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

[dolina]

The great thing is none of these lenses are what I want.

Ergo, no spending. 

What I want is a an updated 135mm (pref at 1.8 aperture) with IS and a 400/5.6 with IS.

I semi-want an updated 35/1.4 and 180/3.5 Macro with IS.

[ahsanford]

The new 24-70 F/4L IS will be lighter, sure, but the price?

http://photorumors.com/2012/11/05/canon-ef-35mm-f2-is-usm-and-canon-ef-24-70mm-f4l-is-lenses-leaked-ahead-of-announcement/#more-35082

See comment in translation:  "$1800, but the US price will be lower"

Weight alone is not enough to go 2x over the 24-105.  That IQ better knock my socks off or this thing won't sell vs. the 24-105 at all. 

...or they'll have to obsolete the 24-105 outright.  (in that case, this is a 80% takeaway, 20% nice to have, IMHO)

[kilobit]

The new 24-70 F/4L IS will be lighter, sure, but the price?
[snip]
See comment in translation:  "$1800, but the US price will be lower"

I'm still unsure about the price.
1600 - 1800 USD/EUR sounds in line with recent price increases, however that wouldn't fly as a 5d/6d kitlens imho.

A kit would then cost respectively EUR/USD 5200 and 3700 wich seem way too high to be interesting.

[KyleSTL]

If this indeed replaces the 24-105mm (in price and position in the lens lineup), put yourself in the shoes of a buyer for first-time FF camera:

D600 (24MP) + AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR = $2600
6D (20MP) + EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM = $2900

D600 >> 6D

Even if the 24-70mm delivers substantially better IQ, the average consumer is going to buy the Nikon on numbers alone.  If Canon cannot put a $500 kit lens with the 6D they are going to be steamrolled.

EDIT:  Add in the fact that the D600 has a built in flash (extra $160 for an EX270 II), an impressive sounding 39 autofocus points and a bigger screen, Canon's sales will suffer a lot.

[ahsanford]

Also, regarding the 35mm non-L refresh, a number of points come to mind:

• If this is similar to the 24 and 28 IS lenses, the touted price of $800 is absolutely worth it, and I'm strictly a still shooter.  This will be an L lens without a red ring.  The 28 I own is sharper than an equivalently stopped down 35L (i.e. it is not just useable, it is great wide open, and stellar at F/4).  The USM focusing is very fast, it's internally focusing, is very well built (on par with the 100L macro), and it's very small and unassuming.  Plus, F/2.8 (with the 24 & 28) or F/2 (with the new 35) with four stops IS are some of (if not the) most handholdable lenses you'll find.
   
• This is good news for what I am really looking for, which is a newer, sharper, better 50 prime.  We're due, and though I'm bummed it's not happening now, this announcement marks the refresh of a third non-L prime.  This bodes well for future upgraded versions of the 50 prime and 85 prime -- both stellar values vs. their L counterparts, but both are also quite old.  Here's hoping.
• Which begs the question, if I am looking for something better than my current Canon EF 50mm F/1.4 prime, do I look at the 1.2L or wait for this new non-L?  As mentioned before, prior non-L refreshes were sharper than their L counterparts, and they pack a houseload of modern features (ring USM, IS, etc.) over their pro counterparts.  Given all that, it begs the question why the non-Ls are getting the refresh/sharpness/feature updates before the Ls?
   
  
• The 24/28 IS lenses take 58mm filters, but the rumored new 35 will jump from the current 52 filters to 67 filters.  That would likely mean a new 50 (with similar upgrades) might also go to 67mm.  As odd as that diameter is, since I already own the 100L macro, I'm all set.   
   
• The only bummer I see with all these great non-Ls coming out is that I lose the weather sealing I have been accustomed to on my other L lenses.
   

- A

[Act444]

Also, regarding the 35mm non-L refresh, a number of points come to mind:

• If this is similar to the 24 and 28 IS lenses, the touted price of $800 is absolutely worth it, and I'm strictly a still shooter.  This will be an L lens without a red ring.  The 28 I own is sharper than an equivalently stopped down 35L (i.e. it is not just useable, it is great wide open, and stellar at F/4).  The USM focusing is very fast, it's internally focusing, is very well built (on par with the 100L macro), and it's very small and unassuming.  Plus, F/2.8 (with the 24 & 28) or F/2 (with the new 35) with four stops IS are some of (if not the) most handholdable lenses you'll find.
   
• This is good news for what I am really looking for, which is a newer, sharper, better 50 prime.  We're due, and though I'm bummed it's not happening now, this announcement marks the refresh of a third non-L prime.  This bodes well for future upgraded versions of the 50 prime and 85 prime -- both stellar values vs. their L counterparts, but both are also quite old.  Here's hoping.
• Which begs the question, if I am looking for something better than my current Canon EF 50mm F/1.4 prime, do I look at the 1.2L or wait for this new non-L?  As mentioned before, prior non-L refreshes were sharper than their L counterparts, and they pack a houseload of modern features (ring USM, IS, etc.) over their pro counterparts.  Given all that, it begs the question why the non-Ls are getting the refresh/sharpness/feature updates before the Ls?
   
  
• The 24/28 IS lenses take 58mm filters, but the rumored new 35 will jump from the current 52 filters to 67 filters.  That would likely mean a new 50 (with similar upgrades) might also go to 67mm.  As odd as that diameter is, since I already own the 100L macro, I'm all set.   
   
• The only bummer I see with all these great non-Ls coming out is that I lose the weather sealing I have been accustomed to on my other L lenses.
   

- A

I have the 35L and it actually lacks weather sealing. So the only advantage it would have now over the new 35 is the extra stop of 1.4. I would be curious to see an IQ comparison...

then again, sharpness is not the whole equation. How well it controls fringing, the color reproduction, distortion, etc. are factors as well. I get the feeling the 35L will still be better in these areas.

[ahsanford]

@Act444:  Roger at LR posted the new non-L primes vs. the 24L II here:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/06/the-other-canon-primes-why-did-they-do-that

As you can see, at similar apertures, the 28 punched its weight brilliantly, the 24 non-L almost as well.

I believe (from other sites) the 24L II has proven a sharper lens the 35L, hence (transitively) my statement of the new non-Ls outperforming the 35L.

Yet...

Now that photozone has posted resolution figures for both the 35L and 28 non-L IS, this may be more of a dead heat (pan down to resolution charts):

New 28 IS:  http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/774-canon28f28isff?start=1
35L:  http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/516-canon35f14ff?start=1

...so I may be eating my words a bit.  At F/2.8, its a virtual dead-heat, but at F/5.6 - 11, the L is slightly sharper in the off-center areas.


Different tester, different results it seems.  You decide.

Full disclosure, I am an engineer, so I'll gladly drown myself in data rather than make a decision and start swimming.   

- A

[tron]

I believe you but it's unrealistic to expect that this lens will sell at that ridiculous price. This is expensive even for a f/2.8 version...

lets hope so..

the YEN price translates into ~ $1800... and from the past experience the price here in euro is the same as in dollar for the USA. 

canons pricing has gone to ridiculous levels. so i would not rule 1700 euro for this lens out.

maybe canon is going the leica way.
i really don´t know what they are thinking.

but i do know that the new prices are driving new customers away from DSLR´s.
 

Indeed! Though, if Canon wants to go Leica way, perhaps they should consider offering Leica quality?.. 

Well said...

[sagittariansrock]

There was a recent post where most agreed the biggest hurdle for going full frame was cost:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10265.0
I think Canon has done well to supplement an entry level FF camera with two inexpensive but good lenses (having to get the 24-70II and 35 1.4 sort of negates the effect of a sub-$2000 camera, and I am sure the new 24-70 will more than make up for the lost range, or else Canon wouldn't just mess with us out of spite).
Personally, I had hoped for a cheaper, non-IS 35mm, possibly specific to APS-Cs (a la Nikon)- I don't have anything against FF users but greater FoV means higher manufacturing cost:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9611.0
But if it costs so much (justifiably, of course, because of the IS and FF format), I might rather spend a few hundred more and go with the 1.4L. Let's see...

 

[tron]

But if it costs so much (justifiably, of course, because of the IS and FF format), I might rather spend a few hundred more and go with the 1.4L. Let's see...

+1 Exactly! Actually this is what I have done already. A 35mm 1.4L II would cost a fortune and it would raise the price of the used 35mm 1.4L (judging from 4-70 2.8 version I)

[sagittariansrock]

But if it costs so much (justifiably, of course, because of the IS and FF format), I might rather spend a few hundred more and go with the 1.4L. Let's see...

+1 Exactly! Actually this is what I have done already. A 35mm 1.4L II would cost a fortune and it would raise the price of the used 35mm 1.4L (judging from 4-70 2.8 version I)

Guess I need to act fast...

[Marsu42]

Pricing will also be higher than the previously unconfirmed suggestions.

Now here's a surprise - not :-(

... though I have to admit the near-macro capability is very interesting since you now only need two travel lenses, the new 24-70/4 and a 70- tele like the 70-300L. And The hybrid IS will shine on the standard zoom since it's wasted on real macro lenses like the 100L - the IS is nearly useless at very close distances.

Pity they didn't announce a new 35L since they'll hardly release *two* new 35mm lenses in short succession.

[neuroanatomist]

And The hybrid IS will shine on the standard zoom since it's wasted on real macro lenses like the 100L - the IS is nearly useless at very close distances.

By that logic, though, the Hybrid IS is equally useless on the 24-70/4L IS.  The translational motion compensation, which is the 'hybrid' part of H-IS, is only effective with very close subjects; regular IS compensates for angular motion, which dominates for subjects beyond a couple of feet from the camera.  That's why H-IS isn't used on other lenses.  To get to the near-macro 0.7x mag with the 24-70/4 IS you're at the MFD of 20 cm, and the MFD of the 100L macro is 30 cm - further out than the new lens.

[ahsanford]

And The hybrid IS will shine on the standard zoom since it's wasted on real macro lenses like the 100L - the IS is nearly useless at very close distances.

By that logic, though, the Hybrid IS is equally useless on the 24-70/4L IS.  The translational motion compensation, which is the 'hybrid' part of H-IS, is only effective with very close subjects; regular IS compensates for angular motion, which dominates for subjects beyond a couple of feet from the camera.  That's why H-IS isn't used on other lenses.  To get to the near-macro 0.7x mag with the 24-70/4 IS you're at the MFD of 20 cm, and the MFD of the 100L macro is 30 cm - further out than the new lens.

I wonder, is there any chance that this Hybrid IS is simply the non-mode-selectable type of IS I have on the new 28 IS?  I seem to recall (sorry, no reference) reading something to the effect of the new 24 and 28 IS having a new mode of IS that simply auto-switched between a panning IS and a standard (all-purpose) IS based on the lens' movement.  Any chance that is what Canon means with the new lenses' IS?

And for those not fond of the Hybrid IS with the 100L macro, though I agree that at macro focus distances the IS is less effective, two things I'd share from my use of that lens: 

1) In my hands, it seems to work just fine in keeping slower shutters stable as traditional IS would, and

2) The 100L is not remotely a dedicated macro lens -- it's a fully functional 100mm prime.  The 180L macro is such a slow focuser that it's effectively a specialist lens (though I'm sure our forum's creative users have found neat ways to use it for more than as a macro).  But to relegate the 100L to strictly macro work is a big miss, IMHO.  One quick switch on focus range and it becomes a solid 100mm prime for portraiture, concerts, etc.  Remember that not everyone owns the pro portrait staple lengths of 85 and 135, so the 100 is a great option for some.

- A

[t.linn]

Meh.  I can't speak from experience behind the counter.  I can only say that, for me, a 24-70 is not sufficient as a walk around lens.  No matter how light a 24-70 f/4L is, it still means bringing two lenses and changing them.  That means a heavier kit, not a lighter one.

Speaking of changing lenses, I hate it—particularly in adverse conditions.  For me, overlap is helpful rather than redundant.

Really, the IQ of this lens would have to be off the charts for me to even consider it—and there is definitely room for improvement vs. the 24-105 in this respect.  I'm thinking particularly of vignetting at 24mm when using even a slim filter.  This drives me crazy.  But if I were to go backwards in terms of focal range, I would probably go to a f/2.8L II.  At least I'm getting something in return for the loss of focal length and the increased cost.