both lenses are completely off the mark.+1
35/2.0 is in need of a successor, but like the current one it should really have been a low-cost, decent IQ lens, rather than unnecessary IS at the price of an L lens. A modern 50/1.4 Mk. II with IQ at least equivalent to the Nikon AF-S 50/1.4 at the same price would have been far more urgent.
24-70 is a total mess. Ridiculous that the 2.8 did not come with IS on top of the excellent IQ. +1
Instead of the 14-70/4 Canon should have improved the 24-105 and extended it to 24-120/4.0 IS - with better IQ than Nikon but at the same price.
I agree on both. Canon is missing the obvious.
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)
Canon has pandered too long to the specialist stills photographers, how about the hundreds of thousands of Amateur & Indie videographers who purchased the 5D mk II and made it the success story that it is, plus the millions of buyers who continue to flock to Rebel T2i/T3i/T4i and so on, so they can shoot 1080p @ 24 frames per second and post their cinematic style offerings on YouTube or Vimeo.
Canon is finally moving in the right direction - Video. Let Nikon slash prices and lose profits on high-MP DSLR bodies that have always lagged Canon in the video stakes (remember the Nikon D300s with 720p video vs Canon 7D with 1080p, then the Nikon D7000 had 1080p movie recording but no dedicated Movie button like the 7D). Canon is not just following video/still photography trends, they're shaping them.
Videographers need IS not ISO 25,600
Sorry, but your post is about two years late in terms of Canon's "direction" with video. PROFESSIONAL DSLR video is pretty much DONE with the 5D3/1Dx in terms of video feature advancement. When you have guys who were 5D2 video pioneers like Vince LaForet saying "...hate to say it, but the future is Cinema EOS (Black Magic, etc) for video...no longer HDSLRs," we should listen to them. For amateurs there are a lot of Canon Vixia camcorders that are much
better, lighter and many cheaper
for HD videos of your kids and travel than a bulky DSLR. Those people aren't buying DSLRs nearly as much anymore. They're buying mirrorless or advanced P&S cameras that shoot HD video (EOS M - hottest camera in Japan right now bar none, G series, Powershot etc) Enter Cinema EOS and the C100, C300, C500 for indies, HD commercial and 4K feature production respectively. Canon's "direction" with professional video is there as well as the 1Dc (as a B/C cam for feature film production alongside the C500 (~4K 'RAW')).
The new primes with IS are definitely a great video choice however the 24-70 f/4 (or ANY lens with a maximum aperture smaller than f/2.8 ) are not in any shape or form targeted at video and that is the lens amongst these two that people seem to be most irritated over. But since you mention "needing" IS; how many great commercials, and short films, let alone feature films, used IS lenses? Shane Hurlbut's 'Act of Valor' grossed over $80 million USD and Drake Doremus' 'Like Crazy' which wasn't even shot FF - it was shot 100% on a Canon 7D - got $4 million USD from Paramount at Sundance for the distribution rights. Neither production used IS lenses. (Yeah, I get it, amateurs and indies don't have access to $10,000 stabilization rigs and motion control cranes etc. to hold their CinePrimes, Cooke and Arri glass) ...but my point is amateurs have been making some nice music videos, commercials and short films for four years on the 5D2 without "needing" IS...and with the new noise performance of the 5D3 sensor, ISO is DEFINITELY a more welcome feature. ISO 6,400 on the 5D3 is as clean if not cleaner video than ISO 800 on the 5D2...which means more shots, less lighting (if any needed at all fot the shot), less assistants, much more creative options - especially for the indie on a budget. Families with kids and travelers have a lot better video options for "showing the people back home" in camcorders with much better IS capabilities than DSLRs.
There will be a 24-70 f/2.8 L II IS soon, just as there are four versions of the 70-200 L (f/2.8 II IS, f/2.8 (non-IS), f/4 (non-IS), f/4 IS), there will be at least three if not four versions of the 24-70 L...and prices will drop (as they always do) and the 24-70 f/2.8 II will drop when the 24-70 f/2.8 IS comes out. Canon didn't "miss any boat", they didn't "ruin the future of the known Milky Way Galaxy"...they introduced a new lens, part of a whole new offering rolling out with optics that will make you wonder why you ever compared this lens to your 24-105 L kit lens. If you haven't shot with the new 70-200 f/2.8 IS II or the 24-70 f/2.8 II, go rent one. You'll be wowed by the difference in IQ and AF compared to the previous versions. The 24-70 f/2.8 II is as sharp or sharper than any of the EF primes in that focal range with better overall IQ...IMO. I'm taking a deductive guess that the 24-70 f/4 will similarly blow away the 17-40 f/4 (IMO the sharpest L wide zoom) and 24-105 f/4 in their respective overlap focal lengths. If you love your 24-105 or your current 24-70, then why bother worrying about how much this lens is anyway? It's a down economic market and Canon's infrastructure still isn't back to pre-earthquake capability (nor is Nikon's), Canon is focusing on lower production volumes with products that can give them higher margins. It's that simple. There is a market, it may not be you and most likely isn't you...and that's OK
. They will make more lens options available that ARE.