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

[Ellen Schmidtee]

At last - the 35mm f/2 I was waiting for, specifically with USM & improved aperture. If the price is right, I'm buying one.

Alas, if the new 24 and 28 2.8 IS lenses are anything to go by, price will be substancially more than the old 35 f2...... 

With improved diaphragm and added IS & USM, it would be surprising if Canon didn't raise it's price significantly. I wouldn't make a big fuss if the price was raise 60% to U.S.$500

Also, consider it's position relative to the 35mm f/1.4 L USM - having the same diaphragm (8 rounded blades) & USM, the two lenses are not as differentiated as before - cash & IS would win many over one f stop.

On the other hand, Canon might replace the 35mm f/1.4 L with a 35mm f/1.2 L, and make even more people happy.

[Zv]

 [/quote]


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

-Brian
[/quote]

I think $1600 is unrealistic. Especially as it's meant to be a kit lens for the 6D. I reckon initial price will be closer to th 24-105L and then it will fall in price to help the 24-105 fade away.

[stewy]

Since I already have the 24-105, I'll wait and see how this new lens compares to it. If its noticeably sharper, has better IS, not crazily expensive and doesn't suffer from lens creep (my 24-105 does), then I may switch to it. I also have the 70-200 f4 IS, so I don't mind switching lens as needed.

I'm going to stick to my original plan when it comes to lens, which is to buy the cheaper F4 zooms and supplement with fast primes (1.4 and faster).

[robbymack]

Since I already have the 24-105, I'll wait and see how this new lens compares to it. If its noticeably sharper, has better IS, not crazily expensive and doesn't suffer from lens creep (my 24-105 does), then I may switch to it. I also have the 70-200 f4 IS, so I don't mind switching lens as needed.

I'm going to stick to my original plan when it comes to lens, which is to buy the cheaper F4 zooms and supplement with fast primes (1.4 and faster).

Smart man. F2.8 is not fast enough IMHO to stop most action in low light.

[sleepnever]

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

I'm with you. I'd rather see a new 50mm, in L and non-L flavors with updated features. I have a love/hate with my 50 1.8 II.

[Greg_M]

"Pricing will also be higher than the previously unconfirmed suggestions."

Given recent events, I am not surprised.

[trygved]

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

I had my fingers crossed for the 14-24
With the two mid range zoom lenses starting at 24mm, you would think the lens would fit like a glove in the lineup.
I would be right as rain with a 14-24 f/4, 24-70 f/4 IS, and a 70-200 f4/IS
Toss in a fast prime or two and you've got yourself a party.

[tron]

They specialize in introducing useless or almost useless lenses  (at least relative to the lenses we all wait for)

[ronderick]

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...

We won't have a choice by the time they discontinue the 24-105 and replace it with a much more expensive version of the lens... either take the new lens or stomach the 24-70 f/4L.

[plutonium10]

Am I the only one who is actually excited about this lens? The macro bit is what sold me. Provided this new lens has nice IQ and reasonable price (which by all means it should), It can effectively provide a small and light replacement for my 100L macro and 15-85. Paired with a 10-22 or 17-40, it seems like an excellent and versatile lens for travel photography and macro work.

[Don Haines]

Concerning why a "slow" prime.... Prime lenses are about image quality. Usually they are fast, but not always so.

And why 24-70 and not 24-105.... the greater the zoom range the harder it is to keep image quality. Most prime zooms are around a 3x zoom range, a ratio where the compromises made do not overly distort the image. For an extreme example, look at the superzooms with ranges of ten times or more..... the IQ sucks compared to shorter range zooms. I'll bet that the image quality of the 24-70 is much better than the 24-105.

[Etienne]

I can see a use for both of these new lenses.

GP zoom with Hybrid IS and macro to boot? not bad
35 f2 small and light with IS. sounds good to me

I hope they aren't too pricey

[robbymack]

Am I the only one who is actually excited about this lens? The macro bit is what sold me. Provided this new lens has nice IQ and reasonable price (which by all means it should), It can effectively provide a small and light replacement for my 100L macro and 15-85. Paired with a 10-22 or 17-40, it seems like an excellent and versatile lens for travel photography and macro work.

The macro possibilities are interesting

[rbr]

I think it will be a let's wait and see situation for the new zoom. The 24-105 isn't at its best at the very wide end where I want to use it the most. It also has a lot of distortion at that end. If the new zoom improves the wide end significantly over the 24-105 in a smaller package I will get it probably. It would be a nice lightweight travel lens to pair with one of the 70-something lenses. I hope the MTF charts come out soon.

[JBeckwith]

I'll pass on these ones as well since I have the 24-105.  I doubt the IQ improvement will be worth spending the extra $$.