New 24 and 28 primes with IS.

[lester_wareham]

I am theorising adding IS increases the front element size

to accommodate the effectively wider FOV (see 100 is

macro vs the 100 classic).

 

This may explain no IS on the zoom and the modest f/2.8

primes.

 

I did expect the 24-70 upgrade to stretch up to say 24-85,

this would have been a more compling upgrade

justification for the existing 24-70 users I would suspect.

 

I can see the primes being good for static low light, but in

this case you probably want to stop down more for DOF so

why not use the 24-105.

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>+1</p>

<p>Adding IS and improving the optics of the 28/1.8 USM would make it a <strong>very</strong> interesting proposition.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>At 3x the price I'm keeping my old school 24/2.8.</p>

<p>So where the hell is the 50/1.4 IS USM with a real USM motor in it? Of course expect a price tag over $1000 for that one. </p>

<p>Which would you rather. A 24/2.8 with IS or a 400/5.6L with IS? </p>

<p>Canon's strategy is strange. I wonder how surprised they were by the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC being announced?</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>I'm very perplexed by Canon. </p>

<p>The new IS primes make sense (sort of) but not at that price point and the lack of IS in the new 24-70 makes no sense at all, <strong>especially</strong> given its price point. I guess we'll need to see how good the Tamron is, but if it is as good as promised, I don't see Canon moving many of these primes or the new zoom, other than to the folks who insist on buying Canon because it is <em>better.</em> </p>

<p>Also interested to see which of the 5D IIIs floating around out there are brought to market given the new D800. </p>

<p>All in all it is shaping up to be a disappointing year for Canon... I can't wait for all of the "should I dump Canon and go Nikon" threads to start up here soon. </p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I think you're more likely to see "should I dump Canon and go to Tamron/Sigma/Tokina" threads. Dumping a camera and all the lenses you own is a big step (and an expensive step).</p>

<p>Canon do seem to be pricing themsleves out of the market somewhat. In the current economy with wages stagnent or declining, new lenses like the 500/4L IS II, 600/4L IS II at $10 and $12k and price increases of 200% and 300% on lenses like the new 24/2.8 IS, 28/2.8IS and 24-70/2.8 II just seem like they are pushing the point of no return.</p>

<p>I'm sure the new lenses are better and I'm sure they will sell some, but a lot of people will be thinking either "well, my current versions of those lenses are pretty good. How much better do I need" or "The third party equivalent is half the cost. Maybe I can live with 90% of the performance for 50% of the price".</p>

<p>If the economy was better, maybe it wouldn't be so much of an issue, but it's not and it doesn't look like it's going to get a whole lot better anytime soon. I wonder how many cars Ford would sell if they made them a bit better and doubled the price?</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>So where the hell is the 50/1.4 IS USM with a real USM motor in it? Of course expect a price tag over $1000 for that one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Give me top notch IQ and BQ to match and I will not rule it out, even at this price.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I suspect a 50/1.4 IS USM would sell much better at $1000 or even $1200 than a 28/2.8 IS USM will at $800. A 28/2.8 just isn't a very exciting lens. You can get that in a zoom (with IS and USM). Ditto for the 24/2.8. If you have an APS-C body, the 17-55/2.8 IS USM would seem to be a more useful lens, even if not quite so sharp in the corners. </p>

<p>Personally, I'd keep my 50/1.8 MkI lens, but then that's just me.</p>

<p>Better to save your money for the 5D MkIII...</p>

 

[yakim_peled1]

<p>OT: My 17-55/2.8 is <strong>very</strong> sharp, even at the corners.</p>

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

[funkag]

<p>This is really the first major optical redesign on Canon's basic primes since the 1970's isn't it?</p>

<p>I'd be all for circular apertures and usm (at under $500), but IS and the current price is just too much for me. I have to think they did their research and have a profitable target audience - I just can't think what it might be.</p>

<p>In my book, IS simply can't match speed - an updated 28 f1.8 or 24 f2 at this price (not to mention a stinkin' efs 35mm...) would have been most welcome.</p>

[funkag]

<p>+1 Yakim - my 17-55 is unimpeachable across the frame.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>After all Zeiss make a 28/2 and a 25/2,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, but then they are much more expensive - the new 25/2 is 2x the price, I think. If the Canons perform superbly then I think there is a market for them for those of us looking for superb optical quality without excessive size and weight. They should make a new 18/20mm too (no need for IS on that one).</p>

[tdigi]

<p>My guess with all these lenses is Canon was focusing on size and weight. I would much rather have a rebel with a 24 2.8 prime over a 4/3 camera with a prime. I am also assuming the IS is intended for landscape shooters who travel light or video.</p>

<p>The 24 is somewhat interesting, if I did not have the 24LII I would be very interested. I just wish they made a 35 instead of a 28 in a non L but I agree a 2.0 without IS would seem more appealing but in the end its so much smaller then a 2.8 zoom I don't think its really fair to compare.</p>

<p>I also agree the prices are very high but these prices are not actual street prices, I am sure they will settle in at around $600 or so for the primes and 1800 or so for the 24-70. </p>

[jim_larson1]

<p>10 hours later. . .still perplexed by these lenses. Look. . .I LOVE primes. I carried the 24/2.8 in my bag for a long time. I still have the 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 in my day bag.</p>

<p>At this price level -> I just can't be inspired to scoop one of these up. At F2.0 -> I would be tempted. But for a simple 2.8? Nah. I mean, if I was spending *stupid money*, I would rather throw down for the 1.4L than a 2.8 with IS. Frankly, I don't value IS much in a 24mm lens.</p>

[tom_elessar]

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=14630">Bob Atkins</a>:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think you're more likely to see "should I dump Canon and go to Tamron/Sigma/Tokina" threads. Dumping a camera and all the lenses you own is a big step (and an expensive step).<br>

Canon do seem to be pricing themsleves out of the market somewhat.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This describes me: I ordered a Sigma 17 – 50mm OS for a t2i a few days ago because, with the recent sale, they're going for a hair under $600. And it includes a hood and so forth. The Canon equivalent is about $1100. I'm replacing a Canon 17 – 85 mm lens, primarily because I'd like the speed and seldom use the 50 – 85mm range.<br>

The only other lens I'd like is a wide, indoor prime, and the logical candidates are the Canon 28mm f / 1.8 or the Sigma 30mm f / 1.4. The Sigma is slightly less expensive and also a far newer design. It's the one I'm mostly likely to get in the next six to twelve months.<br>

My budget is far from infinite, and, at this point, I don't see the value in many of Canon's lenses in my price neighborhood, especially if they replace the 28 f / 1.8 and 35 f / 2 with lenses that cost two to three times as much.</p>

[pbizarro]

<p>You have to factor in that these days, lenses have to target the videographers market. These two primes will be very interesting for people shooting video on a DSLR, which are a lot. Even prime time TV shows have been filmed with DSLRs. Wide angle lenses with IS and fast silent operation, with rounded aperture blades for smooth rendering of out of focus backgrounds, they have video writen all over them.<br>

Couple these with full frame 35mm sensors, all of a sudden videographers will have comparably cheap kits to deliver very high quality movies. It is not all about stills any more.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>I am not a videographer but I seriously doubt if they would be willing to give up the convenience of the 24-105/4 IS, losing only one stop. The price difference is ~200$.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[massimo_foti]

<p>For what's worth, I expect the IS on the new lenses to have 1 stop advantage over the one in 24-105. I usually get 2 stops out of 24-105's 2nd generation IS, and 3 stops out of the most recent 15-85's IS.<br>

I own 24-105 and like it a lot, but I think most people agree it's not great at 24mm. At 28mm is already better.</p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>HD video is 1920x1080, about 2 megapixels. That is a tiny speck in the centre of a 20-megapixel sensor if you map one sensor pixel to one output pixel. I expect we will see a Canon body with 'digital zoom' for use in shooting video. Unlike the fairly worthless digital zoom on point-and-shoot still cameras, this is worth something: since your output video is relatively low resolution anyway, you can zoom in to a small part of the sensor without losing quality. Then a 24/2.8 stabilized lens looks like a good proposition. Provided it's razor sharp at say f/5.6, you can zoom in to get a narrow angle of view equivalent to a 100mm or even longer lens on a full sensor. (You could also use a camera body that captures full-resolution 20 megapixel frames 60 times a second, and then zoom in post-production, but electronics hasn't quite caught up. In a few years it will be commonplace to shove around such a huge quantity of pixels.)</p>

 

[dan_south]

Very nice idea. Even nicer if they follow is up with a 35. I suspected that Canon would start introducing more video friendly lenses. And

who doesn't appreciate a depth of field scale? The 28 is going on my with list.

[oscar_van_der_velde]

<p>Well, the small primes have these advantages over any other (zoom) lens:</p>

<ul>

<li>compact and light - 280 grams</li>

<li>no flare even when sun in frame (my experience with 28mm f/2.8)</li>

<li>hard infinity stop for landscape/night</li>

<li>very sharp even wide open (see Photozone.de for the 28mm - APS format though)</li>

<li>minimum focus distance 20-23 cm gives much higher magnification than on any zoom, also keeping good working distance without shadowing the subject</li>

<li>nicer bokeh than old versions due to revised aperture blades</li>

<li>4-stops IS can be used at any f-stop like f/11 for a landscape, in theory f/2.8+4 stops = two stops better than f/1.4</li>

</ul>

<p>But I'd like to see a test of IS answering the following questions:</p>

<ul>

<li>if say 50% of images is critically sharp (some laboratory definition) without IS at 1/60 second, is this indeed also 50% at 1/4 second? (4 stops)</li>

<li>which shutter speed is necessary to eliminate shake in 90% of shots for a wide angle on a still hypothethical 35 MP-ish camera (for sure not 1/30 sec, it might be 1/500 sec), and does IS indeed help here at the faster shutter speeds?</li>

</ul>

<p>But these lenses should be sold for under $600. The temptation to grab a Samyang 24mm f/1.4 may otherwise be too large.</p>

 

[bobatkins]

<blockquote>

<p>I expect we will see a Canon body with 'digital zoom' for use in shooting video</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'm afraid you're a bit late with that idea...The EOS 60D and EOS T3i already have it, though I think restricted to SD video rather than HD. I guess HD is probably next.</p>

[oscar_van_der_velde]

<p>About image stabilization on a wide angle: Nikon has the 16-35mm f/4 VR. In DPreview's test of the stabilization effectivity,<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_16-35_2p8_vr_n15/page5.asp<br>

they found 40-50% of shots were sharp at the pixel level at 0.4 seconds shutter speed. To me that sounds very useful in situations where the tripod was left at home. Can't help thinking that people who claim IS is "not useful on a wide angle lens" realize it's about the 1/30 - 0.5 second exposure range, not the 1/200-1/60th second where telephotos start to become shaky handheld where wides are sharp.</p>

[oscar_van_der_velde]

<p>correction for my post above: "... that people who claim IS is "not useful on a wide angle lens" <strong>don't</strong> realize it's about the 1/30 - 0.5 second exposure range <strong>rather than</strong> the 1/200-1/60th second range where telephotos start to become shaky handheld where wides are sharp."</p>

[fotograf]

<p>Adorama already has these lenses for sale. Surprised the 28mm is $800- seems high even if it does have IS</p>

<p>http://www.adorama.com/CA2828.html?utm_term=Other&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_campaign=Other&utm_source=rflaid21866</p>

[fotograf]

<p>And the 24-70 is here</p>

<p>http://www.adorama.com/CA2470.html?utm_term=Other&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_campaign=Other&utm_source=rflaid21866</p>