lights and brought out this car eating monster. I was able to photograph it only because of my f/1.4 lens. At long distances, the shallow depth of field is not a factor.

35mm f/1.4 ISO 3200







35mmf/1.6 ISO 3200






Here is one I took at f/1.4 close up. Same lens. Only the tips of the wheat are in sharp focus. I'm not sure I like the result, but it illustrates the shallow depth of field principle.

35mm f/1.4


----------



## Policar (Feb 21, 2011)

Of course shallow focus is a factor, but it's mostly useful for portraiture, and we have nice lenses for that, as I mentioned. I think shallow depth of field is so popular now simply because it's the easiest way to tell something was shot on a more expensive lens. Originally speed was marketed to photojournalists more than it was marketed for shallow focus effects.

If you're shooting cropped and really want shallow focus or low light ability, keep the zooms and get a full frame camera. Your f2.8 lenses will "feel" like f1.8 at equivalent FOVs and noise will be far reduced. Of course there's a place for ultra-fast lenses, but that place is a niche in the market, for better or worse, and niche products are expensive.


----------



## gmrza (Feb 21, 2011)

nwj82 said:


> Why does Canon introduce a new Rebel every year but cannot seem to update there current line of affordable, non-L primes? Most of those lenses are pushing 15 to 20 years since there release date! Come on Canon, you can still make money on us non-rich guys. People would eat up a new version of the 50mm f/1.4 and I would love to see a 35mm x/f with USM.
> 
> Surely im not the only one who feels this way.
> 
> ...



A lot of points have already been addressed but, you need to consider:
- Only a small percentage of photographers buy prime lenses (mainly enthusiasts and professionals)
- Some of Canon's existing non-L primes (for instance the 50mm f/1.4) deliver excellent results despite
their age.
- Zoom lenses have had a long period of development to catch up to the levels of sharpness and
freedom from distortion of prime lenses.
- Especially in the area of sharpness a lot of Canon's zooms needed a refresh to cope with current sensors.
- Entry level kit lenses will always be designed to provide the level of performance for a current sensor at
minimum cost.

Also consider that no matter how well a prime lens is engineered, many prime lenses, except the
most expensive (the 85mm f/1.2L USM II comes to mind) have significant issues with the aperture
wide open. Sharpness at the fringes is an issue, even with L series primes. Nervous foreground blur
is a frequent problem, and non-circular out of focus highlights often occur at the fringes. That is
not to mention the level of vignetting that a lot of fast primes suffer from. (I don't know if it is possible
to build a light-weight, affordable fast prime that does not suffer from significant light fall-off at the
borders when the aperture is wide open.)


----------



## davidonformosa (Feb 22, 2011)

It amazes me the number of people that claim a zoom with image stabilisation is just as good as a prime lens with a large aperture. This is not correct. There are several reasons for this: 

1. The role of aperture in composition: wide apertures can be used for their narrow depth of field and bokeh effect. This is a key element of creative photography. 
2. Prime lenses are optimised for a specific focal length (obviously they only have one). The image quality of zoom lenses may vary at different focal lengths. 
3. Prime lenses have less elements. Zoom and image stabilisation add extra elements to the lens and affect image quality. 

If you are happy using an image stabilised zoom then good for you. Please understand there are very good reasons why other photographers use prime lenses though.


----------



## FatDaddyJones (Feb 22, 2011)

nwj82 said:


> Affordable, non-L, Prime Lenses from this century please!



I have a good feeling that Canon WILL release an affordable, non-L prime lens upgrade sometime before the end of this century. (though it may be towards the end.)


----------



## unruled (Feb 22, 2011)

im quite pleased with my 85mm f/1.8. I do wish they would update the 50mm 1.4 or even 1.8 though..


----------



## NormanBates (Feb 22, 2011)

what I don't understand is how, being as commited to APS-C as canon is, it doesn't introduce a full range of EF-S fast primes

designing and manufacturing a lens for a smaller sensor is much easier and cheaper, so these lenses could be of great quality and carry a very reasonable price, probably comparable to that of the current non-L primes

apart from lack of interest (which, as you know, is great for a firm's long-term prospects...), the only reason I can think of for not doing this is to avoid canibalizing their L series

so maybe they've decided that it's best if they let it to the new breed to eat their business (I'm talking about panasonic, olympus and samsung, all of them offering cheap primes for their evil little cameras)


----------



## lol (Feb 22, 2011)

NormanBates said:


> so maybe they've decided that it's best if they let it to the new breed to eat their business (I'm talking about panasonic, olympus and samsung, all of them offering cheap primes for their evil little cameras)


The Olympus/Panasonic lenses are definitely not cheap compared to the existing budget EF lenses.

I think Canon only really need one EF-S prime only to help fight Nikon/Sony at the low end. That'll be the 35mm f/1.8.


----------



## NormanBates (Feb 22, 2011)

the panasonic 20mm f/1.7 is a great little lens, and costs $350
the samsung 30mm f/2.0 is not bad either, and costs $300
the samsung 20mm f/2.8 is not stellar, but again is on the $350 mark

what does canon have to fight that 20mm? a 20mm f/2.8 that can work on full frame (totally unnecessary for most people) and costs 50% more than the samsung

I agree that a 35mm f/1.8 would be the place to start
from there on, they should go to the wider end, with someghing like a 22mm f/1.8 and a 15mm f/2.8

or they can just watch how the new players eat their cake


----------



## lol (Feb 22, 2011)

Due to the different field of view from the different sensor sizes, you will need to multiply both focal length and aperture of the microFourThirds lens by 1.25x to get the functional equivalent Canon crop sensor lens.

Totally ignoring image quality, size, build, and comparing optically equivalent spec and price only. Prices are the lowest shown on a UK price checking site at time of writing.

Panasonic
Â£588 8mm f/3.5 fisheye - Canon equiv. 8-15mm fisheye zoom once it is out. Pre-order around Â£1100 so yes, it costs more and also does more too.
Â£285 14mm f/2.5 - Canon equiv. 17.5mm f/3.1. The nearest non-exact lens would be the EF 20mm f/2.8 at Â£389. Alternatively the kit zoom at wide end of 18mm f/3.5 is pretty close too.
Â£265 20mm f/1.7 - Need a 25mm f/2.1 here. The 24mm f/2.8 is Â£361.
Â£559 45mm f/2.8 macro (Leica) - need 56mm f/3.5. The EF-S 60mm f/2.8 is an obvious equivalent here at Â£304.

Olympus
Â£223 17mm f/2.8 - need 21mm f/3.5. Nearest is 20mm f/2.8 at Â£389.

So given all that, it does look like if you want to get a Canon equivalent of a m4/3 lens for use on crop sensor, the EF primes under perform and are overpriced. I suspect it would be a lot more interesting if you compared full format, but of course that's offset by the higher body cost.

But let's turn that around. On Canon, I have a budget prime set of 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8 used on crop sensor. How much is the equivalent on m4/3?

35mm f/2 would need a 28mm f/1.6. Nothing comes close.
50mm f/1.8 would need a 40mm f/1.5. I don't see one of those either.
85mm f/1.8 would need a 68mm f/1.5. Guess what?...

Overall, I guess it's horses for courses. Pick what you want (on either system) if it suits your needs.

Now, someone tell me why did I bother going through all that?...


----------



## kubelik (Feb 22, 2011)

lol said:


> Overall, I guess it's horses for courses. Pick what you want (on either system) if it suits your needs.
> 
> Now, someone tell me why did I bother going through all that?...



you're pretty much on the money with your observation. the systems aren't really directly comparable in terms of lens choice (not to mention functionality, with the whole do-you-want-a-viewfinder/compact body/smaller image sensor/etc. issues). in the long run, canon's family of lenses is pretty much the most comprehensive set of lenses in the market, without even taking into account third-party offerings from sigma, zeiss, tokina, and tamron. 

I'd have to add to this that, when we look at gaps in the EF-S lineup, we should actually account for Sigma glass. although Sigma produces lenses for pretty much everyone, this actually allows Canon to treat sigma as a budget-minded lineup to help fill in its gaps, and to then focus on higher-end lenses before they get back around to redesigning their older pieces. so canon's actually got a 30mm f/1.4, 20mm f/1.8, 24mm f/1.8, and 28mm f/1.8 lenses ... they're just developed and made by Sigma. it's a smart and mutually beneficial relationship; sigma is allowed to compete against canon's older lineup and canon agrees not to hammer them on price, while canon buyers have access to certain focal lengths and price points that aren't directly available through canon's portfolio, making the overall canon system's options even more numerous.


----------



## drummstikk (Feb 22, 2011)

Kubelik NAILS why there will most likely not be any non-L fixed lenses (sorry, I refuse to call them "primes") in the foreseeable future, if ever. I would only add the the only reason the fixed lenses introduced in the late 80's-early 90's exist at all is the the lens market was totally different then. In the early '90's, the typical pro shooter's bag was filled with five or six fixed lenses at any given time. There may have been two or three more locked up in the cabinet for special purposes (macro, fisheye, long tele). My employer at the time then got each photographer on the staff a Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 AF ED zoom. This was literally the first zoom lens that was worth having for professional use (even though the autofocus was pretty slow, jerky and useless - Canon was first-to-market with AF that WORKED).

From there, the slow migration was on until today, when I do 90% of my photography with two zoom lenses (24-105 and 70-200). I have a Tamron 10-24 for my infrequent extreme wide work, and a 400mm 5.6 for extra reach. Anything else I rent as needed.

I was a Nikon shooter for about 10 years (until about 1992), and the Nikon line had multiple lenses at every focal length (i.e. 35mm 2.8, 35mm 2.0, 35mm 1.4). Canon was about the same with their FD line. Once Canon and Nikon could get quality zooms embraced by pros and serious amateurs, the market could be defragmented. That means better lenses for photographers and more profits for the manufacturers. That's a win-win that you won't likely see compromised by the introduction of mid-range fixed lenses.

With the market for fixed lenses thus limited, there is only room for one lens per focal length, and you can be assured that one lens will be the best, most premium piece of glass they can muster (at a commensurate price, of course).

I still hold out some micro-hope we may see lenses like the 85mm 1.8 and 100mm 2.0 upgraded with better focusing motors, though I would't expect an optical re-design. But I will continue normal respiration until and if that ever happens.


----------



## te4o (Feb 23, 2011)

I sold off my 17-55 2.8 and the 10-20 Sigma a few months ago (kept the 70-200 4IS) and changed over to Zeiss. Since then my "needs replacement"-40D hasn't spent much time in the bag... The fun of photography is back - it's like sticking a SSD into a Mac. 
Before 'Zeiss' I often didn't even try some shots because I thought they wouldn't look well (lighting, detail, color etc). Now I must say almost everything, even a 'simple walk in the park', turns into a photo-tour. I know that everyone is fond of what he's got on the desk and I think it's just fine - I go more for landscape, portrait, macro than for journalism and sports (AF no big deal). But even action is possible there, if you know how to operate the lens. The other day I acceptably focused 3/4 of some 200 shots with the ZE 100 at f2 of buggy-boarding family members in on-coming ocean waves - you know how fast they go. I did another 200 with the 70-200 on sports-AF. Yes, the 70-200 focused more shots correctly, but I wouldn't keep as many of them... So, don't be put off by lack of AF (I used AF -good or bad- for 20 yrs on different Canons) and try out a Zeiss. 
Zeiss ZE primes can't be called affordable but I payed 1620 AUD for the 17-55 3 yrs ago and 1580 for the 70-200 - so not quite cheap either. Can there be an 'affordable' & good prime lens? 
I think there should be more affordable ones though too, so that more people start using them. I don't miss the two zooms at all. Primes and 'walk-zooming' taught me putting much more thought into framing. 
And for a fast prime - there's the 35 f1.4 coming in March. The flickr-prototype samples look very impressive. Unfortunately, not quite affordable - but look, inflation is everywhere...
Anyway, just wanted to share my opinion.


----------



## lol (Feb 23, 2011)

drummstikk said:


> I still hold out some micro-hope we may see lenses like the 85mm 1.8 and 100mm 2.0 upgraded with better focusing motors, though I would't expect an optical re-design. But I will continue normal respiration until and if that ever happens.


I'm the other way around on the 85mm f/1.8. The AF on it is one of if not the fastest of any Canon lens I have, but I really wish it was less prone to purple fringing and had smoother reaction to point sources of light.


@te4o, when I did a side by side comparison of the Zeiss makro-planar 2/50 and the cheapo Canon 50mm f/1.8, I was surprised to find very little difference between them at equivalent focus distances and aperture. No observable colour differences, bokeh was similar where the aperture blades don't limit. Tiny variation in sharpness only detectable in extreme pixel peeping. Of course, they do have different abilities once you get outside the common ground, but to me Zeiss wasn't any magic image producer.


----------



## drummstikk (Feb 23, 2011)

lol said:


> drummstikk said:
> 
> 
> > I still hold out some micro-hope we may see lenses like the 85mm 1.8 and 100mm 2.0 upgraded with better focusing motors, though I would't expect an optical re-design. But I will continue normal respiration until and if that ever happens.
> ...



I never had a problem with the focusing speed. I had a recurring problem with the 100mm 2.0, and to a lesser extent with the 50mm 1.4 (since I used it less, probably) where the manual focus would become sticky and gritty. CPS would fix it for about 60 bucks, and the lens would be fine for 12-15 months when the problem would crop up again. My employer at the time paid all my repair bills, but when I got out on my own, I sold the 100mm rather than leave myself open to that recurring expense.

I never owned an 85mm 1.8. Can someone tell me what kind of USM it has? I assumed micromotor (which seemed to be part of the cause of the problem with the 100mm I refer above), but Amazon.com's product page for the 85m 1.8 indictates "Ring type USM," while Amazon lists "Micro Ultrasonic Motor" for the 100mm 2.0. I do not consider Amazon authoritative for Canon gear, but this has me wondering

So, can anyone tell me. . . what kind of USM does the 85mm 1.8 have? Canon lists "Rear focusing system with USM" for both lenses, which is kind of vague. If the 85mm does not have the same system as the 100mm 2.0, I could put that on my short list of lenses to buy next.


----------



## Fleetie (Feb 23, 2011)

drummstikk said:


> lol said:
> 
> 
> > drummstikk said:
> ...



No, the 80/1.8 does NOT have a "micro USM" motor; it has the full USM motor.

I have never had a problem with the AF speed on it; indeed I have seen the speed praised in some reviews of this lens.

It feels nice enough to use, not that I use manual focussing on it. But the AF "feels" just fine.


Martin


----------



## drummstikk (Feb 23, 2011)

Fleetie said:


> No, the 80/1.8 does NOT have a "micro USM" motor; it has the full USM motor.
> 
> I have never had a problem with the AF speed on it; indeed I have seen the speed praised in some reviews of this lens.
> 
> ...



Thanks for that info. As I recall, the 100mm 2.0 was released about a year before the 85mm 1.8 and they look very much alike, so for about the last two decades I always assumed they had the same focus motor. Good to know that's not the case.

I just rented a 135mm 2.0 to use on my old 5D last weekend. I could have gotten about the same result with an 85mm 1.8 on my 7D without the rental cost, and the 85mm would be a much more useful all-around lens for me to own.


----------



## unruled (Feb 24, 2011)

Fleetie said:


> drummstikk said:
> 
> 
> > lol said:
> ...



i guess you mean the 85 1.8. It has 'proper' USM. In fact, it is one of the lenses with the fastest AF that canon makes. FTM is also nice.


----------



## Fleetie (Feb 24, 2011)

unruled said:


> Fleetie said:
> 
> 
> > drummstikk said:
> ...



Yeah; I meant the 85/1.8! Sorry! It feels nice to use.

However, the manual focus rings on all Canon lenses I have (see my sig, below) are nowhere near what I'd call "smooth" compared to the lovely smooth action on my Olympus/Zuiko OM-series lenses. Those are just lovely to use.


Martin


----------



## Admin US West (Feb 24, 2011)

Fleetie said:


> AF "feels" just fine.
> 
> However, the manual focus rings on all Canon lenses I have (see my sig, below) are nowhere near what I'd call "smooth" compared to the lovely smooth action on my Olympus/Zuiko OM-series lenses. Those are just lovely to use.
> 
> Martin



Autofocus lenses are designed with a short throw to make autofocusing faster. Comparing amy autofocus lens with a manual focus lens in going to give the same results.

Try a Canon manual focus lens like the 24mm TS-E, smooth as silk, and easy to focus accurately due to the long throw.

If you compare apples to apples, you might come up with a comparison that is apprepriate.


----------

