Canon EF 24 f/2.8 IS USM

[AprilForever]

Right! Since Canon and Nikon refuse to implement in-camera IS, and tout the "vastly superior" in-lens version, you really have to cry foul when they leave it out of any lens design, save maybe the widest of angles.

For composition purposes is it vastly superior.

And at 24mm and 28mm there is no reason for IS at all. I have no problem at all buying a non-IS lens that is below 100mm. Now I suppose I'll hear from the video people about that.

No reason for IS at 24? Really? Why do you think it is in the 24-105? The 17-50?

IS is really quite helpful even at wider focal lengths. To be sure, not the same as at 600mm, but, still helpful.

[bear]

f/2.8 prime and it's not even pancake lens? It has to be cheaper than 50/1.8

[EYEONE]

Right! Since Canon and Nikon refuse to implement in-camera IS, and tout the "vastly superior" in-lens version, you really have to cry foul when they leave it out of any lens design, save maybe the widest of angles.

For composition purposes is it vastly superior.

And at 24mm and 28mm there is no reason for IS at all. I have no problem at all buying a non-IS lens that is below 100mm. Now I suppose I'll hear from the video people about that.

No reason for IS at 24? Really? Why do you think it is in the 24-105? The 17-50?

IS is really quite helpful even at wider focal lengths. To be sure, not the same as at 600mm, but, still helpful.

I think IS is in the 24-105 because it zooms to 105mm... 
I think the 17-55mm (I assume that's what you meant) has IS because on APS-C 55mm is 88mm. Though back in the day I had a 18-55 IS and I never noticed the effect at 55mm. I'd argue that the 17-55mm doesn't really need IS either.

I certainly don't think they included IS because of the short end of the focal range. It was because of the long end.

Helpful? Oh, of course IS is always helpful. What I think we should steer clear of is whining, complaining, and declaring that any lens without IS unfit for use by a photographer. I do have to remind myself of this often, honestly. Sometimes I really want better ISO performance or a higher ISO range and then I remember that people shot weddings and all kinds of events on cameras with a top ISO of 1600 or less. If they can do it I can do it. IS didn't always exist. Feel free to smite me, but that's what I think.

[Stuart]

Good, i've wanted a good 2nd prime for my aps-c - this is neat, though if IS add more than £50 to the price i'll be upset.

[whatta]

sorry, but where do we see in the picture that it is 2.8?

It's a rumor based on: http://digicame-info.com/2012/02/ef28mm-f28-is-usmef24mm-f28-is.html#more

ok, so it is indeed not visible 

[drozz]

These have to be video lenses.  These are both ideal focal lengths for crop and FF.  2.8 seems slow for a pro, but is fast for suzi homemaker.

[dilbert]

Comparing the image of the 24/2.8 IS USM with that of the 28/2.8 IS USM, the only difference between the pictures appears to be the "4" and "8". I find that very hard to believe in reality - the lenses would seemingly need to be more different, if only that it would be next to impossible to take photographs of two products that were the same in every way (reflections, etc) except for two numbers.

Has anyone loaded both of these into photoshop and done some pixel peeping?

I suspect that one of these two is real and the other is not.

[Raddy]

Comparing the image of the 24/2.8 IS USM with that of the 28/2.8 IS USM, the only difference between the pictures appears to be the "4" and "8".

Maybe there have been other pictures online while you posted that, but I do see some differences there, besides the "4" and "8". But as it's been only 5 minutes ago, I'd suggest to take another look at them.

[rbr]

Canon has needed to update their selection of non-L primes for a while now, and these seem to be a good start. I think that these IS lenses would be good for all sorts of outdoor use such as hiking without a tripod. It's often necessary to stop down for dof in low light. If the IQ is there, and the price and weight are low, I think these will be a great addition to any camera bag. There are already faster lenses in these lengths.

[dilbert]

Comparing the image of the 24/2.8 IS USM with that of the 28/2.8 IS USM, the only difference between the pictures appears to be the "4" and "8".

Maybe there have been other pictures online while you posted that, but I do see some differences there, besides the "4" and "8". But as it's been only 5 minutes ago, I'd suggest to take another look at them.

Ah, yes, the distance scale is different.

It won't be easy to tell both of them apart if you've got them both in your camera bag, that's for sure!

[bvukich]

Right! Since Canon and Nikon refuse to implement in-camera IS, and tout the "vastly superior" in-lens version, you really have to cry foul when they leave it out of any lens design, save maybe the widest of angles.

You would prefer moving the sensor?  So we can have overheating problems like the Sonys?

[ecka]

If this is real and "cheap" then I would definitely buy one. IS prime - great for video

[Fish_shooter]

Looks like no weather sealing, very disappointing 
In an area where annual rainfall is measured in meters this is more important than IS.

[KyleSTL]

Comparing the picture of the new lens to the existing 24mm f/2.8 shows that both use a 58mm filter and the front elements are the same size ~43mm.  I would assume, then, that the new lens would have the same aperture as the old lens.

For comparison, the 24mm f/1.4L II USM has a 77mm filter thread and a front element with a diameter ~50mm.

[mkln]

Comparing the image of the 24/2.8 IS USM with that of the 28/2.8 IS USM, the only difference between the pictures appears to be the "4" and "8". I find that very hard to believe in reality - the lenses would seemingly need to be more different, if only that it would be next to impossible to take photographs of two products that were the same in every way (reflections, etc) except for two numbers.

Has anyone loaded both of these into photoshop and done some pixel peeping?

I suspect that one of these two is real and the other is not.

nope the 24 is longer and has a larger focus ring and different focus scale.
as is to be expected.