Canon Makes the EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS Official

[insanitybeard]

Oh my God..
What a boring bunch of lenses..
I wouldn't even put them in my bag should they be distributed for free..

Except that many users have been calling for an updated 35 f2 for a long time now- both for full frame and crop. It looks like a great lens. The problem is the price. Don't judge everybody by your own standards.

[JR]

Well I for one am really happy about the f4 IS zoom.  It will make for a nice walk around zoom lens and I already pre-ordered one...I wish the price would be less though..

[PVS]

How much for the Smegma 35/1.4 Partisan?

[dswatson83]

Except that many users have been calling for an updated 35 f2 for a long time now- both for full frame and crop. It looks like a great lens. The problem is the price. Don't judge everybody by your own standards.

Those who have been wanting an upgrade want one for a reasonable price. This is almost as much as the 35mm f/1.4L!!! Same with the 50mm f/1.4. I'm really afraid that Canon is going to put IS in it and charge $800 putting it way out of what most people want/need for a non-L lens. If they want to put IS and make an astonishing L lens for a ridiculous price than go for it. But the point of non-L lenses is to give good quality at a lower price and canon has abandoned this price point.

[RLPhoto]

24-70 f/4L IS for 1500$?

DOA.

[bbasiaga]

I don't think its unreasonable for the replacement to the 24-105 to be more expensive (I'm assuming the 24-105 is not long for this world).  Improved optical performance, hybrid IS, smaller size, lighter weight.  I thought it would come in at the same price point as the old 2.8...or around $1600.  The macro performance is another huge plus. 

The price of the new prime is also not surprising based on what they did with the 24 and 28.  It is more disappointing than the price of the zoom.  I wonder if Canon is moving all DSLR lenses up the scale, catering to pros and video folks, and making room for the EOS-M system in the previous price ranges. 

-Brian

[Canon-F1]

I wonder if Canon is moving all DSLR lenses up the scale, catering to pros and video folks, and making room for the EOS-M system in the previous price ranges. 

nikon and sony would sure be happy.....

all these new lenses close to 2000$ make me think about medium format even more.
the price difference between MF and DSLR´s becomes smaller and smaller.

[insanitybeard]

Except that many users have been calling for an updated 35 f2 for a long time now- both for full frame and crop. It looks like a great lens. The problem is the price. Don't judge everybody by your own standards.

Those who have been wanting an upgrade want one for a reasonable price. This is almost as much as the 35mm f/1.4L!!! Same with the 50mm f/1.4. I'm really afraid that Canon is going to put IS in it and charge $800 putting it way out of what most people want/need for a non-L lens. If they want to put IS and make an astonishing L lens for a ridiculous price than go for it. But the point of non-L lenses is to give good quality at a lower price and canon has abandoned this price point.

Exactly, which is why I said the problem is the price in my original post- the Canon US website is listing the 35 f2 IS at estimated retail price of $849, so there is confirmation of your fears. Great lens, but over 2.5x the cost of the original.

[Autocall]

Oh my God..
What a boring bunch of lenses..
I wouldn't even put them in my bag should they be distributed for free..

Except that many users have been calling for an updated 35 f2 for a long time now- both for full frame and crop. It looks like a great lens. The problem is the price. Don't judge everybody by your own standards.

Well, maybe you're right and maybe I've been a little bit rude. But come on, f/4 !!?
frankly, why would I want to ignore the cheaper 24/105mm f4? just for the sake of half an inch of space saved in my bag?
And yes, I can understand the need for a 'portrait' 35mm lens for cropped bodies.. but come on, why F/2 ? Issuing an f/1.4 at the same price would have been a non boring annoucement.. Maybe..
Or maybe Im only a little bit disappointed because I was REALLY waiting for the 14-24mm f/2.8. This would have been a really exciting annoucement. Definitely

[pdirestajr]

How about some new non-L primes without IS!! I'll happily pay 4-500 for the 35 f/2 with USM and no IS.

[bchernicoff]

Personally, all this does is reinforce my decision to wait for a sale on the Tamron 2.8 VC.

Probably time for a road trip up to B&H to play with one.

[syder]

So basically Canon discontinued the 24-70 F2.8 MKI and replaced it with a model twice the price and then brought out an F4 at roughly the same price point as the old F2.8.

Ridiculous. The Second hand market is the place to be atm, I will be trying to pick up a 24-70 MKI.

So you lose 1 stop by going from f2.8-f4 and then gain up to four stops with the hybrid IS. For handheld video in particular that is potentially a trade-off well worth making. Especially when you consider the high iso performance of the 5diii.

That the lens is almost a macro lens too makes it an interesting proposition. Particularly for run and gun documentary shooting where changing lens can be a right pain, having a lens with excellent stabilisation and which covers wide - short tele and macro could be very tempting.

It would be nice if the lens was cheaper, but for a lot of people it would replace buying the the 24-105 and and 100 non-L which makes it seem more reasonable

[MrFotoFool]

I LOVE my 24-105L - best general zoom I have ever had (and quite sharp, even on corners).  It is hard to imagine anyone choosing the new 24-70 over this one, unless the new one was a lot cheaper, which of course it is not.  Also, with the new high ISO capabilities of modern DSLR's, image stabilization is not as necessary a feature as it once was.  Sure it is nice, but you can get by.  I just picked up the non-IS 70-200 2.8 (to replace a broken Sigma) because it is a thousand bucks cheaper than the IS version.  I wonder if Canon will follow this model with any other lenses - keeping an older non-IS at a cheap price alongside a new IS at a much higher price?

[pharp]

When I was growing up - Nikon was the expensive one - AND WE LIKED IT!

$850 for a 35 f/2? Really?

[insanitybeard]

Oh my God..
What a boring bunch of lenses..
I wouldn't even put them in my bag should they be distributed for free..

Except that many users have been calling for an updated 35 f2 for a long time now- both for full frame and crop. It looks like a great lens. The problem is the price. Don't judge everybody by your own standards.

Well, maybe you're right and maybe I've been a little bit rude. But come on, f/4 !!?
frankly, why would I want to ignore the cheaper 24/105mm f4? just for the sake of half an inch of space saved in my bag?
And yes, I can understand the need for a 'portrait' 35mm lens for cropped bodies.. but come on, why F/2 ? Issuing an f/1.4 at the same price would have been a non boring annoucement.. Maybe..
Or maybe Im only a little bit disappointed because I was REALLY waiting for the 14-24mm f/2.8. This would have been a really exciting annoucement. Definitely

Issue a 35 1.4 non-L at the same price? Wouldn't that just serve to undercut sales of the 35L? Never gonna happen with Canon. Just to clarify, I was talking specifically about the 35 f2. I realise that prior to this not many here were crying out for a 24-70 f4.