Remember those new primes with IS on them supposedly coming out? (see http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/02/pricing-of-the-new-lenses/) Any word on how they are coming along, or more reviews/thoughts on them?
Any word on the Canon prime's with IS?
- Thread starter Drizzt321
- Start date
- Status
wickidwombat said:
I may be tempted to get on of them for video...not sure yet. WOuld have to try it and see some reviews, but I do a lot of family video with my 24mm. I like primes but if it was IS on top of it, I would look into it. Though I have other lenses on my hit list first, like the new 24-70 II.
Upvote
0
JR said:
this is my point, its a LOT of money for a slow prime with IS which goes a large way to paying for a good chunk of the upcoming 24-70 which from the charts looks to be a screamer. I guess it depends on how important the IS is. Even if they had made these primes f2 they would have had a whole lot more appeal but 2.8? hardley gets the blood pumping
Upvote
0
P
pharp
Guest
Has to be aimed at the video crowd - can't imagine these being of any interest to still shooters, especially at that price point.
Looks like Nikon is going down the same road - slow wide angle prime with image stabilization;
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/01/15/nikon-files-patent-for-a-35mm-f2-8-vr-full-frame-lens.aspx/
Looks like Nikon is going down the same road - slow wide angle prime with image stabilization;
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/01/15/nikon-files-patent-for-a-35mm-f2-8-vr-full-frame-lens.aspx/
Upvote
0
pharp said:
Thanks for that info. I had not realized Nikon was going there too. Feels like now that the camera company realize a segment of the buyers do like DSLR for video, they are trying to milk the cow every way they can!
(even sometime at the perceived expense of traditional still shooters!)
Upvote
0
I'm interested in them, just wish the 24mm was a 20mm.
Canon doesn't have a lot of good, small primes. I want one for a small walkabout lens. Or a camera I can people shoot at family events without shoving a huge zoom in their face. I also have a Fuji X100 for that, but it's slow and annoying. I miss a lot of shots.
I had the 50 1.4, until the focus mechanism crapped out. And I want wide angle. Fast would be good, but 2.8 is sufficient. IS is a nice bonus. Sure it's a little bit expensive, but Canon is jacking up the prices of everything, and if it lets me get shots I wouldn't otherwise who caress?
I'm not sure I'll get one - probably, still thinking about it.
Canon doesn't have a lot of good, small primes. I want one for a small walkabout lens. Or a camera I can people shoot at family events without shoving a huge zoom in their face. I also have a Fuji X100 for that, but it's slow and annoying. I miss a lot of shots.
I had the 50 1.4, until the focus mechanism crapped out. And I want wide angle. Fast would be good, but 2.8 is sufficient. IS is a nice bonus. Sure it's a little bit expensive, but Canon is jacking up the prices of everything, and if it lets me get shots I wouldn't otherwise who caress?
I'm not sure I'll get one - probably, still thinking about it.
Upvote
0
Those lenses will have to have out-of-this-world image quality if they're going to sell more than a small handful of them. And if the not-quite-yet-on-the-street Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 with image stabilization is at all decent, basically nobody will buy Canon's new primes.
Cheers,
b&
Cheers,
b&
Upvote
0
I think they will be superb optically. This generation of lenses, esp. primes, are typically very good from any manufacturer. What surprises me is Tokina's lack of prime lenses.
Like all new products, these new IS primes do seem a little overpriced. But they will fit the niche in the video market, and do it well. F/2.8 is plenty for DOF effects...have you ever heard anyone with a 70-200 2.8 complain of lacking DOF?
Like all new products, these new IS primes do seem a little overpriced. But they will fit the niche in the video market, and do it well. F/2.8 is plenty for DOF effects...have you ever heard anyone with a 70-200 2.8 complain of lacking DOF?
Upvote
0
While I agree that f/2.8 is plenty for DOF, the 70-200 has a huge advantage over either of these primes, since the focal length also effects DOF. I've found I can isolate a subject more at 200mm f/4 than I can at, say, 50mm f/2.8.birdman said:
But, at 24mm and 28mm, its more about getting the low-light shot than worrying about DOF; especially on a full-frame setup.
Upvote
0
Although I haven't had a real go with my 200 f/2 yet (hopefully that will be tomorrow)I hate to be that annoying guy, but technically focal length does not affect depth of field. However, due to compression distortion, the out of focus background is essentially enlarged, which magnifies the blur and makes DoF appear narrower.preppyak said:
Still, the effect is what matters.
Upvote
0
My guess is that these lenses will also look to target the landscape market, going from the MTF's they do seem to offer much better boarder to boarder sharpness than there predecessors or indeed the 24-105/24-70 mk1.
Upvote
0
I'm not too interested in the 24 or 28mm lenses but if they come out with a 35mm f/2 IS, I would jump all over it even at the $8-900 price it seems like it would have. It would be a no-brainer instant pre-order for me.wickidwombat said:
Presumably it would slot between the current f/2 and f/1.4L in size, f/2 is plenty fast enough for 35mm and with IS, it would make a killer indoor architecture lens. It would be the absolute perfect lens for me and my shooting habits.
Upvote
0
moreorless said:
How would landscape photographers benefit from IS? I would think this is the market which would be most likely to use a tripod, and least likely to use IS.
Upvote
0
- Status
