Yowza -- 28mm f/1.4L patent surfaces

[funkboy]

I would have paid another $100-150 or so for an extra stop in the 28mm f/2.8 IS USM. I ended up getting the 35mm f/2 IS USM instead (for the extra stop), even though I prefer the 28mm focal length. My 24-105L didn't cost a lot more...

Tamron, are you listening?

 

[Pag]

Another EF prime lens
It is time to throw some glass at crop users. Come on Canon.

The old 28 mm 1.8 was a decent equivalent to a 50 mm on crop. That's why got mine. This new one would work too.

 

[ecka]

Another EF prime lens
It is time to throw some glass at crop users. Come on Canon.

The old 28 mm 1.8 was a decent equivalent to a 50 mm on crop. That's why got mine. This new one would work too.

Maybe it was, until Sigma 30/1.4 showed up and now it's in the Art league . But the real game changer was the 18-35/1.8 (and now 50-100/1.8 ), so the whole 'fast prime on crop' concept has changed. Perhaps EF-S 28/1.2 USM (sub-$1k) could bring back some fans. Otherwise, the 35/2 IS USM serves the same purpose, pretty much.

 

[privatebydesign]

Another EF prime lens
It is time to throw some glass at crop users. Come on Canon.

The old 28 mm 1.8 was a decent equivalent to a 50 mm on crop. That's why got mine. This new one would work too.

Maybe it was, until Sigma 30/1.4 showed up and now it's in the Art league . But the real game changer was the 18-35/1.8 (and now 50-100/1.8), so the whole 'fast prime on crop' concept has changed. Perhaps EF-S 28/1.2 USM (sub-$1k) could bring back some fans. Otherwise, the 35/2 IS USM serves the same purpose, pretty much.

I don't see that at all. You don't get the light gathering because you are using a smaller sensor, equivalence states a bigger sensor at higher iso will give you the same dof and shutter speed but improved noise charachteristics; and you don't get the shallow dof because you are using a wider lens from the same place for the same framing.

There are many advantages of crop cameras over ff cameras for many users, but shallow dof and 'light gathering' are not two of them.

 

[ecka]

Another EF prime lens
It is time to throw some glass at crop users. Come on Canon.

The old 28 mm 1.8 was a decent equivalent to a 50 mm on crop. That's why got mine. This new one would work too.

Maybe it was, until Sigma 30/1.4 showed up and now it's in the Art league . But the real game changer was the 18-35/1.8 (and now 50-100/1.8), so the whole 'fast prime on crop' concept has changed. Perhaps EF-S 28/1.2 USM (sub-$1k) could bring back some fans. Otherwise, the 35/2 IS USM serves the same purpose, pretty much.

I don't see that at all. You don't get the light gathering because you are using a smaller sensor, equivalence states a bigger sensor at higher iso will give you the same dof and shutter speed but improved noise charachteristics; and you don't get the shallow dof because you are using a wider lens from the same place for the same framing.

There are many advantages of crop cameras over ff cameras for many users, but shallow dof and 'light gathering' are not two of them.

I'm not talking about crop vs FF . I'm talking about fast primes on crop vs fast zooms on crop. Why would I pay $500 for the 28/1.8 or 35/2 or 24 or 20, while there is 18-35/1.8?

 

[ahsanford]

I'm not talking about crop vs FF . I'm talking about fast primes on crop vs fast zooms on crop. Why would I pay $500 for the 28/1.8 or 35/2 or 24 or 20, while there is 18-35/1.8?

1) Weight.

2) Sharpness. Primes of the same price/quality/'age' (when they were designed) will outresolve zooms. Comparing a 2015 zoom to an old beater from 1995 isn't exactly a fair comparison.

3) Low-profile appearance. Not everyone wants to go around with a huge pickle jar bolted on to their rig.

4) Less moving parts or things that can fail.

5) Price.

6) First-party Canon AF routines.

Primes aren't always better than zooms, but implying that a sharp faster-than-previously-ever-offered-before zoom obsoletes the need for primes is, quite simply, madness. There is so much more to a lens than its speed, max aperture and sharpness.

- A

 

[ecka]

I'm not talking about crop vs FF . I'm talking about fast primes on crop vs fast zooms on crop. Why would I pay $500 for the 28/1.8 or 35/2 or 24 or 20, while there is 18-35/1.8?

1) Weight.

2) Sharpness. Primes of the same price/quality/'age' (when they were designed) will outresolve zooms. Comparing a 2015 zoom to an old beater from 1995 isn't exactly a fair comparison.

3) Low-profile appearance. Not everyone wants to go around with a huge pickle jar bolted on to their rig.

4) Less moving parts or things that can fail.

5) Price.

6) First-party Canon AF routines.

Primes aren't always better than zooms, but implying that a sharp faster-than-previously-ever-offered-before zoom obsoletes the need for primes is, quite simply, madness. There is so much more to a lens than its speed, max aperture and sharpness.

- A

1) Yes, weight is one good reason for that, if one prime lens is enough. However, two prime lenses could weight near as much and three of them could weight even more than 18-35/1.8

2) Well, there is only one 28/1.8 from Canon and Sigmas own 30/1.4 Art is optically worse than this zoom. 35/2IS USM isn't as sharp wide open and !OMG!, even the mighty 35L'II got screwed . That Sigma 18-35/1.8 is magic.

3)4)5)6) Yes, but what's the point, really? Why not go FF then? It would allow to use even smaller and cheaper lenses to get the same images. 40/2.8STM (my love :-* ) on FF is like 25/1.8 on crop and costs what? $150? Yeah, sometimes FF is cheaper go figure ... FF 50/1.8 is another gem. Crop equivalent - 30/1.1, cost - almost nothing, weight - almost nothing . What next? FF 85/1.8 vs 50/1.2 crop? FF 135/2 vs 85/1.2 crop?

Yes, it's madness.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Great news, I much prefer this FL to 24mm as a general walk around lens, but whether I'd choose it over a 35 f/1.4 is a different matter.

 

[slclick]

More and more I hear comments about how the 28mm perspective is favored by a lot of shooters. And why not? To each their own. All FL's are awesome in particular situations and framing scenarios. I think this would make a fantastic addition to the L lineup if it's anything like the 35 1.4 mk2. Personally, I am liking having my 24, 28 and 35 all in one fat pickle jar.

I currently have 8 lenses for sale, the one that has had least interest shown in it is the EF 28mm f2.8 IS. Which I am a little surprised about............

I had that lens and sold it last month for more than I paid for it in about two days on Amazon.

 

[rbr]

Personally I have always liked the 28mm focal length. It was my first wide angle lens when I began photography in the early '80's and I've always been comfortable with it. With a step backward or forward it can be used for most of the things you'd want either a 24 or 35mm for. Today I usually use zooms to cover that range, but I have the 28 IS and like it for it's small size and IS and carry with me and use it often. With that said it doesn't make a whole lot of business sense to me for Canon to come out with a 28 f1.4L. Updating the current 28 f1.8 makes more sense as a lower cost alternative to the slightly faster and much more expansive L lenses.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Personally I have always liked the 28mm focal length. It was my first wide angle lens when I began photography in the early '80's and I've always been comfortable with it. With a step backward or forward it can be used for most of the things you'd want either a 24 or 35mm for. Today I usually use zooms to cover that range, but I have the 28 IS and like it for it's small size and IS and carry with me and use it often. With that said it doesn't make a whole lot of business sense to me for Canon to come out with a 28 f1.4L. Updating the current 28 f1.8 makes more sense as a lower cost alternative to the slightly faster and much more expansive L lenses.

Tamron will eventually release 24, 28 f/1.8 VC lenses and fill that void nicely.

 

[JohanCruyff]

More and more I hear comments about how the 28mm perspective is favored by a lot of shooters. And why not? To each their own. All FL's are awesome in particular situations and framing scenarios. I think this would make a fantastic addition to the L lineup if it's anything like the 35 1.4 mk2. Personally, I am liking having my 24, 28 and 35 all in one fat pickle jar.

I currently have 8 lenses for sale, the one that has had least interest shown in it is the EF 28mm f2.8 IS. Which I am a little surprised about............

Maybe people like the "extreme" 24mm and the "classic" 35mm more than the intermediate 28mm. Here in Italy we say "né carne né pesce" ("neither meat nor fish") about something that doesn't have very specific features.

 

[jeffa4444]

If they bring this lens out I will be first in the line. Ive got the EF 28mm f2.8 from the beginning of the EOS (nostalgia) system and the EF 28mm f2.8 IS. The 28mm is a great landscape focal length.

 

[ahsanford]

If they bring this lens out I will be first in the line. Ive got the EF 28mm f2.8 from the beginning of the EOS (nostalgia) system and the EF 28mm f2.8 IS. The 28mm is a great landscape focal length.

I use my 28 f/2.8 IS all the time. It's my go-to 'small and unassuming' lens when I just want to bring my camera along. I use it for landscapes, street, low-light handheld shooting, etc.

- A

 

[Ruined]

I'd personally rather see a 24L III that has less erratic autofocus than the current model wide open in low light... And improved optics.

 

[Viggo]

I'd personally rather see a 24L III that has less erratic autofocus than the current model wide open in low light... And improved optics.

Amen!

 

[ahsanford]

I'd personally rather see a 24L III that has less erratic autofocus than the current model wide open in low light... And improved optics.

Sizing up the age of current L primes (excluding T/S and whites):

14mm f/2.8L II = 2007
24mm f/1.4L II = 2008
35mm f/1.4L II = 2015
50mm f/1.2L = 2006
85mm f/1.2L II = 2006
100mm f/2.8L IS Macro = 2009
135mm f/2L = 1996
180mm f/3.5L Macro = 1996
200mm f/2.8L II = 1996

I appreciate not everything on that list is a high-runner for sales and therefore may not be on the same refresh timetable.

My guess:

• The standard primes 24 / 35 / 50 / 85 will all get the BR gunk first. The 35 got it first, and one has to think a 50 and 85 are a high priority to refresh.
• A longer macro and a 135 refresh will simply arrive like the other 'white unicorns' we pine for -- they will just show up as a surprise someday.
• Not sure we'll see another 14L or 200 2.8L anytime soon.

- A

 

[tron]

I'd personally rather see a 24L III that has less erratic autofocus than the current model wide open in low light... And improved optics.

Sizing up the age of current L primes (excluding T/S and whites):

14mm f/2.8L II = 2007
24mm f/1.4L II = 2008
35mm f/1.4L II = 2015
50mm f/1.2L = 2006
85mm f/1.2L II = 2006
100mm f/2.8L IS Macro = 2009
135mm f/2L = 1996
180mm f/3.5L Macro = 1996
200mm f/2.8L II = 1996

I appreciate not everything on that list is a high-runner for sales and therefore may not be on the same refresh timetable.

My guess:

• The standard primes 24 / 35 / 50 / 85 will all get the BR gunk first. The 35 got it first, and one has to think a 50 and 85 are a high priority to refresh.
• A longer macro and a 135 refresh will simply arrive like the other 'white unicorns' we pine for -- they will just show up as a surprise someday.
• Not sure we'll see another 14L or 200 2.8L anytime soon.

- A

It's a pity (not to see a 14 2.8L III soon!)

 

[Etienne]

I'd personally rather see a 24L III that has less erratic autofocus than the current model wide open in low light... And improved optics.

Amen!

Hallelujah

 

[tron]

I'd personally rather see a 24L III that has less erratic autofocus than the current model wide open in low light... And improved optics.

Amen!

Hallelujah

With very low coma