# Increasing or decreasing Update circles with current lens technology?



## 1982chris911 (Jul 3, 2015)

With most lenses becoming better all the time ... What is your opinion about future update circles ? Will Canon replace its highly successful EF lenses e.g. the 11-24, 70-200 IS II, 24-70 2.8 II or the gen2 Supertelephotolenses again in some years or do you think there is not much to gain in IQ anymore with the top of the line EF lenses and therefore these will stay for another 15-20 years before they even think about an replacement ... 

This more a general question about the length of update circles, so please please stay general and don't break this down into things which might only apply for one or two lenses ...


----------



## crashpc (Jul 4, 2015)

Ten years is good period. Most problems with upgrading is caused by lens-body compatibility. They cannot make many good advanecements with current bodies and vice versa. Sony has the balls to change mounts and lenses like socks, but not many people buying Sony for obvious reasons. So While Sony is "young and fresh and new", and Canon is "old and poor performing" in eyes of many, Sony is not winning totally. It all needs to be compromise.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 4, 2015)

Please Not another Nikon Sony Canon discussion... Imo Canon is ahead of both in professional lens tech and that by quite some steps...


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jul 4, 2015)

Lens technology has come of age, just like many other technologies - whilst we can coo about sharpness in the corners, contrast, AF performance, the 95th percentile of us "experts" can't honestly see the difference, just in the same high end audiophile equipment - there's not a great deal of difference for the 99th percentile of us between equipment costing £500 and £50,000.

What still has room for improvement though is dragging the bottom end up in terms of quality for price, not just the optics, but mechanical quality, physical construction, AF performance etc etc etc. Similarly with the cameras, it's about dragging the low end up, the entry level camera now is beyond what the 1D was a decade ago, the entry level camera in decade will be very close to what we have in the 1Dx and 5SR today, subject of course to marketing people ;-)

There is very little difference between the players, just like cars today, you can't really get a bad or even average DSLR or MILC if you tried, all the lenses are outstanding, it's just us as humans wanting something to differentiate us from the pack - some of my favourite photos were taken on what I'd consider to be poor cameras, my best musical moments have probably been listening to an MP3 in the car, my greatest roadtrips were not in my most expensive car.... Which computer do we remember with greatest fondness ? Probably a Commadore 64, Amiga 500 or that old i486 ! 

Zeiss Otus ? Yep, they might excel in areas, but £4000 compared to the £100 Canon 50mm ? Is the former actually 40x better or just quantifiably about 3x better ? There's a curve of deminishing return used extensively in hi-fi equipment, I've seen it used more in computers and I've used it for a couple of decades in my work as a civil engineer designing road systems - 100% costs many times more than 99%, sometimes the best value for money comes at the point where costs just start to ramp up, before the silly money - who determines that point ? You do ! What is value for you, may well be very different for Joe next door.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 4, 2015)

Haydn1971 said:


> Lens technology has come of age, just like many other technologies - whilst we can coo about sharpness in the corners, contrast, AF performance, the 95th percentile of us "experts" can't honestly see the difference, just in the same high end audiophile equipment - there's not a great deal of difference for the 99th percentile of us between equipment costing £500 and £50,000.
> 
> What still has room for improvement though is dragging the bottom end up in terms of quality for price, not just the optics, but mechanical quality, physical construction, AF performance etc etc etc. Similarly with the cameras, it's about dragging the low end up, the entry level camera now is beyond what the 1D was a decade ago, the entry level camera in decade will be very close to what we have in the 1Dx and 5SR today, subject of course to marketing people ;-)
> 
> ...



You can always see that curve of deminishing returns in most technology that came to age ... at least until disruptive innovation happens (e.g. horse carriage -> car ; land line telephones -> mobile devices ; light bulb -> LED etc...) However I think we are already seeing a stage where this curve for lenses became quite flat ... while sensor tech maybe is 5-10 years behind and still in a steeper stage of said curve


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 4, 2015)

1982chris911 said:


> You can always see that curve of deminishing returns in most technology that came to age ... at least until disruptive innovation happens (e.g. horse carriage -> car ; land line telephones -> mobile devices ; light bulb -> LED etc...) However I think we are already seeing a stage where this curve for lenses became quite flat ... while sensor tech maybe is 5-10 years behind and still in a steeper stage of said curve



As far as stills go, I doubt that.

20 years ago people where plenty happy printing 4"x6" from film. Nowadays, they're happy with smartphones smaller than that, and IQ has taken a plunge to the noisy blurry image taken with said smartphones in dark pubs.

In other words: as far as Joe Q. Public's image IQ expectations go, the standards haven't risen one iota.

Joe doesn't care about focus after the fact about as much as he cares about zoom. If Apple / Samsung / whomever will force it upon him in the next phone, he'll be happy. If whomever doesn't, Joe will be just as happy.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 4, 2015)

New lenses will come out as the market demands. If business is good overall, there will be money to develop, test, tool and manufacture a new lens. sometimes, you see a new lens that is the same except for better IS, or adding a stm focus motor, they cost little to design, tool and usually less to manufacture, and sales jumps from those wanting the latest. Real significant improvements usually take many years.

Sometimes we see improvements in a lens merely because manufacturing technology has improved, and lenses are more accurately ground, and assembled even though they are identical as far as design. Many, including me saw a noticible improvement in the newer 100-400mm L MK I lenses a few years ago. Presumably, something in the production process improved.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 7, 2015)

1982chris911 said:


> Will Canon replace its highly successful EF lenses e.g. the 11-24, 70-200 IS II, 24-70 2.8 II or the gen2 Supertelephotolenses again in some years *or do you think there is not much to gain in IQ anymore with the top of the line EF lenses and therefore these will stay for another 15-20 years before they even think about an replacement ...*



Japanese manufacturing culture (ala Deming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming) is such that there is always and already work on improving processes and products. It is continuously ongoing. Release of new products depends more upon market demand vs profit potential (Return on investment). Design and improvement must march on continuously. No competitive company can afford to sit back and say, "This is good enough for now." Just look at what the Japanese automakers did to the Big Three in Detroit.


----------



## Eldar (Jul 7, 2015)

If you had asked the same question 3 years ago, we probably would have said the same thing. Since then we have seen the Sigma Art lenses, with fantastic optics at a reasonable price. The Zeiss Otus lenses, which really pushed the envelope and the Canon 400 DO II are other examples.

I believe there will be further improvements and new lenses in all price segments and focal lengths going forward. Whether we need them or not is a bit irrellevant. If the world had stopped making new equipment at the time I had the 1DsIII, the 24-70 2.8L vI, 70-200 f2.8L IS vI etc. I would still have been running around taking pictures and probably been quite happy about it.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 7, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Japanese manufacturing culture (ala Deming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming) is such that there is always and already work on improving processes and products. It is continuously ongoing. Release of new products depends more upon market demand vs profit potential (Return on investment). Design and improvement must march on continuously. No competitive company can afford to sit back and say, "This is good enough for now." Just look at what the Japanese automakers did to the Big Three in Detroit.



I think that's an over-simplification, as

1. Canon is out to make a profit. If there's no profit in an update, it wouldn't happen.

2. Canon resources are limited. If there's more profit in something else, the update wouldn't happen.

As an example, the 20mm f/2.8 wasn't updated in >20 years. The FD 17mm wasn't updated to EF. Canon could have updated it, but chose not to. Maybe it's because there's no profit in the update, maybe because there's more money in other lenses, but bottom line it just didn't happen.

3. Canon can invest something that doesn't have a concrete plan such as 'lens X on date Y', such as new types of glass, new CAD tools, flashes, etc.

Not resting isn't the same as working on <existing lens> mk<current+1>


----------



## old-pr-pix (Jul 7, 2015)

CIPA tracks something they call "fitment" ratio, i.e. the number of lenses shipped for each body shipped. For years it has run around 1-1/2 to 1-2/3 lens per body. In other words, the vast majority of sales are body kitted with one or two lenses. All the other lenses made are going to a very select, demanding, but small group of users. Most people only care about the kit lenses - period.

Lenses can be thought of as multiple sub-systems - any one of which might be cause for an update. Optics, IS module, AF drive & control technology, materials/sealing/build, and manufacturing methods all come to mind as primary factors. Significant technology improvements, competitive advances, cost reduction opportunities and other market forces would be drivers.

We have seen evidence that Canon does do silent updates involving manufacturing methods without changing the lens formula and features. It seems clear that the most recent round of updates has been focused on getting the optics and manufacturing consistency "right" for higher resolution sensors. The next round might be targeted at faster, more accurate AF drive. (After all, out of focus high resolution shots are still blurry!) 

Likely there will be on-going manufacturing development to improve kit lenses and reduce costs. Releases of all the other lenses will be driven by profitability unless there is strong competitive pressure making some significant aspect of the current line-up obsolete. Lacking that, look for a 15 year cycle for updates.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 7, 2015)

old-pr-pix said:


> CIPA tracks something they call "fitment" ratio, i.e. the number of lenses shipped for each body shipped. For years it has run around 1-1/2 to 1-2/3 lens per body. In other words, the vast majority of sales are body kitted with one or two lenses. All the other lenses made are going to a very select, demanding, but small group of users. Most people only care about the kit lenses - period.
> 
> Lenses can be thought of as multiple sub-systems - any one of which might be cause for an update. Optics, IS module, AF drive & control technology, materials/sealing/build, and manufacturing methods all come to mind as primary factors. Significant technology improvements, competitive advances, cost reduction opportunities and other market forces would be drivers.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 8, 2015)

Antono Refa said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Japanese manufacturing culture (ala Deming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming) is such that there is always and already work on improving processes and products. It is continuously ongoing. Release of new products depends more upon market demand vs profit potential (Return on investment). Design and improvement must march on continuously. No competitive company can afford to sit back and say, "This is good enough for now." Just look at what the Japanese automakers did to the Big Three in Detroit.
> ...



Items 1 and 2 you list I cover here: "Release of new products depends more upon market demand vs profit potential (Return on investment). Design and improvement must march on continuously.

Item 3: Canon continuously invests in innovation... better ways to grind glass, process improvements, etc...

"Not resting isn't the same as working on <existing lens> mk<current+1>" Product improvement is always happening. Whether an improvement manifests itself a <existing lens> mk <current +1> or as a completely new lens model makes no difference. Engineers at Canon are not sitting round playing checkers because they've got the lens crop so right that they can wait a few years to go back to work.

I fail to see what you see as oversimplification. How complex shall I make my statement? Statistical Process Control, Kaisen, and Continuous Improvement of processes and products is not simple. If you really think that nobody is working on something to improve the Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L mkII and all other lenses at this very moment... you are wrong. And if not the lens as a whole, then working on some component, coating, manufacturing process, glass, motor, weather sealing doo-dad, paint application process, etc. Yup, Canon's resources are limited. Every company's resources are. So it behooves them to continuously improve and to keep the already paid for engineers hard at work.


----------

