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

iamtheoneneo · 7 Nov 2012 at 10:31

Ksanti said:
Ripping into the naysayers aside I expect this 35 to come in at around £400-500 then quickly drop to the £300 sort of mark. Very few non-L lenses go for any more than £500 and a 35 f/2 won't be the one to change that particularly when the 35 f/1.4 can be had for one of the cheapest prices of any of the L primes.

As for the 24-70, I'm really not sure what to think of it. It doesn't appear to offer anything over the 24-105 which is a great video lens. Maybe it is just that they realised nobody was buying the 24-70 2.8 as a kit lens because it wouldn't be an upgrade in every single respect so they want to get more people to buy the 24-70 and 5D3 as a kit? As long as it drops like a brick in price, then it could be good. Video doesn't often need that long end that often so if it winds up cheaper than the 24-105 then that's great news. If it doesn't, then there's no real reason to buy it instead of the 24-105

But its already been priced as an RRP of over £700 :confused:

Im not sure what planet you live on but your basically saying you want a near canon L lens for the same price as an 85/50 1.8/1.4 non L lens - aint ever gonna happen.

alexthecheese · 7 Nov 2012 at 10:44

Will there ever be a 24-70 f/2.8 with IS? Not worth it? Not possible? Too lazy?

a1ex2001 · 7 Nov 2012 at 11:37

alexthecheese said:
Will there ever be a 24-70 f/2.8 with IS? Not worth it? Not possible? Too lazy?

Clearly it's possible, Tamron have just done it!

Canon just decided not to include it on this iteration, I've no doubt it will appear in the future.

iamtheoneneo said:
Im not sure what planet you live on but your basically saying you want a near canon L lens for the same price as an 85/50 1.8/1.4 non L lens - aint ever gonna happen.

The 85mm f1.8 and the 50mm f1.4 already do offer near L lens performance for very modest prices, the difference bettween them and the L equivalents is not huge the main thing your getting for the money is the ultra fast apertures and imroved build quality. In reality the only thing both these lenses lack that needs rectifying is a circular aperture and that could be easily fixed with a few more rounded blades. If canon made the current 35mm f2.0 with the same build quality as eith of these lenses, USM and a rounded aperture it would sell like hotcakes.

Ksanti · 7 Nov 2012 at 12:14

iamtheoneneo said:
But its already been priced as an RRP of over £700
Im not sure what planet you live on but your basically saying you want a near canon L lens for the same price as an 85/50 1.8/1.4 non L lens - aint ever gonna happen.

RRPs are rarely representative of the actual prices when they come out and sellers are competing with each other. If it comes out at much higher than £500 it'll be because Canon are selling it at stupidly high prices to these sellers rather than the sellers.

Also, the 85 1.8, 100 2.8 Macro et al are very good lenses that offer pretty much L lens optical performance with a slight trade down in build quality or a couple of features. The 35 f/2 IS doesn't look like it'll be in that same ballpark simply because there isn't room in the Canon lineup for a good but not 1.4L great 35mm lens, while there's a very nice spot above the awful 35 f/2.0 that needs filling.

An Exception · 7 Nov 2012 at 13:11

Ksanti said:
Also, the 85 1.8, 100 2.8 Macro et al are very good lenses that offer pretty much L lens optical performance with a slight trade down in build quality or a couple of features. The 35 f/2 IS doesn't look like it'll be in that same ballpark simply because there isn't room in the Canon lineup for a good but not 1.4L great 35mm lens, while there's a very nice spot above the awful 35 f/2.0 that needs filling.

No it isn't or doesn't, for that you need the sigma 85, the canon 85 1.8 is an entry prime that seriously needs updating considering it's quality compared to the competition.
The 35 f2 could be very interesting for some uses, but it's a hard sell compared to other lenses like the Tamron 24-70. The Tamron is only a stop slower, but gives you a much larger zoom range.

Raikiri · 8 Nov 2012 at 17:54

Wow the 24-70 is a rip off here in particular, £1130 in the US including 20% VAT and £1500 here?

Andy90 · 9 Nov 2012 at 16:47

A new 35mm f/2.0 lens was long overdue - it is a popular focal length and the old version was a fraction of the price of the 35mm f/1.4 L

Although it was usable the old lens apparently had quite pronounced vignetting, so I can see why they've updated an old lens.

There is a good pre-review of the lens on The Digital Picture.com

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-2-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

The Lens MTF tables are particularly impressive.

Although the RRP is over £700, I suspect it should fall to around the £500 mark. There isn't any way that this lens will drop to the £300 mark.

As for the new 24-70mm f/4.0 - when you look at the series of lenses that Canon do, it makes sense. EF-S are budget lenses for crop sensor, so simply will not fit full frame. If you move to full frame and wish to purchase Canon zoom lenses, you've either got to bite the bullet and go with the expensive f/2.8 zoom lenses or stick with the less expensive f/4.0 zooms.

ie 16-35mm f/2.8 L, 24-70 f/2.8 L MK II, 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM (with or without IS)

or 17-40mm f/4.0 L, 24-105mm f/4.0 L, 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM (with or without IS).

The 24-105 is a bit of an overlap with the 70-200mm, it is also has a reputation of component failure. Canon have slipped the new 24-70mm f/4.0 into the lineup and I suspect will quietly retire the 24-105.

If you take a look at the pre-review at Digital Picture.com and look at the MTF tables for the new 24-70mm f/4.0 and compare them to the 24-105mm, you can see why they probably introduced it. The MFT table for the 24-105 is poor to say the least.

You can take a look at

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx