Patent: Canon EF 35 f/2 IS

[arn]

As for a 35mm f/2 IS, would be great if canon intends to replace the current 35 with it at the same cost and retire the old model, but I somehow doubt that is their intention...

Yeah, this is something that I would be very happy to own. A 35/2 with USM and IS. But I fear that Canon will overprice the lens horribly
The 35/2 is very nicely priced, small and sharp - something of a gem in price-performance ratio, but I won't pay rip-off prices for the updated version.

 

[Marsu42]

Well at least it's f/2, not f/2.8 like those last two primes.

... which might mean Canon dumped it because a longer prime with a larger aperture will have a too heavy price tag on it for non red-ring users?

I'd speculate that its cheaper to build a wider angle prime because it'll automatically catch more light, while longer lenses need more glass to funnel the light to the sensor - but please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[michi]

If the rumor is true, this lens is gonna be a SUPER HOT SELLER.

All depends on the price. If it costs $1000, no thanks.

As to those who say IS would add so much cost and weight. How do they manage to put IS into the kit lens and the 55-250? Those lenses weigh nothing and are dirt cheap. Just wondering...

 

[AJ]

Well at least it's f/2, not f/2.8 like those last two primes.

... which might mean Canon dumped it because a longer prime with a larger aperture will have a too heavy price tag on it for non red-ring users?

I'd speculate that its cheaper to build a wider angle prime because it'll automatically catch more light, while longer lenses need more glass to funnel the light to the sensor - but please correct me if I'm wrong.

What I was trying to get at, with that first statement, is that I'm glad the new lens is f/2. I think it's unfortunate the 28/2.8 IS is as slow as it is. If this lens was f/1.8 (replacement for the 28/1.8 USM) then it would have been an attractive normal lens for crop. A 35/2 IS will be attractive for both crop and FF.

As for it being cheaper to build wider angle primes: normal lenses are the cheapest to build. They have the simplest lens design (e.g. double Gauss). Wider angles need strong front elements to curve (refract) the light. As such they are more expensive. Telephoto lenses indeed "funnel" the light.

 

[Marsu42]

As for it being cheaper to build wider angle primes: normal lenses are the cheapest to build.

Thanks for explaining !

As to those who say IS would add so much cost and weight. How do they manage to put IS into the kit lens and the 55-250? Those lenses weigh nothing and are dirt cheap. Just wondering...

Rumor has it that there are different types of IS even in Canon lenses: The "old" so-called 3-stop IS, the newer 4-stop IS, and the hybrid IS e.g. used in the 100L macro lens. If anyone could elaborate, I'd be again thankful - I've never screwed open my lenses and compared/weighted the IS parts...

 

[Haydn1971]

Could this be another joint lens 35mm with the 40mm suggested recently ? Both 2.0 ?

Perhaps even a new cost reducing strategy for "cheaper" IS primes ? Sharing body and lens parts to keep manufacturing costs down and build a range of primes fit for the next 20 years

12mm & 18mm @ 3.5
24mm & 28mm @ 2.8
35mm & 40mm @ 2.0
50mm & 60mm @ 1.4
75mm & 85mm @ 2.0
100mm & 120mm @ 2.8

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I noticed a interview with Canon from the CP + in Japan.
http://www.megapixel.co.il/english/archive/28040

"Q: The new 24mm and 28mm seem to be really perplexing, they are not extremely fast, surly not cheap and have image stabilization which doesn't seem to be that necessary in such a short focal length. To top this you have the 17-55mm f/2.8 with IS which admittedly isn't a prime lens but can give you much more flexibility – so who is the real target audience here – videographers?

A: Videographers are indeed an ideal market for these lenses, but the main group who prompted the design of these lenses where in fact photojournalists. While a f/1.4 lens is desirable, they do tend to feature quite large optics. So for example in situations where photographers are trying to blend in and be less obtrusive, a lens with a smaller diameter is more suitable. We included IS to help these photographers to continue shooting in low light, even with smaller aperture that these lenses offer. It’s also worth noting the original versions of these lenses are nearly 25 years old. When designing their replacements we wanted to look forwards to ensure that these lenses enjoy a life span to match their predecessors."

 

[kdsand]

The 100 L micro seems a logical comparison to the new 24, 28 & now (potential) 35 2.0. Its not wide angle but every thing else fits.

What gets me is for a bit more $ the 100 is an L .
The longer I consider it the harder it is for me to see the value (other than video).
:-(

If they prove sharp enouph wide open drop the price by around $150. & I will be tempted.

 

[BRNexus6]

I noticed a interview with Canon from the CP + in Japan.
http://www.megapixel.co.il/english/archive/28040

"Q: The new 24mm and 28mm seem to be really perplexing, they are not extremely fast, surly not cheap and have image stabilization which doesn't seem to be that necessary in such a short focal length. To top this you have the 17-55mm f/2.8 with IS which admittedly isn't a prime lens but can give you much more flexibility – so who is the real target audience here – videographers?

A: Videographers are indeed an ideal market for these lenses, but the main group who prompted the design of these lenses where in fact photojournalists. While a f/1.4 lens is desirable, they do tend to feature quite large optics. So for example in situations where photographers are trying to blend in and be less obtrusive, a lens with a smaller diameter is more suitable. We included IS to help these photographers to continue shooting in low light, even with smaller aperture that these lenses offer. It’s also worth noting the original versions of these lenses are nearly 25 years old. When designing their replacements we wanted to look forwards to ensure that these lenses enjoy a life span to match their predecessors."

People shooting video on crop sensor cameras are going to choose the 17-55mm 2.8 IS over those 2.8 primes, so I guess they mean these new lenses will appeal to Full Frame videographers. Why the heck would someone pay $800 for a 2.8 prime when they can spend $200 more for the 17-55mm 2.8 IS lens?

I will gladly pay $600 for a 35mm F2 IS lens, but I'm betting they will release a 2.8 version for $800.

 

[kdsand]

I noticed a interview with Canon from the CP + in Japan.
http://www.megapixel.co.il/english/archive/28040
"Q: The new 24mm and 28mm seem to be really perplexing, they are not extremely fast, surly not cheap and have image stabilization which doesn't seem to be that necessary in such a short focal length. To top this you have the 17-55mm f/2.8 with IS which admittedly isn't a prime lens but can give you much more flexibility – so who is the real target audience here – videographers?

A: Videographers are indeed an ideal market for these lenses, but the main group who prompted the design of these lenses where in fact photojournalists. While a f/1.4 lens is desirable, they do tend to feature quite large optics. So for example in situations where photographers are trying to blend in and be less obtrusive, a lens with a smaller diameter is more suitable. We included IS to help these photographers to continue shooting in low light, even with smaller aperture that these lenses offer. It’s also worth noting the original versions of these lenses are nearly 25 years old. When designing their replacements we wanted to look forwards to ensure that these lenses enjoy a life span to match their predecessors."

People shooting video on crop sensor cameras are going to choose the 17-55mm 2.8 IS over those 2.8 primes, so I guess they mean these new lenses will appeal to Full Frame videographers. Why the heck would someone pay $800 for a 2.8 prime when they can spend $200 more for the 17-55mm 2.8 IS lens?

I will gladly pay $600 for a 35mm F2 IS lens, but I'm betting they will release a 2.8 version for $800.

Does Canon believe new parents are photojournalist? Perhaps the terminology is loosely applied.

Likely the electronics store salesmen will have every parent walking out with one.

The Sigma 17-50 2.8 IS sounds better and better.

 

[TheGoondocks]

These new IS primes are geared towards video. However, if the 35mm f/2 IS was $800 or less, I would snatch one up in a heartbeat. That is of course assuming the following:

1)Its a true USM motor
2)Its very sharp wide open
3)IQ is better than the current cheap prime lineup

I think that would make it a nice alternative to the 35 f/1.4L. $600 less, probably much more compact, and with IS.

Right now Canons offering in that Focal length is pretty slack. The 35 f/2 is noisy,slow, and flimsy. The 28mm f/1.8 has so-so IQ. Sigma is rumoring a 35mm f/1.8 so this new Canon version would probably be in the price range to compete against that as well.

 

[kubelik]

it'd be nice if it were an f/1.8, that extra 1/3 stop would justify to me putting it up in that $800 range that we know canon is going to ask for this lens.

 

[wickidwombat]

i dunno about these new super expensive non L primes that arent really fast
I wonder if the fast L versions are going to get the IS loving too. It's quite strange that all the primes
are getting IS but the 24-70 missed out.