Topic: Patent: Canon EF 35 f/2 IS (Read 9384 times)
If the rumor is true, this lens is gonna be a SUPER HOT SELLER.
Logged
Well at least it's f/2, not f/2.8 like those last two primes.
... which might mean Canon dumped it because a longer prime with a larger aperture will have a too heavy price tag on it for non red-ring users?
I'd speculate that its cheaper to build a wider angle prime because it'll automatically catch more light, while longer lenses need more glass to funnel the light to the sensor - but please correct me if I'm wrong.
Logged
As for it being cheaper to build wider angle primes: normal lenses are the cheapest to build.
As to those who say IS would add so much cost and weight. How do they manage to put IS into the kit lens and the 55-250? Those lenses weigh nothing and are dirt cheap. Just wondering...
Logged
Logged
Logged
Logged
I noticed a interview with Canon from the CP + in Japan.
http://www.megapixel.co.il/english/archive/28040
"Q: The new 24mm and 28mm seem to be really perplexing, they are not extremely fast, surly not cheap and have image stabilization which doesn't seem to be that necessary in such a short focal length. To top this you have the 17-55mm f/2.8 with IS which admittedly isn't a prime lens but can give you much more flexibility – so who is the real target audience here – videographers?
A: Videographers are indeed an ideal market for these lenses, but the main group who prompted the design of these lenses where in fact photojournalists. While a f/1.4 lens is desirable, they do tend to feature quite large optics. So for example in situations where photographers are trying to blend in and be less obtrusive, a lens with a smaller diameter is more suitable. We included IS to help these photographers to continue shooting in low light, even with smaller aperture that these lenses offer. It’s also worth noting the original versions of these lenses are nearly 25 years old. When designing their replacements we wanted to look forwards to ensure that these lenses enjoy a life span to match their predecessors."
Logged
I noticed a interview with Canon from the CP + in Japan.
http://www.megapixel.co.il/english/archive/28040
"Q: The new 24mm and 28mm seem to be really perplexing, they are not extremely fast, surly not cheap and have image stabilization which doesn't seem to be that necessary in such a short focal length. To top this you have the 17-55mm f/2.8 with IS which admittedly isn't a prime lens but can give you much more flexibility – so who is the real target audience here – videographers?
A: Videographers are indeed an ideal market for these lenses, but the main group who prompted the design of these lenses where in fact photojournalists. While a f/1.4 lens is desirable, they do tend to feature quite large optics. So for example in situations where photographers are trying to blend in and be less obtrusive, a lens with a smaller diameter is more suitable. We included IS to help these photographers to continue shooting in low light, even with smaller aperture that these lenses offer. It’s also worth noting the original versions of these lenses are nearly 25 years old. When designing their replacements we wanted to look forwards to ensure that these lenses enjoy a life span to match their predecessors."
People shooting video on crop sensor cameras are going to choose the 17-55mm 2.8 IS over those 2.8 primes, so I guess they mean these new lenses will appeal to Full Frame videographers. Why the heck would someone pay $800 for a 2.8 prime when they can spend $200 more for the 17-55mm 2.8 IS lens?
I will gladly pay $600 for a 35mm F2 IS lens, but I'm betting they will release a 2.8 version for $800.
Logged
