New Canon 24-70mm f4 IS and 35mm f2 IS lenses announced.

so who are they targeting the 24-70 f4 at? that range is typically seen as a walkabout lens but at F4 its pretty lacking in low light - isnt this the same reason that people shun the 24-105 F4 (plus the sharpness issue obviously)

Knowing Canon it will be at least £600 I just dont see it being a viable lens for the money given the options out there.

the 35 F2 is a good build though again providing its priced accordingly and has got my interest.
 
dpreview said:
The EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM will be available from mid-December at an RRP of $1499 / £1499.99 / €1459. Meanwhile the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM will be in on sale early December for $849.99 / £799.99 / €849.
Click to expand...

What are they smoking? It's just mental pricing.

Canon rumors suggested that the 24-70 may be longer at the 70mm than the name suggests if this is going to be the long term replacement for the 24-105L.
 
Saw this a couple of days ago. All a bit meh, the 35/F2 IS is the only interesting lens. If it is half decent like the 50/1.4 or 85/1.8 then it could make a decent poor man's 35mm if one can't afford the 1.4.

On paper, what does the 24-70 F/4 IS offer that the 24-105 F/4 IS doesn't?

Just sharper? I can't see it being cheaper than the 105. It will be cheaper than the 24-70/2.8 Mkii, which suggest that they are phasing out the 105 so havnig two 24-70, taking the range aspect out of it.

(my guess)
 
35/2 IS + a 5DIII would make for a great general use combo, especially if you do a bit of video too. It'd be like a fixed lens compact on steroids.
 
The 24-70 f4 is going to be the 6D kit lens apparently? Neither lens particularly interests me to be honest, but there's always someone who likes 'em :)

The zoom I have zero interest in, the 35mm... Well at that price I can choose between a second hand 35L or possibly the new Sigma... I ain't gonna be buying the f2!
 
Raymond Lin said:
it could make a decent poor man's 35mm if one can't afford the 1.4.
Click to expand...

Pretty snobbish attitude really. Aperture isn't a replacement for IS.

If you were trying to do a low light handheld shot of a scene then I'd much rather shoot at F/4 with IS than F/1.4 without.
 
Nah, you got it wrong; IS isn't a replacement for aperture :D

It all depends what you are shooting, I hardly ever take shots of anything static so IS at such focal lengths is completely useless for me. I need the shutter speed to stop motion. I can see how these would be very useful for those that shoot landscapes, architecture etc. in low light though.
 
whats IS equiv to F/No anyway? about 2/3 stops max? Not much in it (if my calculations are right) but the F1.4 would still be better in low light over the F4 IS.
 
IS isn't equivalent to any f/no, it has more of a bearing on shutter speed. IS just lets you use longer shutter speeds, but longer shutter speeds are useless for anything that isn't static. I'd rather have 1/60, 35mm, f/1.4 at 1600 with no IS than 1/15th, 35mm, f/2 at ISO800 on a 2-stop IS system. If you're doing a night scene you're probably better off bracing yourself against something and using the self timer. Video is where IS at these lengths really has a benefit.
 
Last edited:
24-70 is a bit meh because of the f4.

The 35mm will all depend on price really. Has to be cheap enough to compete with the Nikon f1.8 (presumably that's what it's supposed to be competing with).

It also can't be so expensive that its within a price jump to the sigma 1.4

kd
 
olv said:
Pretty snobbish attitude really. Aperture isn't a replacement for IS.

If you were trying to do a low light handheld shot of a scene then I'd much rather shoot at F/4 with IS than F/1.4 without.
Click to expand...

The 35mm is f/4?

I meant if one don't want to spend £1k on the 1.4, get the new 35/2 IS, provided it is nicer than the old one and has bokeh like th 50/1.4 and 85/1.8, it will make a nice "poor man's" 35mm. I use the term figuratively, like calling the Boxter and poor man's 911, which in reality no poor man can blow £40k on a car no matter how poor he is.

What snobbish attitude? I have the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 still. The entire first paragraph was about the 35mm and f/2 isn't exactly slow...you seem to edited out the first part of the sentence where I specifically said 35/2....

Why?

Where did you get F/4 from?

Am I missing something? I think you have misunderstood me totally.

I know full well IS cant stop action...I have no IS lenses, it's why I went fast glass over IS (24-70 v 24-105 debate) and why I shoot mostly primes.
 
Last edited:
Seems a bit lacklustre to Mr Nobrain here. They're replacing a 24-105mm with a worse 24-70? Seems a bit tight, no?

That's Mr No-Brain btw, not the other interpretation btw. :o
 
Last edited:
olv said:
Pretty snobbish attitude really. Aperture isn't a replacement for IS.

If you were trying to do a low light handheld shot of a scene then I'd much rather shoot at F/4 with IS than F/1.4 without.
Click to expand...

If there is any subject movement id much rather 1.4 no is. And that's ignoring the fact 1.4 will render the scene in a more aesthetically pleasing way for most people/scenarios. Which is what matters most IMO.

Edit:
Oh and you won't find an f4 in my bag. F4 is for the riff raff. ;) :D
 
Last edited:
An Exception said:
If there is any subject movement id much rather 1.4 no is. And that's ignoring the fact 1.4 will render the scene in a more aesthetically pleasing way for most people/scenarios. Which is what matters most IMO.
Click to expand...

I agree, it's where my money would go.

But the 85/1.8 renders bokeh quite nicely and at £300 v £1500 for 1.2...it's a bargain.

If the 35/2.0 IS has nice bokeh like the 85/1.8 does, with a good price then it could be a good pun.

That's if the Sigma doesn't blow it out of the water.
 
An Exception said:
If there is any subject movement id much rather 1.4 no is. And that's ignoring the fact 1.4 will render the scene in a more aesthetically pleasing way for most people/scenarios. Which is what matters most IMO.

Edit:
Oh and you won't find an f4 in my bag. F4 is for the riff raff. ;) :D
Click to expand...

It's all about the 3.5-5.6 I think you'll find mate.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I agree, it's where my money would go.

But the 85/1.8 renders bokeh quite nicely and at £300 v £1500 for 1.2...it's a bargain.

If the 35/2.0 IS has nice bokeh like the 85/1.8 does, with a good price then it could be a good pun.

That's if the Sigma doesn't blow it out of the water.
Click to expand...

I think sigma has an opportunity to be the defacto budget/performance solution, at least for the folks who aren't particular about the name on the lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom