# Future standard changes to canon L series wide-medium primes and zooms



## willrobb (Nov 19, 2011)

When USM was introduced to canon lenses a while back it made it's way into most lenses as a standard feature, so what do you think we will see becoming standard features from now on? With all the rumours about different lenses being released, what do you think we will be seeing a lot more of.

I'm not very technical, I just know lenses through using them, not so much about the components that make them good. From my limited knowledge I would expect to see these features in some recent (and not so recent) lenses becoming more standard:


*
1. A reduction in the use of the usual "L series" metal and more use of aluminum and engineering plastic.* They did this with the 100mm f2.8L HIS macro and, it resulted in a great sturdy yet light weight lens. It's nice to travel as light as possible right.

*2. Textured rather than shiny lens hoods.* Again, a feature in the 100mm f2.8L HIS macro, after a year of use my lens hood still looks new, there are no scratches on it. With some of my older lenses like my 24-70mm, even though the body looks good, the lens hood looks like it's been in several fights with cats. No big deal, it doesn't effect performance, but it looks good cosmetically and will no doubt help when selling gear on.

*3. Weather sealing.* It's in a lot of the lenses now, for me it's a big selling point as I often shoot in the rain and I feel much more comfortable if I have it. I have it on my 24-70mm f2.8L, my 17-40mm F4L, 50mm f1.2L but not on my old 70-200mm f2.8L. The lack of weather sealing on the 85mm F1.2LII has often put me off buying it.

*4. Ultra-low dispersion (UD) glass to help control chromatic aberrations (CA).* A feature in the 24mm f1.4LII that helps it outperform the 24mm f1.4L.

*5. Sub-wavelength coating (SWC) to reduce ghosting and flare.* Available in the two new TS-E lenses (24mm f3.5LII and 17mm TS-E F4L) as well as the 24mm f1.4LII. A technical explanation with a good example over here at canon Europe http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/subwavelength_coating.do

Any more thoughts?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 19, 2011)

I expect we'll see more engineering plastic - several other black L lenses are already plastic, not metal. 

Yes, I think the textured hood will be standard on future releases. The 70-200mm f2.8L IS II has that as well. 

Weather sealing for some lenses, yes - a 35L II will have it. The 85L is a front focusing design, may not ever get sealing (the 50L front focuses too, but with the smaller front element the movement is behind the plane of the filter (which is required for the sealing).

UD elements will be used more, and the SWC coating will be used on all L lenses, almost certainly. 

I think we will also see the fluorine coating on front and rear elements of L lenses from here out.


----------



## pharp (Nov 19, 2011)

.. and the prices will continue to climb!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 19, 2011)

All these things are used in high end lenses, but a few of them may appear in the low end lenses.

Sealing is one of the things that is difficult. If a lens extends while focusing or zooming, it will not be completely sealed, USM is not goiing to happen for many consumer grade lenses, it requires a total redesign and increases the price. 

UD glass / Fluorite crystals will continue to be used where it is needed. It has not been needed in 50mm lenses in the past, but if a more expensive version of the consumer lens comes out, it may be in it along with a doubling of the price for very little gain.

I don't expect to see anything different from what we've seen in the past, $1,000 lenses have better and more expensive construction than $200 lenses.


----------



## Rocky (Nov 19, 2011)

There are two types of "USM". The "ring type USM" is the original USM that is used in the L lenses and some older lenses, like the 35-135mm. However, Canon has be using the term USM on micromotor type of focusing mechanism, like the 50mm f 1.4 and some of the lower priced non-L lense. Unfortunately, It is hard to find out what type of USM is being used on the non-L lenses.


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 19, 2011)

I just did some digging in the Canon Camera Museum for the hell of it, and came up with the following:
Excluding EF-S, TS-E, and MP-E, (the latter two types may as well all be L anyway), Canon seem to have given up on non-L lenses:
The last non-L prime was the 100 f/2.8 USM Macro in March 2000.
The last non-L (non-macro) was the 28 f/1.8 USM in September 1995.
The last non-L zoom was the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM in October 2005.

Obviously, nowadays the "consumer-zoom" is EF-S only, we APS-C users don't want primes, if we do we're content with 20-year old designs or we don't mind paying L-prices. Anyone willing to pay for a FF camera can also afford L-glass.
Obviously that's all bollocks, if I read something more than anything else on these forums it's "we want an EF-S 30/1.4" (I write it myself enough too). And there's only one non-L FF zoom in normal lengths available (but a few in the 70-300 range).

What I'm wondering, is what happens if this "entry level FF" camera comes to pass. Will they re-release/update some affordable non-L EF-mount glass? Designs like the 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM or the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, maybe a slight step up the quality on the glass, but same non-L build quality in an affordable and light package, variable aperture, IS or not.

If I buy a FF camera today, I have the choice of standard-length zooms:
28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM - â‚¬429
17-40 f/4L - â‚¬700
24-105 f/4L - â‚¬950 and so on.
Now, I know the value of L lenses, but try telling that to Joe Consumer. I think if Canon can release a FF body, whether they reuse the 5D mk1 sensor, reuse the 5D mk2 sensor, or even a new one 14-15MP or so, cut the crap out of every feature (video?) to get it to â‚¬1000 (just under 7D price, half 5D2 price), and give it a decent quality non-L lens in a kit for â‚¬1300-1500, they could get a *lot* of business from amateurs (who of course then get L-fever and end up spending more and more on better glass, I'm sure most of us started that way) and could make a lot more money than the 1DX ever could.
The 5D2 picked up a lot of market share because of its IQ, ISO, FF-sensor, and much-lower-price than anything else at the time. If they can do something like that again, "FF for the masses", they stand to gain a lot of market share.

As for the OP, it's pretty much guaranteed that every L-lens in future will be weather-sealed, USM, and IS (at least in the longer lengths). They could easily trickle these features down into non-L glass (it has happened, like UD in the 70-300nonL and EF-S 10-22), almost all but the cheapest lenses have USM these days, but they've never trickled-down weather sealing, that's the only guaranteed differentiator between L and non-L these days.

I'd certainly like to see more Hybrid-IS and alloy/engineering-plastic bodies in lenses, but since the 100L Macro they haven't since (maybe Hybrid IS doesn't work so well in zooms?). This could also be the difference between L and non-L in future, especially if they release a few more cheaper FF lenses to go with a future entry-level FF body.


----------



## J. McCabe (Nov 19, 2011)

With Canon's production problems, e.g. those 500mm & 600mm delayed to 2012, and the new cine lenses market, I find such speculations a bit premature.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 19, 2011)

Entry level FF? No need for lens updates. They're still selling kits with the kit lens from the last entry-level FF body (i.e. film) - the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS is the most popular 7D kit on Amazon - and that's the body price range you're talking about. Unlike on a 7D, the 28-135mm on FF actually makes sense. An entry level FF dSLR will still be relatively expensive, compared to a Rebel G film body, for example. Canon can assume those who can afford one can afford L lenses, and they'll keep producing old designs for those who can't.


----------



## elflord (Nov 19, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> Now, I know the value of L lenses, but try telling that to Joe Consumer.



If this "Joe Consumer" fellow doesn't understand the advantages of better glass, he probably doesn't understand the advantages of full frame either -- he's better off with APS-C. 



> I think if Canon can release a FF body, whether they reuse the 5D mk1 sensor, reuse the 5D mk2 sensor, or even a new one 14-15MP or so, cut the crap out of every feature (video?) to get it to â‚¬1000 (just under 7D price, half 5D2 price),



Maybe one day, but they're not there yet. The single most expensive part of a full frame camera is "full frame" (that is, the sensor itself). It's the sensor size that makes it expensive to produce, not the megapixel count. The other features they could cut don't make it expensive to produce, they main reason for cutting them on lower end models is to protect higher end models.


----------



## epsiloneri (Nov 19, 2011)

We often hear that glass is more important than the body, but cheap glass on FF can outperform expensive on APS-C, so once FF sensors come down in price to $500-1000, I'm sure there will be a plethora of new non-L EF lenses as well.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 20, 2011)

epsiloneri said:


> We often hear that glass is more important than the body, but cheap glass on FF can outperform expensive on APS-C



Not in my experience. Cheap glass always gives a poor image. The 400 f/2.8 on my 7D gives images that are nothing less than first class.


----------



## elflord (Nov 20, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> epsiloneri said:
> 
> 
> > We often hear that glass is more important than the body, but cheap glass on FF can outperform expensive on APS-C
> ...



That makes sense with a long tele. But for the normal length primes, I'd take the 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/1.4 on a full frame over their much more expensive L counterparts on a crop.


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 20, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Entry level FF? No need for lens updates. They're still selling kits with the kit lens from the last entry-level FF body (i.e. film) - the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS is the most popular 7D kit on Amazon - and that's the body price range you're talking about. Unlike on a 7D, the 28-135mm on FF actually makes sense. An entry level FF dSLR will still be relatively expensive, compared to a Rebel G film body, for example. Canon can assume those who can afford one can afford L lenses, and they'll keep producing old designs for those who can't.



Well yeah, but that's only one lens, and it's the only non-L choice still made out of the whole 4 L and 35 non-L designs in that range they've had over the years. And there's no ultrawide choice like the 20-35 or 22-55 vari-apertures, the cheapest you can get is a â‚¬700/$1000 17-40L.

And think about the newest incarnations of the EF-S 18-55 IS. No, it's not the best lens ever. But it's adequate for the beginner, and you can't go past it for the â‚¬80/$110 it costs. The EF 28-135 is â‚¬430. Canon have proven they can mass-produce adequate lenses for dirt-cheap prices, even increasing costs for FF-compatible lenses and remove a bit of economies of scale, I'd bet they can make an FF-equivalent 24-85 IS for â‚¬200-300 or so.



elflord said:


> If this "Joe Consumer" fellow doesn't understand the advantages of better glass, he probably doesn't understand the advantages of full frame either -- he's better off with APS-C.



A good salesman can talk their way into anything. Assume they recycle a 21MP 5D2 sensor into a cheap as all hell body and price it within $50 of a 7D (maybe they get better yields, one-pass etching, bigger wafers, whatever. Plastic-body, no flash, maybe even pentamirror instead of prism? Cut video out completely as a high-body-protector maybe? How they get the savings is irrelevant, as long as they make the savings.).
Talk up the more MP, talk up the better image quality, talk up the lower noise and higher ISO. Especially if they're "upgrading" from a 550D or something, I reckon a lot of the potential customers could be talked into the 'cheap FF'.
(aside: I've heard so many times from various people, talking of 7D vs 550D, "why should I spend 3x the amount if the images look the same?". I've refrained from helping the salesman out by extolling the advantages of the 7D over the 550D, but some customers you can't help, they look at the price, the megapixels, the ISO-range (doesn't matter how good it looks at each iso, they just look at the numbers) and that's it. FPS, pentaprism (you try to explain to a noob why a heavier hunk of glass that isn't in the image pathway is worth extra cash), AF points, don't mean much to those people. They're the target for this cheap-FF, and they're a big hunk of the market.)
And still, the cheap-body-cheap-lens is only the beginning. It's all about brand (and lens-mount) loyalty, they might not spend any more than the kit for the first few years, but if they like the hobby, then they can get more involved and get L-fever. (I have a friend who bought a 1000D kit, she liked it so much she saved for a year and bought a 17-55 f/2.8 to go with it. But if the 1000D kit hadn't been so damn cheap, she never would have even started...)



elflord said:


> That makes sense with a long tele. But for the normal length primes, I'd take the 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/1.4 on a full frame over their much more expensive L counterparts on a crop.


35/2 + 5D2 vs 24/1.4L + 7D
50/1.4 + 5D2 vs 35/1.4L + 7D
85/1.8 + 5D2 vs 50/1.2L + 7D
Hmmm, I haven't used too many of these combinations directly, I think with the first i'd go the 24L+7D, but the others probably the 5D2 combos.


----------



## elflord (Nov 20, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> A good salesman can talk their way into anything. Assume they recycle a 21MP 5D2 sensor into a cheap as all hell body and price it within $50 of a 7D (maybe they get better yields, one-pass etching, bigger wafers, whatever. Plastic-body, no flash, maybe even pentamirror instead of prism? Cut video out completely as a high-body-protector maybe? How they get the savings is irrelevant, as long as they make the savings.).
> Talk up the more MP, talk up the better image quality, talk up the lower noise and higher ISO. Especially if they're "upgrading" from a 550D or something, I reckon a lot of the potential customers could be talked into the 'cheap FF'.



I completely agree that a good salesperson could sell the advantages of full frame. I think that sales person could also sell L lenses. I don't see a really compelling case for developing a consumer zoom like the variable aperture EF-S 18-55mm sold with the rebel to pair with a full frame camera, at least not until the gap between cost of a full frame sensor and APS-C closes considerably.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Nov 21, 2011)

Rocky said:


> There are two types of "USM". The "ring type USM" is the original USM that is used in the L lenses and some older lenses, like the 35-135mm. However, Canon has be using the term USM on micromotor type of focusing mechanism, like the 50mm f 1.4 and some of the lower priced non-L lense. Unfortunately, It is hard to find out what type of USM is being used on the non-L lenses.


There's more than the term being used in micromotor type USM lenses; they still use ultrasonic frequencies to drive the rotor although I think you are right to downplay the difference between that and a regular old electronic motor AF unit, although noise is definitely helped by the new type.

Some interesting information and visuals here:
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/usmlens_technology.do

And in typical Ken Rockwell fashion, from his 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro review:
"EF means there's a loud motor that does the focusing."
He must've been in a particularly partisan mood that day


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 21, 2011)

Edwin Herdman said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > There are two types of "USM". The "ring type USM" is the original USM that is used in the L lenses and some older lenses, like the 35-135mm. However, Canon has be using the term USM on micromotor type of focusing mechanism, like the 50mm f 1.4 and some of the lower priced non-L lense. Unfortunately, It is hard to find out what type of USM is being used on the non-L lenses.
> ...



Yes, any USM motor is quiet. But the reduced noise level is pretty much the _only_ advantage of a Micro USM motor. Ring-type USM is faster than micromotor USM, and the gearing required in a micro USM means that most lenses so-equipped do not offer full-time manual focusing (and can, in fact, be damaged by turning the focus ring while in AF mode). Exceptions to the lack of FTM, such as the 50mm f/1.4, use a slip clutch to allow MF with the switch in AF mode - and I wonder if that's part of the reason for the reportedly higher failure rate of the 50/1.4's AF.


----------



## 7enderbender (Nov 21, 2011)

It makes me laugh always - well almost laugh - any time I hear these marketing terms for plastic. Call it polycarbonate or "engineering plastic". It's plastic. It's cheap. It breaks and gets creaky and flimsy. I don't want it. I don't see why I should pay more to get less.

When I look at my old 70s and 80s lenses and compare them to my expensive "L" glass I still want to cry. It was expensive and works ok while it lasts. Question is how long that will be. In my book all of this went into the wrong direction.

In case anyone at Canon ever reads these forums: I'm still dreaming of a full frame digital Canon F1 with full=time manual focus lenses with the appropriate focusing screens with as little as possible plastic and rubber parts. No AF, IS, EF, USM or anything that requires an acronym to snow people. If you want to play with electronic gizmos do something useful with the flash system. /soapbox


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 21, 2011)

7enderbender said:


> It makes me laugh always - well almost laugh - any time I hear these marketing terms for plastic. Call it polycarbonate or "engineering plastic". It's plastic. It's cheap. It breaks and gets creaky and flimsy.



Yep. It's crap. Like those cheap, flimsy polycarbonate windows on the space shuttle.


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 21, 2011)

7enderbender said:


> It makes me laugh always - well almost laugh - any time I hear these marketing terms for plastic. Call it polycarbonate or "engineering plastic". It's plastic. It's cheap. It breaks and gets creaky and flimsy. I don't want it. I don't see why I should pay more to get less.



Call it plastic if you want, but to a materials engineer there's a world of difference. They don't use the same plastic as the $2 toys from china, this is real material with a lot of research behind it. In a lot of cases, it's stronger, lighter, tougher, and *less* flimsy and malleable than aluminium, and it's not much cheaper once you take high r&d costs into account (it only gets cheaper over mass-production, hence it's mostly used on high-volume units). Stop giving me cheap, easy-to-produce aluminium.

(that said, my mum's Asahi Pentax Takumars from 1967 are very nice. But that's more a function of hand-manufacturing than the material they're made of. Either way, I'd rather the R&D cost of my lenses go at least 90% into the optics side)


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 21, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> 7enderbender said:
> 
> 
> > It makes me laugh always - well almost laugh - any time I hear these marketing terms for plastic. Call it polycarbonate or "engineering plastic". It's plastic. It's cheap. It breaks and gets creaky and flimsy.
> ...



thats why they had to stop flying cause they keeps splodin!


----------



## 7enderbender (Nov 22, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> 7enderbender said:
> 
> 
> > It makes me laugh always - well almost laugh - any time I hear these marketing terms for plastic. Call it polycarbonate or "engineering plastic". It's plastic. It's cheap. It breaks and gets creaky and flimsy.
> ...



Sure, let's celebrate that kind of stuff because NASA uses it for very specific applications. Next thing you know they are putting it in as lenses. I just had to get a replacement for a lens that I broke in my eye glasses. The real stuff wasn't available (thanks to the FDA, but that's a whole other issue I can get pretty agitated about). So now I have polycarbonate lenses in my frames until I can get actual Zeiss lenses from a place in Europe. It's exactly that: crap. I feel like I lose about 20% of my vision with this junk. But of course the "specialists" in the store declare me insane, because it's again a "know fact" that a normal person can't tell the difference. It's like MP3 files again.

We are slowly letting go of all the great achievements in these areas so that cheap Chinese manufacturers can make cheap copies or work for the "name brand" companies. And I'm not anti-trade or anything like that. I'm fine with buying things from China if they are good products.

But if Canon is lining things up to include more "engineering plastic" then the only reason is to lower their cost and make the manufacturing process easier and more automated - so that they can move their stuff to China among other things.

Or are we expecting to see any materials like these?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=gmic.org%20gunes-cabin%20windows%20of%20orbiter.doc&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gmic.org%2FStudent%2520Contest%2520Entries%2FGunes-Cabin%2520Windows%2520of%2520Orbiter.doc&ei=QBjMTvHPKcT10gGc3Bk&usg=AFQjCNHPVaDuRXqOr2C9yI2zD7F6oDi8uw&sig2=7UQG47vZj9vRmGm97eO4jg

[Paper about the kinds of materials used for the Space Shuttle Windows - the authors call it glass by the way...]


And us fools are supposed to celebrate such a vast improvement because things are lighter now. Yeah. I'm so happy.

Please don't take my response personal. Has nothing to do with you and isn't meant as questioning your extensive technical and photographic knowledge. There are just days where I'm a little frustrated with what's being sold to us as progress while some real opportunities are being missed (which ironically would include NASA and the space programs that have been canned).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2011)

No offense taken. 

Outsourcing to lower production costs is simply a fact of life today. The latest manifestation? The government of China is encouraging - and offering incentives - for Chinese companies to outsource...to Cambodia.


----------



## branden (Nov 22, 2011)

I understand the basis your complaint 7enderbender. That's why I also have Zeiss equipment 

But I think you're doing a disservice to newer technology because it is exploited by marketers. Yes, the marketing sludge is worthless, but somewhere underneath it all are new technologies that have actually allowed photography to reach new points its never been able to before. No, not every marketed new technology is worth its weight in salt, but their slow summation of improvements have opened up photography to more and more people and places. All the new technology is nearly meaningless to photography as an end to itself, but a great boon to photography as a way to explore other areas of life.


----------



## funkboy (Nov 22, 2011)

7enderbender said:


> In case anyone at Canon ever reads these forums: I'm still dreaming of a full frame digital Canon F1 with full-time manual focus lenses with the appropriate focusing screens with as little as possible plastic and rubber parts. No AF, IS, EF, USM or anything that requires an acronym to snow people. If you want to play with electronic gizmos do something useful with the flash system. /soapbox



Second you on that one, brother. I want my T90 back!


----------



## 7enderbender (Nov 23, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> No offense taken.
> 
> Outsourcing to lower production costs is simply a fact of life today. The latest manifestation? The government of China is encouraging - and offering incentives - for Chinese companies to outsource...to Cambodia.



True. And we'll see more of that. Just look what the Chinese are doing in Africa. Partially that is related to them trying to get a grip on natural resources. But I bet it's just a matter of time before they are putting up production facilities there. As I said, I'm generally not opposed to this. It can be a win-win situation for everyone.

But there are obviously always problems with it, certainly in the short and mid-term. My "complaint" is about consumer complacency on our part. Very few folks seem to question the marketing talk that often is not geared towards higher quality. Sure, we have gained a lot in modern products (cameras, cars, computers, you name it). But we also lose a lot I feel, especially when some hype turns into the norm. That's when people like me at times are left behind and certain things or services I value are just not available anymore or become extremely expensive. 

And this seems to happen with less important things like photography or audio products - and in the more important realm of politics, economics or education. People eat any nonsense that some half-educated intern at a media outlet fed to them. That may be "engineering plastic" as a vast improvement over the materials that were carefully developed over the last 150 years or some vague notion that "Wall Street" caused the "financial crisis".


----------



## thepancakeman (Nov 23, 2011)

7enderbender said:


> It makes me laugh always - well almost laugh - any time I hear these marketing terms for plastic. Call it polycarbonate or "engineering plastic". It's plastic. It's cheap. It breaks and gets creaky and flimsy. I don't want it. I don't see why I should pay more to get less.



You are almost correct, except steel and aluminum are engineered as well. I want mine to be solid iron straight out of the mine, or better yet, maybe granite! /sarcasm


----------



## thepancakeman (Nov 23, 2011)

Maybe we can get some camera stuff made out of this:

http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/23/check-out-the-worlds-lightest-material/?hpt=hp_bn2


----------



## Rocky (Nov 24, 2011)

7enderbender said:


> It makes me laugh always - well almost laugh - any time I hear these marketing terms for plastic. Call it polycarbonate or "engineering plastic". It's plastic. It's cheap. It breaks and gets creaky and flimsy. I don't want it. I don't see why I should pay more to get less.
> 
> When I look at my old 70s and 80s lenses and compare them to my expensive "L" glass I still want to cry. It was expensive and works ok while it lasts. Question is how long that will be. In my book all of this went into the wrong direction.
> 
> In case anyone at Canon ever reads these forums: I'm still dreaming of a full frame digital Canon F1 with full=time manual focus lenses with the appropriate focusing screens with as little as possible plastic and rubber parts. No AF, IS, EF, USM or anything that requires an acronym to snow people. If you want to play with electronic gizmos do something useful with the flash system. /soapbox


May I suggest you to buy a Leica M9 and some Leica lenses made in the 50's to 60's to get ALL SOLID BRASS construction on the lenses. This combination will be close to your dream "DIGITAL F1".


----------

