New Canon 24-70mm f4 IS and 35mm f2 IS lenses announced.
- Thread starter Rojin
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,303
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
You mean the current 35/2.0?
I can't see how the current 35/1.4 worst built quality than the kit lens or slower than the 85/1.2.
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.
Try getting a 600mm lens faster than f/4.0!
Sorry I hate the phrase "poor man's XXXX", its just nonsensical in every situation people use it. If you can spend £800 on the f2 IS version then I hardly doubt the f1.4 is out of reach.
And I used f/4 in my example as with static scenes you are likely going to want some DoF which you could get with IS but not at f1.4.
My point is that the two lenses are for totally different purposes, if you want a 1.4 you'll just get that, if you want to do hand held night scenes with some DoF then you'll get IS.
Opps meant to add the 50mm to the post doh!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,303
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
You hate the phrase doesn't stop people using it and has no bearing on anything..it's just a phrase!
And where on earth did you get F/4 from? I never said 35/4.0....plus you said "scene" not static scene.
Small but critical difference.
Btw, I place the new 35/2.0 IS in the same price bracket as the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8, not £800. Hence the comparison. I had not checked out the price, and it's not going to be £800.
Last edited:
The 35mm lens looks nice but pricy, the 24-70 f/4.0 is just weird and massively over priced. Just where the heck does it fit in. The 24-70 2.8 is a classic lens for PJ, street, wedding, event, studio and landscape, etc.. I see no advantage in the same lens at f/4.0
and would always choose the 24-105 or the Nikon 24-120 f/4.0
and would always choose the 24-105 or the Nikon 24-120 f/4.0
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
Raymond you can be so insensitive sometimes. I prefer to use the term "the socioeconomically challenged man's lens". 
I used F4 as an example of how you would actually be able to get an advantage with IS over shooting wide open at 1.4.
I cut out your quote because I was addressing the point where you gave the impression that the 35mm F2 would cost in the same region as the 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 whereas it's £800.
Anyway, it doesn't matter, they are aimed at different people and shooting wide open is all part of your thing so it's not going to be of interest, which is fine.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,303
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Raymond you can be so insensitive sometimes. I prefer to use the term "the socioeconomically challenged man's lens".
Lol, here I am thinking you guys are way over reacting over a phrase.
How about "cheaper version of canon's range of 35mm which is newer with IS"?
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
'Cheap' has such negative connotations, I would prefer if you phrased it differently like below.
"Less expensive version of canon's range of 35mm which is more recent and with IS"?
"Less expensive version of canon's range of 35mm which is more recent and with IS"?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,303
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Cheap has such negative connotations, I would prefer if you phrased it differently like below.
"Less expensive version of canon's range of 35mm which is more recent and with IS"?
What about ""More affordable and more recent of canon's range of 35mm with IS"
Raymond you can be so insensitive sometimes. I prefer to use the term "the socioeconomically challenged man's lens".
Says the man using a poor mans D4 while quoting the man using a poor mans 1D
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
Indeed, although I'll soon be moving to the poor man's MF...
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,303
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
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
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
Last edited:
Ripping into the naysayers aside
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
Don't forget Canons new pricing poly means they will charge double the cost of the previous lens (see 24-70mm 2.8 and 70-200 2.8)
Here are some recent canon lenses:
Canon 28mm f/2.8 IS, £750 on launch, now a little under £600.
24mm f/2.8 IS is much the same.
both these lenses are a stop slower than the new 35mm. Although 35mm focal length is slightly simpler design, 1 stop difference will make for a more complex and expensive lens with a bigger front element.
£800 RRP fits in perfectly with Canons new pricing model.
There will be a new 35mm f/1.4 released with another eye watering price tag.
To me it just looks like a fast f2.8 version for those who need the speed\aperture, and a cheaper f4 version for those who don't and want a good landscape option as well. The MTF charts show it's better than the 24-105, although how the distortion is at the wide end is obviously not yet known. How anyone can say it is a worse lens that the 24-105 without it even being out yet I don't know!
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 2,495
- Location
- On the Edge*
I bought the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 IS (VC) last month... It's been my go to lens for most shoots (video) and the IS is freakishly silent... Great lens..
To me it just looks like a fast f2.8 version for those who need the speed\aperture, and a cheaper f4 version for those who don't and want a good landscape option as well. The MTF charts show it's better than the 24-105, although how the distortion is at the wide end is obviously not yet known. How anyone can say it is a worse lens that the 24-105 without it even being out yet I don't know!
I'm happy to say it's 'worse' maybe not in exacting technical terms but simply because it costs so much! The 24-70mm f2.8 Vs 24-105mm f4 always used to be an interesting debate as you were trading speed for extra length where as if they drop the 24-105 the debat becomes simply about speed. I wouldn't mind if the new 24-70mm f4 was competitively priced but it's not canon's new pricing structure is absolutely crazy and I'd love to know what impact it is having on sales. the only thing I can see this release doing is puching up second hand prices of the 24-105 much like the release of the new 24-70mm f2.8 has done to prices of the old model. Definitely an oppertunity for sigma/tamron to swoop in here with a well built 24-120mm f4 IS and hoover up a large section of the entry level full frame market. As for making it the kit lens on the 6D surely it is going to push the cost of the kit way up as it costs considerably more than the 24-105 currently bundled?
The 35mm f2 IS is a much more interesting proposition but for me will once again be crippled by the price, it looks like it is going to go into direct competition with the new sigma f1.4 on a pretty much even price. Given the performance of recent sigma primes I don't think there will be much of a competition here and the sigma will sell like hot cakes. It is a real shame as the range of entry level Canon primes has needed updating for ages but all they really needed was USM and a few more (rounded) aperture blades not a massive increase in size price and the additon of IS. I hate to think whats going to happen with the next L prime refresh but if they follow the add IS and double the price model that they are using for everything else it will be messy.
Slight thread steel but nice to hear some positive feedback on this lens it is definitely on my list as a walk about lens to replace my current 28-75mm f2.8
Last edited: