Three New Lenses~~~

[pdirestajr]

Wouldn't the silver rings on the primes indicate EF-s?

 

[photogaz]

New one looks a bit crappy because of the charcole paint colour. Who cares what is looks like, if it shoots well that's what is important.

 

[Noink Fanb0i]

Wouldn't the silver rings on the primes indicate EF-s?

No, because it would have been printed on the lens barrel along with the IS & Ultrasonic labels (see: recent EF-S lens designs like 15-85 & 18-135).

 

[00Q]

The IS switches are usually below the AF/MF switch (see the primes), and the zoom lock is usually on the other side like in this picture (also compare e.g. the 70-300 IS).

Current 24-70L:

The new one looks a bit like the 16-35L:

(or it might just be the shade of black in the picture)

I have a funny feeling that the photos were just someone doing it on photoshop. I mean the lenses look ugly as hell. Canon is more beautiful than that. ( I know someone posted aboved said other wise)

 

[photogaz]

I don't think they are Photoshop, looks like they may get announced tomorrow.

 

[tron]

On the picture of 24-70 there is no lens description near the red ring. This is in contrast to existing Canon lenses (see the pictures of the
current 24-70 and 16-35 lenses).

 

[whatta]

but why 2.8? it is a bit slow for a prime, except if they are very good wide open. IS is still welcome.

 

[BlueMixWhite]

Seriously ugly, the mkI get my vote anytime.

 

[aaronh]

I have a funny feeling that the photos were just someone doing it on photoshop. I mean the lenses look ugly as hell. Canon is more beautiful than that. ( I know someone posted aboved said other wise)

I seem to be the minority here... oh well

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

This looks suspicious to me.

Say Canon makes a new 24mm prime. Why make it f/2.8 (rather than f/2) & why add IS?

If Canon makes a 24mm f/2 USM with good IQ, I'll buy it immediately. If it's f/2.8, it's not fast enough relative to the 24-105mm f/4 for me to really consider it, and I'd wait for the Samyang 24mm f/1.4 to be reviewed.

 

[zim]

Would a kit lens be non IS?

 

[00Q]

On the picture of 24-70 there is no lens description near the red ring. This is in contrast to existing Canon lenses (see the pictures of the
current 24-70 and 16-35 lenses).

well noted. Plus the arguemtns with the primes and f2.8, this is fake. Who ever did it just copied it from the 16-35 body and forgot the add the letters on the side of the lens barrel as noted. case closed.

 

[candyman]

EDIT: I removed my remarks about a hoax.


The image of the 24-70 can be very well a pre-production model and therefor does not yet have the regular type of text next to the red ring.


Why is the image appearing now? Is it because of the Tamron 24-70 announcement?
I would still buy a lens based on review and customer experience. And so we have to wait for that.

 

[aaronh]

Perhaps they intentionally omitted the writing next to the red ring in order to not give away it's final specifications (i.e. IS/non-IS)??

 

[tahomas]

It's official now:

http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/standard-zoom/ef24-70-f28l-ii/index.html
http://cweb.canon.jp/newsrelease/2012-02/pr-ef24-70-f28l-ii.html

EF24-70mm F2.8 L II USM
EF24mm F2.8 IS USM
EF28mm F2.8 IS USM

... and the images are real ;-)

 

[revup67]

I wouldnt say that strange, the 16-35 2.8 went up from 77mm to 82mm in the mk2 didnt it?

I am told the reason for this is to improve the outer edge quality of the photos. The original 16-35 mki was rather soft on its edges and due to the gripes, Canon redesigned it this was the way to improve the IQ. It is significantly better see Tools/ISO12233 http://www.the-digital-picture.com The downside is try and find an ND filter above ND64..(6 stop) good luck. The 10 stopper is only sold at 1 locale the Filter Connection and is over $225. Pretty much any decent filter for an 82mm is gonna run you a pretty penny and they are not as plentiful are my findings.

 

[Hillsilly]

If it's f/2.8, it's not fast enough relative to the 24-105mm f/4 for me to really consider it, and I'd wait for the Samyang 24mm f/1.4 to be reviewed.

Smaller, lighter, cheaper, faster, reduced minimum focus distance, possibly better image quality. They've definitely got some positives. I say, "well done Canon!" for giving these guys an update. They might not be everyone's cup of tea, but I'm keen to read some reviews on the 24mm.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

If it's f/2.8, it's not fast enough relative to the 24-105mm f/4 for me to really consider it, and I'd wait for the Samyang 24mm f/1.4 to be reviewed.

Smaller, lighter, cheaper, faster, reduced minimum focus distance, possibly better image quality. They've definitely got some positives. I say, "well done Canon!" for giving these guys an update. They might not be everyone's cup of tea, but I'm keen to read some reviews on the 24mm.

I already have the 24-105mm and carry it with me anyway, so "smaller, lighter, cheaper" is of no consequence. The MTF charts are not impressing, and are worse than the new 24-70mm f/2.8's.

I say "yawn, see 3rd party lens manufacturers get my money".

 

[sublime LightWorks]

I'm wondering if the larger size front element (82mm) is more do to the need to resolve a lot more pixels, now and in the future. Figuring you need more glass (size/diameter) to collect the light necessary to resolve images to 24M, 32M, 36M, 40M, 48M, and more megapixels.

I base this on my experience with some telescopes, smaller scopes cannot resolve the detail that larger ones can, so when you move from 77mm to 82mm, the ability to resolve more detailed images with the lens increases.

Yeah, I took physics and optics in collage (BSEE), but it was a long time ago..... :

Am also wondering how this might pay on the new C300 cameras......

-B

 

[Gothmoth]

I base this on my experience with some telescopes, smaller scopes cannot resolve the detail that larger ones can, so when you move from 77mm to 82mm, the ability to resolve more detailed images with the lens increases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution

D in the case of an camera is the diameter of the lens aperture
the aperture size (for example f4) is the same on a 70mm lens .. no matter how big the front element.

.... where f is focal length and N is the f-number.


for a telescop D is the diameter of the telescope's objectiv:

so maybe someone with more experience can shine a light on that?