veng said:
I just can't see how this lens makes any sense. If it was a 35mm f/2.8 w/o IS and it was priced at 100-150$ and had a better magnification ratio than the 40, maybe? With IS, I can't imagine the price is going to be that much lower than the 35 f/2 IS and the question would become why wouldn't you just get the f/2. Because you want better maximum magnification? A 35mm lens is going to give you a really poor working distance so it's not going to be a master of nothing. Just can't see how to get excited by this lens which is a real let down seeing how I was hoping for something actually wide angle given the rumors.
The new lens will be either be smaller/lighter, inexpensive, or offer new functionality. Or some combination of the three. The M in particular has me wonder if it might be mount-reversible (like others have said) or possibly have the macro lighting built in.
As for IS being expensive, that certainly is true with L lenses, but often not so with EF-S lenses. See
list here from B&H of all IS EF-S lenses Canon sells -- many are super affordable.
(No idea why the pancake is on that list, which lacks IS; I guess the website has it filed incorrectly.)
As for why not to get the 35mm f/2 IS USM -- which a wonderful instrument -- instead of this new lens, we don't know yet. It could just be a fairly unexciting lens like many (presently) think it might be, but it might have some new hotness that dramatically raises its desirability. We shall see.
- A