Would Canon produce new 28/1.8?

[eternalwings]

similar to nikon's new 28/1.8G?

[BRNexus6]

similar to nikon's new 28/1.8G?

Yeah, but they will add IS and charge $1299 for it.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

similar to nikon's new 28/1.8G?

Yeah, but they will add IS and charge $1299 for it.

Its marketed as being ideal for a D800, but, with a D800, IS would definitely be a plus.  I've been using a D800 and its pretty difficult to get the full benefit of that resolution without IS or a very fast shutter speed.  Even with much more expensive Nikon lenses, I've had to be very deliberate and use a tripod to get the best images.
 
I am curious to see some independent testing.  If its actually good, its a bargain.

[AdamJ]

The announcement of the 24mm and 28mm f/2.8 IS lenses makes me wonder whether we'll ever see another affordable, properly fast wide-angle prime from Canon. I have a 28mm f/1.8 and for me, it's a great restaurant / bar / party lens. An optical upgrade would be nice but I can't see it happening without a big price jump, and then you'd be thinking about the 24mm L or 35mm L.

[tron]

The announcement of the 24mm and 28mm f/2.8 IS lenses makes me wonder whether we'll ever see another affordable, properly fast wide-angle prime from Canon. I have a 28mm f/1.8 and for me, it's a great restaurant / bar / party lens. An optical upgrade would be nice but I can't see it happening without a big price jump, and then you'd be thinking about the 24mm L or 35mm L.

The problem is that, unfortunately, when Canon upgrades the fast 24mm and 35mm (f/1.4) lenses, the new prices will be significantly higher 

[TBenson]

I'm still waiting for an inexpensive fast normal prime to use on crop sensor cameras.  < holding breath after many years > Comparable to the 50mm f/1.8, but EFS. 

Canon made the new 24mm and 28mm f/2.8 IS lenses that are clearly geared toward video users (and not cheap!), but they continue to ignore all the many existing 7D, xxD, and Rebel customers.

[Random Orbits]

I'm still waiting for an inexpensive fast normal prime to use on crop sensor cameras.  < holding breath after many years > Comparable to the 50mm f/1.8, but EFS. 

Canon made the new 24mm and 28mm f/2.8 IS lenses that are clearly geared toward video users (and not cheap!), but they continue to ignore all the many existing 7D, xxD, and Rebel customers.

Did you look at the Sigma 30mm DC f/1.4?

[hyles]

having just renewed 28 2.8, adding IS, I think that it will take a wile before canon will produce a new fast 28mm.
When it will... than i guess it will be a L lens and it may even be faster... it could be a EF 28 1.4 L USM in the same cost range of 35 1.4 and 24 1.4.
Diego

[preppyak]

I'm still waiting for an inexpensive fast normal prime to use on crop sensor cameras.  < holding breath after many years > Comparable to the 50mm f/1.8, but EFS.

Well, they already make many inexpensive fast normal primes that you can use on a crop camera, you can just also use them on full-frame. Which makes them cheaper, since they can sell more of them, The only EF-S prime that would make sense would be something wider than 20mm, otherwise it could also work on EF. And they already make a 10-22 EF-S lens that is highly regarded, so I wouldn't expect that soon.

Also, I don't think making it EF-S would make it much cheaper. The 60mm macro is about the same as Canon's 100mm EF macro lens (the EF 50mm macro is faster and nearly half the price). Their 17-55 EF-S lens isn't much cheaper than its equivalent 24-70 for full frame. The 28-135 is similar pricewise to the 18-135 EF-S. And the 10-22 is actually more expensive than its full frame equivalent (17-40mm, if going by aperture). The cheap EF-S lenses (55-250 for example) are cheap because they sacrifice build quality, some lens elements and USM. Leaving those things out of a prime would likely not make many people happy...but its about the only way to make it cheap

[TBenson]

I had assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the EFS lens could be smaller/have less glass than an EF and would cost less to produce. I own both the 10-22 and the 60mm. I don't know why the former costs about 5% more than its FF counterpart, but the latter is 25% less. And an EFS 17-55 is much cheaper than an EF 24-70mm, at almost 50% less.

Yes, those three comparisons are against L glass.  But that brings up a point.  You wrote:

The cheap EF-S lenses (55-250 for example) are cheap because they sacrifice build quality, some lens elements and USM. Leaving those things out of a prime would likely not make many people happy...but its about the only way to make it cheap

To me, inexpensive does not equal $450+. I'm thinking more along the lines of the 50/1.8.  It is cheap and fast and sharp (but too long to be normal on a crop sensor). LOTS of people are happily buying and using this lens, despite the build quality. The vast majority are probably using them on crop sensor cameras, if that matters.

Better example: Nikon makes a modern 35/1.8 lens that is only $199, so why can't Canon make a modern 30mm-ish f/1.8-ish lens at the same price point?. The closest they have is the older, slower 35/2 that costs over 50% more than Nikon's.

[Random Orbits]

I had assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the EFS lens could be smaller/have less glass than an EF and would cost less to produce. I own both the 10-22 and the 60mm. I don't know why the former costs about 5% more than its FF counterpart, but the latter is 25% less. And an EFS 17-55 is much cheaper than an EF 24-70mm, at almost 50% less.

Yes, those three comparisons are against L glass.  But that brings up a point.  You wrote:

To me, inexpensive does not equal $450+. I'm thinking more along the lines of the 50/1.8.  It is cheap and fast and sharp (but too long to be normal on a crop sensor). LOTS of people are happily buying and using this lens, despite the build quality. The vast majority are probably using them on crop sensor cameras, if that matters.

The reduced APS-C size gives an advantage for designing wide angle lenses.  At telephoto focal lengths, the effective aperature is already much larger than the sensor size.  This is why why see so many crop body ultrawides.  The EF-S telephoto zooms (i.e. 50-250) keep their small physical size by keeping a small variable aperture range.

The aperture of the 10-22 may be smaller than the 16-35L, but it's performance is closer to the 16-35L than the 17-40L.

Better example: Nikon makes a modern 35/1.8 lens that is only $199, so why can't Canon make a modern 30mm-ish f/1.8-ish lens at the same price point?. The closest they have is the older, slower 35/2 that costs over 50% more than Nikon's.

Canon probably can't make enough money on it to make it worthwhile.  Companies are resource constrained and try to maximize profit.  R&D and changing tooling is expensive.  The ROI for the 35/2 replacement probably is not high enough for Canon to consider it to be a high priority.

[paul13walnut5]

DISCLAIMER: I understand the reasons for fast aperture lenses and their benefits.  I play -to a certain extent- devils advocate.

I think the problem is that for many users the zooms are actually good enough these days, and in particular, the consumer zooms are damn fine for the money.  Why do you need f2.8 or faster?  Just up the ISO?  Etc.   

Now you know, and I know, that theres a bit more to it than that, but the 24 year old EF primes that have just been replaced were often just FD designs with a remount and AF, fine for film, not fine for that curse of the modern camera -anal pixel peepers.

To be fair Canon aren't going to sell that many prime 24s and 28s, so there is limited spread of R&D cost, but I cant help thinking they would sell 3 times as many at half the price.  Shame as the 28mm 2.8 non-is is one of my favourite lenses.

[boateggs]

I'm still waiting for an inexpensive fast normal prime to use on crop sensor cameras.  < holding breath after many years > Comparable to the 50mm f/1.8, but EFS. 

Canon made the new 24mm and 28mm f/2.8 IS lenses that are clearly geared toward video users (and not cheap!), but they continue to ignore all the many existing 7D, xxD, and Rebel customers.

Did you look at the Sigma 30mm DC f/1.4?

I got it and love it.  I got the 50/1.8 first (knowing it wasn't wide enough but wanted to try a fast prime) and even though the AF is spotty, it was cheap and let me take pictures at breweries/parties without a flash (I dont like flashing others who dont care about documenting the occasion).  However I was led to the Sigma because the Canon 50 was too narrow and all the reviews I read said that if you want to chance a focus issue (my first one was off but B&H was good to me) it was better than the Canon 35/2.  I am completely happy and with the Sigma and am looking into buying their 50 now.  I am the taget of the 50/1.8 - someone who wants to take pictures and cares but doesn't make money off it and is broke, but had I not read enough to learn that wider would have been better (for my crop) I would not have started buying more lenses of higher quality and have stuck with the kit lens.

Since I have gotten the Sigma, numerous friends who dont care as much as I do have asked what this crazy lens is that I can take non-blurry pictures in bars without a flash and the Canon users I say be prepared to spend ~400.  The Nikon users I say "You are in luck, there is something that will satisfy you for ~200" and 3 of the 5 have bought them.  Point being anyone who says that the ROI is not there for an EFS ~30 has overlooked that the 50/1.8 leaves a bad taste in the target consumers mouth.  I say bring on the all plastic ~30 EFS!

[Ellen Schmidtee]

DISCLAIMER: I understand the reasons for fast aperture lenses and their benefits.  I play -to a certain extent- devils advocate.

I think the problem is that for many users the zooms are actually good enough these days, and in particular, the consumer zooms are damn fine for the money.  Why do you need f2.8 or faster?  Just up the ISO?  Etc.   

Personally, I shoot in low light (mostly clubs & outdoor events), and use ISO >1600 often. If I was a Rothschild, I would buy f/1.4 L primes. Not being one, I wish for cheaper & f/1.4 < aperture < f/2.8

If slow (as in f/3.5-5.6) zooms are optically as good as f/2.8 primes & ISO solves the speed issue, at some point people would just stop buying f/2.8 primes. I would think Canon would want to sell more lenses, but possibly might want free those resources to make lenses for more profitable EF[-S] / cinema / fill the blank lenses, or just close the production  lines and save money.

[Rocky]

DISCLAIMER: I understand the reasons for fast aperture lenses and their benefits.  I play -to a certain extent- devils advocate.

I think the problem is that for many users the zooms are actually good enough these days, and in particular, the consumer zooms are damn fine for the money.  Why do you need f2.8 or faster?  Just up the ISO?  Etc.   

Now you know, and I know, that theres a bit more to it than that, but the 24 year old EF primes that have just been replaced were often just FD designs with a remount and AF, fine for film, not fine for that curse of the modern camera -anal pixel peepers.

To be fair Canon aren't going to sell that many prime 24s and 28s, so there is limited spread of R&D cost, but I cant help thinking they would sell 3 times as many at half the price.  Shame as the 28mm 2.8 non-is is one of my favourite lenses.

Good thinking and well said. Totally agreed.