# Why is Canon so slow updating (legacy) lenses?



## Marsu42 (Apr 9, 2012)

Leaving nuclear holocaust, floods and earthquakes aside - I'm wondering why Canon is so slow actually rolling out updated versions of their legacy lenses. There seems to be no short supply of patents, and they released several 70-200 versions. But: A weather-sealed 35L, 50mm without focus breathing or micro usm anyone?

If I knew, I'd probably be less surprises which of the rumored lenses actually arrive... if anyone has any other suggestions than the ones I came up with, please let us know.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 9, 2012)

I voted, "Until recently, Canon thought that people would like to have zooms..." Although I don't actually think that's changes - Canon still thinks people want zooms, and I'm sure they think that because they can look at their sales figures and easily see that trend.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Although I don't actually think that's changes



I put in "until recently" because of the new primes with IS - but of course they are primarily made for video.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 9, 2012)

I wonder if the Tsunami has anything to do with delayed lens production...???


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 9, 2012)

I'm not sure it is a fair assessment to say they are slow to update. In the past few years we have seen a steady release of updates and I have no reason to think the future will be any different. We can argue which lens should be updated sooner and which later but fact remains that Canon _is_ releasing new lenses at what seems to me an adequate pace. The latest major being the super whites. Now, I would love to see right now a new 35L and 135L with IS but Canon decided those superteles are more important. 

As for the 50 1.2L, I too am frustrated by the focus shift but overall I believe the feedback is very positive on the lens (I love it too, despite the shift). And it being a fairly new lens, I don't see them updating it too soon.

By the way, regarding the focus shift of the 50mm, how do you AFMA it? Do you set it for 1.2 or somewhere further back?


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Apr 9, 2012)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


----------



## RichATL (Apr 9, 2012)

People underestimate the amount of technical skill and development it takes to create a lens. 
When you start adding "breathing", and other video considerations... the cost quickly moves beyond the pro/consumer range that is Canon's bread and butter.

Why people feel the need to "update" their glass when a new version comes out is beyond me.
Great lenses, should, last you your entire career if taken care of properly.

For example.. I just purchased a 28-70mm L about a month a go...
It's rubbish on a crop sensor...because it was created in 1993...before digital.
But now... on my 5d3, its incredible!

Canon went from having to update lenses for digital in the early 2000's, which meant lowering the quality a bit because lenses couldn't be designed soley for one format...(FF etc), to now having to re-evaluate their quality to match the ever increasing sensor technology.

I decided to hedge my bets (and save money), buy getting some well kept "old School" glass, along with some of the new hotness.

Here's one (albeit small) from the 5d3, and the aforementioned 28-70 2.8L


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 9, 2012)

RichATL said:


> Why people feel the need to "update" their glass when a new version comes out is beyond me.



Rumor has it that Canon uses other glass/coating in for the digital generation lenses - so that would be one reason to "update". The other reason is that some 80s tech is just crappy today - talking of non-usm af motors... and Canon did update some lenses like the 24L but didn't do the same for the 35L for reasons unknown to me.


----------



## pwp (Apr 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> I voted, "Until recently, Canon thought that people would like to have zooms..." Although I don't actually think that's changes - Canon still thinks people want zooms, and I'm sure they think that because they can look at their sales figures and easily see that trend.



Yes, outside of a statistically tiny percentage of photographers who are completely "prime" focused and incorrectly perceive zooms as optically and creatively lightweight trash, the vast majority of the market either chooses or very happily accepts the flexibility and very high performance of particularly L zooms. 

Why are Canon slow to update older glass? First and foremost they are a business with obligations to the long term viability of the company and to shareholders. Pragmatic business decisions are being made daily, based on a whole raft of criteria, none of which would include what they may see as distant background noise from lists such as this one. 

I didn't vote as the options were too narrow.

Paul Wright


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 10, 2012)

i just wish they would hurry up and update the 50mm f1.4 already 
I love the compact 50


----------



## Aglet (Apr 10, 2012)

pwp said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I voted, "Until recently, Canon thought that people would like to have zooms..." Although I don't actually think that's changes - Canon still thinks people want zooms, and I'm sure they think that because they can look at their sales figures and easily see that trend.
> ...



it's all about the money
takes quite a bit of R&D investment to make improvements on lenses. Not so much the actual design, i think, otta be a way to have modern computer analysis help out in optimizing every aspect of any design. But getting that design into a practical and manufacturable product at a cost that leaves room for profit is a whole different game. 

Priorities are likely given to marketing mainstays, cheap zooms kitted with consumer class items, then some decent primes that actually sell in measurable amounts and those higher end pieces, like L class zooms and a few L primes.

I've been eagerly waiting for a whole whack of updated wide primes for FF. The old ones are just not up to expectations when more modern zoom designs can outperform many of them. And that should just not be the case. Hopefully the recent news on refreshed wide and standard primes will turn up soon and provide us with performance that meets today's expectations and tomorrow's technological advances. With or w-o the red stripe. (I'd also like to see some hot new primes for the other big brand too)

I didn't vote either - my reason's above.


----------



## FunPhotons (Apr 10, 2012)

Making these things takes specialized talent, and good engineers are hard to come by these days anyhow. They surely have a small team or two that does this that is already heavily loaded
Bringing a lens (or any device I can tell you because I do something similar) takes a huge amount of effort, engineering, OF (order fulfillment/manufacturing), marketing, learning products, etc ... just tooling up a new line takes a lot of capital 
Big, old conservative companies go slow


----------



## peederj (Apr 10, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Leaving nuclear holocaust, floods and earthquakes aside



I LOL'ed! ;D Not like you could be serious! ;D


Unh.......

wait.... ???


----------



## birtembuk (Apr 10, 2012)

I think we have become a bit of spoiled brats. The performance of zooms have tremendously improved over the last decade or so. But, drooling in front of our 24" full HD PC screens, we always ask for more. Canon have more than 70 fine lenses in their catalog. IMO, their zooms cover from 16 up to 400 almost flawlessly and the more so with their new 24-70 and 200-400. There surely will be touch-ups here and there, or maybe some silent improvements but overall, we are spoiled with choice. 

For a number of us though, primes remain the photography grail. Correct me if I am wrong but price is not real issue here. I don't mind paying a load for a flawless 50/1.2 knowing that there's 1.4 or 1.8 for those who don't want to get in serious conflict with their spouse. Same applies to any other prime anyway.

Problem is that Canon is probably busy doing in the zoom compartment as this is obviously mainstream. But don't forget, once we are loaded - and we love it - with a truckload of L glass, for sure the last think we want to think of is to jump ship when the itching, sometimes, becomes a bit painful. Canon, do make us more captive customers ! Give us more of our addictive L drugs !


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Apr 10, 2012)

RichATL said:


> People underestimate the amount of technical skill and development it takes to create a lens.
> When you start adding "breathing", and other video considerations... the cost quickly moves beyond the pro/consumer range that is Canon's bread and butter.
> 
> Why people feel the need to "update" their glass when a new version comes out is beyond me.
> Great lenses, should, last you your entire career if taken care of properly.



I'm interested in updated primes for other reasons.

The 24mm f/1.4L is too expensive for me. The 24mm f/2.8 non-IS is just one stop faster than my kit lens, and it's IQ isn't good enough to make me buy it. If Canon made a 24mm f/2 USM with good IQ, I would buy it. If the new 24mm f/2.8 IS USM would be very favourably reviewed, I would consider it.


----------



## KWSW (Apr 10, 2012)

I would love for an updated 50 f/1.4 and maybe the cheaper teleprimes (as compared to their older f/2.8 siblings) like the 300 f/4 and the 400 f/5.6


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 10, 2012)

compared to Nikon, Canon was exceedingly slow to update their lens line-up over the last 7+ years.

While they are very slowly completing work on the super-teles and the TS-E lineup, there are lots of major weaknesses throughout the normal range:

* 50/1.4 II ... matching Nikon/Sigma, with new and robust Ring-USM/FTM ... overdue for years
* 14-24 L or at least a 16-35 L III ... fully matching the Nikon optically
* 20/2.0 or 24/2.0 - instead of a 24/2.8 IS and the totally useless 28/2.8 IS
* 24-70/2.8 III WITH IS!
* 100-400/4-5.6 L II - upgrade in IQ for the long end, current 4 EV IS, turning-zoom, and still affordable price


----------



## Neeneko (Apr 10, 2012)

I will echo people saying 'it is all about the money', but this is not a bad thing.

Lenses are expensive to develop and retooling is a pretty major deal. Compare this against the fairly incremental improvement you get out of new lenses and it quickly becomes kinda impractical. With DSLRs, we have not really hit a plateau yet, things are still rapidly changing and thus updates can really obsolete older versions (though this is debatable, one can get a LOT of work out of older DSLRs).. lenses on the other hand have not changed all that much in decades. Take a lens from the 60s and while it might lack some convenience, chances are it can still preform about the same optical job as a modern counterpart and the end photograph will look about the same.

Thus they have a much longer upgrade cycle... come out with a new Rebel and you might see 50% of the current users upgrade in 3 years. Come out with a new 50mm f/1.4 and you will probably see closer to 10% upgrade and mostly just see new sales, which would be the same with the old version.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Apr 10, 2012)

What seems odd is the 24IS and 28IS. Why two lenses so similar, but we still have a 50/1.4 and 1.8 that are long over due for an overhaul?


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Apr 10, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> I will echo people saying 'it is all about the money', but this is not a bad thing.
> 
> Lenses are expensive to develop and retooling is a pretty major deal. Compare this against the fairly incremental improvement you get out of new lenses and it quickly becomes kinda impractical. ...
> 
> Thus they have a much longer upgrade cycle... come out with a new Rebel and you might see 50% of the current users upgrade in 3 years. Come out with a new 50mm f/1.4 and you will probably see closer to 10% upgrade and mostly just see new sales, which would be the same with the old version.



Some of those primes are >20 years old, and are upgrades of FD mount lenses. Canon probably recycled the optical design & manufacturing process for the glass, and 20 years is a long time to recoup the development & tooling expenses.

To return to a favourite example - buying a 24mm f/2.8 IS USM would be an incremental upgrade from the 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM, which is one of the reasons I wouldn't buy it, but be interested in a 24mm f/2. That's a new sale Canon wouldn't make otherwise.


----------



## Neeneko (Apr 10, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> What seems odd is the 24IS and 28IS. Why two lenses so similar, but we still have a 50/1.4 and 1.8 that are long over due for an overhaul?



Probably because of how sucesful the current versions of the 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 are. Outside L-fetish pretty much any time a newbie asks 'what lens should I get' these two come up a highly regarded and many people start with one of these two lenses. There is little need to 'fix' them to draw more people in, while the 24IS and 28IS are much less common and thus would benefit form incremental improvements to increase interest in them.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 10, 2012)

Didn't vote. 

I don't know anything about optics, but I suspect that lenses don't get updated all that often because the technology is fairly stable. There may be incremental design improvements, but lenses are at heart physical tools for gathering and directing light. They seem to be governed by the laws of physics, which don't get changed very often (as opposed to electronics).

Besides, I used to want to see new lenses, but since each "II" version seems to require at least a doubling or even tripling of the price, I'm much less interested. Good example: I really wanted to get a new version of the 100-400 zoom, but when I learned the replacement would be $3,000, I lost interest. 

What difference does it make if a lens is updated if the updated version is far beyond what I am willing to pay?


----------



## NWPhil (Apr 10, 2012)

did not vote
yes, it's all about business - mainstream zooms do sell and make bodies sell as kits.
the USM and Is technology - yes graet, but do add cost and lens life expectancy - classic case with wth 50mm 1.4
So, my take would be:
- zooms do benefit of IS and USM - updates on them are priority
- long focal primes do need IS and USM - pro's and pro-hiring companies can absorb the cost that will give them an edge/better IQ
- anything below 50mm as a prime: skip the IS and drop the USM - yes MF only - upgrade lens coating, seals and shellcase, and ofcourse any real technical optical improvement is welcome( less flare, CA)


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 10, 2012)

NWPhil said:


> - anything below 50mm as a prime: skip the IS and drop the USM - yes MF only - upgrade lens coating, seals and shellcase, and ofcourse any real technical optical improvement is welcome( less flare, CA)



If Canon would actually dare to release a MF prime they will probably charge extra for it. They'll sell it as some super duper mad-skillz-pro-photographer must have lens.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 10, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> What seems odd is the 24IS and 28IS. Why two lenses so similar,



probably because there was only some marginal design and manufacturing differences so it was easy to bring the 2 to market together looking at them there isn't a great deal of visual differences

I would have made sense to have done the 50mm first though since the 24mm 28mm is already covered by tons of great L glass


----------



## Daniel Flather (Apr 10, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> NWPhil said:
> 
> 
> > - anything below 50mm as a prime: skip the IS and drop the USM - yes MF only - upgrade lens coating, seals and shellcase, and ofcourse any real technical optical improvement is welcome( less flare, CA)
> ...




I'd like to see your CAD Canon camera come to life. FF 50 fast prime, no mirror.


----------



## birdman (Apr 11, 2012)

My guess is that: 
1) The lenses still perform very well
2) There is way less money in these inexpensive lenses versus the 300, 400, 500, & 600mm primes that sports photographers world-wide use and demand!!
3) They are waiting to see how sensors will evolve and how to maximize IQ based on lens & sensor combinations

If you study their R&D, they make their own Fluorite elements. The higher end teles and primes are astonishing in IQ. Even the 85/1.8, 135/2.0, and 200/2.8 are still very highly regarded...and very freaking OLD!!

notice the 50/1.2, 24/1.4 II, 85/1.2 II, and 70-200 VRII have been upgraded in the last 5-7 years? They'll get around to updating the "cheaper" lenses for the "cheaper" shooters. Your time is coming, so be patient


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 11, 2012)

birdman said:


> Your time is coming, so be patient



But I want them NOW!


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Apr 11, 2012)

birdman said:


> My guess is that:
> 1) The lenses still perform very well
> 2) There is way less money in these inexpensive lenses versus the 300, 400, 500, & 600mm primes that sports photographers world-wide use and demand!!



The short tele primes, e.g. 85mm & 135mm, do perform very well. I would think thrice before spending money on upgrading my 85mm f/1.8 - it's just good. The shorter primes aren't bad, but I think it's time upgrades with better IQ.

As for profit -

1. I'm sure super teles are more profitable per unit than shorter ones, but can the same be said per model, after taking number of units sold?

2. Sigma is making several primes in those focal lengths (30mm, 50mm, 85mm, 105mm macro, 150mm macro), and Samyang makes a few manual primes as well (24mm, 35mm, 85mm), and those compete with Canon's non-L primes. Those lenses compete with Canon's primes, and apparently sell those well enough.


----------



## NWPhil (Apr 11, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> DavidRiesenberg said:
> 
> 
> > NWPhil said:
> ...



I have to ask: what's CAD Canon camera?


----------



## Daniel Flather (Apr 12, 2012)

NWPhil said:


> Daniel Flather said:
> 
> 
> > DavidRiesenberg said:
> ...




http://davidriesenberg.com/

Go to Portfoilio, then you'll see the Canon AE-D CAD drawings. If you don't know CAD is Computer Assisted Drwaing.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Apr 12, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> NWPhil said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Flather said:
> ...


----------



## NWPhil (Apr 12, 2012)

I have to ask: what's CAD Canon camera?
[/quote]


http://davidriesenberg.com/

Go to Portfoilio, then you'll see the Canon AE-D CAD drawings. If you don't know, CAD is Computer Assisted Drwaing.
[/quote]

Thanks - actually I do work with CADD software every day, that's why when you said "CAD Canon camera",it did get my attention.
However is not really a CAD file, but a rendition image that come out from a cad software program - I could throw a few names, but for sure is not Autodesk or Bentley  - would be nice indeed to see the 3D model of it, as Inventor or SoildWorks can do
Cool stuff that DR has on his website btw
Thanks


----------



## JR (Apr 13, 2012)

I think another option in the original post vote could have been:

because Canon is too busy announcing video centric product and are losing sight of the traditional still market segment.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 13, 2012)

JR said:


> because Canon is too busy announcing video centric product and are losing sight of the traditional still market segment.



I absolutely agree, the same thought came to me when looking at the new cinema announcements - but I didn't think of it back when I made the poll. However, it seems to fit with the most-voted opinion "older lenses are a cash cow" because in the old market segment Canon is still strong while they want to expand into new ones.


----------



## Bennymiata (Apr 13, 2012)

I think the reason they haven't updated the 50mm 1.8, is because it is so cheap and cheerful and sells by the bucketload just as it is.
If they did update it, it's cost would go up by at least a factor of 2, and then the sales would plummet.

Updating lenses means new tooling and new systems to manufacture it, and with the older lenses, you are paying for yesterdays tooling costs, and not today's, which would be significantly higher.

Canon need some low-cost lenses in its line up as not all DSLR users are prepared to pay for L lenses and I would say that the greater majority of their lens sales are the cheap, kit lenses anyway.
Ask any camera retailer which lens sells in the highest volume, and they will tell you that the cheaper lenses outsell the L glass by 3 or 4 times, both in volume and $$$ sales.
It's a bit like cars.
We all want a super high performance, gorgeous looking car, but most of us drive smaller, cheaper cars.

Don't forget, we are on this forum because we are real enthusiasts, and enthusiasts who are prepared to spend big money on stuff are only a small part of any consumer market.


----------



## JR (Apr 13, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > because Canon is too busy announcing video centric product and are losing sight of the traditional still market segment.
> ...



Yeah...too bad for us!


----------



## NWPhil (Apr 13, 2012)

Bennymiata said:


> I think the reason they haven't updated the 50mm 1.8, is because it is so cheap and cheerful and sells by the bucketload just as it is.
> If they did update it, it's cost would go up by at least a factor of 2, and then the sales would plummet.
> 
> Updating lenses means new tooling and new systems to manufacture it, and with the older lenses, you are paying for yesterdays tooling costs, and not today's, which would be significantly higher.
> ...




+1

if is not broken, don't fix it.


Yet, a large percentage of enthusiasts still are driven by the mega-pixel race, and pixel-peep of every shot they take.
Some of my friends have no problem spending $200 on a new phone that will be outdated in a few months, and then will be looking to replace with a new one at great loss.
With lenses, once you buy quality - that you need and use - it's a keeper. You don't really need to update just because a new version is out.
If indeed a lens is an underperformer,, then most likely you already got ride of, or you never got it.
The average Joe, considers a lens above $500 already very expensive...yet, has no problems in paying over twice that in G4 phone/ wireless internet access charges
Priorities...that's a bitch

Canon's prioities: stay alive and make money, whitout loosing position in the market/ratings
For me, a product that needs constant update, just means was not done right to start with...


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 16, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> RichATL said:
> 
> 
> > Why people feel the need to "update" their glass when a new version comes out is beyond me.
> ...



True, there are differences in coatings. Having said that, I am not sure it always justifies an upgrade. New lens versions are most relevant to first time buyers of that lens model or focal length or if lens improvements (like IS) are necessary to certain groups of users' shooting style. 

I certainly won't be rushing out to replace my 35 1.4L with a 35 1.4L II, even if it gets IS, as that lens is already and always will be a stellar performer and, in my opinion, one of if not the top lens in the Canon line-up for what I use it for. If I had Parkinson's or shot low-light sports, then maybe adding IS would swing me, but I won't be parting with my cash at a likely inflated cost for something that has little relevance to the way I shoot or for mild improvements in coatings on a lens that is already contrasty and good at handling flare. 

Manufacturers know that customers will buy updated lenses based almost solely on a II or III designation and "new, revolutionary, 'game-changing' coatings" or "extra large rubberised grip for extra grip...piness" - they make a killing out of it; they get two or more lens sales at the same focal length or ranges as well as new investments in additional focal lengths or ranges. 

It is kind of opposite to micro four-thirds, where they have an over-abundance of body versions all using the same mount, but few quality lenses from the camera manufacturers. (Though one could argue that they also get access to thousands of adaptable MF lenses.)

Unless there are dramatic modifications or improvements, updates should be reserved and the research and development budget spent elsewhere - for the development of new lenses (perhaps more tilt-shift, anyone?) or sensors. Maybe a range of cameras that don't have the appearance of 90s office telephones, too.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 16, 2012)

swrightgfx said:


> I certainly won't be rushing out to replace my 35 1.4L with a 35 1.4L II, even if it gets IS, as that lens is already and always will be a stellar performer and, in my opinion, one of if not the top lens in the Canon line-up for what I use it for.



I agree that good lenses are a keeper. The reason for me thinking about "updated" lenses is another one: With my limited budget, I'd be be not very happy if I get a 35L that has been in production for quite a long time the day before the 35L2 is announced. If I knew there was an "update" coming, I'd rather wait and buy an used 35L1 for a lower price - so please sell it once the new version arrives, will you  ?

Imho the one thing that does justify an "update" is a sturdier construction and weather sealing - the latter should go without saying with any lens costing 1000+ bucks because missing weather sealing (as well as a plastic body, see 100L) threatens the investment under harsh conditions.


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 16, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> With my limited budget, I'd be be not very happy if I get a 35L that has been in production for quite a long time the day before the 35L2 is announced. If I knew there was an "update" coming, I'd rather wait and buy an used 35L1 for a lower price - so please sell it once the new version arrives, will you  ?


Well that is just it, the price probably won't drop that much. The 35 1.4L "I" goes anywhere between AU$1300-2000 and it is widely expected that the 35 1.4L "II" will go for AU$2300-2500+. Without major improvement, this will actually probably make the price of old-stock 35 1.4L "I" increase to or at least hold ground at an average ~$1500 as everyone rushes to it before it is sold out. Look at the 5D Mark II running alongside Mark III - it has barely shifted price and in some stores actually increased as people have mass-bought, thinking it good value compared to the 5D Mark III which, in the same way lenses do, will hold at MSRP/RRP for a considerable length of time.



Marsu42 said:


> Imho the one thing that does justify an "update" is a sturdier construction and weather sealing - the latter should go without saying with any lens costing 1000+ bucks because missing weather sealing (as well as a plastic body, see 100L) threatens the investment under harsh conditions.


Indeed, can't argue with you here - weather-sealing would indeed be welcome. It isn't so much an issue all the time, but the last thing you want is some water creeping in to your $1000+ lens. Ouch. So, short answer, if you want me to sell you my 35 1.4L, call Canon JP and ask to speak to the weather-sealing department. If that fails, wait for it to rain and I will sell you it as a lens cup, pre-filled with fresh rainwater.


----------

