Canon EF 28 f/2.8 Disappears From Price List

[squarebox]

This lens has always been dead to me, given I own a 24-70mm f/2.8L. So it can go away quietly for all I care.

That's the point. Lenses like this are dead to us, but they are also dead to the masses. I really do think that almost all of the consumer grade primes, except for the gateway nifty-fifty—will disappear. There are too many options for consumer grade cameras and a DSL + cheap prime is a loser in the marketplace. People who know about primes know about the good stuff and are more likely to be willing to spend to get quality glass. People who don't know primes think they are some kind of weird, hobbled lens from the 1950s with no possible use. To an extent they are right. The 28-135 is f3.5 at its widest. That's only about half a stop, you get USM & IS, you don't pay a ton more and you have way more versatility.

Nice honeysuckle, though.

Personally the sub $500 primes I think are great for people with rebels and who are JUST getting into photography and want to get a decent lens but don't want to spurge.  I'm in this category.  I figured out i wanted a 35mm prime lens but the f/2 is just horrible build quality ... and well f/2... If there was an f1.8 35mm for around $500 i'd have gotten that (i.e. to compete with the sigma 1.4 30mm).  But instead i just got the 35mm L.  Def. more lens than i need though.

The super low quality 1.8 50mm and this f2 28mm are really at the low end of teh spectrum, but you also forget that there are alot of kids that try out photography in HS and college and at that point those lens are great price points for them. They just need to be updated is all.

[Ellen Schmidtee]

People who know about primes know about the good stuff and are more likely to be willing to spend to get quality glass.

I disagree.

I own a 5Dmk2, want fast lenses to photographs band shows, am willing to spend on good lenses (e.g. I've bought a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM), but just can't afford to spend ~$1,500 on every prime.

If Canon upgraded it's non-L primes, I would be happy to buy 20mm f/2 USM, 24mm f/2 USM, 35mm f/2 USM, and possibly 28mm f/1.8 USM (all with IQ improved over the current non-L primes) for ~$700 each.

[Yes, I've thought about the 24-70mm f/2.8 L - it heavy & only 1 stop faster than the 24-105mm f/4 L.]

[neuroanatomist]

I would be happy to buy 20mm f/2 USM, 24mm f/2 USM, 35mm f/2 USM, and possibly 28mm f/1.8 USM (all with IQ improved over the current non-L primes) for ~$700 each.

I've thought about the 24-70mm f/2.8 L - it heavy & only 1 stop faster than the 24-105mm f/4 L.

Of course, if you add up the costs and weights of those three lenses, they'll be heavier and more expensive than the 24-70mm, and only one stop faster...

[jseliger]

This lens has always been dead to me, given I own a 24-70mm f/2.8L. So it can go away quietly for all I care.

That's the point. Lenses like this are dead to us, but they are also dead to the masses. I really do think that almost all of the consumer grade primes, except for the gateway nifty-fifty—will disappear. There are too many options for consumer grade cameras and a DSL + cheap prime is a loser in the marketplace. People who know about primes know about the good stuff and are more likely to be willing to spend to get quality glass.

I'm not at all convinced this is true: I like primes—or, rather, I should say that I like the prime I have—but can't justify spending more than $500 on a prime. And I can't be the only person in this position; I'd like an equivalent of Nikon's $200 35mm / f 1.8. Which is what I hope Canon is going to offer.

[neuroanatomist]

...I'd like an equivalent of Nikon's $200 35mm / f 1.8. Which is what I hope Canon is going to offer.

That wouldn't surprise me at all. But, it will be EF-S and won't have USM if it's in that price range. OTOH, people here are hoping for better quality EF primes with USM, but not L - and I don't think those are likely at all.

[sulla]

I won't miss this lens. It doesn't need to be replaced. There is absolutely no use for it, given the bare existence of the 28/1.8 (which I own).

The 28/1.8 is also a (rather) cheap and small lens, but faster and USM.  (And yes, the 2.8 is a little bit smaller and cheper, but what is the differnce in real life? How much smaller and lighter than the 1.8 can you be?)

Slow (non-macro or T/S) short (<150mm) primes like f/2.8 have no real value (to me). This also holds for the 20/2.8 and 24/2.8. When there is enough light, zooms - that most people own anyway - will do, even if they're only f/4. When there is not enough light, FAST primes are needed, and in my view this translates to f/1.x.

And those fast primes should have a very good IQ wide open (because when I can afford to stop them down, I will be in a light situation when I will use a zoom instead). I use my primes practically always wide open, I practically never stop down more than 1 stop. I just like low-light photography.

And that's a bit of a problem for Canon (or better: for us), because most Canon consumer primes need to be stopped down too much to achieve good IQ. (the 28 1.8 does not have stellar IQ, sadly). Fast primes that deliver on IQ only from apertures that zooms have are no value to me, either.

Like someone said before, I would spend 700 on consumer primes given good IQ wide open any day.

Specifically, Canon should address wide-open IQ on the following lenses:

• 28 1.8
• 50 1.4 (i also own it and I love it, but still at 1.4 it is has too much halation)
• 50 1.2L (yes, even the L in my view does not perform too well wide open)

The following lenses should be replaced with faster ones, at least 1.4 would be good

• 20 2.8
• 24 2.8
• 35 2

Also, please, Canon, give me IS in the fast primes! I would buy a 50 1.4 IS or an 85 1.4 IS at any time!!!

[neuroanatomist]

Specifically, Canon should address wide-open IQ on the following lenses:

• 50 1.2L (yes, even the L in my view does not perform too well wide open)

It depends on how you define 'perform well' and 'good IQ'.  If you mean maximally sharp, then you're quire correct.  But if you define 'perform well' as delivering a tremendous amount of OOF blur with a smooth, creamy bokeh, then the current version of the lens performs wonderfully.  Canon intentionally undercorrected the spherical aberration in the design of the 50L, sacrificing wide-open sharpness for that creamy bokeh.

The following lenses should be replaced with faster ones, at least 1.4 would be good

• 24 2.8
• 35 2

There are already f/1.4 primes with excellent IQ at these focal lengths - the 24L II and 35L.[/list]

[smirkypants]

Canon needs to start doing what Sigma started doing with the 50/1.4 and continued with its 85; that is, design the lens to be at its best wide open. If you have to stop down the prime, what is the point of giving up the flexibility of a good zoom?

[SnapHappy]

Canon needs to start doing what Sigma started doing with the 50/1.4 and continued with its 85; that is, design the lens to be at its best wide open. If you have to stop down the prime, what is the point of giving up the flexibility of a good zoom?

Well said, smirkypants!!!

Sigma might, and I say might, have QC issues but you can't question the quality of their primes. My sigma 30mm/1.4 is fantastically sharp wide open. Once stopped down it blows away all but the highest quality lenses.

[c.d.embrey]

I like primes. Small, light and quick focusing primes. So this disqualifies the big, heavy L primes. A Canon 85mm f1.2 L weighs 1,025g and a Canon 85mm f1.8 weighs 425g. For comparison a Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.4G weighs 660g.
 
IMHO, Canon should make a series of "85mm f1.8 quality" lens, not "consumer quality" lenses.

Primes work well for me because I usually work with only one lens. I can go for six month without talking the EF 85mm f1.8 off the camera.

[neuroanatomist]

I like primes. Small, light and quick focusing primes. So this disqualifies the big, heavy L primes. A Canon 85mm f1.2 L weighs 1,025g and a Canon 85mm f1.8 weighs 425g. For comparison a Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.4G weighs 660g.

The 35L and 50L are much lighter (not much heavier than the 85/1., and 135L is only a little heavier than the Nikon. 85/1.4. All three of those L lenses focus very fast, too. The 85L is an outlier on both counts.  For an 85mm lens, an aperture of f/1.2 is 36% larger than an aperture of f/1.4.  I put up with the weight and slow AF of the 85L because it delivers great images.

[sulla]

weight isn't too much of a concern to me. My 5D plus a bag weighs enough that I won't feel the difference of a 500 vs an 800g lens too much.

But indeed, the 85/1.8 has good build and also optical quality at a good price point. If only all consumer primes would be like this. I would very much greet a series of "85 1.8 quality" primes. ;-)

[Ellen Schmidtee]

The following lenses should be replaced with faster ones, at least 1.4 would be good

• 24 2.8
• 35 2

There are already f/1.4 primes with excellent IQ at these focal lengths - the 24L II and 35L.

But the 24L II & 35L cost a lot more than ~U.S.$700

[neuroanatomist]

There are already f/1.4 primes with excellent IQ at these focal lengths - the 24L II and 35L.

But the 24L II & 35L cost a lot more than ~U.S.$700

Sure they do...and Canon wants more of your money!  So, if they can put a red ring on a lens and charge a premium, meaning more profit, that's what they want you to buy.

IMO, their viewpoint is that there are three broad categories of buyers out there:

• Typical consumers
• Enthusiasts / advanced amateurs / 'working' pros
• 'High-profile' pros

The first category will likely buy a Rebel/xxxD or 60D with a kit lens or two, and maybe a nifty fifty.  The third category will be shooting 1-series bodies and all L-series lenses.  The middle category is a broad one - xxxD, 60D, 7D, 5DII users, with multiple lenses, including zoom and primes.  I think Canon would prefer to upmarket these folks - get them shooting on a 7D and/or a 5DII, and buying L-series lenses.  The good quality, non-L primes are likely not in Canon's financial interest to update.  Allow me to use your statement to illustrate that point:

I would be happy to buy 20mm f/2 USM, 24mm f/2 USM, 35mm f/2 USM, and possibly 28mm f/1.8 USM (all with IQ improved over the current non-L primes) for ~$700 each.

That's four $700 lenses, meaning you're (in theory) willing to spend $2,800.  If Canon were to develop those four lenses, that would mean a significant R&D expenditure.  From a financial standpoint, they'd realize more profit developing only two lenses in that focal range and charging $1400 for each.  Thus, we have a 24L and a 35L, but no 20L or 28L. 

I think Canon will attempt to polarize the market a little further, and we're seeing that in recent lens releases.  They are concentrating on EF-S lenses and L-series lenses, and not releasing or updating anything in between.

[c.d.embrey]

The 35L and 50L are much lighter (not much heavier than the 85/1., and 135L is only a little heavier than the Nikon. 85/1.4. All three of those L lenses focus very fast, too. The 85L is an outlier on both counts.  For an 85mm lens, an aperture of f/1.2 is 36% larger than an aperture of f/1.4.  I put up with the weight and slow AF of the 85L because it delivers great images.

Why would I want to carry the extra weight of the 85mm f1.2L, when I mainly shoot between f5.6 and f11 My advertising clients are more concerned with their customers getting a good look at the product, than they are with creamy bouquet.

The combined weight of a Sony NEX 7 with a Zeiss 24mm f1.8 is less than a 22.9 oz./650g EF 24 f1.4L lens. For comparison the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED weighs 21.9 oz. (620g).