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

[sanj]

it is dubbed hybrid is just because the lens is almost a macro (0.7 macro factor...wow)

Agree agree agree.  That's the only arrow in the quiver (along with better IQ, to be fair) that might justify this $1800 price from the translation.

I'm probably in the minority here that I'm more likely to bring my relatively small and light 100L macro over my 70-200 F/2.8L IS II on trips.  So if this magnification is true, this could become an epic kill-two-birds-with-one-not-so-big-or-heavy-stone sort of lens for travel.

You are both wrong.
Hybrid IS means it compensates for two types of camera/lens movement.

Read here:
http://www.canon.com/news/2009/jul22e.html

It is for angle shake and shift shake.

It is ideal for recording handheld video.

They both are right as the shake because of movement is a reality when hand holding if doing video OR stills.

[BruinBear]

The pricing on the original source page shows:
24-70/4 : 145,000 yen (~1800$)
35/2 IS: 74,000 (f~900$)

ouch! - esp on the 24-70!  No low budget if this holds true.  35/2 IS seems in line with recent 24 & 28 pricing.

So at that price it seems like it should be at or near the image quality of the 24-70 f/2.8L II and be another addition to the lineup instead of a 24-105 replacement.

And the pricing seems to fit pretty well in line with the scaling of the 70-200 lenses:
70-200 f/4 IS - 1349
70-200 f/2.8 non-IS - 1449
24-70 f/4 IS - ~1800??
24-70 f/2.8 II - 2299

[ahsanford]

The pricing on the original source page shows:
24-70/4 : 145,000 yen (~1800$)
35/2 IS: 74,000 (f~900$)

ouch! - esp on the 24-70!  No low budget if this holds true.  35/2 IS seems in line with recent 24 & 28 pricing.

So at that price it seems like it should be at or near the image quality of the 24-70 f/2.8L II and be another addition to the lineup instead of a 24-105 replacement.

And the pricing seems to fit pretty well in line with the scaling of the 70-200 lenses:
70-200 f/4 IS - 1349
70-200 f/2.8 non-IS - 1449
24-70 f/4 IS - ~1800??
24-70 f/2.8 II - 2299

This does create a bit of a positioning / market segmentation problem.  Prior to the spec/price news dropping yesterday, this forum was leaning (but not dead-set) towards the new 24-70 F/4 IS as the likely 6D kit lens.  But an $1800 asking price would be ludicrous for kitting purposes (unless you are kitting a 1DX 8 ).

So what is it?  A kit lens that will obsolete the 24-105, or a standalone pricier lens?

[EchoLocation]

In the rumor a couple days ago, admin said it would be $849, and It just sounded awesome... A small, lightweight L zoom in a useful focal range with the awesome new IS, along with a cool near macro option!
Now, today we're talking $1700ish(converted from Yen, which I believe would make the price more like 1300-1500 in the US) and at this price it loses a lot of appeal for me.
$1300 isn't outrageous if the IQ is amazing, but $1500 is just way too much for f4 lens IMO.
People who spend $1500 would rather just spend $2000ish and buy the 2.8 version. Pairing a $1500 lens with the 6D makes a $3500 kit, this does not bode well against Nikon's $2700 D600 kit.
Additionally, Canon should look at making their products more competitive to Nikon's. If this price is really upwards of $1500 dollars it will be very similarly priced to Nikon's 24-70 2.8, which is an outstanding lens.
I really hope that that admin's original price of $849 happens, although following Canon's recent pricing trends I think the $1400 US price is more likely.
This streak of minimal upgrades with dramatic price increases is exactly why I just sold my 5D for D700 and 24-70(which after 2 months I am thrilled about.)

[DB]

You know 24-105 has IS too. Even if it is a 3-stop IS the extra focal length is much more important. Unless the parents you mentioned are not interesting in focal lengths greater than 70.

Yeah....but they need to shoot at the wider end of the focal length after the compulsory post-sports trip to McDonalds/Burger King

[pj1974]

I'm quite excited to see an actual lens announcement from Canon - and well done to CR guy for predicting the 24-70mm L f/4 IS USM. 

As I don't plan to go full frame (at least not in the near future) - the 24-70mm L f/4 doesn't interest me so much. I'm very happy with my 15-85mm IS USM on both my 7D and 350D.

If the 24-70mm f/4 L has great IQ, I can imagine it will be popular as a less expensive / less bulky walk around (aka 'kit lens') for some folks having a FF, perhaps particularly the new 6D.  (though I will say here that a possible price of $1800 USD is quite scary!) 

To me, the 35mm f/2 IS USM is actually a much more interesting lens... and.... in one sense meets a lot of the criteria I have for the 'only lens' that I'm really looking forward to, or - that is what I find 'lacking' in my current lens arsenal: a sharp prime at about 50mm (+/- a few mm).

The new 35mm has the following features, which are important to me:
 - USM - my preferred AF mechanism, with FTM focus
 - 4 stop effective IS
 - 7 or more blade circular aperture

The size of the 35mm f/2 IS USM is still small enough. I guess any 50mm would be a bit longer... possibly could have 58mm or 67mm filter size. (I hope if a 50mm prime comes out, that it has a 58mm, 67mm or I'd even 'put up with' a 72mm filter size - as I have filters for these sizes). 

I expect the IQ of the 35mm f/2 to be very high (better than the 40mm f/2.8 pancake, which has received lots of praise, particularly for its price!)

My 'only' concern is that the 50mm might be a f/2.8 lens.. (no, please, no!)  I had already decided that f/2 is perhaps the limit that I'd be happy with for a 'fast prime'. Obviously f/1.4 would be ideal. With f/1.8 or f/2 being 'good options' - particularly if IS is included. 

There would be some situations that 35mm is more suitable than 50mm (eg some group shots, etc). However my own photography style, means that I really like the 50mm aspect on an APS-C (giving the equivalent of 80mm in FF format).

So... now that the 35mm f/2 USM IS has come out (after the 'earlier this year' new 24mm & 28mm f/2.8 USM IS lenses) - I have more hope that a 50mm f/1.4-f/2 USM (possibly IS) lens will be released in the near future.  I plan to go to a bricks and mortar shop and use the 35mm f/2 USM IS sometime.... see how I like it, get a feel for it, and hopefully see a new 50mm prime in store sometime in the future too...

Cheers   

Paul

[starship]

well,
2.300 $ - 24-70L II, f 2.8 (no IS)
1.500 $ - 24-70L Is, f 4.0
900 $ - 35mm, f 2.0 (non L)

that´s competion for leica. pricewise.

i´ve got a couple of canon lenses. seems that i have to change my route...

[sagittariansrock]

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...

This is me eating my words. $ 1499 is not inexpensive by my standards, not by a long shot.

[Ellen Schmidtee]

I beg to differ, Canon is following the money -> HD video DSLR + Lens sales. Just wait and see, the 6D will easily outsell the 1DX + 5D3 combined (obviously cheaper camera aimed at the masses), but Canon have done their homework on this, travel photographers like to shoot full-HD video to show to the folks back home, as well as taking stills. Moms + Dads love to shoot HD video of their kids playing sports etc. as well as taking photos, which explains why Canon have included similar AF-tracking in the 6D as the new 5D3. How many CR contributors justify expensive kit on the grounds that they can shoot their kids as well? (Just look at how many 50 1.2L shots are of Photogs progeny)

How many parents will spend $800-$900 on a prime lens so they could shoot HD video of their kids playing sports? Most people I know who have a crop camera either don't buy any primes at all, or buy one cheap prime for the fast aperture, which often is 50mm f/1.8.

Taking photos of my family is a justification for buying lenses. It wouldn't justify an $800 35mm f/2 IS USM prime. I would be hard pressed to justify it for $600, and I'm a bachelor who, in net terms, earns ~1.5x the average salary around here.

[MarkII]

How many parents will spend $800-$900 on a prime lens so they could shoot HD video of their kids playing sports?

With appropriate advertising, probably the same customers that spend $4000+ to buy a DSLR to take pictures of 1 month old babies and the cat...

I like the new lenses, though as a non-video shooter I doubt that I will buy either (and I am in the camp that prefers the reach of the 24-105 to the macro of the 24-70... though I wish there was less barrel distortion at the wide end).

As to the pricing, Canon looks to be following an odd strategy across all their products just now, despite the economy. I would have thought that more budget lenses like the new pancake would have been a priority over these.

[Zlatko]

900 $ - 35mm, f 2.0 (non L)

that´s competion for leica. pricewise.

That's not even close to Leica prices.  The Leica 35/2 lens is currently $3,195. 

The new Canon 35/2 is being introduced at $849, but keep in mind that this is introductory pricing for people who must have it NOW.  That price will likely fall 10% or more within a year.  So figure it will be $765 within a year.

At $765, the Canon 35/2 will be a bargain.  You'll be able to buy four of them for the price of one Leica 35/2.

[ahsanford]

I'm quite excited to see an actual lens announcement from Canon - and well done to CR guy for predicting the 24-70mm L f/4 IS USM. 

As I don't plan to go full frame (at least not in the near future) - the 24-70mm L f/4 doesn't interest me so much. I'm very happy with my 15-85mm IS USM on both my 7D and 350D.

If the 24-70mm f/4 L has great IQ, I can imagine it will be popular as a less expensive / less bulky walk around (aka 'kit lens') for some folks having a FF, perhaps particularly the new 6D.  (though I will say here that a possible price of $1800 USD is quite scary!) 

To me, the 35mm f/2 IS USM is actually a much more interesting lens... and.... in one sense meets a lot of the criteria I have for the 'only lens' that I'm really looking forward to, or - that is what I find 'lacking' in my current lens arsenal: a sharp prime at about 50mm (+/- a few mm).

The new 35mm has the following features, which are important to me:
 - USM - my preferred AF mechanism, with FTM focus
 - 4 stop effective IS
 - 7 or more blade circular aperture

The size of the 35mm f/2 IS USM is still small enough. I guess any 50mm would be a bit longer... possibly could have 58mm or 67mm filter size. (I hope if a 50mm prime comes out, that it has a 58mm, 67mm or I'd even 'put up with' a 72mm filter size - as I have filters for these sizes). 

I expect the IQ of the 35mm f/2 to be very high (better than the 40mm f/2.8 pancake, which has received lots of praise, particularly for its price!)

My 'only' concern is that the 50mm might be a f/2.8 lens.. (no, please, no!)  I had already decided that f/2 is perhaps the limit that I'd be happy with for a 'fast prime'. Obviously f/1.4 would be ideal. With f/1.8 or f/2 being 'good options' - particularly if IS is included. 

There would be some situations that 35mm is more suitable than 50mm (eg some group shots, etc). However my own photography style, means that I really like the 50mm aspect on an APS-C (giving the equivalent of 80mm in FF format).

So... now that the 35mm f/2 USM IS has come out (after the 'earlier this year' new 24mm & 28mm f/2.8 USM IS lenses) - I have more hope that a 50mm f/1.4-f/2 USM (possibly IS) lens will be released in the near future.  I plan to go to a bricks and mortar shop and use the 35mm f/2 USM IS sometime.... see how I like it, get a feel for it, and hopefully see a new 50mm prime in store sometime in the future too...

Cheers   

Paul

@PJ1974:

Let me reassure one thing about a new 50 prime.  The 'mid' level 50 prime to replace the ubiquitous 50mm F/1.4 will undoubtedly have IS based on the 24, 28 and 35 refreshes getting IS.  I'm prepared to call that an absolute given at this stage.

Be advised that this 'mid' level, consistent with the other non-L refreshes, will likely cost 2x what the 50mm F/1.4 does now.  I've posted a number of times (admittedly, in a minority position) that this increase in cost is (a) consistent with the other refreshes and (b) completely warranted given the additions of IS, USM, internal focusing, wonderful small size and an almost L-series build quality.  It's a great disservice to call these refreshes 'budget lenses' -- these are sleeper 'near-L' lenses without weather sealing.  Someday, even newer L lenses will put these to shame, but for now, these non-Ls are great options compared the current red-ringed gear.

What we don't know is whether the 50 w/IS will come with a slower speed / smaller max aperture.  So far, that has not been the case.  In the case of the other refreshes, the 24, 28 and 35 were all obsoleted by new IS lenses of the same max aperture -- 2.8, 2.8, and 2 respectively.  (Some may think the 28mm F/1.8 is an exception, but the 28mm F/2.8 was obsoleted and the 1.8 is in fact still sold).

But, uniquely with the 50, a super fast lens (F/1.4) is the starting point of the refresh discussion.  I have not yet found a reason why 50mm lenses magically can offer such wide apertures so economically while other focal lengths that offer F/1.4 require red rings and a fortune to buy.  Perhaps that trend ends when trying to make F/1.4 coexist with IS.  Perhaps IS in a 50 F/1.4 makes it prohibitively expensive or prohibitively large/heavy.  I'd say based on the other refreshes that the former is possible (as it's never been done*), but the latter is not (the other IS refreshes are quite small).

*Side trivia -- has IS in a lens faster than F/2 ever been done?  The Canon 200mm F/2L IS has it, as does this new 35mm.  But I am not aware of anything faster than F/2.  Just curious.

- A

[Ellen Schmidtee]

How many parents will spend $800-$900 on a prime lens so they could shoot HD video of their kids playing sports?

With appropriate advertising, probably the same customers that spend $4000+ to buy a DSLR to take pictures of 1 month old babies and the cat...

If there are many of those parents, I'd say those advertisements were made by voodoo priests.

[caMARYnon]

Official MTFs posted by Canon looks much better than 24-105 at 24mm both f4 and f8. Edit:  And worse than 24-70f2.8II.

Something to worried about: MFD 200mm, lens lenght at 70 is 124mm so MFD to the front of the lens = 30-40mm so shoot only static or dead subjects

[Marc_o_]

Prices in Europe (VAT included)

24-70/4 : 1699€ = 2174 US$

35/2 : 949€ = 1214 US$