Any word on the Canon prime's with IS?

[briansquibb]

F/2.8 is plenty for DOF effects...have you ever heard anyone with a 70-200 2.8 complain of lacking DOF?

While I agree that f/2.8 is plenty for DOF, the 70-200 has a huge advantage over either of these primes, since the focal length also effects DOF. I've found I can isolate a subject more at 200mm f/4 than I can at, say, 50mm f/2.8.

But, at 24mm and 28mm, its more about getting the low-light shot than worrying about DOF; especially on a full-frame setup.

The 400 f/2.8 must be the king of blurred backgrounds Although I haven't had a real go with my 200 f/2 yet (hopefully that will be tomorrow)

[Z]

While I agree that f/2.8 is plenty for DOF, the 70-200 has a huge advantage over either of these primes, since the focal length also effects DOF

I hate to be that annoying guy, but technically focal length does not affect depth of field. However, due to compression distortion, the out of focus background is essentially enlarged, which magnifies the blur and makes DoF appear narrower.

Still, the effect is what matters.

[moreorless]

My guess is that these lenses will also look to target the landscape market, going from the MTF's they do seem to offer much better boarder to boarder sharpness than there predecessors or indeed the 24-105/24-70 mk1.

[leftnose]

more to the point any news on finding people that are actually going to buy them?

I'm not too interested in the 24 or 28mm lenses but if they come out with a 35mm f/2 IS, I would jump all over it even at the $8-900 price it seems like it would have.  It would be a no-brainer instant pre-order for me.

Presumably it would slot between the current f/2 and f/1.4L in size, f/2 is plenty fast enough for 35mm and with IS, it would make a killer indoor architecture lens.  It would be the absolute perfect lens for me and my shooting habits.

[Ellen Schmidtee]

My guess is that these lenses will also look to target the landscape market, going from the MTF's they do seem to offer much better boarder to boarder sharpness than there predecessors or indeed the 24-105/24-70 mk1.

How would landscape photographers benefit from IS? I would think this is the market which would be most likely to use a tripod, and least likely to use IS.

[IWLP]

How would landscape photographers benefit from IS? I would think this is the market which would be most likely to use a tripod, and least likely to use IS.

Landscape photogs may not benefit, but the video guys will probably like this, as will people who like to be "available light" portrait/street/event/etc. photos. I don't think Canon is interested in making a lens for a single contingent of photographers, so its no surprise the lens has different design choices to cater to different users.

[D.Sim]

My guess is that these lenses will also look to target the landscape market, going from the MTF's they do seem to offer much better boarder to boarder sharpness than there predecessors or indeed the 24-105/24-70 mk1.

Uh. No. Landscape shooters will NOT want IS. Its useful if wee something and want to snap in a pinch, but on a planned landscape shoot, tripods and filters are things that come along

[TrumpetPower!]

The 400 f/2.8 must be the king of blurred backgrounds Although I haven't had a real go with my 200 f/2 yet (hopefully that will be tomorrow)

Actually, it's the physical aperture size (as opposed to the aperture ratio) that's most directly relevant to the shallowness of the depth of field. For example, a 50mm f/1.0 has an aperture of 50 / 1 = 50mm and thus can blur a background slightly more than an 85mm f/1.8: 85 / 1.8 = 47.2. The lowly 100 f/2, though, creates just as much background blur as the mystical 50 f/1...though, granted, with only half the angular field of view and in four times as much light.

The 400 f/2.8, as awesome as it is, just barely comes in second behind the 600 f/4: 143mm aperture for the former and a 150mm aperture for the latter.

Cheers,

b&

[Jettatore]

Can anyone explain why they are releasing these two lenses side by side with such a close focal length between them, instead of a more dramatic one, at least for the first release.  I would think there is some reason, but I can not figure it out.

[Tcapp]

Can anyone explain why they are releasing these two lenses side by side with such a close focal length between them, instead of a more dramatic one, at least for the first release.  I would think there is some reason, but I can not figure it out.

+1. The difference between 24 and 28 is moving the camera forward or back about 3 inches. (not an actual measurement, people on here are way too technical)