# Canon EF 28 f/2.8 Disappears From Price List



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 13, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=8517"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=8517" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=8517"></a></div>
<strong>From Germany

</strong>According to [<a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_new_lenses.html">NL</a>], The Canon EF 28 f/2.8 no longer appears on German price lists. This lens is one of only three lenses left from the original EOS line-up. The other 2 being the 50 f/2.5 compact macro and the 135 f/2.8 soft focus.</p>
<p><em><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12096-USA/Canon_2505A002_Wide_Angle_EF_28mm.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296">Canon 28 f/2.8 at B&H for $259</a></em></p>
<p>Another lens that has been <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12119-USA/Canon_2507A002_Wide_Angle_EF_35mm.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296">out of stock for some time at B&H</a> is the Canon EF 35 f/2.0. We <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/12/ef-s-or-ef-35-f1-8-cr1/">have heard previously</a> that a 35 f/1.8 does indeed exist.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## AdamJ (Jan 13, 2012)

I hope they replace these non-L primes with new, inexpensive non-L primes but somehow, I doubt they will.


----------



## SnapHappy (Jan 13, 2012)

Where there's smoke there's fire. I think it's only a matter of time before we here of a crop 50mm equivalent prime.


----------



## smirkypants (Jan 13, 2012)

Honestly, I see no reason to own this lens. I've used it and it's slow to focus, loud, only 2.8 and the IQ is just okay. There are so many zooms that overlap this, and unless there's a real, quantifiable reason to own a prime, you're wasting your money. Pretty much my rule of thumb is, if you're happy with 2.8, get a zoom, if you want to do better, get a high quality prime. This lens failed on both counts. This is the lens you buy because it's cheap, then it sits in the bottom of your camera bag for 5 years collecting dust.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 13, 2012)

SnapHappy said:


> I think it's only a matter of time before we here of a crop 50mm equivalent prime.



I agree...but I suspect it will be an EF-S prime.


----------



## AJ (Jan 13, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> Honestly, I see no reason to own this lens. I've used it and it's slow to focus, loud, only 2.8 and the IQ is just okay. There are so many zooms that overlap this, and unless there's a real, quantifiable reason to own a prime, you're wasting your money. Pretty much my rule of thumb is, if you're happy with 2.8, get a zoom, if you want to do better, get a high quality prime. This lens failed on both counts. This is the lens you buy because it's cheap, then it sits in the bottom of your camera bag for 5 years collecting dust.


Yup. True for FF, especially true for crop.


----------



## whatta (Jan 13, 2012)

SnapHappy said:


> Where there's smoke there's fire. I think it's only a matter of time before we here of a crop 50mm equivalent prime.


I decided not to wait and I went for the sigma 30 1.4 and it is far my most used lens 

but I agree, canon should do it.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jan 13, 2012)

The only focal length for which Canon has prime lenses, but no L lens is 28mm.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Canon would replace the f/2.8 with an EF 28mm f/1.4L USM.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 13, 2012)

As stated above, there are f/2.8 zooms of good quality, so I can't imagine the 28/2.8 is a popular lens. 

Don't forget that in addition to the EF 28mm f/2.8, there's also an EF 28mm f/1.8 USM, a newer and more expensive lens. If this isn't just a temporary/regional change, and Canon actually is discontinuing the 28/2.8, they may be getting rid of the cheaper, poorer-selling lens and driving people to purchase the more expensive lens if they need the 28mm focal length as a prime.


----------



## KyleSTL (Jan 13, 2012)

I own the 28mm f/2.8 and agree with smirkypants that it is too loud, slow (focusing and aperture), and optically mediocre for me to use very often. I would love for Canon to replace the 35mm f/2 and 28mm f/2.8 with USM (MM USM for lower cost). I also think the 50mm f/1.8 should get MM and better build quality (and a bump up in price, but still below $200), and the 50mm f/1.4 USM to get the real USM (would likely push the cost up to the 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm f/2 range). C'mon Canon, Nikon has been replacing all its non-Professional primes lately. Isn't it time for Canon to make USM standard?

smirky, I agree with most of what you say, but the 28mm f/2.8 is a $260 lens, the comparable f/2.8 zooms you talk about start at $1000 for Canon, or $440-850 for third-party lenses. Additionally the f/2.8 zoom are considerably larger and heavier than the 28mm f/2.8. Not everyone can afford the zooms or the included weight and size. That said, a more silent and optically better 28mm f/2.8 would be nice if the price remains low.

I did not pay $250 for my 28mm f/2.8, and definitely would not have bought it if it were more than the $50 I paid.


----------



## smirkypants (Jan 13, 2012)

KyleSTL said:


> smirky, I agree with most of what you say, but the 28mm f/2.8 is a $260 lens, the comparable f/2.8 zooms you talk about start at $1000 for Canon


Kyle... $260 retail for THIS piece of lego made by my little brother? That's halfway to an iPad. That's 3/5 of the way to a Siggy 30mm 1.4. That's a week's groceries. Relatively speaking it's inexpensive compared to other Canon lenses, but c'mon... $260? For this? If I were to pay $30 at a garage sale, I might think about putting it on a first generation Rebel and carrying it around the bad parts of town taking pictures of graffiti at night... if I could get it to focus fast enough to avoid the guy with the ski cap.


----------



## traveller (Jan 13, 2012)

KyleSTL said:


> Isn't it time for Canon to make USM standard?



No, despite inventing the ultrasonic lens motor, that seem to be Nikon's job! : 

I'd like to get excited about this lens dropping off price lists, but this has happened before just for them to suddenly become available again. Like many people have pointed out, this cannot be a popular lens -the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 XR Di ll LD is not a whole lot more money for a much better lens; it wouldn't be surprising if Canon were simply killing the 28mm f/2.8 off due to lack of sales. I hope I'm wrong on this count, an EF-S 30mm f/1.8 is long overdue and yes, it should have a USM motor!


----------



## jseliger (Jan 13, 2012)

I have the "nifty 50" on a t2i but find the length too great much of the time. Which means I've been contemplating a prime in the 28 – 35mm range, but the 30mm Sigma and 28mm Canon are too expensive (and the latter is too old), while the 35mm is also old and its price has increased by more than $100 in the last four months. 

So I'm hoping for a lens in the $200 – $300 neighborhood. Perhaps that's overly optimistic.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jan 13, 2012)

Still waiting for a 22mm f1.8 EF-S lens. 

Canon needs to make some more lenses of the quality and light weight of the EF 85mm f1.8.

BTW a Sony NEX 7 with the Zeiss 24mm f1,8 lens weighs less than a Canon 60D body. To some of us, high quality and light weight, is worth extra money. So my question to Canon is, why are you driving shooters like me to Sony (weight) and Nikon (focusing) ???


----------



## SnapHappy (Jan 13, 2012)

c.d.embrey said:


> Still waiting for a 22mm f1.8 EF-S lens.
> 
> Canon needs to make some more lenses of the quality and light weight of the EF 85mm f1.8.
> 
> BTW a Sony NEX 7 with the Zeiss 24mm f1,8 lens weighs less than a Canon 60D body. To some of us, high quality and light weight, is worth extra money. So my question to Canon is, why are you driving shooters like me to Sony (weight) and *Nikon (focusing)* ???



I keep hearing this and am wondering if Nikon really is better at focusing?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 13, 2012)

I bought a Canon 28mm f/2.8 for $15.00 off Caigslist about a year back. It needed cleaning up on the exterior, but it had no damage and actually was a nice and reasonably sharp lens. I had the 35mmL so I eventually resold it, but it was a nice lens for a low cost one and really small and compact for walk-around use.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 13, 2012)

SnapHappy said:


> I keep hearing this and am wondering if Nikon really is better at focusing?



between the 1D and D3 bodys its a wash both are excellent but on lower models like the 5D vs D700 or D90 vs rebels etc Nikon is better. 7D and D7000 are pretty close a bit different in the way they do it but the D7000 AF is sooo much better than the 5D2


----------



## SnapHappy (Jan 13, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> SnapHappy said:
> 
> 
> > I keep hearing this and am wondering if Nikon really is better at focusing?
> ...



Speed, accuracy or both?


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 13, 2012)

both, I used Nikon previously then got a couple of 1Ds which i started using and bought more lenses for and really liked so decided to sell all my nikon gear and consolodate onto canon I assumed that the AF would be similar to Nikon accross the range boy was i wrong, I am getting used the the quirks with the 5D2 AF but really on a camera at this level they should have made it better, 9 points i dont even have a problem with the number so much as that the other points are completely ineffective in very low light for example shooting low key in a studio with another photographer using a D7000 i was using the 5D2 and the 24-105f4 he was using an 18-105 i think on the D7000. I could not even achieve AF lock when setting any of the outer points with the 5d2, center point was ok though, so i changed to the 1D and it could lock on with any selectable point. the D7000 had no problems achieving lock. And this is shooting static models in a controlled environment. So now i basically use the center point only unless i have good light on the 5D2 but i find myself just focus and recomposing alot more and just using the center point only. 
I was also having problems with the 5D2 consistently back focusing when using AI servo with someone walking toward you.

I really hope canon pick up their game with the AF on the next round of models its the only real let down with the 5d2 IMO other than that i love the camera and its IQ size and control layout


----------



## smirkypants (Jan 13, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I bought a Canon 28mm f/2.8 for $15.00 off Craigslist about a year back. it was a nice lens for a low cost one and really small and compact for walk-around use.


Spokane, my friend, my buddy. You know I love ya. You are an exceptionally talented photographer and I've been amazed at some of the shots you've posted. Those pictures on the beach? The snow? Amazing! I'm just not feeling it from the morning glories, though. I really do think I'd rather carry my G12 around if I wanted "compact/walk-around." At least the noise wouldn't cause stray dogs to chase me and homeless women to ram me with their shopping carts!


----------



## Woody (Jan 13, 2012)

I really really want to get the new 35 f/1.8 lens. Hopefully, it's EF too..


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jan 14, 2012)

SnapHappy said:


> I keep hearing this and am wondering if Nikon really is better at focusing?



The Five Point auto focus on a Nikon F100 Film camera (1999-2006) is on par with my 40D. The 51 point auto focus on a D300, D700 and D3 is much better than the XXD and 5D/7D. The Nikon Matrix Metering is also better. The problem is that Canon has Consumer cameras (good focus), Prosumer cameras (better focus) and Pro cameras (best focus). Nikon only has Consumer (good focus) and Pro cameras (best focus), so the focus on a D300s is much better than a 7D. As mentioned by others, I use the center point only on my 40D.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 14, 2012)

RE Nikon vs. Canon AF. Both manufacturers need a way to differentiate their lines, pro from consumer. Historically, with Canon that is AF - to get their best, you need the 1-series. Nikon offers their pro-level AF in lower lines. OTOH, if you want a high MP sensor from Nikon, you pay for their most expensive pro body, whereas Canon offers a prosumer camera with the highest resolution they offer.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 14, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I bought a Canon 28mm f/2.8 for $15.00 off Craigslist about a year back. it was a nice lens for a low cost one and really small and compact for walk-around use.
> ...



No problem, they are Petunias, not morming glories.  

I brought the lens home, and wanted to test it out, so took a photo of the first thing I saw, up close as well as far away. As you can imagine, I expected some issues with a lens selling that cheaply. I was taking closeups, more like macro shots.


Honeysuckle on our back porch with the 28mm f/2.8. It attracts lots of hummingbirds. I used my 5D MK II, this lens might have been very good for a crop body. it was taken wide open at f/2.8 to try and get a 3D look.


----------



## moreorless (Jan 14, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> As stated above, there are f/2.8 zooms of good quality, so I can't imagine the 28/2.8 is a popular lens.
> 
> Don't forget that in addition to the EF 28mm f/2.8, there's also an EF 28mm f/1.8 USM, a newer and more expensive lens. If this isn't just a temporary/regional change, and Canon actually is discontinuing the 28/2.8, they may be getting rid of the cheaper, poorer-selling lens and driving people to purchase the more expensive lens if they need the 28mm focal length as a prime.



The 28mm 1.8 is also priced to be within range of alot more people than the 24mm and 35mm 1.4 L's aswell so theres likely much less demand for a cheaper option at those focal lenghts.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jan 14, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> RE Nikon vs. Canon AF. Both manufacturers need a way to differentiate their lines, pro from consumer. Historically, with Canon that is AF - to get their best, you need the 1-series. Nikon offers their pro-level AF in lower lines. OTOH, if you want a high MP sensor from Nikon, you pay for their most expensive pro body, whereas Canon offers a prosumer camera with the highest resolution they offer.



I prefer an APS-C sensor over a FF, but the 7D doesn't have the focus system and the metering I want/need. So I'm waiting to see what the D400 will be like. While I'm waiting I've bought a Sony NEX 5n, a great video camera but not much of a stills camera due to a lack fo a hot shoe. As soon a the Sony NEX 7 is available I'm buying one to test. I'm not a fanboy for any make of camera, I just buy what best fits my needs. And lately I'm not impressed with what Canon is offering. But a 7DmkII with Pro Focusing and Metering would impress me.


----------



## psycho5 (Jan 14, 2012)

Haha...Wow... What kind of person would 5 finger discount a sigma, let alone buy one?


----------



## Quackator (Jan 14, 2012)

Plus one for the 1.8/35mm lens if FF and good build quality.
Distance scale mandatory, though.


----------



## Gcon (Jan 14, 2012)

This lens has always been dead to me, given I own a 24-70mm f/2.8L. So it can go away quietly for all I care. I'm all for Canon removing the older clunky non-L EF lenses. I have no use for them whatsoever - I only shoot on L glass.


----------



## smirkypants (Jan 14, 2012)

Gcon said:


> This lens has always been dead to me, given I own a 24-70mm f/2.8L. So it can go away quietly for all I care.


That's the point. Lenses like this are dead to us, but they are also dead to the masses. I really do think that almost all of the consumer grade primes, except for the gateway nifty-fifty—will disappear. There are too many options for consumer grade cameras and a DSL + cheap prime is a loser in the marketplace. People who know about primes know about the good stuff and are more likely to be willing to spend to get quality glass. People who don't know primes think they are some kind of weird, hobbled lens from the 1950s with no possible use. To an extent they are right. The 28-135 is f3.5 at its widest. That's only about half a stop, you get USM & IS, you don't pay a ton more and you have way more versatility.

Nice honeysuckle, though.


----------



## squarebox (Jan 14, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> Gcon said:
> 
> 
> > This lens has always been dead to me, given I own a 24-70mm f/2.8L. So it can go away quietly for all I care.
> ...



Personally the sub $500 primes I think are great for people with rebels and who are JUST getting into photography and want to get a decent lens but don't want to spurge. I'm in this category. I figured out i wanted a 35mm prime lens but the f/2 is just horrible build quality ... and well f/2... If there was an f1.8 35mm for around $500 i'd have gotten that (i.e. to compete with the sigma 1.4 30mm). But instead i just got the 35mm L. Def. more lens than i need though.

The super low quality 1.8 50mm and this f2 28mm are really at the low end of teh spectrum, but you also forget that there are alot of kids that try out photography in HS and college and at that point those lens are great price points for them. They just need to be updated is all.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jan 14, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> People who know about primes know about the good stuff and are more likely to be willing to spend to get quality glass.



I disagree.

I own a 5Dmk2, want fast lenses to photographs band shows, am willing to spend on good lenses (e.g. I've bought a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM), but just can't afford to spend ~$1,500 on every prime.

If Canon upgraded it's non-L primes, I would be happy to buy 20mm f/2 USM, 24mm f/2 USM, 35mm f/2 USM, and possibly 28mm f/1.8 USM (all with IQ improved over the current non-L primes) for ~$700 each.

[Yes, I've thought about the 24-70mm f/2.8 L - it heavy & only 1 stop faster than the 24-105mm f/4 L.]


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 14, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> I would be happy to buy 20mm f/2 USM, 24mm f/2 USM, 35mm f/2 USM, and possibly 28mm f/1.8 USM (all with IQ improved over the current non-L primes) for ~$700 each.
> 
> I've thought about the 24-70mm f/2.8 L - it heavy & only 1 stop faster than the 24-105mm f/4 L.



Of course, if you add up the costs and weights of those three lenses, they'll be heavier and more expensive than the 24-70mm, and only one stop faster...


----------



## jseliger (Jan 14, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> Gcon said:
> 
> 
> > This lens has always been dead to me, given I own a 24-70mm f/2.8L. So it can go away quietly for all I care.
> ...



I'm not at all convinced this is true: I like primes—or, rather, I should say that I like the prime I have—but can't justify spending more than $500 on a prime. And I can't be the only person in this position; I'd like an equivalent of Nikon's $200 35mm / f 1.8. Which is what I hope Canon is going to offer.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 14, 2012)

jseliger said:


> ...I'd like an equivalent of Nikon's $200 35mm / f 1.8. Which is what I hope Canon is going to offer.



That wouldn't surprise me at all. But, it will be EF-S and won't have USM if it's in that price range. OTOH, people here are hoping for better quality EF primes with USM, but not L - and I don't think those are likely at all.


----------



## sulla (Jan 14, 2012)

I won't miss this lens. It doesn't need to be replaced. There is absolutely no use for it, given the bare existence of the 28/1.8 (which I own).

The 28/1.8 is also a (rather) cheap and small lens, but faster and USM. (And yes, the 2.8 is a little bit smaller and cheper, but what is the differnce in real life? How much smaller and lighter than the 1.8 can you be?)

Slow (non-macro or T/S) short (<150mm) primes like f/2.8 have no real value (to me). This also holds for the 20/2.8 and 24/2.8. When there is enough light, zooms - that most people own anyway - will do, even if they're only f/4. When there is not enough light, FAST primes are needed, and in my view this translates to f/1.x.

And those fast primes should have a very good IQ wide open (because when I can afford to stop them down, I will be in a light situation when I will use a zoom instead). I use my primes practically always wide open, I practically never stop down more than 1 stop. I just like low-light photography.

And that's a bit of a problem for Canon (or better: for us), because most Canon consumer primes need to be stopped down too much to achieve good IQ. (the 28 1.8 does not have stellar IQ, sadly). Fast primes that deliver on IQ only from apertures that zooms have are no value to me, either.

Like someone said before, I would spend 700 on consumer primes given good IQ wide open any day.

Specifically, Canon should address wide-open IQ on the following lenses:

28 1.8
50 1.4 (i also own it and I love it, but still at 1.4 it is has too much halation)
50 1.2L (yes, even the L in my view does not perform too well wide open)

The following lenses should be replaced with faster ones, at least 1.4 would be good

20 2.8
24 2.8
35 2

Also, please, Canon, give me IS in the fast primes! I would buy a 50 1.4 IS or an 85 1.4 IS at any time!!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 14, 2012)

sulla said:


> Specifically, Canon should address wide-open IQ on the following lenses:
> 
> 50 1.2L (yes, even the L in my view does not perform too well wide open)



It depends on how you define 'perform well' and 'good IQ'. If you mean maximally sharp, then you're quire correct. But if you define 'perform well' as delivering a tremendous amount of OOF blur with a smooth, creamy bokeh, then the current version of the lens performs wonderfully. Canon intentionally undercorrected the spherical aberration in the design of the 50L, sacrificing wide-open sharpness for that creamy bokeh.



sulla said:


> The following lenses should be replaced with faster ones, at least 1.4 would be good
> 
> 24 2.8
> 35 2



There are already f/1.4 primes with excellent IQ at these focal lengths - the 24L II and 35L.


----------



## smirkypants (Jan 14, 2012)

Canon needs to start doing what Sigma started doing with the 50/1.4 and continued with its 85; that is, design the lens to be at its best wide open. If you have to stop down the prime, what is the point of giving up the flexibility of a good zoom?


----------



## SnapHappy (Jan 14, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> Canon needs to start doing what Sigma started doing with the 50/1.4 and continued with its 85; that is, design the lens to be at its best wide open. If you have to stop down the prime, what is the point of giving up the flexibility of a good zoom?



Well said, smirkypants!!!

Sigma might, and I say might, have QC issues but you can't question the quality of their primes. My sigma 30mm/1.4 is fantastically sharp wide open. Once stopped down it blows away all but the highest quality lenses.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jan 15, 2012)

I like primes. Small, light and quick focusing primes. So this disqualifies the big, heavy L primes. A Canon 85mm f1.2 L weighs 1,025g and a Canon 85mm f1.8 weighs 425g. For comparison a Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.4G weighs 660g.

IMHO, Canon should make a series of "85mm f1.8 quality" lens, not "consumer quality" lenses.

Primes work well for me because I usually work with only one lens. I can go for six month without talking the EF 85mm f1.8 off the camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 15, 2012)

c.d.embrey said:


> I like primes. Small, light and quick focusing primes. So this disqualifies the big, heavy L primes. A Canon 85mm f1.2 L weighs 1,025g and a Canon 85mm f1.8 weighs 425g. For comparison a Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.4G weighs 660g.



The 35L and 50L are much lighter (not much heavier than the 85/1.8), and 135L is only a little heavier than the Nikon. 85/1.4. All three of those L lenses focus very fast, too. The 85L is an outlier on both counts. For an 85mm lens, an aperture of f/1.2 is 36% larger than an aperture of f/1.4. I put up with the weight and slow AF of the 85L because it delivers great images.


----------



## sulla (Jan 15, 2012)

weight isn't too much of a concern to me. My 5D plus a bag weighs enough that I won't feel the difference of a 500 vs an 800g lens too much.

But indeed, the 85/1.8 has good build and also optical quality at a good price point. If only all consumer primes would be like this. I would very much greet a series of "85 1.8 quality" primes. ;-)


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jan 15, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> sulla said:
> 
> 
> > The following lenses should be replaced with faster ones, at least 1.4 would be good
> ...



But the 24L II & 35L cost a lot more than ~U.S.$700


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 15, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > There are already f/1.4 primes with excellent IQ at these focal lengths - the 24L II and 35L.
> ...



Sure they do...and Canon wants more of your money! So, if they can put a red ring on a lens and charge a premium, meaning more profit, that's what they want you to buy.

IMO, their viewpoint is that there are three broad categories of buyers out there:


Typical consumers
Enthusiasts / advanced amateurs / 'working' pros
'High-profile' pros

The first category will likely buy a Rebel/xxxD or 60D with a kit lens or two, and maybe a nifty fifty. The third category will be shooting 1-series bodies and all L-series lenses. The middle category is a broad one - xxxD, 60D, 7D, 5DII users, with multiple lenses, including zoom and primes. I think Canon would prefer to upmarket these folks - get them shooting on a 7D and/or a 5DII, and buying L-series lenses. The good quality, non-L primes are likely not in Canon's financial interest to update. Allow me to use your statement to illustrate that point:



Ellen Schmidtee said:


> I would be happy to buy 20mm f/2 USM, 24mm f/2 USM, 35mm f/2 USM, and possibly 28mm f/1.8 USM (all with IQ improved over the current non-L primes) for ~$700 each.



That's four $700 lenses, meaning you're (in theory) willing to spend $2,800. If Canon were to develop those four lenses, that would mean a significant R&D expenditure. From a financial standpoint, they'd realize more profit developing only two lenses in that focal range and charging $1400 for each. Thus, we have a 24L and a 35L, but no 20L or 28L. 

I think Canon will attempt to polarize the market a little further, and we're seeing that in recent lens releases. They are concentrating on EF-S lenses and L-series lenses, and not releasing or updating anything in between.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jan 15, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 35L and 50L are much lighter (not much heavier than the 85/1.8), and 135L is only a little heavier than the Nikon. 85/1.4. All three of those L lenses focus very fast, too. The 85L is an outlier on both counts. For an 85mm lens, an aperture of f/1.2 is 36% larger than an aperture of f/1.4. I put up with the weight and slow AF of the 85L because it delivers great images.



Why would I want to carry the extra weight of the 85mm f1.2L, when I mainly shoot between f5.6 and f11 ??? My advertising clients are more concerned with their customers getting a good look at the product, than they are with creamy bouquet.

The combined weight of a Sony NEX 7 with a Zeiss 24mm f1.8 is less than a 22.9 oz./650g EF 24 f1.4L lens. For comparison the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED weighs 21.9 oz. (620g).


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jan 15, 2012)

jseliger said:


> [
> I'm not at all convinced this is true: I like primes—or, rather, I should say that I like the prime I have—but can't justify spending more than $500 on a prime. And I can't be the only person in this position; I'd like an equivalent of Nikon's $200 35mm / f 1.8. Which is what I hope Canon is going to offer.



Nikon's most expensive ($499.95 MSRP) f1.8 prime is the new AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G. The AF-S NIKKOR
50mm f/1.8G is $219.95 MSRP. Nikon is upgrading their D lenses to AF-S G lenses and still keeping the prices reasonable, Canon could/should do the same.

BTW for thous not familiar with Nikon, AF-S = USM and G lenses don't have aperture rings (just like Canon lenses).


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jan 15, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > I would be happy to buy 20mm f/2 USM, 24mm f/2 USM, 35mm f/2 USM, and possibly 28mm f/1.8 USM (all with IQ improved over the current non-L primes) for ~$700 each.
> ...



In my case Canon wouldn't, as I'll buy neither the 24L nor the 35L.



neuroanatomist said:


> I think Canon will attempt to polarize the market a little further, and we're seeing that in recent lens releases. They are concentrating on EF-S lenses and L-series lenses, and not releasing or updating anything in between.



Which might end with me either downgrading to APS-C & EF-S (due to lack of money), or switching to another manufacturor.


----------



## AJ (Jan 15, 2012)

Just how much R&D expense does it take to update a few primes?

CAD lens design should be pretty straightforward.
They already make USM motors, lens mounts, controller chips, diaphragms.
They have machinery to grind lenses. Retooling shouldn't be that big of a deal. Ditto for new coatings.


----------



## DJL329 (Jan 15, 2012)

c.d.embrey said:


> Nikon's most expensive ($499.95 MSRP) f1.8 prime is the new AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G. The AF-S NIKKOR
> 50mm f/1.8G is $219.95 MSRP. Nikon is upgrading their D lenses to AF-S G lenses and still keeping the prices reasonable, Canon could/should do the same.



If we, the consumers, buy what Canon decides to sell, then they have no impetus to change. Only if a large number of folks switched to Nikon and bought up their new "AF-S G" lenses, would they then have to rethink their strategy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 15, 2012)

c.d.embrey said:


> The combined weight of a Sony NEX 7 with a Zeiss 24mm f1.8 is less than a 22.9 oz./650g EF 24 f1.4L lens. For comparison the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED weighs 21.9 oz. (620g).



You're comparing the weight of a mirrorless camera plus small image circle lens with a FF image circle lens? Well, then...the S100 weighs less than 7 oz./200g including the battery and memory card, and has a 24mm-equivalent f/2 lens. That comparison is only slightly less relevant, but if you want to save weight, there you go...


----------



## SnapHappy (Jan 15, 2012)

DJL329 said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon's most expensive ($499.95 MSRP) f1.8 prime is the new AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G. The AF-S NIKKOR
> ...



Agreed! Nikon seem to get the fact that there are more APS-C users out there then there are Pro/Serious Enthusiasts and their lens lineup is starting to reflect that. Canon need to get off their high horse and start realising that the other camera manufacturers are catching up in a hurry.


----------



## Gothmoth (Jan 15, 2012)

i wonder when a lens rumor finally will be true....

can´t remember i read a rumor here about a lens announcement date that has become true. 

so guessing from "in or out of stock".. i could not care less.

maybe it´s even just a marketing idea from B&H so people who come here visit the B&H/ adorama etc. website to look if it´s really not listed anymore.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jan 15, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> You're comparing the weight of a mirrorless camera plus small image circle lens with a FF image circle lens? Well, then...the S100 weighs less than 7 oz./200g including the battery and memory card, and has a 24mm-equivalent f/2 lens. That comparison is only slightly less relevant, but if you want to save weight, there you go...



I prefer APS-C and DX cameras to FF. I don't sell 40x60 prints, I just shoot ads. If I need a really big print, than I'll use my 4x5 Toyo. My Only FF cameras are *Full Frame Film* cameras. I like small light weight cameras and I'm getting a Sony NEX 7 with a Zeiss 24mm f1.8 to test. If the NEX 7 works out, most of my Canon gear goes into storage.

BTW if Canon builds a Pro Quality Mirrorless with the requisite small/light lenses, I'll get one to test.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jan 18, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > I would be happy to buy 20mm f/2 USM, 24mm f/2 USM, 35mm f/2 USM, and possibly 28mm f/1.8 USM (all with IQ improved over the current non-L primes) for ~$700 each.
> ...



I've just read the Samyang is going to release a 24mm prime. Reading reviews about the 35mm f/1.4 prime, which has a price tag similar to the 35mm f/2 and IQ similar to the 35mm f/1.4L sans autofocus and USM, there's another option: I would sell my 35mm f/2 2nd hand, buy Samyang, and Canon realizes no profit.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jan 20, 2012)

Where is the ef 18mm /1.4L?


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 20, 2012)

SnapHappy said:


> Agreed! Nikon seem to get the fact that there are more APS-C users out there then there are Pro/Serious Enthusiasts and their lens lineup is starting to reflect that. Canon need to get off their high horse and start realising that the other camera manufacturers are catching up in a hurry.



These are the P&S people moving up - I doubt they buy many lens over and above the 55-250


----------

