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

[RGomezPhotos]

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

Really is a ho-hum announcement... But upgrading the low-end stuff is good too. I was hoping for a bad-ass 50mm though :-(

 

[ddashti]

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

Thought that was the 135 f/2 IS for a sec...

 

[atvinyard]

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

Why are people dissing on the 35 f/2 IS USM? This is the lens I have wished for the most. An updated 35 f/2. I really like my 35 f/2 and it is my most used lens on APS-C. The focal length is great and the image quality is stellar for the price. It's only real downsides were the noise and the poor full frame corner performance. I use mine on my 5d by the way, and i don't hate it, but it could definately use some improvement. Hopefully these are the things that are fixed.

As far as it being only a stop faster than the 17-55, f2.8 doesn't cut it for low light, no flash on APS-C when people are involved. That extra stop makes a world of difference.

It will probably rival the L in everything but the extra stop. The L will probably retain only slightly higher center sharpness.

It was kind of ridiculous for canon not to have a good modern consumer prime in the 35mm focal length. I'm glad they finally got around to upgrading. Hope the prices aren't too ridiculous. Hopefully that new sigma will give it a run and bring the prices down. I was really excited about it until this announcement.

I'll wait for the data though, and then probably until canon knocks $150 off the price like they did on the 24 and 28, before I buy it.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that the consumer 35 is a hell of a lot more discreet than the L.

 

[AvTvM]

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

both lenses are completely off the mark.

35/2.0 is in need of a succssor, but like the current one it should really have been a low-cost, decent IQ lens, rather than unnecessary IS at the price of an L lens. A modern 50/1.4 Mk. II with IQ at least equivalent to the Nikon AF-S 50/1.4 at the same price would have been far more urgent.

24-70 is a total mess. Ridiculous that the 2.8 did not come with IS on top of the excellent IQ.
Instead of the 14-70/4 Canon should have improved the 24-105 and extended it to 24-120/4.0 IS - with better IQ than Nikon but at the same price.

 

[Loswr]

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

Canon states:

In macro photography, shift camera shake and angle camera shake affect both the image formed on the sensor and the image shown in the viewfinder. This is especially relevant to handheld shooting at 1x, since the inability to properly compose and focus due to a shaky image in the viewfinder makes it extremely difficult to record sharp images.
Conventional image stabilizers of the type found in Canon IS lenses incorporate a vibration gyro (angular velocity sensor) to compensate for angle camera shake. Based on the amount of camera shake detected by the sensor, the IS system calculates the amount of shake on the image plane. Lens elements in the IS are then positioned to compensate for the camera shake. However, this type of image stabilizer can neither detect nor correct shift camera shake common to handheld macro photography.

The Hybrid IS includes an acceleration sensor in addition to the conventional vibration gyro (angular velocity sensor). Based on the amount of camera shake detected by the two sensors, a newly developed algorithm calculates the amount of shake on the image plane. Lens elements in the IS are then positioned to compensate for the two types of camera shake — a first in an interchangeable lens for SLR cameras and an excellent way to solve the problem of camera shake in macro photography.

 

[Colski]

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.

OK, yes fair point - I was only thinking in terms of same light per unit sensor area. Still, for the kind of walk around photography I tend to do I don't think a slightly longer depth of field is necessarily always a bad thing for a standard lens.

Given the specs and if smaller and lighter than the 17-55 f/2.8 I think it would make for an excellent walk around lens on apc-c cameras. Sadly, like the 24mm IS and 28mm IS, I expect that it'll be on the pricey side for lowly amateurs like myself who haven't yet taken the full-frame plunge.

 

[etg9]

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

Thanks Canon, this is a real Christmas present for me as I have a lot of other stuff to buy and this won't be taking away from that. These could not be any less useful to me. I have seen no outcry on this or any other forum to replace/augment the 24-105. The 35 f2 is rarely spoken about but I understand that isn't a great lens from the few comments there are.

Things I would have liked to have seen before this: 100-400, 14-24, EF-S 10-22, either of the 200's (2 / 2.8), Both 50 1.4/1.8, 400 5.6, I'm also hoping for a 200-500

I'm in the minority here but I believe that the canon standard zooms are lacking compared to some of the other lenses. The 17-40 and 24-70 I have the same build quality to me, the 16-35II and 70-200II feel loads better than the 24-105, 24-70, or 24-70II (although I've only spent a little time with it).

Canon seems to be focused on the video crowd and for that I'm keeping my wallet closed.

 

[AvTvM]

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

Canon seems to be focused on the video crowd and for that I'm keeping my wallet closed.

+1

 

[sagittariansrock]

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

either of the 200's (2 / 2.8)

Love it when auto-smileys make you smile

 

[etg9]

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

either of the 200's (2 / 2.8)

Love it when auto-smileys make you smile

It totally got me. Good for one lol.

 

[plutonium10]

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

In all fairness, I'm pretty sure the guys at Canon don't sit down and say "Hey, let's NOT make a 14-24 or 100-400, let's just make a 24-70 f4 instead." The 24-70 f4 and 35 f2 are nearly ready for release, so Canon is announcing them. When other lenses are ready, they too will be announced. Certain lenses are bound to take longer to perfect than others.

 

[Ew]

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

Pricing at $850 for the 24-70 f4 is wishful thinking....

This thing might be closer to $1700.

Have you guys not seen recent Lens pricing? They want to make more money and the 24-105 is perhaps their best selling EF lens... if they can migrate the users to a 2x priced 24-70 F4L then they will do it. The new lens should have better resolution and contrast compared to the 24-105 which would remain as the budget general purpose till it disappears or becomes the replacement for the 28-135mm

"Eventually" the price of the 24-70 F4L may drop a bit, but not for a while... They will Milk it!

The pricing on the original source page shows:
24-70/4 : 145,000 yen (~1800$)
35/2 IS: 74,000 (f~900$)

ouch! - esp on the 24-70! No low budget if this holds true. 35/2 IS seems in line with recent 24 & 28 pricing.

 

[Etienne]

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

I guess I'm in the minority, but I could go out all day with my 5DII and a sharp little 35 f/2 IS.

PS ... I was thinking of the 28 2.8 IS, but I think I'll wait for the 35 f/2

 

[tron]

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

both lenses are completely off the mark.

35/2.0 is in need of a successor, but like the current one it should really have been a low-cost, decent IQ lens, rather than unnecessary IS at the price of an L lens. A modern 50/1.4 Mk. II with IQ at least equivalent to the Nikon AF-S 50/1.4 at the same price would have been far more urgent.

+1

24-70 is a total mess. Ridiculous that the 2.8 did not come with IS on top of the excellent IQ.
Instead of the 14-70/4 Canon should have improved the 24-105 and extended it to 24-120/4.0 IS - with better IQ than Nikon but at the same price.

+1
I agree on both. Canon is missing the obvious.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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..

Why is it wasted? Because you do not use it?
I was very skeptical of the hybrid IS on the 100L, but when I found I could handhold very close images with the lens, it is certainly a worthwhile feature.
1/40th second exposure @ f/8

 

[spinworkxroy]

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

The pricing on the original source page shows:
24-70/4 : 145,000 yen (~1800$)
35/2 IS: 74,000 (f~900$)

ouch! - esp on the 24-70! No low budget if this holds true. 35/2 IS seems in line with recent 24 & 28 pricing.

Wow. at that price, the 6D kit is going to be way overpriced. Since this was meant to be a kit fo rhte 6D and the 6D is supposed to be a cheap FF camera, i highly doubt they'll be silly enough to sell it at that price...it just doesn't make sense..

However, if it IS priced like that, then the 24-105 will be even more affordabel for people wanting their first L lens...already as it is, the 24-105 price is dropping and this new lens will only drive it lower, which is good news for most.
I believe if people can afford 1.7k on the 24-70f4, they would pay a little more for the 2.8 version...this is just priced way to high IMO

 

[DB]

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

both lenses are completely off the mark.

35/2.0 is in need of a successor, but like the current one it should really have been a low-cost, decent IQ lens, rather than unnecessary IS at the price of an L lens. A modern 50/1.4 Mk. II with IQ at least equivalent to the Nikon AF-S 50/1.4 at the same price would have been far more urgent.

+1

24-70 is a total mess. Ridiculous that the 2.8 did not come with IS on top of the excellent IQ.
Instead of the 14-70/4 Canon should have improved the 24-105 and extended it to 24-120/4.0 IS - with better IQ than Nikon but at the same price.

+1
I agree on both. Canon is missing the obvious.

I beg to differ, Canon is following the money -> HD video DSLR + Lens sales. Just wait and see, the 6D will easily outsell the 1DX + 5D3 combined (obviously cheaper camera aimed at the masses), but Canon have done their homework on this, travel photographers like to shoot full-HD video to show to the folks back home, as well as taking stills. Moms + Dads love to shoot HD video of their kids playing sports etc. as well as taking photos, which explains why Canon have included similar AF-tracking in the 6D as the new 5D3. How many CR contributors justify expensive kit on the grounds that they can shoot their kids as well? (Just look at how many 50 1.2L shots are of Photogs progeny)

Canon has pandered too long to the specialist stills photographers, how about the hundreds of thousands of Amateur & Indie videographers who purchased the 5D mk II and made it the success story that it is, plus the millions of buyers who continue to flock to Rebel T2i/T3i/T4i and so on, so they can shoot 1080p @ 24 frames per second and post their cinematic style offerings on YouTube or Vimeo.

Canon is finally moving in the right direction - Video. Let Nikon slash prices and lose profits on high-MP DSLR bodies that have always lagged Canon in the video stakes (remember the Nikon D300s with 720p video vs Canon 7D with 1080p, then the Nikon D7000 had 1080p movie recording but no dedicated Movie button like the 7D). Canon is not just following video/still photography trends, they're shaping them.

Videographers need IS not ISO 25,600

 

[birtembuk]

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..

Why is it wasted? Because you do not use it?
I was very skeptical of the hybrid IS on the 100L, but when I found I could handhold very close images with the lens, it is certainly a worthwhile feature.
1/40th second exposure @ f/8

Perfect answer. Your great picture is worth thousand words. I for one also think that the hybrid IS on the 100L is a fantastic feature and enables incredible handheld shots. Even with 50 mm tubes, I can clearly tell when the IS kicks in on half shutter press and can correct some from breathing swaying movements. Without it, I sure would have missed lots of shots.

Can't wait to see the MFT's of this 24-70/4. Looks to me like the perfect buddy of the 24/II with those 77mm filters. Cheaper combo than 24-70/II with all those new 82mm filters.

 

[tron]

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

both lenses are completely off the mark.

35/2.0 is in need of a successor, but like the current one it should really have been a low-cost, decent IQ lens, rather than unnecessary IS at the price of an L lens. A modern 50/1.4 Mk. II with IQ at least equivalent to the Nikon AF-S 50/1.4 at the same price would have been far more urgent.

+1

24-70 is a total mess. Ridiculous that the 2.8 did not come with IS on top of the excellent IQ.
Instead of the 14-70/4 Canon should have improved the 24-105 and extended it to 24-120/4.0 IS - with better IQ than Nikon but at the same price.

+1
I agree on both. Canon is missing the obvious.

I beg to differ, Canon is following the money -> HD video DSLR + Lens sales. Just wait and see, the 6D will easily outsell the 1DX + 5D3 combined (obviously cheaper camera aimed at the masses), but Canon have done their homework on this, travel photographers like to shoot full-HD video to show to the folks back home, as well as taking stills. Moms + Dads love to shoot HD video of their kids playing sports etc. as well as taking photos, which explains why Canon have included similar AF-tracking in the 6D as the new 5D3. How many CR contributors justify expensive kit on the grounds that they can shoot their kids as well? (Just look at how many 50 1.2L shots are of Photogs progeny)

Canon has pandered too long to the specialist stills photographers, how about the hundreds of thousands of Amateur & Indie videographers who purchased the 5D mk II and made it the success story that it is, plus the millions of buyers who continue to flock to Rebel T2i/T3i/T4i and so on, so they can shoot 1080p @ 24 frames per second and post their cinematic style offerings on YouTube or Vimeo.

Canon is finally moving in the right direction - Video. Let Nikon slash prices and lose profits on high-MP DSLR bodies that have always lagged Canon in the video stakes (remember the Nikon D300s with 720p video vs Canon 7D with 1080p, then the Nikon D7000 had 1080p movie recording but no dedicated Movie button like the 7D). Canon is not just following video/still photography trends, they're shaping them.

Videographers need IS not ISO 25,600

You know 24-105 has IS too. Even if it is a 3-stop IS the extra focal length is much more important. Unless the parents you mentioned are not interesting in focal lengths greater than 70.

 

[ahsanford]

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

The pricing on the original source page shows:
24-70/4 : 145,000 yen (~1800$)
35/2 IS: 74,000 (f~900$)

ouch! - esp on the 24-70! No low budget if this holds true. 35/2 IS seems in line with recent 24 & 28 pricing.

Wow. at that price, the 6D kit is going to be way overpriced. Since this was meant to be a kit fo rhte 6D and the 6D is supposed to be a cheap FF camera, i highly doubt they'll be silly enough to sell it at that price...it just doesn't make sense..

However, if it IS priced like that, then the 24-105 will be even more affordabel for people wanting their first L lens...already as it is, the 24-105 price is dropping and this new lens will only drive it lower, which is good news for most.
I believe if people can afford 1.7k on the 24-70f4, they would pay a little more for the 2.8 version...this is just priced way to high IMO

I hear you. Owners of the 24-105 F/4L IS lenses should treat those lenses especially well -- there is so much overlap with this new lens that I think the 24-105 has to be obsoleted for this new one to command a high price.