EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

[Deleted member 7828]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

Also, regarding the 35mm non-L refresh, a number of points come to mind:

• If this is similar to the 24 and 28 IS lenses, the touted price of $800 is absolutely worth it, and I'm strictly a still shooter. This will be an L lens without a red ring. The 28 I own is sharper than an equivalently stopped down 35L (i.e. it is not just useable, it is great wide open, and stellar at F/4). The USM focusing is very fast, it's internally focusing, is very well built (on par with the 100L macro), and it's very small and unassuming. Plus, F/2.8 (with the 24 & 28) or F/2 (with the new 35) with four stops IS are some of (if not the) most handholdable lenses you'll find.
  
• This is good news for what I am really looking for, which is a newer, sharper, better 50 prime. We're due, and though I'm bummed it's not happening now, this announcement marks the refresh of a third non-L prime. This bodes well for future upgraded versions of the 50 prime and 85 prime -- both stellar values vs. their L counterparts, but both are also quite old. Here's hoping.
  • Which begs the question, if I am looking for something better than my current Canon EF 50mm F/1.4 prime, do I look at the 1.2L or wait for this new non-L? As mentioned before, prior non-L refreshes were sharper than their L counterparts, and they pack a houseload of modern features (ring USM, IS, etc.) over their pro counterparts. Given all that, it begs the question why the non-Ls are getting the refresh/sharpness/feature updates before the Ls?
    
    
• The 24/28 IS lenses take 58mm filters, but the rumored new 35 will jump from the current 52 filters to 67 filters. That would likely mean a new 50 (with similar upgrades) might also go to 67mm. As odd as that diameter is, since I already own the 100L macro, I'm all set. 8)
  
• The only bummer I see with all these great non-Ls coming out is that I lose the weather sealing I have been accustomed to on my other L lenses.
  

- A

I have the 35L and it actually lacks weather sealing. So the only advantage it would have now over the new 35 is the extra stop of 1.4. I would be curious to see an IQ comparison...

then again, sharpness is not the whole equation. How well it controls fringing, the color reproduction, distortion, etc. are factors as well. I get the feeling the 35L will still be better in these areas.

 

[ahsanford]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS


@Act444: Roger at LR posted the new non-L primes vs. the 24L II here:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/06/the-other-canon-primes-why-did-they-do-that

As you can see, at similar apertures, the 28 punched its weight brilliantly, the 24 non-L almost as well.

I believe (from other sites) the 24L II has proven a sharper lens the 35L, hence (transitively) my statement of the new non-Ls outperforming the 35L.

Yet...

Now that photozone has posted resolution figures for both the 35L and 28 non-L IS, this may be more of a dead heat (pan down to resolution charts):

New 28 IS: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/774-canon28f28isff?start=1
35L: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/516-canon35f14ff?start=1

...so I may be eating my words a bit. At F/2.8, its a virtual dead-heat, but at F/5.6 - 11, the L is slightly sharper in the off-center areas.


Different tester, different results it seems. You decide.

Full disclosure, I am an engineer, so I'll gladly drown myself in data rather than make a decision and start swimming.

- A

 

[tron]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

I believe you but it's unrealistic to expect that this lens will sell at that ridiculous price. This is expensive even for a f/2.8 version...

lets hope so..

the YEN price translates into ~ $1800... and from the past experience the price here in euro is the same as in dollar for the USA. :

canons pricing has gone to ridiculous levels. so i would not rule 1700 euro for this lens out.

maybe canon is going the leica way.
i really don´t know what they are thinking.

but i do know that the new prices are driving new customers away from DSLR´s.

Indeed! Though, if Canon wants to go Leica way, perhaps they should consider offering Leica quality?.. :

Well said...

 

[sagittariansrock]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

There was a recent post where most agreed the biggest hurdle for going full frame was cost:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10265.0
I think Canon has done well to supplement an entry level FF camera with two inexpensive but good lenses (having to get the 24-70II and 35 1.4 sort of negates the effect of a sub-$2000 camera, and I am sure the new 24-70 will more than make up for the lost range, or else Canon wouldn't just mess with us out of spite).
Personally, I had hoped for a cheaper, non-IS 35mm, possibly specific to APS-Cs (a la Nikon)- I don't have anything against FF users but greater FoV means higher manufacturing cost:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9611.0
But if it costs so much (justifiably, of course, because of the IS and FF format), I might rather spend a few hundred more and go with the 1.4L. Let's see...

 

[tron]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

But if it costs so much (justifiably, of course, because of the IS and FF format), I might rather spend a few hundred more and go with the 1.4L. Let's see...

+1 Exactly! Actually this is what I have done already. A 35mm 1.4L II would cost a fortune and it would raise the price of the used 35mm 1.4L (judging from 4-70 2.8 version I)

 

[sagittariansrock]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

But if it costs so much (justifiably, of course, because of the IS and FF format), I might rather spend a few hundred more and go with the 1.4L. Let's see...

+1 Exactly! Actually this is what I have done already. A 35mm 1.4L II would cost a fortune and it would raise the price of the used 35mm 1.4L (judging from 4-70 2.8 version I)

Guess I need to act fast...

 

[Marsu42]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

Pricing will also be higher than the previously unconfirmed suggestions.

Now here's a surprise - not :-(

... though I have to admit the near-macro capability is very interesting since you now only need two travel lenses, the new 24-70/4 and a 70- tele like the 70-300L. And The hybrid IS will shine on the standard zoom since it's wasted on real macro lenses like the 100L - the IS is nearly useless at very close distances.

Pity they didn't announce a new 35L since they'll hardly release *two* new 35mm lenses in short succession.

 

[Loswr]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

And The hybrid IS will shine on the standard zoom since it's wasted on real macro lenses like the 100L - the IS is nearly useless at very close distances.

By that logic, though, the Hybrid IS is equally useless on the 24-70/4L IS. The translational motion compensation, which is the 'hybrid' part of H-IS, is only effective with very close subjects; regular IS compensates for angular motion, which dominates for subjects beyond a couple of feet from the camera. That's why H-IS isn't used on other lenses. To get to the near-macro 0.7x mag with the 24-70/4 IS you're at the MFD of 20 cm, and the MFD of the 100L macro is 30 cm - further out than the new lens.

 

[ahsanford]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

And The hybrid IS will shine on the standard zoom since it's wasted on real macro lenses like the 100L - the IS is nearly useless at very close distances.

By that logic, though, the Hybrid IS is equally useless on the 24-70/4L IS. The translational motion compensation, which is the 'hybrid' part of H-IS, is only effective with very close subjects; regular IS compensates for angular motion, which dominates for subjects beyond a couple of feet from the camera. That's why H-IS isn't used on other lenses. To get to the near-macro 0.7x mag with the 24-70/4 IS you're at the MFD of 20 cm, and the MFD of the 100L macro is 30 cm - further out than the new lens.

I wonder, is there any chance that this Hybrid IS is simply the non-mode-selectable type of IS I have on the new 28 IS? I seem to recall (sorry, no reference) reading something to the effect of the new 24 and 28 IS having a new mode of IS that simply auto-switched between a panning IS and a standard (all-purpose) IS based on the lens' movement. Any chance that is what Canon means with the new lenses' IS?

And for those not fond of the Hybrid IS with the 100L macro, though I agree that at macro focus distances the IS is less effective, two things I'd share from my use of that lens:

1) In my hands, it seems to work just fine in keeping slower shutters stable as traditional IS would, and

2) The 100L is not remotely a dedicated macro lens -- it's a fully functional 100mm prime. The 180L macro is such a slow focuser that it's effectively a specialist lens (though I'm sure our forum's creative users have found neat ways to use it for more than as a macro). But to relegate the 100L to strictly macro work is a big miss, IMHO. One quick switch on focus range and it becomes a solid 100mm prime for portraiture, concerts, etc. Remember that not everyone owns the pro portrait staple lengths of 85 and 135, so the 100 is a great option for some.

- A

 

[t.linn]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

Meh. I can't speak from experience behind the counter. I can only say that, for me, a 24-70 is not sufficient as a walk around lens. No matter how light a 24-70 f/4L is, it still means bringing two lenses and changing them. That means a heavier kit, not a lighter one.

Speaking of changing lenses, I hate it—particularly in adverse conditions. For me, overlap is helpful rather than redundant.

Really, the IQ of this lens would have to be off the charts for me to even consider it—and there is definitely room for improvement vs. the 24-105 in this respect. I'm thinking particularly of vignetting at 24mm when using even a slim filter. This drives me crazy. But if I were to go backwards in terms of focal range, I would probably go to a f/2.8L II. At least I'm getting something in return for the loss of focal length and the increased cost.

 

[enraginangel]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

I decided to buy the 24-105mm used today because of this announcement. I think the extra reach is worth it and I think we are all waiting for the 24-70mm f2.8L IS anyway. When that comes out, my 24-105mm f4L won't feel completely redundant.

 

[aznable]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

it is dubbed hybrid is just because the lens is almost a macro (0.7 macro factor...wow)

 

[ahsanford]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

it is dubbed hybrid is just because the lens is almost a macro (0.7 macro factor...wow)

Agree agree agree. That's the only arrow in the quiver (along with better IQ, to be fair) that might justify this $1800 price from the translation.

I'm probably in the minority here that I'm more likely to bring my relatively small and light 100L macro over my 70-200 F/2.8L IS II on trips. So if this magnification is true, this could become an epic kill-two-birds-with-one-not-so-big-or-heavy-stone sort of lens for travel.

 

[kilobit]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

it is dubbed hybrid is just because the lens is almost a macro (0.7 macro factor...wow)

Agree agree agree. That's the only arrow in the quiver (along with better IQ, to be fair) that might justify this $1800 price from the translation.

I'm probably in the minority here that I'm more likely to bring my relatively small and light 100L macro over my 70-200 F/2.8L IS II on trips. So if this magnification is true, this could become an epic kill-two-birds-with-one-not-so-big-or-heavy-stone sort of lens for travel.

You are both wrong.
Hybrid IS means it compensates for two types of camera/lens movement.

Read here:
http://www.canon.com/news/2009/jul22e.html

It is for angle shake and shift shake.

It is ideal for recording handheld video.

 

[Colski]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

The rumored 35mm looks potentially amazing for aps-c cameras. I can't think of much better for hand holding in low light based on the description alone. Equivalent to a 56mm f/2.0 prime with 4 stops of image stabalization on a full frame camera.

It'll be interesting to see how it performs (if it exists) and how much it'll cost.

Based on the prices of the 24mm IS and 28mm IS the thing will probably cost at least as much as the top end EF-S mid-range zooms (if that means anything to all you full-frame types out there). Time will tell.

 

[Daniel Flather]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

It does look very small tho... small and lightweight? Discontinuation of the 24-105mm?

That thought did cross my mind also...

The 24-105L is the kit lens for the 5D3.

 

[Daniel Flather]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

On the other hand, Canon might replace the 35mm f/1.4 L with a 35mm f/1.2 L, and make even more people happy.

I always thought I'd never would replace my 35L, when, and if, a 35LII came out, but if it's a 1.2 that might sway me.

 

[Policar]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

Equivalent to a 56mm f/2.0 prime with 4 stops of image stabalization on a full frame camera.

Closer to a 56mm f3.2.

I agree that 35mm is a nice focal length for APS-C (and for FF, too). But if this lens is $800-$1200, as expected, will it be worth the one-stop advantage in speed (and likely slightly better IS) over the 17-55mm f2.8 IS, which is the king of the crop for APS-C?

What I'd really love to see is something like Nikon's amazing 35mm f1.8 or sigma's 30mm f1.4 (except better optically and cheaper, even if it means slower speed). The 50mm f1.8 is fine for APS-C, but it is a much harder focal length to use well because it is so subtle and elegant.

 

[Daniel Flather]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

Am I the only one who is actually excited about this lens? The macro bit is what sold me. Provided this new lens has nice IQ and reasonable price (which by all means it should), It can effectively provide a small and light replacement for my 100L macro and 15-85. Paired with a 10-22 or 17-40, it seems like an excellent and versatile lens for travel photography and macro work.

Yes, a Zoom Macro, with a 0.7 magnification. Thats why it has Hybrid IS.
Looking at their prices, I'd say they equate to
24-70 f/4L - $1300
35mm f/2 IS - $900
Thats about what I'd expect, +/- $100.

With a tube it might hit 1:1, or beyond?

 

[Denisas Pupka]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

Theres still no official price, but only speculation, so its too early to panic, but even if pricing tag 1300£< , theres one more good option Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 VC. Video took me in to the DSLR 3 years ago, not photo, but after some time photography took place in my hobby at same level.

Canon 24-70mm f4
+ macro capability (I was really considering 100mm f2.8 macro before)
+ 600g (tamron 825g)
+ weather proof and build quality (tamron only dust)
+ hybrid stabilization (good not only for macro option, but also video, thats for me 1st priority)
+ focus and zoom ring should be much better for manual use.

- f/4
- if! high price tag

~ and image quality still under the question