Is anyone interested in the 24mm2.8IS?

[risc32]

I'm wondering what I should expect from this lens, IQ wise. Where will it place in the canon lineup? i know the older nonIS isn't highly regarded, i know the 1.4 is a pretty awesome 1.4, and this will have the distinction of having IS. I even like the idea of sharing filters with my 85 1.8.

[risc32]

i guess not. Perhaps the video guys might be interested in it, and they aren't here?     Otherwise it looks like Canon might be laying eggs with the 24/28mm IS lenses.

[Random Orbits]

Take a look at the MTF comparison linked below:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

The curves only show a slight improvement over the previous non-IS version.  The new version looks like the old version plus IS.  Maybe it'll appeal to video folk but for photo folk, it's not much better than the old version and costs a lot more.

In comparison, the 28mm IS actually shows much larger improvement over the older design.  But that's probably due the 28mm lens being much worse than the 24mm version.  The MTF for the new 24 and 28mm look fairly similar.

[RLPhoto]

If it was f2 or f1.8, everyone would want one but f2.8 is too slow that a pro zoom could meet it. IS isn't a dealt factor for photos but video might be very useful.

[prestonpalmer]

Not really.  Too slow, and too wide for IS to be useful.  Although IS reduced blur due to camera shake, it does nothing to help stop motion blur.  A faster lens is much preferable over IS in this case.

[tron]

Not interested at all. It does not seem such a good move  to spend so much money for a 2.8 version. There are better ways to spend money (lenswise...).  At least this is my opinion. By the way the EF24mm f/2.8 is a fine lens.

[vuilang]

Yes.. BUT Only for Video

[7enderbender]

I'm wondering what I should expect from this lens, IQ wise. Where will it place in the canon lineup? i know the older nonIS isn't highly regarded, i know the 1.4 is a pretty awesome 1.4, and this will have the distinction of having IS. I even like the idea of sharing filters with my 85 1.8.

Not sure what I'd do with that thing.

[sjp010]

At the price of the old one, I'd consider it.  For $850, forget it!  Not even remotely on my radar.

[well_dunno]

I am not interested either but I do not shoot video.  The 24mm f/2.8 is priced $360, slight IQ improvement + IS = $500 in difference? Unreasonably high price IMHO.

[Ellen Schmidtee]

Considering it's 1 stop faster than the 24-105mm f/4 IS I already have & the MTF charts, I don't find it attractive.

If Canon made an EF 24mm f/2 USM for a street price ~$500, I would pre-order it.

[tron]

Considering it's 1 stop faster than the 24-105mm f/4 IS I already have & the MTF charts, I don't find it attractive.

If Canon made an EF 24mm f/2 USM for a street price ~$500, I would pre-order it.

+1

[TrumpetPower!]

If the New Tamron 24-70 holds up to expectations, you won't have to take off your shoes to count the number of these new slow IS primes Canon has put out.

b&

[JR]

If the iq is good, yes i would be interested but for video only, as i already have a 24 L.  The IS would help when i want to shoot hand held...

[Ranga]

Why does everyone assume that video folk need IS?? I shoot video/stills. IS comes handy when you shoot stills in low light where you need lower shutter speed. We use tripods/stabilizers/dollies/sliders to avoid camera shake. I don't know anyone who shoots hand held video with a DSLR for professional work. I wonder how IS helps on wide angle lenses in the 1st place.