EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

[Nishi Drew]

The 24-70 better be cheaper than Tamron's 2.8 VC equivalent, although I feel the Canon would be better weather sealed and the macro option is good. It just comes down to price, this thing will either be way over what anyone expects it to be at (canon mentality of "half" of 24-70 2.8?), or it will be so cheap people will buy it just because, like the pancake!

[Zv]

Oh yeah, I can see myself owning both of these! The macro capabilities seals the deal over the 24-105 I was thinking of getting. Plus it's lighter and shorter. I have full confidence in Canon that the IQ will be superb. This is great news, though I was looking fwd to a new 50! Oh well!

[EchoLocation]

i like the size of the 24-70 and the price isn't too bad. I hope the focal length is actually a little longer as admin has stated is a possibility.
The 24-105 I had was good, but not amazing, and it definitely wasn't too small. I think this lens might actually make some sense if it turns out to be sharper and have better colors than the 105.
However, for me personally, the reason i bought a DSLR was mainly because I wanted better low light performance..... Thus I recently sold my 24-105 and bought a 24-70.
I don't understand primes that aren't in the 1.4 or at least 1.8 range. Why would i want a $700 prime that is only f2? Can someone explain this to me? i'm still baffled by the 24 and 28mm 2.8's.... Why would I want one of these instead of something faster or a zoom? If they were under 400 dollars I wouldn't ask this question.

[Hillsilly]

I would have a traded a bit of the long end for some more reach.  But, hey, 24-70 is much better geared if using a crop body and probably a good overall consensus sweet spot.  Can't wait to see how it compares at 24mm and 70mm.

[vlim]

this new 24-70 is interesting and i may consider it but why no new 100-400 / 300 or 400 and where's the 200-400

[robbinzo]

Interesting lenses. Presumably the 24-70mm f/4.0 will complement the 6D in weight and size. Should be a good kit lens for the 6D.
I've been thinking about getting the 35mm L for my crop sensor for a while. This new 35mm sounds ideal for me. If the 35mm f/2.0 has internal focusing, I'll be very happy.

[verysimplejason]

if the 24-70 performs well, it will be a good walk-around lens for my upcoming full frame.  I've got other prime lenses to take care of bokeh and low-light when needed.

[verysimplejason]

i like the size of the 24-70 and the price isn't too bad. I hope the focal length is actually a little longer as admin has stated is a possibility.
The 24-105 I had was good, but not amazing, and it definitely wasn't too small. I think this lens might actually make some sense if it turns out to be sharper and have better colors than the 105.
However, for me personally, the reason i bought a DSLR was mainly because I wanted better low light performance..... Thus I recently sold my 24-105 and bought a 24-70.
I don't understand primes that aren't in the 1.4 or at least 1.8 range. Why would i want a $700 prime that is only f2? Can someone explain this to me? i'm still baffled by the 24 and 28mm 2.8's.... Why would I want one of these instead of something faster or a zoom? If they were under 400 dollars I wouldn't ask this question.

I think they were made for video...

[kilobit]

The hybrid IS is very good for video.

Read what Vincent Laforet (canon ambassador and movie maker) has to say about the hybrid IS in the 100mm macro:

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/mygear/lenses/ef-lenses/
---
This is a stunning Macro lens.  Incredibly sharp and stunning.  BUT the REAL secret with this lens is that is is the only lens to date that has the new "hybrid" IS stabilization system – which is almost like having a built-in gyro.  It’s the only lens that I can operate an HDDLSR 100% handheld – the Image Stabilization is stunning.  I wish they would put this new system in EVERY upcoming Canon lens.
---

So I guess they listened to him..

[RLPhoto]

I have to admit, I'm glad to see the old 35mm f/2 to go away. It was a terrible lens.

If the 24-70L f/4 isn't cheaper than the 24-105L, I don't see it catching on.

[KyleSTL]

Why the filter size of 77mm still?  Why didn't they make it 67mm just like the 70-200mm f4L and IS?  I guess the 17-40mm f/4L is also 77mm, but I see most first-time FF users pairing this lens up first with the tele zoom and then adding the UWA later.

Same is true for the rumored 35mm.  Why 67mm (up from 52mm of the previous model)?  I would think that 58mm just like the 24 and 28mm IS lenses would make a lot more sense.  58mm is easily big enough to squeeze in the objective element for 35mm f/2.  The objective elements in the 24mm and 28mm are a larger diameter than they mathematically need to be, and maybe that factors into their excellent performance.  Maybe the 35mm f/2 is even larger and will have similar or superior IQ because of it.

[iso79]

To this day I have never had a use for IS or found it useful so I will not buying either one.

[bbasiaga]

I don't understand primes that aren't in the 1.4 or at least 1.8 range. Why would i want a $700 prime that is only f2? Can someone explain this to me?

Well, 1.8 is only 1/3 stop faster than 2.0.  To get 1/3 of a stop out of shutter speed or ISO isn't that big a deal, so the difference doesn't matter a whole lot, IMO.  1.4 is 2/3 stop faster.  Again, with the ISO performance of the modern cameras, this isn't as big a deal as it once was.

Creatively, the DOF of the faster lenses can't be replicated.  But at that point you're in the realm of very carefully focused artistic shots - the realm of a more specialized lens.  I have never had any luck walking around shooting at 1.4-1.8.  DOF is too difficult to manage.  If stuff is moving, or the scene is busy than your keeper rate goes way down.  I'd much rather have the higher resolution of the new lenses and them be just fast enough to help in dim situations. 

On another note: I'm guessing $1600 for the new 24-70F4 L IS.

-Brian

[sanj]

I have to admit, I'm glad to see the old 35mm f/2 to go away. It was a terrible lens.

If the 24-70L f/4 isn't cheaper than the 24-105L, I don't see it catching on.

Agree...

[Dylan777]

Two more lenses that I don't need...where is the new 50mm and/or 14-24 Mr. Canon