Any word on the Canon prime's with IS?

[IWLP]

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.

Landscape photogs may not benefit, but the video guys will probably like this, as will people who like to be "available light" portrait/street/event/etc. photos. I don't think Canon is interested in making a lens for a single contingent of photographers, so its no surprise the lens has different design choices to cater to different users.

 

[D.Sim]

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.

Uh. No. Landscape shooters will NOT want IS. Its useful if wee something and want to snap in a pinch, but on a planned landscape shoot, tripods and filters are things that come along

 

[TrumpetPower!]

The 400 f/2.8 must be the king of blurred backgrounds Although I haven't had a real go with my 200 f/2 yet (hopefully that will be tomorrow)

Actually, it's the physical aperture size (as opposed to the aperture ratio) that's most directly relevant to the shallowness of the depth of field. For example, a 50mm f/1.0 has an aperture of 50 / 1 = 50mm and thus can blur a background slightly more than an 85mm f/1.8: 85 / 1.8 = 47.2. The lowly 100 f/2, though, creates just as much background blur as the mystical 50 f/1...though, granted, with only half the angular field of view and in four times as much light.

The 400 f/2.8, as awesome as it is, just barely comes in second behind the 600 f/4: 143mm aperture for the former and a 150mm aperture for the latter.

Cheers,

b&

 

[Jettatore]

Can anyone explain why they are releasing these two lenses side by side with such a close focal length between them, instead of a more dramatic one, at least for the first release. I would think there is some reason, but I can not figure it out.

 

[Tcapp]

Can anyone explain why they are releasing these two lenses side by side with such a close focal length between them, instead of a more dramatic one, at least for the first release. I would think there is some reason, but I can not figure it out.

+1. The difference between 24 and 28 is moving the camera forward or back about 3 inches. (not an actual measurement, people on here are way too technical)