New 24 and 28 primes with IS.

<p>Well these two are unexpected. Very interested to see them tested.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/07/Canon_24-70mm_F2p8_II_24mm_f2p8_IS_28mm_f2p8_IS#press">Link.</a></p>

<p>$849 for the 24 and $799 for the 28. <a href="http://usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon/newsroom?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e0248044cf6e">Link</a></p>

<p>Hmmm...weird primes, especially at those prices. Even more weird than the two versions of d800. </p>

<p>Ah Leslie,</p>

<p>On the D800/800E subject, I think Nikon have just dealt Canon a serious blow. $2,999 and 36MP for the D800 has taken the wind out almost anything Canon can belatedly offer for the 5D MkIII, the fact that it has pro AF, twin card slots and weather sealing is just painful to Canon owners.</p>

<p>Those sample images of the D800 and 14-24 are reason to jump ship alone, if you need the MP!</p>

<p>But back to the Canon lenses, I'd be interested in the 28 as a travel lens.</p>

<p>I very often found myself indoor, with low light and without tripod. I was considering the 24L, but the price was stopping me. Since my subjects are stationary, f/2.8 plus 3/4 stops IS could at least match f/1.4, since I don't need thin FOV. On top of that the lens will be cheaper and smaller.<br>

I understand my requirements are kind of unusual, but I am looking forward to the new primes.</p>

<p>Odd that the 24-70 lacks IS but the two primes have IS. And those prices are a bit steep. If the prime prices drift down a couple benjamins I might grab the 28 2.8 so use my 5D2 as a Mighty Elph P&S. </p>

<p>I don't think we need to doubt that there's more to come: an all-new 50/1.8 USM IS perhaps -- an f/1.4 would kill the 50/1.2L -- and possibly an 85 with IS too. The new 28 will be extremely useful as a standard on an APS-C camera, provided that distortions are under control. Still wishing for a $200 EF-S 30/1.8 USM <em>sans</em> IS though. Others can. Why can't Canon?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Odd that the 24-70 lacks IS but the two primes have IS. And those prices are a bit steep.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1</p>

<p>I also wonder who are their target customers.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I also wonder who are their target customers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Videographers maybe?</p>

<p>Why would it be better for them (when compared to other options of course)?</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br /> Yakim.</p>

 

<p>I am just wild guessing. I know some video guy value IS a lot. But I can't say if they really value IS more than speed. Or, in other words, if they would pick f/2.8 IS over f/1.4.</p>

<p>I think it's pretty clearly an aim at videographers, especially w/ the C300 out there now. IS is a BIG deal for handheld video, as is USM FTM focusing capability, and 'smooth' aperture adjustment. But why are these so slow?</p>

<p>These guys had better be able to produce pretty stunning IQ, even WO. f2.8 is just waaaay to slow for primes in this range, especially given that price point. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I am sure we all agree that these lenses have to produce first-class IQ wide-open. I assume they will, but it remains to be seen. I really look forward for the first reviews</p>

<p>Well. . . .I too am puzzled.</p>

<p>I really thought primes were dead. The $800 price is unsurprising. The "II" seems to make everything overly expensive. </p>

<p>Interesting, but a bit strange, too. It should be good to have some updated primes other than L lenses in these focal length ranges. While I do think that IS is useful sometimes when using wide angle lenses, I wonder how many will feel that the additional cost is warranted for a f/2.8 24mm lens, especially since the low-light hand-held shooters are perhaps more likely to look at the (very expensive) L alternative.</p>

<p>If the lenses are otherwise fine performers, even those who aren't so certain that the IS is needed may still find them compelling for certain uses.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Video.</p>

<p>Well, I am delighted that the small wide angle primes have been given a makeover. Why have a huge lens when a smaller one is as good or better? I would certainly be in the market for a 28mm or 24mm IS. The IS is a surprise though I have to say. I must conclude that Canon felt it could not easily add IS to the 24-70 and keep or reduce the weight compared to the Mk1, or maintain the optical quality, because people did seem to really want the IS on that one (although not me). Let's see how they perform.</p>

<p>Finally! They have updated two of the oldest lenses in the EF range! I think that these two lenses were introduced in the late 1980's or early 1990's? It's nice to see then updated with new optics, IS, and USM ring motors.<br>

The "casing" of the lenses and physical sizes seem similar to the old ones, at least from the press release pictures. Prices seem a bit high, though, the old lenses were considered as "good bargains", by providing good image quality at a resonable price. I suppose its the price of the update... The price of the new 24-70L has risen too, the existing lens can be bought for around 1300 Euros where I live (Portugal). The new one will be more expensive, and no IS...<br>

Hopefully they will update the 35 f/2 nest round...</p>

<p>For many months folks have been hoping for a 24-70mm zoom, one of the primary lenses in their bag, to have IS. Looks as if they will begin another waiting period. I'm presuming that's a quoted MSRP, and the actual price in the stores will be considerably lower. There has not been much to fault on the original 24-70mm that I'm aware of, so this particular new lens remains somewhat of an enigma.</p>

<p>I've just received the CPN email that points to this page<br>

<a href="http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/news/canon_reveals_three_new_ef_lenses.do">http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/news/canon_reveals_three_new_ef_lenses.do</a></p>

<p>First thought: An IS-equipped silent-focusing replacement for my wasp-on-caffeine-pills-sounding 28/2.8? Great! Sounds like a good competitor to Nikon's 35/1.8 AF-S. Not quite as fast, but slightly wider, and the IS will help. I'm sure the price will be in the same ballpark.<br>

Second thought: Eight hundred dollars?!?! Is Canon kidding? Unless they slap a red ring on this thing and shove in a whole lotta exotic glass, there is no way on earth that USM and IS should multiply the cost of a lens by three times! These are mature technologies. R&D costs on USM and IS have long since been paid off. There's no need to overcharge like this.</p>

<p>I'm a huge fan of the 24mm f/2.8 I on a crop-sensor camera (that's just me). IS and USM (and improved image quality) sounds great.</p>

<p>$850? Uhm. No. Looks like a rental candidate instead.</p>

<p>I can't wait to see what they do with a revamped 50mm f/1.8. They'll probably charge $1K for it...</p>

 

<p>On the assumption that these are indeed replacements, and that therefore the previous non-IS versions will soon become unavailable; and given that the new 24-70 is also very expensive; this might mean that before long the cheapest way of doing wide-angle on a full-frame body will be the 24-105. If you stick to Canon, that is.<br>

All I can think of is that there must be some very high resolution bodies coming, for which much-improved lenses will be required.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The cheapest way of doing wide-angle on a full-frame body will be the 24-105</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is still the 17-40.<br>

Yes, the new lenses are very expensive, that's been the trend with Canon lately. Look, for example, at EF-S 15-85 or 70-300L...</p>

<p>Well, if talking about possible future small primes a 50/2.5 (or 60/2.8 like the Nikon) 1:1 macro on FF, IF design, IS and ring USM will immediately win my heart. The current 60/2.8 is one of my favourite lenses. Somehow I just can't like the 100/2.8 IS.</p>

<p>But these two? I'm scratching my head....</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

<p>These lenses seem pointless on crop gear. You're not saving much money over the 17-55/2.8 IS, and you're not getting any extra aperture.</p>

<p>Disappointing that these lenses aren't f/2 or f/1.8. After all Zeiss make a 28/2 and a 25/2, and Sigma have their old 24/1.8 and 28/1.8. And there's Canon's own 28/1.8 USM.</p>

<p>So the market must be full-frame landscape shooters. I suppose these lenses will have zero distortion and they'll be very sharp. I guess they compete with the Zeiss offerings and other exotics.</p>

<p> </p>