Canon EF 24 f/2.8 IS & EF 28 f/2.8 IS Available for Preorder

[Canon Rumors]

Share

June 17, 2012?
According to B&H, for the moment Canon is holding to the arrival of June 17, 2012 for the new Canon EF 24 f/2.8 IS & EF 28 f/2.8 IS lenses. They are both now available for preorder.

Canon EF 24 f/2.8 IS at B&H for $849.95

Canon EF 28 f/2.8 IS at B&H for $799.95

I played around with the 24 f/2.8 IS for a bit and liked it at first glance, I haven’t touched the 28 f/2.8 IS as of yet.

cr

[facedodge]

The 28mm seems like an odd length to me. I guess that's half way to a 35... would adding IS to a 35 make more sense if it was all about video?

[dswatson83]

I can't imagine them getting too many preorders. This is a ton of money to pay for a lens with a f/2.8 aperture that is a non L lens. The 17-55 is not much more expensive than 1 of these. Plus Sigma & Tamron both have f/2.8 zoom options at a fraction of the cost. Or there are some great options for 24-70mm lenses for hardly any more including the new Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC. You can get a 24-105 IS for the same price as only 1 of these lenses and it's only 1 stop slower, but it is L glass, has a tremendous zoom range, and is weather resistant. I'm really not sure the advantage to these lenses. If they were f/1.8 or faster, they would have an advantage over the zooms. If you are using these for video, the sharpness/resolution from Canon's video on any camera (even the 5DIII) is low enough that you will not see the difference between these primes and the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, even if they are tack sharp at f/2.8. Wtf Canon? Putting IS on these lenses and leaving it out of the 24-70? Who is running the lens dept. The 5DIII was a direct response to everything we disliked with the 5DII. These lenses and the new 24-70 make no sense to most Canon customers.

[DanielG.]

The 28mm seems like an odd length to me.

A 28mm is great on a crop camera IMO. A bit wider than a 50mm on a FF.

[dswatson83]

The 28mm seems like an odd length to me.

A 28mm is great on a crop camera IMO. A bit wider than a 50mm on a FF.

Just get a Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS or the way cheaper sigma and tamron version and all your problems of figuring out the correct focal length are solved. Still not sure why you would buy either of these lenses.

[neuroanatomist]

I can't imagine them getting too many preorders. This is a ton of money to pay for a lens with a f/2.8 aperture that is a non L lens. The 17-55 is not much more expensive than 1 of these.

Of course, the excellent 17-55mm f/2.8 IS doesn't work on FF, and these are f/2.8 primes with IS.  Nothing close in the Canon lineup, although the Tamron remains an option.  I wonder if the lack of IS on the 24-70 wasn't at least partially influenced by marketing to increase demand for these lenses...

[Christian_Stella]

Focus ring looks annoyingly small for video too.

I'd need to see how good the stabilizing is to pass real judgement for video though.  That said, you could pick up the old 24mm for $300 and the Opteka Steadyvid Pro for $179 and an Opteka shoulder rig for $100 and a Chinese rail system on EBay for $60 and Hondo Garage's $50 follow focus and a Manfrotto fluid video head for $129 and have a whole slew of filmmaking rigs for steady picture in any situation for the price of one of these.

[BRNexus6]

Two better options at a much better value is either the Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS, or Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 VC.

In video mode these new primes will not have any optical advantages over the mentioned zooms. The only advantage is being more portable. Stupid high price for lenses nobody asked for.

Canon 24mm & 28mm 2.8 IS = $1650

Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 VC = $1299

Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS = $1099

[Alf]

Canon is delusional.  I'll take the Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 VC.  The reverse zoom won't bother me since I will use it just like 3 lenses.  Look down, zoom, more with my feet, take picture.

Another alternative is the Samyang wides 24mm 1.4 and 28mm 1.4 if you are manually focusing for movie mode anyway.

[Daniel Flather]

What they need is an ef 20mm f1.8L IS. I think that would be very expensive though. 

[Etienne]

The 28mm seems like an odd length to me. I guess that's half way to a 35... would adding IS to a 35 make more sense if it was all about video?

35mm is an odd length. Half way between 24 and 50   

[sammydavisjrjr]

Im on the fence about the 28 IS for $800 but do think its a valuable focal length for full frame video. I find 28 to be the widest I can go with acceptable distortion. Shooting real estate, Ive always used a glide cam zoomed at 28mm and with the IS, I think it can be even better to take out some of the small shakes. the 24-105 is heavy for glidecaming and I don't like the constant f4. From what Ive seen and read, the tamron is no great shakes and the 82mm filter size means expensive or not available filters. Yes the new canon 24-70 has 82mm but at 3 times the price, its not even in this discussion.

[fyngyrz]

If it isn't f/1.4 or faster, I'm not even *slightly* interested.

What I'd like to see is a 24mm f/1.0 IS.

C'mon Canon, there are a zillion f/2.8 and the like lenses. From a zillion manufacturers! Give us something COOL!

[Ellen Schmidtee]

Canon EF 24 f/2.8 IS at B&H for $849.95

Canon EF 28 f/2.8 IS at B&H for $799.95

A local price comparison site brought 5 stores that sells the EF 24 f/2.8 for < $500 including all taxes. The new price is going to make it hard to sell the lens, especially as it would have to compete with the 5D's kit lens (only one stop slower), and crop camera owners have the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS as an alternative (a dozen local shops offer it for <U.S.$1,250 including all taxes).

[c.d.embrey]

I've been shooting motion for over thirty years, and have NEVER felt the need for IS. For me, f/1.8 would have been more useful than IS . I think I'll pass.