Announcement on January 8, 2013? New Lenses [CR1]

[BRNexus6]

Canon has some stiff competition as the Sigma 35mm 1.4 is an incredibly sharp lens for under $1,000. I just don't see the new Canon 35mm 1.4 ll outclassing the Sigma in sharpness by enough to justify a huge premium over the Sigma. I'm guessing the Canon 35mm 1.4 ll will retail for around $1599.

 

[ahsanford]

Not buying this rumor -- especially for the 35. A new flagship L with less technology than its non-L counterpart?

The new 35L certainly will have IS.

- A

Zero chance of an IS ... Shouldn't expect IS for any of their L primes until you reach the tele range. 24L II, 50L, 85L II should tell you the story.

Respectfully, I disagree. Canon is in the process of adding IS + USM + internal focusing + much improved build quality on every non-L prime (3 down, more certainly to come). Carnathan at TDP was surprised the 24/28 IS lenses didn't get red rings they were so well built. And as we know from early testing, the sharpness of these new non-Ls rivals the current Ls stopped down to a comparable aperture.

So these new L lenses must must must offer more than simply a red ring and a weathersealing gasket. A slight IQ bump is not enough.

[the writer gets on his soapbox]

I think some folks need to warm up to the notion that in low light, F/2 or F/2.8 (depending on the non-L prime we're talking about) with IS will dominate F/1.4 without it. I can't speak to what you all shoot, but when I am in ultra low light + handheld situations, I'm not shooting moving targets. So IS is buys me flexibility in the darkest conditions.

Ray 2021 posted that he leaves his 35L on F/1.4 for low light, cramped conditions. That's exactly why I bought my 28 IS. I would contend the non-L at F/2 with the 3-4 stops of IS would net those same shots at a sharper narrower aperture with a stop or two to spare to stop down further for sharpness OR choose a less noisy ISO. (Again --> flexibility)

[/soapbox]

Or perhaps another way to put it -- once the Canon users get a taste of the value of IS in low light, why on earth would they give that up? I think IS becomes the great entitlement of photographers in the next few years -- it becomes an absolute expectation of most users.

Or perhaps way #3 to put it -- if I am not getting IS with a new 35L, the IQ had better be off the charts better than the very very good non-L with IS.

I know I am in the minority in this opinion, but I'll keep sharing my take.

- A

 

[AvTvM]

an f/1.4 wide-angle lens is NOT about speed. It is about the chance to get at least some halfway decent bokeh at wide-angle focal lengths. An f/1.4 lens therefore can never be substituted by a slower lens with IS.

The real issue however is not IS or not IS, it is the fact, that all of Canon's current 1.4 lenses deliver SUB-PAR IQ wide open. NB matter whether they have a red ring or not. 24 L II, 35 L I, 50 non L. And the 50/1.2 L is a sub-par piece of cr*p as well by todays standards. A Sigma 50/1.4 runs circles around it.

As far as 35mm fixed focals are concerned, currently the only 35/1.4 in the entire market which is fully usable at f/1.4 is the Sigma 35/1.4. At a street price wich is lower than the totally useless Canon 24 /2.8 IS and 28/2.8 IS and it beats the Zeiss Distagon 35.

And btw, I come from an entirely different usage situation:
* when I shoot handheld in low light, I ALWAYS shoot moving targets ... that is ... PEOPLE in motion ... 1/60s needed, nothing less. IS useless.
* when I shoot static targets in low light, I ALWAYS use a tripod. IS useless.

 

[willis]

Looking for 14-24 F2.8L 8)

 

[Viggo]

an f/1.4 wide-angle lens is NOT about speed. It is about the chance to get at least some halfway decent bokeh at wide-angle focal lengths. An f/1.4 lens therefore can never be substituted by a slower lens with IS.

The real issue however is not IS or not IS, it is the fact, that all of Canon's current 1.4 lenses deliver SUB-PAR IQ wide open. NB matter whether they have a red ring or not. 24 L II, 35 L I, 50 non L. And the 50/1.2 L is a sub-par piece of cr*p as well by todays standards. A Sigma 50/1.4 runs circles around it.

As far as 35mm fixed focals are concerned, currently the only 35/1.4 in the entire market which is fully usable at f/1.4 is the Sigma 35/1.4. At a street price wich is lower than the totally useless Canon 24 /2.8 IS and 28/2.8 IS and it beats the Zeiss Distagon 35.

And btw, I come from an entirely different usage situation:
* when I shoot handheld in low light, I ALWAYS shoot moving targets ... that is ... PEOPLE in motion ... 1/60s needed, nothing less. IS useless.
* when I shoot static targets in low light, I ALWAYS use a tripod. IS useless.

Wow.. does it hurt to be so wrong?

And besides, not all moving people are like the elderly and very cold, you apparently shoot.

 

[Marek Truchlik]

an f/1.4 wide-angle lens is NOT about speed. It is about the chance to get at least some halfway decent bokeh at wide-angle focal lengths. An f/1.4 lens therefore can never be substituted by a slower lens with IS.

The real issue however is not IS or not IS, it is the fact, that all of Canon's current 1.4 lenses deliver SUB-PAR IQ wide open. NB matter whether they have a red ring or not. 24 L II, 35 L I, 50 non L. And the 50/1.2 L is a sub-par piece of cr*p as well by todays standards. A Sigma 50/1.4 runs circles around it.

As far as 35mm fixed focals are concerned, currently the only 35/1.4 in the entire market which is fully usable at f/1.4 is the Sigma 35/1.4. At a street price wich is lower than the totally useless Canon 24 /2.8 IS and 28/2.8 IS and it beats the Zeiss Distagon 35.

And btw, I come from an entirely different usage situation:
* when I shoot handheld in low light, I ALWAYS shoot moving targets ... that is ... PEOPLE in motion ... 1/60s needed, nothing less. IS useless.
* when I shoot static targets in low light, I ALWAYS use a tripod. IS useless.

I do agree totally on performance of 1.4 or 1.2 lenses from Canon, definitely could be better.
It will be difficult to beat current Sigmas.

 

[Loswr]

the 50L is CRAP.. .. the 85L is the only sub 100mm L that kicks some serious ass..

Interesting. So, you owned the 50L and, what...chucked it in the bin? Better bokeh than any Sigma lens and most Canon lenses, but sure...crap. Maybe intended use, portraits, for example, should be considered? Naah, you're right it's crap.

You're right about no other sub-100mm L lenses except the 85L being any good, either. My TS-E 24L II must be crap, too.

 

[Dylan777]

Wow.. does it hurt to be so wrong?

And besides, not all moving people are like the elderly and very cold, you apparently shoot.

a better question would be.. does it hurt you.. to be so ignorant? the 50L is CRAP.. the 24L and 35L are kinda ok (you heard me! if they were in the sigma 35/1.4 price range.. they would almost kick ass.. but for double that? forget it!).. the 85L is the only sub 100mm L that kicks some serious ass..

Just another no budget talker. I wonder, what kina lenses do you have?

I'm sure you think 1D X is crappy camera too

 

[nightbreath]

the 50L is CRAP.. .. the 85L is the only sub 100mm L that kicks some serious ass..

Interesting. So, you owned the 50L and, what...chucked it in the bin? Better bokeh than any Sigma lens and most Canon lenses, but sure...crap. Maybe intended use, portraits, for example, should be considered? Naah, you're right it's crap.

You're right about no other sub-100mm L lenses except the 85L being any good, either. My TS-E 24L II must be crap, too.

+1. 50L is a great tool for an artist, not the best one for making test chart shots. It's all about who you want to be

 

[roimund]

Just another no budget talker. I wonder, what kina lenses do you have?

I'm sure you think 1D X is crappy camera too

28/1.8 and a 50/1.4 - mostly carry it with me on the streets in the bag whilst walking about during my commute in the city where i study.. so yeah.. i don´s have the money for a noctilux..

the 1D X is an excellent camera for sport shooters.. why on earth would i say it were crappy?

 

[Daniel Flather]

ef 14/2.8LII here we come, cuz teh 12-24 will be $3000+. I just need the validation.

 

[Daniel Flather]

the 50L is CRAP.. .. the 85L is the only sub 100mm L that kicks some serious ass..

Interesting. So, you owned the 50L and, what...chucked it in the bin? Better bokeh than any Sigma lens and most Canon lenses, but sure...crap. Maybe intended use, portraits, for example, should be considered? Naah, you're right it's crap.

You're right about no other sub-100mm L lenses except the 85L being any good, either. My TS-E 24L II must be crap, too.

The 24/1.4L II is teh blowz0r too, and the 85/1.8, 35/1.4 et al.

 

[RS2021]

ef 14/2.8LII here we come, cuz teh 12-24 will be $3000+. I just need the validation.

I was thinking more like $2400 to 2500? Optimistic ?

 

[Loswr]

I wonder, what kina lenses do you have?

28/1.8 and a 50/1.4

In that case, on what are your scathing comments on the 50L based? Rented it a few times, perhaps? Or have you just read lots of reviews? Personally, I've never used the 28/1.8, but reviews call it soft and 'disappointing' (and the 'kinda ok' 24L II and 35L are certainly sharper). How does that match up with your real-world experience with the 28/1.8?

 

[Viggo]

Wow.. does it hurt to be so wrong?

And besides, not all moving people are like the elderly and very cold, you apparently shoot.

a better question would be.. does it hurt you.. to be so ignorant? the 50L is CRAP.. the 24L and 35L are kinda ok (you heard me! if they were in the sigma 35/1.4 price range.. they would almost kick ass.. but for double that? forget it!).. the 85L is the only sub 100mm L that kicks some serious ass..

The TS 17 was so soft I had to sell it, the af didn't work on three copies !! Useless...

 

[RS2021]

The TS 17 was so soft I had to sell it, the af didn't work on three copies !! Useless...

Er... Sorry..TS E 17 is a manual lens ...trying to auto focus it is like trying to milk a bull?

 

[Loswr]

The TS 17 was so soft I had to sell it, the af didn't work on three copies !! Useless...

Damn, the AF on my TS-E 24L II doesn't work, either. Canon's QC sucks!!! :

 

[Viggo]

The TS 17 was so soft I had to sell it, the af didn't work on three copies !! Useless...

Er... Sorry..TS E 17 is a manual lens ...trying to auto focus it is like trying to milk a bull?

Did you actually think I owned the TS17 on a 1d X not knowing it's MF? Irony in writing is sometimes lost, apparently...

 

[roimund]

In that case, on what are your scathing comments on the 50L based? Rented it a few times, perhaps? Or have you just read lots of reviews? Personally, I've never used the 28/1.8, but reviews call it soft and 'disappointing' (and the 'kinda ok' 24L II and 35L are certainly sharper). How does that match up with your real-world experience with the 28/1.8?

it´s the Nikon F-mount one.. not the Canon EF.. i used to have the 7D and was here a looot.. still have the habit of coming here.. and yeah.. the 28mm is also "kinda ok", never praised the lord out of it.. but the 50L is really rather bad.. when you take the 1400€ price.. for ~800€.. it would be a whole lot better.. and i hope you are mature enough not to mock me having a "sony".. i am loyal to the price/performance ratio..

and for all the other children that like to be smart about stuff.. the sub-100mm L lenses that i mentioned.. were fast-primes (i didn´t write it because i thought it was self-explanatory, seem to have been mistaken).. the TS-E when not T-ed are over-designed.. how the heck would it look like if whey were soft? grow up, please - thank you.


edit: oh right, my background with the 50L was rather brief, when they had a "try it out" at a sport event - on the screen it looked rather nice.. but on the PC.. it was "kinda ok" for a 800€ lens.. and "CRAP" for a 1400€ lens..

 

[Daniel Flather]

ef 14/2.8LII here we come, cuz teh 12-24 will be $3000+. I just need the validation.

I was thinking more like $2400 to 2500? Optimistic ?

Maybe, but the 14LII is still much less at $1999 CAD right now.
http://www.cameracanada.com/enet-cart/product.asp?pid=2045B002