sorry i have to ask....

[Ruined]

Call me crazy but I thought the overpriced 24 and 35mm EF primes that came out with IS were a waste of time.

Crazy!

The 24 IS and 35 IS lenses are both spectacular for different reasons.

First, they replace older designs that were far inferior optically.

Second, the 24 IS has significantly less flare closed down (where most landscapers would use it) than both the 24L II and the 24-70 II. The smaller size also makes it more portable for hiking.

Third, the 35 IS has rounded aperture blades unlike the 35L, plus it is smaller and lighter than the 35L. Fantastic for a city walkabout lens for those reasons, plus less obtrusive/expensive looking.

Fourth, these lenses have the added bonus of IS, which can be useful in select circumstances when you lack a tripod. IS is really only a bonus though, the real beauty is in the other advantages mentioned.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

Call me crazy but I thought the overpriced 24 and 35mm EF primes that came out with IS were a waste of time.

Crazy!

The 24 IS and 35 IS lenses are both spectacular for different reasons.

First, they replace older designs that were far inferior optically.

Second, the 24 IS has significantly less flare closed down (where most landscapers would use it) than both the 24L II and the 24-70 II. The smaller size also makes it more portable for hiking.

Third, the 35 IS has rounded aperture blades unlike the 35L, plus it is smaller and lighter than the 35L. Fantastic for a city walkabout lens for those reasons, plus less obtrusive/expensive looking.

Fourth, these lenses have the added bonus of IS, which can be useful in select circumstances when you lack a tripod. IS is really only a bonus though, the real beauty is in the other advantages mentioned.

Thanks Ruined! Now call me 'corrected'!

I appreciate the concise list of reasons why the 24 & 35 ver II prime lenses are more desirable now. I always knew the original 24 and 35 EF primes could have been much better (and probably were a waste of time) but the outrageous price of the ver II lenses soured my opinion of them prematurely. I thought the necessity of IS for wide prime lenses was debatable and a lame excuse to offer the new versions for such a high price. I'm glad that they dropped in price a bit and I'm glad to know there are other reasons other than IS to consider them.

 

[JonAustin]

... the 35 IS is probably the next lens I'll buy.

Same here.

 

[Ruined]

I appreciate the concise list of reasons why the 24 & 35 ver II prime lenses are more desirable now. I always knew the original 24 and 35 EF primes could have been much better (and probably were a waste of time) but the outrageous price of the ver II lenses soured my opinion of them prematurely. I thought the necessity of IS for wide prime lenses was debatable and a lame excuse to offer the new versions for such a high price. I'm glad that they dropped in price a bit and I'm glad to know there are other reasons other than IS to consider them.

No prob

A lot of people remember to look at sharpness, but forget to look at other tests like this:

Flare - 24 IS (mouseout) vs 24L II (mouseover) closed down for landscape work:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Flare.aspx?Lens=788&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=5&LensComp=480&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=7

Flare - 24 IS (mouseout) vs 24-70L II (mouseover) closed down for landscape work:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Flare.aspx?Lens=788&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=5&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5

 

[Woody]

One possible reason is that Canon is waiting to reach their 100 millionth lens milestone. They reached their 90 millionth lens milestone on May 2013. Going by their previous records, they should be able to sell 10 million lenses in less than a year. I guess sales deterioration must have led to a delay here.

It's also possible that after seeing the decline in their sales results, Canon has decided to cancel all their plans concerning the so-called Year of the Lens.

 

[Drizzt321]

Call me crazy but I thought the overpriced 24 and 35mm EF primes that came out with IS were a waste of time.

Crazy!

The 24 IS and 35 IS lenses are both spectacular for different reasons.

First, they replace older designs that were far inferior optically.

Second, the 24 IS has significantly less flare closed down (where most landscapers would use it) than both the 24L II and the 24-70 II. The smaller size also makes it more portable for hiking.

Third, the 35 IS has rounded aperture blades unlike the 35L, plus it is smaller and lighter than the 35L. Fantastic for a city walkabout lens for those reasons, plus less obtrusive/expensive looking.

Fourth, these lenses have the added bonus of IS, which can be useful in select circumstances when you lack a tripod. IS is really only a bonus though, the real beauty is in the other advantages mentioned.

I'd be tempted to buy either of those lenses...except for the fact that they're a good chunk of the way to one of the L lenses. Not always half-way, I'll grant you, but if they'd have been ~$300ish, much more attractive. At $600, I can probably double that and be about a refurb from Canon.

 

[Random Orbits]

I'd be tempted to buy either of those lenses...except for the fact that they're a good chunk of the way to one of the L lenses. Not always half-way, I'll grant you, but if they'd have been ~$300ish, much more attractive. At $600, I can probably double that and be about a refurb from Canon.

The 28 f/2.8 IS is 352 + tax (in stock) at the Canon refurb store now, and the 24 f/2.8 IS is 384 + tax (currently out of stock).

 

[Drizzt321]

I'd be tempted to buy either of those lenses...except for the fact that they're a good chunk of the way to one of the L lenses. Not always half-way, I'll grant you, but if they'd have been ~$300ish, much more attractive. At $600, I can probably double that and be about a refurb from Canon.

The 28 f/2.8 IS is 352 + tax (in stock) at the Canon refurb store now, and the 24 f/2.8 IS is 384 + tax (currently out of stock).

Refurb, not retail. Although, not that I'm opposed to refurb, often some good equipment you can pick up for a discount there.

 

[Random Orbits]

I'd be tempted to buy either of those lenses...except for the fact that they're a good chunk of the way to one of the L lenses. Not always half-way, I'll grant you, but if they'd have been ~$300ish, much more attractive. At $600, I can probably double that and be about a refurb from Canon.

The 28 f/2.8 IS is 352 + tax (in stock) at the Canon refurb store now, and the 24 f/2.8 IS is 384 + tax (currently out of stock).

Refurb, not retail. Although, not that I'm opposed to refurb, often some good equipment you can pick up for a discount there.

It doesn't matter as much as it used to with the refurbs now coming with a 1 year warranty. I picked up new 28 f/2.8 IS before last Christmas for 350 from a Canon authorized dealer, which was an even better price than what it is going for in the refurb store with 20% off now. The point is that at 300-500 (when you can find deals on them), the 24 f/2.8 IS, 28 f/2.8 IS and 35 f/2 IS offer a lot for the price.