# Best & Worst Releases From Canon in 2015



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 19, 2015)

```
I decided I’d weigh in on what I felt were Canon’s best and worst products of 2015. I didn’t find any of the DSLR releases to be all that interesting this year. While I like the EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R, I just haven’t found a use personally for either of them. I felt 2015 was a development year for Canon as far as DSLRs and mirrorless cameras go and we should expect some big things in 2016,</p>
<p><!--more--></p>
<h4><strong>Best Product Release by Canon in 2015</strong></h4>
<p><strong>Winner: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1143786-REG/canon_0570c002_ef_50mm_f_1_8_stm.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM</a>

</strong>Canon released a lot of great new L and DO lenses in 2015, but my pick for the best of 2015 is the brand new “nifty fifty”. Canon improved just about everything on the new version of this lens and did something amazing, they didn’t raise the price over the lens it replaced.</p>
<p>Improvements include 7 aperture blades instead of 5, a metal mount, STM AF motor, faster AF, improved build quality, so it might actually survive a fall. It stops down to f/22 instead f/16 on the lens it replaces.</p>
<p>Just because something is “entry level” doesn’t mean it can’t also be great and this is one great product release by Canon.</p>
<p><strong>Runner-Up: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1180801-REG/canon_9523b002_35mm_f_1_4l_ii_usm.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II</a>

</strong>There were a lot of great lenses to choose from this year, the EF 11-24mm f/4L is one of a kind, the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II is a nearly perfect update the EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II proves Canon is still behind its diffractive optics development.</p>
<p>I have to give the runner-up award to the EF 35mm f/1.4L II though, while the other L and DO releases were great, this lens has a bigger mass appeal, which is why I chose it. Canon once again improved everything about the previous version of a lens model. Optical quality and build quality are again class leading and you cannot overlook having a native Canon lens for accurate autofocus when you need it most. Yes, the lens is expensive, but after the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/teardown-canon-ef-35mm-f1-4l-ii-by-lensrentals-com/" target="_blank">recent teardown we saw of the new lens</a>, it looks to be justified.</p>
<p>Canon continues to be the best and most advanced lens maker in the world and it’s likely the big reason they retain their marketshare in the DSLR space.</p>
<h4>Worst Product Release by Canon in 2015</h4>
<p><strong>Winner (Loser): <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1134581-REG/canon_0565c013_xc10.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon XC10</a>

</strong>I don’t think anyone has any idea what Canon was thinking with this oddball camera. Canon’s marketing claims it’s a product for everyone including still shooters, videographers & photojournalists.</p>
<p>What usually happens when you try to make something for everyone? You end up making something for no one. Which is exactly what Canon did.</p>
<p><strong>Runner-Up: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1180765-REG/canon_9694b001_eos_m3_mirrorless_digital.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EOS M3</a>

</strong>I don’t care if you’ve improved on the EOS M and the EOS M2, all you’re doing is updating a product that is flawed to something that is still flawed. The EOS M system is still way behind mirrorless leaders Sony, Fujifilm & Olympus, and that has to change soon. Canon is promising that it will, but we’ll take the wait and see approach.</p>
<p>Sound off in the forum with your own best and worst list.</p>
```


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 19, 2015)

Isn't the nifty fifty just a better manufactured / better focusing / more bladed variant of an old optical formula? That's about as conservative an offering as I can think of. Canon: "Yay! We did it! Again! Because we succeeded before! Woohoo!"

I don't care that the 11-24L costs $3k. Nothing else can do what that lens does, and I'd certainly put it higher on the list than the nifty fifty.

(No White Unicorn? Was that Dec 2014 or Jan 2015? That should make the list if it's 2015.)

Also, no love for the 5DS rigs? I realize they are principally just high res 5D3 cameras, but that's still something people have been asking for.

100% agreement on the EOS-M3, and though I don't shoot video, I've read the XC10 is a hot mess on a number of fronts.

- A


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 19, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Isn't the nifty fifty just a better manufactured / better focusing / more bladed variant of an old optical formula? That's about as conservative an offering as I can think of. Canon: "Yay! We did it! Again! Because we succeeded before! Woohoo!"
> 
> I don't care that the 11-24L costs $3k. Nothing else can do what that lens does, and I'd certainly put it higher on the list than the nifty fifty.
> 
> ...



If they had raised the price of the new 50 f/1.8 STM by $50 plus dollars, I wouldn't have put it on the list. It's that they improved most everything that was wrong with the previous version and didn't charge us more for it. It was a bargain before, now it's a steal.

The EF 11-24mm f/4L is a pretty awesome engineering feat, I just find 11mm to be pretty difficult to shoot with in most situations and it's very much a speciality lens.

As far as the 5DS cameras, they're fine, but all they did was put a new sensor in a 3 year old camera and charged accordingly. People may have asked for it, but no one is buying it.

As for the 100-400 II, I count that as 2015, but I liked the 35L II better. What I didn't like about the new 100-400 is that it's just as bad and maybe in some cases worse for internal dust than the 100-400 version 1. I owned double digit copies of the 100-400 II and most of them were problematic.


----------



## keithcooper (Dec 19, 2015)

5Ds gets it for me - has paid for itself several times already in terms of results and ease of production of those results (time saved is money)

Finally a camera worth updating my 1Ds3 for

Add it to the TS-E17 and the superb 11-24, and I've a combination that makes my work easier and notches up quality a few steps without the expense of MF.

I do believe it has some form of video, and ISO above 800, but I don't really care... YMMV

Obviously very different usage from CR I'm thinking ;-)

It never was an update for most 5D3 users - that's what the 5D4 will be.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 19, 2015)

keithcooper said:


> 5Ds gets it for me - has paid for itself several times already in terms of results and ease of production of those results (time saved is money)
> 
> Finally a camera worth updating my 1Ds3 for
> 
> ...



I can see the 5DS being a great camera in your line of work. What I tend to shoot, it really doesn't add anything other than disk space usage.


----------



## Etienne (Dec 19, 2015)

I bought the EOS-M3 on sale at B&H for $429. For an extra $20 I got the EVF.
Although I share your disappointment that Canon hasn't gone all out yet to compete, I am pleasantly surprised with this camera for a few reasons:

The flip screen lets me monitor video while recording, and is really handy for all sorts of general shooting.
The 11-22mm EF-M lens ... with IS for awesome handheld work in an extremely light weight and inexpensive package. 
The 22mm f/2 lens ... super light and cheap
I bought the Rokinon 8mm fisheye ... pretty cool super cheap and light.
Touch to focus works really well
The pop up flash is tiltable for bounce. This is remarkably easy to do and more effective than I expected.

This is a very lightweight portable, useable package. Sure it's not a Sony A7r II, but it costs about 1/5 th, and so I won't worry about it no matter where I take it. I like it. (I also have the original M which I never liked)

Of course, I reaalllly hope Canon does an EOS-M4 at top notch next.


----------



## tianxiaozhang (Dec 19, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't the nifty fifty just a better manufactured / better focusing / more bladed variant of an old optical formula? That's about as conservative an offering as I can think of. Canon: "Yay! We did it! Again! Because we succeeded before! Woohoo!"
> ...



The 50STM is so good it's my main studio lens. The Art and the Milvus might be a notch or two better options for this purpose and I'll probably get one eventually, but the cost and the weight of the STM are just far far superior.


----------



## ecqns (Dec 19, 2015)

For what I shoot - architecture and landscape - the 5Ds series is the biggest disappointment. I was hoping for more DR (waited and waited for the announcement b/c I needed a high res camera) so I ended up going with the Sony a7r and have been so happy with the files. The DR advantage for my work is very real. So much time saved in post.
Also for my work the 11-24 has been a real pleasure. There are those certain interior shots that need to be alittle wider than the 17mm and sometimes I don't have time for flat stitching. I always crop the edges anyway to avoid that super-wide tunnel effect.


----------



## RGF (Dec 19, 2015)

For lens either the 100-400II or 11-24. The nifty fifty does not count it for me. Price may be right but so what. A me too lens at a low price point. 

For bodies I would include the 5DS. I know an older body but sensor is break through, well sort of. I realize it is only the 7D M2 sensor extended to FF but Canon was the first.


----------



## veng (Dec 19, 2015)

I think the 100-400L ii is a better release than the 50 STM. The 50 STM isn't bad by any stretch, but I think the 100-400L is a more notable improvement over it's predecessor than the 50 STM. As for the 35L ii, it's nice to see Canon catch up to Sigma's primes, but I don't feel that a "catch up" lens is that special, certainty not over the 11-24.


----------



## keithcooper (Dec 19, 2015)

ecqns said:


> For what I shoot - architecture and landscape - the 5Ds series is the biggest disappointment. I was hoping for more DR (waited and waited for the announcement b/c I needed a high res camera) so I ended up going with the Sony a7r and have been so happy with the files. The DR advantage for my work is very real. So much time saved in post.
> Also for my work the 11-24 has been a real pleasure. There are those certain interior shots that need to be alittle wider than the 17mm and sometimes I don't have time for flat stitching. I always crop the edges anyway to avoid that super-wide tunnel effect.


Agree about the 11-24, but not really the 5Ds - I'm also a working architectural photographer and just don't see 'DR issues'.

Once again shows that photography needs differ - the only time pressure I'm under is from the British weather or from the Sun moving... 

After rather a lot of quite specific testing (earning my living depends on it to some extent) I am minded to find rather too many 'DR Problems' are, shall we say, 'forum issues' not photographic ones - well not that I can see ;-)


----------



## ecqns (Dec 19, 2015)

keithcooper said:


> I am minded to find rather too many 'DR Problems' are, shall we say, 'forum issues' not photographic ones - well not that I can see ;-)



I respect your opinion and of course everyone has different needs/works differently but after using Canons for 15 years and the Sony for 1 - the exposure latitude is a real benefit - not an imagined forum issue. If I shot fashion or weddings or anything else other than arch I wouldn't care but being able to pull and push with much less bracketing or compositing makes a dramatic difference for me. The Sony shadows can be pushed 4 stops without any noise and tons more in the highlights too.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 19, 2015)

ecqns said:


> keithcooper said:
> 
> 
> > I am minded to find rather too many 'DR Problems' are, shall we say, 'forum issues' not photographic ones - well not that I can see ;-)
> ...



Exposure latitude absolutely matters, but it's a 3rd tier consideration for me (if that). IMHO, it's nowhere near worth leaving the Canon fold to obtain, but my livelihood doesn't depend on it like some working pros on this forum. 

Lenses/AF/ergonomics/menus/build quality are so much more important to me and will likely continue to be so.

- A


----------



## MTCWBY (Dec 19, 2015)

The 100-400 was nice replacement. The combination of better overall image quality especially out at 400mm and the shorter minimum focus distance was a nice addition for shooting youth sports and wildlife. I actually like the M3 quite a bit. Especially at the recent discounting. Not only do I have a small backup body but using all the same glass (with adaptor) means that comparing to other compacts is moot. And the IQ is very, very good IMO.

The 5DS isn't my type of shooting but I appreciate the option if I did more of it. I'm really looking forward to the DX or 5DIII replacement next year.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Dec 19, 2015)

tianxiaozhang said:


> The 50STM is so good it's my main studio lens. The Art and the Milvus might be a notch or two better options for this purpose and I'll probably get one eventually, but the cost and the weight of the STM are just far far superior.



That's a great idea! I've been using my 50 1.2 a lot in the studio, but the 1.8 would sure be a lot lighter. I bought a 1.8 a few months ago mostly as a travel lens for my T5i, but haven't used it much.

Thanks for the idea!


----------



## Larsskv (Dec 20, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> ecqns said:
> 
> 
> > keithcooper said:
> ...



+1


----------



## ecqns (Dec 20, 2015)

Larsskv said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > ecqns said:
> ...



That's why I said if I shot fashion, weddings, etc I wouldn't be that concerned about DR. I choose image quality over build, menus, ergonomics, etc. Different needs for different types of photography.


----------



## Zv (Dec 20, 2015)

Another vote for the 50 STM since it's the only 2015 release I bought this year! Finally a small, cheap and GOOD 50 from Canon! Yes please! I was genuinely excited about getting it! You can chuck it in your bag or pocket every time you go out to shoot. The perfect travel accompaniment. What was even more awesome was the price - I paid almost nothing for it as I used some free loyalty points my cellphone usage had racked up! 

I also think the M3 was a let down. I love the original M and I've been waiting for a successor to upgrade to but nothing recent seems all that attractive. Might as well stick with what I have. Works just fine as a back up. 

Not surprised the 35LII made the cut. A lot of folk had been waiting for it and it delivers in spades! I don't need it but I want it! A mark of a good product! Haha! 

The 100-400II also got my attention and I could see myself buying it. I'd place it 3rd runner up. 

Those 5Ds rigs are just too specialized for me. They're neat but just beyond what I would ever need. 

The 11-24 looks awesome though and I would have maybe placed it as the winner. Sadly I will likely never own one but the recent (yesterday!) purchase of the 16-35 L IS more than makes up for it!


----------



## tcmatthews (Dec 20, 2015)

I think that the new 50 STM is the definitely the most important lens Canon released this year. I think that a good standard prime is very important first step in expanding the basic kit for a starting photographer. The 50f1.8 II was my second lens. It was not much better than the kit lens. It was to soft wide open. The minimum focus distance sucked. My Tamron 28-75f2.8 had better contrast and from f3.2-f4 it is just as sharp. It also focused better on my Rebel XS. I never used it. In fact I was beginning to think I hated 50mm lenses. Then I bought a Sony Nex 6 and the Sony E 50 f1.8. I also bought a bunch of classic 50mm lenses. I loved it mainly because of minimum focus distance and it was usable wide open. 

The new 50 STM fixed everything. It is sharper wide open, has slightly shorter minimum focus distance. The extra iris blades make a big difference stopped down. It also works good enough on my A7II after the firmware update that I moved the Sony FE55f1.8 to maybe someday. 

All that said do not underestimate the mass appeal of the 100-400 II. I will likely buy one next year. As much as I want a fast 35mm I am unlikely to buy the new Canon 35 f1.4. It is just to expensive it is not $900 more lens than the sigma to me. I am also more likely to use it on my Sony A7 than my Canon Cameras. I am more likely to buy the Sony FE 35mm f1.4. But I am sure there a plenty of wedding and event photographers out there that will gobble them up.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 20, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> If they had raised the price of the new 50 f/1.8 STM by $50 plus dollars, I wouldn't have put it on the list. It's that they improved most everything that was wrong with the previous version and didn't charge us more for it. It was a bargain before, now it's a steal.



I just bought one for $85 direct from Canon (black Friday refurb). I had an older 50/1.8 II before. I always found it soft and unable to focus its way out of a paper bag. This one is sharp and has fast, silent, accurate focusing. Since it's the same optical formula, I now think the old one was just missing focus in almost every case, at least by a little bit.

No way this lens should perform as well as it does for $85!


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 20, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> I don't care that the 11-24L costs $3k. Nothing else can do what that lens does, and I'd certainly put it higher on the list than the nifty fifty.



The 8-15L on crop is wider than the 11-24 (8mm-equivalent rectilinear when cropped to 3:2, which is stupidly wide in rectilinear format), about as long at the long end (22mm equivalent rectilinear when cropped to 3:2) and can be fisheye, rectilinear (after defishing) or anywhere in between using Lightroom or Camera Raw profiles.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 20, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I don't care that the 11-24L costs $3k. Nothing else can do what that lens does, and I'd certainly put it higher on the list than the nifty fifty.
> ...



The 8-15 defished via LR/ACR profiles is a hunk of junk compared to the 11-24. The 8-15 and older 15 defish very nicely in Fisheye-Hemi, but that isn't a rectilinear projection.

I am a very strong advocate of defishing having tested the 15 defished vs the 14mm MkII and found the 15 better in the corners, but the Adobe profiles are not good and rip the corners to pieces not least because they are rectilinear projections.

As an aside, I own the EF 15, TS-E 17 and 11-24, and owned but sold my 16-35 f2.8 and 16-35 f4 IS, I have also rented or borrowed two copies of the EF 14mm MkII and one copy of the 8-15.

Below are three versions of the same image, first is EF15 on FF camera, native shot, second is ACR/LR profile at 100%, third is Fisheye-Hemi. Advanced use of Fisheye-Hemi via canvas size adjustments is far and away the best remapping of fisheye images I have seen and can be done twice to fully adjust for rectilinear.


----------



## Tinky (Dec 20, 2015)

I concur absolutely with the worst two choices...

The XC10 is a travesty. Against something like the Panasonic FZ1000 (ok, lesser codec, but affordable memory, lens has one stop f-drop vs XC10's 2 stops) or the RX10mkII (still cheaper than XC10) constant f2.8..

Apple Pro Res is great idea, but the CFast Cards are not.

What we really want is something that can out-do a gh4 but with a canon mount, without spending £8k for 4k.

Oh, I just bought a G7, with 100mbs internal MP4, and used some of the change to buy a metabones 0.64 XL. Add in my Tascam DR60D to the mix and I'm laughing.

Canon, where are you?

The new M's... vastly overpriced at launch... again. An improvement, but no headlines.


----------



## Sabaki (Dec 20, 2015)

I haven't bought any 2015 products but the one that intrigued me most was the 35mm f/1.4mii

Most, if not all of Canon's L series zooms since the 70-200 f/2.8 mkii was deemed to produce prime quality images and for the longest time, I was waiting to see what a modern prime could do.

I haven't heard much in the way of a comparison to say the 24-70 but it seems to be an incredibly well engineered lens that produces outstanding images. Add into that the BR tech, the reportedly fantastic AF performance and I feel the 35mm to be the most compelling piece of kit to be released this year.

If only they had a way of replicating their lens making brilliance in the bodies!


----------



## sanj (Dec 20, 2015)

I think 35 II is more of a landmark lens then the 50mm. We are discussing the best, not value for money.


----------



## scrup (Dec 20, 2015)

You hurt my feelings shaming the M3. I thought this is canons best mirrorless offering and would take it over the m10 anyday.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 20, 2015)

scrup said:


> You hurt my feelings shaming the M3. I thought this is canons best mirrorless offering and would take it over the m10 anyday.



LOL!!! ;D 

M3 is indeed a shame. Canon not able to match 3 year old Sony A6000, not to mention best it. 

Why is Canon unable to take 
* Rebel T6s sensor
* Powershot G5X EVF
* improved version of 70D dual-pixel AF 
* regular EOS suer interface
* reasonable Auto-ISO implementation from 5D3 
* LP-E6N battery 
* EF-M moutn up front 
and stick those innards into an body similar to M3/SOny A6000? Possibly with a minimally chunkier grip to accomodate beefy LP-E6 battery and then sell it at price of T6s plus 100 USD/Euro for extra profit?
What is so difficult about it?


----------



## hogmark (Dec 20, 2015)

veng said:


> I think the 100-400L ii is a better release than the 50 STM. The 50 STM isn't bad by any stretch, but I think the 100-400L is a more notable improvement over it's predecessor than the 50 STM.



I also think the 100-400L II is a greater achievement/advancement over the 50 STM. The 100-400 II not only has insane build-quality, improved image quality, and amazing IS - but also added the shortest MFD for any tele/zoom which makes it a true allrounder. I am totally in love with this masterpiece! For my kind of photography that is outdoor sports, nature, landscapes, including portraits and close-up shots: This is THE lens.

My list
1-3. Canon EF 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS II USM 8)
4. Canon EF 16-35/4 L IS USM (2014)


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 20, 2015)

tcmatthews said:


> The new 50 STM fixed everything. It is sharper wide open, has slightly shorter minimum focus distance. The extra iris blades make a big difference stopped down. It also works good enough on my A7II after the firmware update that I moved the Sony FE55f1.8 to maybe someday.



It's a smart improvement over the 50 f/1.8 II, I agree, but the 50 f/1.8 STM did not fix _everything_. Canon still does not field a proper 50mm prime that is simultaneously sharp and fully featured (tougher build quality, internal focusing, distance scale, fast/modern/reliable/consistent USM, FTM focusing / not focusing by wire, etc.). 

The fact that a studio photographer on this thread chooses the 50mm f1.8 STM -- a perfectly fair call to make, mind you -- can be read two ways: one is a compliment to how well/inexpensively Canon has retrofit that ancient optical design. The other is a _scathing_ reflection of how two 'better' lenses in the 50 f/1.4 USM and the 50 f/1.2L USM are not getting it done.

I think the nifty fifty is a very nice refresh. I continue to wait for Canon to offer a more complete lens.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 20, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > If they had raised the price of the new 50 f/1.8 STM by $50 plus dollars, I wouldn't have put it on the list. It's that they improved most everything that was wrong with the previous version and didn't charge us more for it. It was a bargain before, now it's a steal.
> ...



One argument is that the original optical formula for the 50 f/1.8 was great _if the lens was built correctly_, which we know many were not. But the new lens is more consistently well built. LR's optical bench data pegs the new 50 f/1.8 STM as one of the most consistent lenses they've ever tested:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/07/variation-measurement-for-50mm-slr-lenses

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 20, 2015)

sanj said:


> I think 35 II is more of a landmark lens then the 50mm. We are discussing the best, not value for money.



+1. _That's _actually a new lens. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 20, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> M3 is indeed a shame. Canon not able to match 3 year old Sony A6000, not to mention best it.
> 
> Why is Canon unable to take
> 
> ...



It's not difficult at all. Canon knows exactly what an intermediate/enthusiast EOS-M product would have onboard_ and is choosing not to offer it_.

Your guess is as good as mine as to _why_. It's easy to say that they are protecting their SLR sales, but it's similarly easy to argue that Canon is hedging their bets on mirrorless until a clear market direction takes hold.

The mirrorless market is heavily split along two *very* different camps: "Do everything an SLR can" and "This sonuvab---- had better be smaller than my SLR". Canon appears to be waiting out the market (a) until it makes up it's mind on being comprehensive vs. being small and (b) until Canon starts losing customers because of their indecision.

- A


----------



## tianxiaozhang (Dec 20, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> tcmatthews said:
> 
> 
> > The new 50 STM fixed everything. It is sharper wide open, has slightly shorter minimum focus distance. The extra iris blades make a big difference stopped down. It also works good enough on my A7II after the firmware update that I moved the Sony FE55f1.8 to maybe someday.
> ...



Both are true.

Just sold my 50/1.4 last night. It feels flimsy, had been unreliable mechanically and just doesn't feel like a workhorse. 

The STM's bokeh doesn't quite do it for me, and for outdoor shoots I'm still not as comfortable using the STM vs the 85/1.8.

I'll most likely buy both the new 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8 from Canon should they get updated.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 20, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > M3 is indeed a shame. Canon not able to match 3 year old Sony A6000, not to mention best it.
> ...



I agree with the above, blue-highlighted comments. You don't achieve Canon's consistent profitability and market share by wasting R&D money on a bunch of niche products you hope will catch on. When the market clarifies, Canon will jump in, and will do it well. Whether they do it soon enough or well enough is still a question.

A bigger question is why Sony, Nikon, Samsung, etc. have not used their supposedly superior mirrorless products to pillage Canon's market share. What's wrong with their products? Do they have technical problems? Market interest problems?


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 20, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



First of all, I said "on crop". Second, who cares? I'm of the opinion that lens sharpness rarely matters on wide angle or mid range lenses. I've printed 8x10s from lousy lenses (28-135IS) shot on crop at diffraction-limited f-stops (f/13) and where the final image was only about 2MP and the print is sharp. Sharpness really only matters on telephotos where we often abuse the heck out of the optics for purposes of resolving power through cropping and enlarging. It's not all that uncommon for a final image from my 70-200/2.8L IS II to be composed of 1% of the lens' native image circle diagonal.

Defishing the 8-15 on crop from about 11-15mm produces an image that's plenty sharp enough for a good quality 24x36 print. Even though the 11-24 is better, it doesn't need to be. Further, I rarely (I mean, really rarely) think that an image wider than about 16mm equivalent (12mm on the 8-15 on crop) should be fully rectilinear. Even the images I often see from the 11-24 mostly look lousy wider than that. There are a few exceptions but I keep about 99.8% of my images that are that wide partly or fully in fisheye projection.


----------



## RobPan (Dec 20, 2015)

Orangutan asked: "Do they [Sony] have technical problems?"

One of the most irritating technical problems was overheating. This caused the 4K videos to stop far too soon. The camera got too hot. The newest firmware for the A7Rii fixed this:

[announcement in Sony Rumors:]

_New A7rII firmware update fixes overheating issue. Watch the test!

"The video on top proves that overheating issues is now gone thanks to the new 3.0 A7rII firmware. The video has been shot for 2:51 hours(!) in super 35, 24p 100mbps mode. Jonathan writes:

As I’m posting I’m still recording and I’m at 2 hours and 51 minutes. I’m going to stop. Just to be clear. The recording still stop at 29:50 each time. I just pressed record immediately after it stopped. Overheating would normally occur right after the first recording.

The new firmware also improved the chromatic aberration correction on the Sony A7rII and A7sII camera.

A7rII download page at Sony.com (Click here).
A7sII download page at Sony.com (Click here).
Share"
_
Sometimes the recording would stop after only 15 minutes. This is now a thing of the past. 

Many Canon users are switching to Sony and have no regrets. Hopefully Canon will live up to its promise to produce a top FF mirrorless camera. I am convinced mirrorless has the future. After my 5D3 was stolen I waited a long time for the 5D4, when it did not come in time I bought a A7Rii. Can use my Canon lenses (although with MF) and even my FD lenses (MF of course). As I have more FD lenses than EF lenses I have become more versatile.
My only FE lens is a Sony 24-240mm which is ideal for traveling.

Kind regards, Rob.


----------



## keithcooper (Dec 20, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Not a style I think I could sell to many of our architectural clients ;-)

I don't carry round the 8-15/11-24/ts-e17/ts-e24 in my bag just for the exercise...

Definitely a case of YMMV ;-)


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 20, 2015)

I love the 100-400L II, and for me it was the must buy of the new Canon lenses for the year, but as I get deeper into my 35L II review I keep feeling like I'm shooting a reasonably sized Zeiss Otus with great autofocus. The image quality is that good. It's expensive, but...wow!

The second image is a crop of the first. That combination of pinpoint focus, amazing resolution, and then such creamy bokeh fall-away is pretty special.


----------



## nicolas.det (Dec 20, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> M3 is indeed a shame. Canon not able to match 3 year old Sony A6000, not to mention best it.



We recently bought an Sony alpha 6000 to compare with our 6 mouth old Canon EOS M3. Result: After 2 weeks of intensive testing we kept the Canon.

The Sony does not feel mature and the Canon has a far better (do not forget the lenses) image quality.

Regards


----------



## Diltiazem (Dec 20, 2015)

This year I bought 5DSR, 50/1.8 STM and 35/1.4II. They all are amazing products, but 5DSR and 35/1.4 stand out for me.


----------



## pj1974 (Dec 20, 2015)

During 2015 I did something that I would not have expected… I bought Canon’s 50mm f/1.8 STM. In years gone by I have owned 2 copies of the 50mm f/1.8 II. Both of those lenses had inconsistent AF (even of my 7D), so much so – that it made using (and keeping) the lens a negative experience. So I sold both.

I tried out the 50mm STM at my local camera store (“Diamonds”, here in Adelaide, South Australia) – and I was given a good price. (I have bought a fair bit of gear from them in the past). The new 50mm’s STM AF is just worlds better than the AF system on the 50mm II lens. I noted this when trying the lens in store already (both on the store’s 700D camera, and my own 7D). It is so much improved, that I actually ‘enjoy’ using this lens.

In other posts / threads on CR about the 50mm STM, I’ve written extensively about my experience with this lens. So I won’t repeat here, just to say that it has great IQ from f/2.8 onwards, and ‘very decent’ at f/2.2 and f/2.5 already. Minimum focusing distance is great, and 7-blade aperture a huge noticeable improvement over the 5-blades of the older version.

My wife and I compiled photos (to print) for my step-daughter’s (Hannah’s) 9th birthday the other week, using an online ‘photo-book’ service. Most of the best photos of Hannah this year were from the 50mm STM, at apertures between f/2.2 and f/5.6 (where it is bitingly sharp!)

Thus for me ‘personally’ in terms of what I’ve bought / used - the 50mm STM is ‘Canon’s best 2015 release. Having written that, I am still looking forward to seeing what Canon will do for another 50mm prime, hopefully something like a f/1.4 – f/2 non L lens, with similar specifications (e.g. IS please!) as the 35mm f/2 USM IS… which I will likely buy / replace the 50mm STM with.

As for Canon’s worst for 2015, I agree, probably the XC10 (not a huge market for it, I expect.. expensive and too much of a hybrid).

Other ‘good to excellent’ offerings include the 11-24mm f/4 L, 100-400mm II and 35mm II. Not that I expect I’ll buy any of these though.
Interestingly, my Sigma 8-16mm covers a very similar range on APS-C as the 11-24mm on FF, and my 70-300mm on my 7D as the 100-400mm II on FF). I’m very happy with both these lenses!

Paul 8)


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 21, 2015)

keithcooper said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh, I don't know.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 21, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



First of all, you said _"The 8-15L on crop is wider than the 11-24 (8mm-equivalent rectilinear when cropped to 3:2...."_ which is not true, the rectilinear conversion of an 8mm lens on a 1.6 crop camera is 12.8mm on a ff camera, so it is not an 8mm equivalent; and the 8-15 on a crop is not wider than the 11-24 on a ff when converted to rectilinear. So both of those are simply not true.

If you are _"of the opinion that lens sharpness rarely matters on wide angle or mid range lenses"_ then I can well understand how you could get_ "Defishing the 8-15 on crop from about 11-15mm produces an image that's plenty sharp enough for a good quality 24x36 print"_ I couldn't.

As for using 1% of the native image circle diameter, if you are cropping down to such small percentages of your crop camera image, again, you are doing something I couldn't, good luck to you as we are obviously talking about different levels of detail and quality.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 21, 2015)

I ended up with several new Canon products this year, including a 5DSR, 11-24mm f4L, 35mm f1.4L II and 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS II. If I desregard some AF issues with the 35mm f1.4L II, which now is gone (would have liked to understand why), I can only say that I am impressed with everyone of them. 

Initially I was very negative towards the 5DS/R, but that was based on spec reading and before I got it. As long as you understand the consequences of dealing with 50MP, it is fantastic and it is currently my most used camera. It still has two major flaws though. 1st is the lack of metering locked to AF point, which should have been so obvious that I still find it hard to comprehend how they could decide to omit it, the 2nd is the lack of support of different focusing screens. I solved that by buying the Focusing Screens S-type screen, but it is a cumbersome installation process and metering must be manually adjusted. I expect the 5DSR to be dedicated to my Zeiss glass as soon as the 5DIV and/or 1DXII comes out.

I also believe the 400mm f4 DO IS II is a fantastic lens worth mentioning. 

I don't believe there are any worst releases to mention (I don't do video). The only thing that bothers me is timing. At the beginning of the year I was expecting to see both 1DXII and 5DIV, of which the latter probably was a bit optimistic considering the 5DS/R release. Withing the lens department, maybe a couple of TS-E (45, 90 + macro) and/or 50/85/135L updates.


----------



## tomri (Dec 21, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> Winner: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM


A 50mm plastic lens that mimics the performance of its 20 year old predecessor.
Whow! That tells us something about Canon's innovation this year!

Cheers!


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 21, 2015)

I can live quite well with this ranking although I also understand that many are voting for the 100-400L II.

I will not buy the 50 STM as I am waiting for the 50/1.4 successor, but I feel tempted.

My personal reason for the 50 STM was a conversation that just took place this weekend:
I was talking to a friend of mine, not so much into photography as I am but still that much that he recognized that his APS-C double zoom kit was not delivering enough to him, especially when taking portraits of his toddler. We came to the point that composition, attention to the BG *and particularly DOF* were the reasons why his portraits didn't pop.
Problem was that he's on the "dark side" so the cheapest Nikon option was a 50/1.8 for about 180€ instead of the 50 STM for 115€. That's 57% more (although the Nikkor seems to deliver better corner IQ).

Conclusion:
Canon is delivering a real steal entrance into serious photography making the people long for more and spend more later on.
That's the same reason why I found the EF-S 10-18 (2014) a real clever decision to offer an "affordable" UWA/WA option.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 21, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> First of all, you said _"The 8-15L on crop is wider than the 11-24 (8mm-equivalent rectilinear when cropped to 3:2...."_ which is not true, the rectilinear conversion of an 8mm lens on a 1.6 crop camera is 12.8mm on a ff camera,



It is true.

The vertical angle of view of the 11-24 on full-frame, at 11mm, is 95 degrees.
The vertical angle of view of the 8-15 on crop, at 8mm, is 112 degrees.

Thus, when cropped to 3:2, the 8-15 on crop at 8mm is much wider (HFOV = 148 degrees) than the 11-24 is on full frame (HFOV = 117 degrees).

The projections are different thus the angles-of-view at the same focal lengths are different. Check yourself. Here are the formulas:

Fisheye: 4*arcsin(sensor size/(focal length*4))
Rectilinear: 2*arctan(sensor size/(focal length*2))



> As for using 1% of the native image circle diameter, if you are cropping down to such small percentages of your crop camera image, again, you are doing something I couldn't, good luck to you as we are obviously talking about different levels of detail and quality.



Well, how do you get a picture at 2,800mm equivalent, hand held, while standing on the side of a mountain, of an A-380 at 40,000 feet 14 miles away?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Dec 21, 2015)

Im going to be the lone voice that votes for the Canon 5DS (I disagree with Private by Design about dropping it and only having the 5DSr). 

As a landscape camera used 95% of the time on a tripod the camera provides absolutely brilliant IQ and the ability to crop way beyond the 5D MKIII or 6D. The beefed up base plate allows for really tightening the camera to the dove plate and the motorised mirror does what it states on the tin. This camera really is about its resolution and it doesnt disappoint. As a portrait camera the detail in hair & texture in cloth etc make it stand-out and works great with the EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM Macro. 

I also bought the 50mm f1.8 STM lens and for the money its a steal and worthy of any camera bag.


----------



## scrup (Dec 21, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> scrup said:
> 
> 
> > You hurt my feelings shaming the M3. I thought this is canons best mirrorless offering and would take it over the m10 anyday.
> ...



So the M10 is much better than the M3?


----------



## ashmadux (Dec 21, 2015)

scrup said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > scrup said:
> ...




Didnt quite understand this one either.

Im actually returning my M3 for a replacement in the next hour,  . The camera has serious shutter 'bang', and this camera has failed to produce a traditional sharp image in 2 weeks- even on a tripod. No such issue with the M, even handheld at 1/10 sec. I swear it makes my hand move when im shooting.

I just noticed the same thing mentioned in some others review - asking the same question if the shutter harshness is causing soft images.

Other than that, besides the quirks, I absolutely needed a m-like camera with a swivel screen for my cityscapes. 

Now only if i could get some sharp images out of it, on a freaking tripod..sheesh. I will keep it if i can get over the issues. The EVF is handy, though i would not purchase that thing at 200+. Nope.

edit: I will say thing- the m10 feel solid and nice in the hands. The M3 feels delicate because of these damn cheap canon rebel plastics. The plastic on my t2i feels wayyyyy better, and doesnt take scratches that the new versions do.

PS- give me a g5x with a aps-c sensor and a real swivel screen...Id be one happy guy.


----------



## mskrystalmeth (Dec 21, 2015)

Don't know even if the Canon Twin Sisters were mentioned.

Canon EOS 5DS / 5DS R

Canon has arrived Four Years Late, with the Twin Sisters. Remember this was done 4 years ago by Nikon, with D800/E and were a hit with reviewers , and Sales Hit. 

Canon has proven to all and it's fan base...that having a 50mp sensor does not make it the best Camera. Nikon D800/E and D810 and Sony's A7rll out shine the Canon Twin Sisters in the Low Light and Dynamic Department and ISO Performance. 

And while shooting in Chinatown in LA recently...I came across Three Canon Users of 5Dr. I asked them what they thought of the Camera...They all said, We are glad we are renting this camera and didn't buy it. I ask would they buy the Canon Twin Sisters...All Three said No! 

Canon, while along with Nikon..On the Mirrorless Department is a Massive Failure.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2015)

mskrystalmeth said:


> Canon has arrived Four Years Late, with the Twin Sisters. Remember this was done 4 years ago by Nikon, with D800/E and were a hit with reviewers , *and Sales Hit*.



See, I just _knew_ there was a reason Nikon released the D810 so close on the heels of the D800/E. With the D600 it was the oil splattering and the ban from sale in the world's most populous nation. With the D800, it was that the cameras were so successful. :


----------



## mskrystalmeth (Dec 21, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> mskrystalmeth said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has arrived Four Years Late, with the Twin Sisters. Remember this was done 4 years ago by Nikon, with D800/E and were a hit with reviewers , *and Sales Hit*.
> ...




I guess 4 Years is on the Heel? The Nikon D800/E was released 4 years ago. Please keep up.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 22, 2015)

mskrystalmeth said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > mskrystalmeth said:
> ...



The D810 was released two years after the D800, which for Canon/Nikon FF bodies as of 2014 (when the D810 launched) was 'on the heels'. Please try to read and comprehend.


----------



## NancyP (Dec 22, 2015)

I have to get that nifty fifty. I am crazy about my shorty forty. There's a great deal to be said for a good but not supreme lens that is light weight and allows you to carry additional primes, if you are a prime shooter or just want to keep a spare lens in your pocket for possible landscapes when you are out there shooting with long tele or tele macro.


----------



## Woody (Dec 22, 2015)

Worst releases from Canon in 2014: all their cameras with out-dated sensor designs, leading to slow or incapable on-sensor AF, lack of 4k video capability and non-competitive high and/or low ISO performance.

Perhaps Canon improve in all these areas in 2015. I won't hold up my hopes 'cos I've been disappointed too many times already.


----------



## sanj (Dec 22, 2015)

Woody said:


> Worst releases from Canon in 2014: all their cameras with out-dated sensor designs, leading to slow or incapable on-sensor AF, lack of 4k video capability and non-competitive high and/or low ISO performance.
> 
> Perhaps Canon improve in all these areas in 2015. I won't hold up my hopes 'cos I've been disappointed too many times already.



I have full faith in Canon to fix and even better the slight differences in sensor tech in their new releases.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 22, 2015)

Woody said:


> Worst releases from Canon in 2014: all their cameras with out-dated sensor designs, leading to slow or incapable on-sensor AF, lack of 4k video capability and non-competitive high and/or low ISO performance.
> 
> Perhaps Canon improve in all these areas in 2015. I won't hold up my hopes 'cos I've been disappointed too many times already.


Yeah! 

The sensor design is so bad that even photojournalists around the world couldn't avoid getting prices for their awful pictures.
[/sarc mode]

Back to real world:
Yes, the sensor design of Canon is the one feature where they are behind the competition. But not as far as some EXMOR gurus always say. 
On sensor AF: DPAF is bad? Interesting to hear. First mention to me
No 4K: a decision Canon did take. Not, that they couldn't make. Low cost video guys already have turned away from Canon. Maybe they decided that there's no more market to milk ...
Non-competitive low ISO: see above at sensor design.
Non-competitive low high: Aha! One brand-new Sony a7SII makes the former best nightscopes for 4 years, 1DX and 6D, look a little bit old? Let's wait for the successors next spring and talk again. 

You try to make a catastrophe from a few deficits that are in the sub 10% deviation. 
But at the same time you conceal the points where the others have their sub 10% deviation

Yes, I also wish my Canon product to be top notch at every point - but that isn't possible with any other brand either. If you don't like what Canon is doing, jump ship. If you don't like some things Canon is doing, rethink your scaling.
Stop making doomsday out of it :


----------



## Ivan Muller (Dec 22, 2015)

I bought the M3 having high hopes but expecting the worst...

I took it to Europe for almost three weeks and made many many great 'street' and travel photographs with it...later on I got the EVF which improved things a lot...

In my neck of the woods it was the cheapest mirror-less offering by far...(Sony is absent in our market having pulled out at the beginning of the year) and the fact that it integrated seamlessly with the rest of my Canon stuff was and still is a bonus...

AF speed and the size of the AF 'points' really is probably its worst feature and the image quality up to 1600iso its best

Definitely not without its flaws but better than expected and a qualified pleasure to use...

As for the 5DS & R I would really like to get one but I am sitting on the fence waiting to see what the 5d4 and 6D2 has to offer. After using the 24mp M3 I realized that anything just a little more than 24mp probably would be more than good enough for me...so hoping for a camera with around 28mp and very good high iso image quality...


----------



## Zv (Dec 22, 2015)

NancyP said:


> I have to get that nifty fifty. I am crazy about my shorty forty. There's a great deal to be said for a good but not supreme lens that is light weight and allows you to carry additional primes, if you are a prime shooter or just want to keep a spare lens in your pocket for possible landscapes when you are out there shooting with long tele or tele macro.



+1 just like the "best camera is the one in your hand" same goes for a lens in the pocket! Sure, it's not the best but it gets the job done for those extra shots you might have missed due to space constraints. 

It also pairs well with the EOS M via adaptor to get some nice portrait shots though AF is a bit slow. Makes a half decent 80mm lens for when you are shooting primarily wide with your other FF body. A native M 50 would be awesome but until then this set up is the next best thing.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 22, 2015)

Woody said:


> Worst releases from Canon in 2014: all their cameras with out-dated sensor designs, leading to slow or incapable on-sensor AF, lack of 4k video capability and non-competitive high and/or low ISO performance.
> 
> Perhaps Canon improve in all these areas in 2015. I won't hold up my hopes 'cos I've been disappointed too many times already.



Can I borrow your time machine?


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 22, 2015)

For me the 100-400L II is a 2014 lens so is disqualified.

50STM is an old optical design in a new package with maybe some new coatings. Good value but so-so performance.

The 5Ds/~R are good tools for certain jobs but fall short of what we know is possible. In these two cameras Canon had the opportunity to throw down the technological gauntlet but unfortunately chose not to. 

The 35L II is expensive but optical performance, technology and build quality are a new benchmark for the 35mm focal length.

The EOS M3 ... In my mind BMW lawyers were considering legal action against Canon for tarnishing the prestigious M3 brand which BMW has been cultivating for so many years.

XC10 - this waste of money, time and human resources makes my blood boil. If all that R&D was instead diverted into on-sensor ADC for the 5Ds/-R ... Why Canon, Why?!?!?!??!?!


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 22, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> For me the 100-400L II is a 2014 lens so is disqualified.
> 
> 50STM is an old optical design in a new package with maybe some new coatings. Good value but so-so performance.
> 
> ...



+100

Especially like the beamer M3 bit!


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 22, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > For me the 100-400L II is a 2014 lens so is disqualified.
> ...


Forgot to mention the:
11-24mm f/4 L. Pretty astonishing lens but it unfortunately has some optical flaws.
760D/T6s and 750D/T6i are decent performers and are pretty competitive except with DR.

To summarize, in my opinion Canon's best for 2015 is the outstanding Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM.
Canon's worst product for 2015 is undoubtedly the XC10. How did it ever see the light of day?


----------



## JoFT (Dec 23, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> I decided I’d weigh in on what I felt were Canon’s best and worst products of 2015. I didn’t find any of the DSLR releases to be all that interesting this year. While I like the EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R, I just haven’t found a use personally for either of them. I felt 2015 was a development year for Canon as far as DSLRs and mirrorless cameras go and we should expect some big things in 2016,</p><p><!--more--></p><h4><strong>Best Product Release by Canon in 2015</strong></h4><p><strong>Winner: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1143786-REG/canon_0570c002_ef_50mm_f_1_8_stm.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM</a></strong>Canon released a lot of great new L and DO lenses in 2015, but my pick for the best of 2015 is the brand new “nifty fifty”. Canon improved just about everything on the new version of this lens and did something amazing, they didn’t raise the price over the lens it replaced.</p><p>Improvements include 7 aperture blades instead of 5, a metal mount, STM AF motor, faster AF, improved build quality, so it might actually survive a fall. It stops down to f/22 instead f/16 on the lens it replaces.</p><p>Just because something is “entry level” doesn’t mean it can’t also be great and this is one great product release by Canon.</p><p><strong>Runner-Up: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1180801-REG/canon_9523b002_35mm_f_1_4l_ii_usm.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II</a></strong>There were a lot of great lenses to choose from this year, the EF 11-24mm f/4L is one of a kind, the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II is a nearly perfect update the EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II proves Canon is still behind its diffractive optics development.</p><p>I have to give the runner-up award to the EF 35mm f/1.4L II though, while the other L and DO releases were great, this lens has a bigger mass appeal, which is why I chose it. Canon once again improved everything about the previous version of a lens model. Optical quality and build quality are again class leading and you cannot overlook having a native Canon lens for accurate autofocus when you need it most. Yes, the lens is expensive, but after the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/teardown-canon-ef-35mm-f1-4l-ii-by-lensrentals-com/" target="_blank">recent teardown we saw of the new lens</a>, it looks to be justified.</p><p>Canon continues to be the best and most advanced lens maker in the world and it’s likely the big reason they retain their marketshare in the DSLR space.</p><h4>Worst Product Release by Canon in 2015</h4><p><strong>Winner (Loser): <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1134581-REG/canon_0565c013_xc10.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon XC10</a></strong>I don’t think anyone has any idea what Canon was thinking with this oddball camera. Canon’s marketing claims it’s a product for everyone including still shooters, videographers & photojournalists.</p><p>What usually happens when you try to make something for everyone? You end up making something for no one. Which is exactly what Canon did.</p><p><strong>Runner-Up: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1180765-REG/canon_9694b001_eos_m3_mirrorless_digital.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EOS M3</a></strong>I don’t care if you’ve improved on the EOS M and the EOS M2, all you’re doing is updating a product that is flawed to something that is still flawed. The EOS M system is still way behind mirrorless leaders Sony, Fujifilm & Olympus, and that has to change soon. Canon is promising that it will, but we’ll take the wait and see approach.</p><p>Sound off in the forum with your own best and worst list.</p>




For me the Canon EF 50mm f1.8 lens was THE (!!!) most exciting experience in 2015. I shoot Canon since ever (1979... starting with the AE-1...) But recently I realized the asset of the nifty-fifty in the Canon ecosystem. It gives the echo Canonista a very cheap lens with a great performance. Even if it is just the cheapest EOS 1200D or Rebel: With this great lens everybody can do Pro like photos!!!


I love to use it on the 5D MkIII http://bit.ly/1NtFALq[/size] even more than on the 7DMkII... [/size]http://bit.ly/1OCuFi5




And one other topic: My copy really outperforms the 50mm f1.4.... In every regard!!!


----------



## Tinky (Dec 23, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> XC10 - this waste of money, time and human resources makes my blood boil. If all that R&D was instead diverted into on-sensor ADC for the 5Ds/-R ... Why Canon, Why?!?!?!??!?!



The end product was a waste of time. Even if it had been slightly bigger and taken 2.5 SSDs.. maybe some merit..
CFast killed it absolutely over it's other shortcomings.

BUT it's not the case that Stills shooters suffer for investment in video. Canon has made movie cameras from standard 8 to super 8, through 8mm Hi8 and DV, to HDV, EOS and XF. The XC10 hasn't cost stills shooters anything. I don't get why folks perpertuate this needless dichotomy.

If anything, movie users have enouraged development of the EOS line, and certainly the additional sales can't hurt.

The XC10 is a major disappointment, I just don't see what bearing it has on stills. I gather the new on sensor technologies were first developed and marketed on primarily stills bodies such as the EOS M1, 700D and 70D, and then made it's way into video cameras like the C100 modifcation and then the XC10.

If anything, us video guys should be saying, pull your finger out canon and stop wasting time with stills cameras.

But that would be self-defeatest ignorant and silly.


----------



## ecqns (Dec 23, 2015)

speaking of Canon disappointments - whatever happened to the 2 new TS-E lenses rumored to be released?
haven't heard much about them at all in the last few months.


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 23, 2015)

The EOS M10 deserves to be on the list, the M3 doesn't.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 23, 2015)

jolyonralph said:


> The EOS M10 deserves to be on the list, the M3 doesn't.



M10 is only a poor joke. M3 is not on the list for what it is. It is on the list for what it could and should have been. It's behind the 3 year old Sony A6000 in every way - from sensor to AF performance. Thats why Canon has deserved the entry on the fail list for the M3. It is also the reason why i refuse to buy a M3.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 24, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > The EOS M10 deserves to be on the list, the M3 doesn't.
> ...



Have you used an A6000? The viewfinder is horrid and the ergonomics are a really sad joke like the thing was designed for a 3-year-old by a moron.

If someone gave me one, I'd wedge it under a door when i needed to prop it open.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 24, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, you said _"The 8-15L on crop is wider than the 11-24 (8mm-equivalent rectilinear when cropped to 3:2...."_ which is not true, the rectilinear conversion of an 8mm lens on a 1.6 crop camera is 12.8mm on a ff camera,
> ...



The 8-15 on a crop does have a wider fov than the 11-24 on a ff, but that wasn't how you worded your first comment and isn't what I was saying was wrong. The 8-15 on crop is not a rectilinear projection, and you said _"8mm-equivalent rectilinear"_ the 8-15 does not give you 148º at 8mm on a crop camera when remapped to rectilinear, that is what you said and I said was incorrect.

When remapped to rectilinear the 8mm fisheye on a crop camera gives an equivalent of a 12.8mm rectilinear lens on a FF camera, just look at the three images I posted earlier to see how much fov you lose in a fisheye to rectilinear remap.

As for your A-380 shot, as I said, we are talking about different levels of detail and quality, there is nothing wrong with your shot, but I wouldn't take it show it or use it as any kind of example of anything.

This is what I would consider a worthwhile in flight A-380 shot.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 24, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> The 8-15 on a crop does have a wider fov than the 11-24 on a ff, but that wasn't how you worded your first comment and isn't what I was saying was wrong. The 8-15 on crop is not a rectilinear projection, and you said _"8mm-equivalent rectilinear"_ the 8-15 does not give you 148º at 8mm on a crop camera when remapped to rectilinear, that is what you said and I said was incorrect.
> 
> When remapped to rectilinear the 8mm fisheye on a crop camera gives an equivalent of a 12.8mm rectilinear lens on a FF camera,



No, you are wrong.

When the 8-15 is shot on a crop camera, fully defished at 8mm and cropped to 3:2, the equivalent field of view is that of an 8.12mm rectilinear lens on a full-frame camera. And it looks ridiculous.

At 9.3mm, with the same conditions, its FOV is that of an 11mm rectilinear lens.

Here's the full chart for 8-15 on crop, fully defished and cropped to 3:2.

8	8.12
9	10.34
10	12.41
11	14.37
12	16.26
13	18.11
14	19.91
15	21.69

The entire point of my A-380 shot is to get a shot of contrail production near the plane.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 31, 2015)

My 35mm f/1.4L II review is now live if you want to take a look. I will be following up with a Canon Rumors review in the next few weeks, but for those considering the lens:

http://bit.ly/1Py0AOA


----------



## StrawberryF (Jan 9, 2016)

For lens either the 100-400II or 11-24. The nifty fifty does not count it for me. Price may be right but so what. A me too lens at a low price point.


----------

