# Three New Lenses~~~



## simonxu11 (Feb 6, 2012)

Three Canon lenses photos were just posted in a Chinese photo forum, source is from a Japanese website
Link: http://digicame-info.com/2012/02/ef28mm-f28-is-usmef24mm-f28-is.html
Canon EF 28mm f2.8 IS USM
Canon EF 24mm f2.8 IS USM
Canon EF 24-70mmm f2.8 II

It's very strange that 28mm and 24mm wide angel prime lenses have IS, any idea??


----------



## moreorless (Feb 6, 2012)

simonxu11 said:


> It's very strange that 28mm and 24mm wide angel prime lenses have IS, any idea??



I wouldnt say that strange, on FF those are focal lenghts where many people are going to be stopping down for landscapes plus there both good potential general purpose lenses for a crop.


----------



## simonxu11 (Feb 6, 2012)

It's a good sign that Canon starts to update their non-L primes


----------



## moreorless (Feb 6, 2012)

WFT said:


> Little strange that the 24-70 seems to have a 82mm filter ring



I wouldnt say that strange, the 16-35 2.8 went up from 77mm to 82mm in the mk2 didnt it? might be due to the wider front element but that pic looks a little shorter to me, looks like the lens is retracted at 24mm rather than 70mm aswell.


----------



## simonxu11 (Feb 6, 2012)

WFT said:


> Little strange that the 24-70 seems to have a 82mm filter ring


Yep
The new Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 VC also has a 82mm filter ring.


----------



## frisk (Feb 6, 2012)

It will be really interesting to hear how the 24-70 lens has been improved. There had been rumours that there would be an IS version, but that does not appear to be the case.

This lens will probably be offered as a "kit" lens with the (hopefully soon-to-be-announced) successor(s) to the 5DII (5D3, 5DX, 3D or whatever), but for those who already own the current 24-70, the question will be whether to upgrade.

My speculation (and it is only a speculation) is that if the lens really uses an 82mm filter now (instead of 77mm), we are not just looking at a minor upgrade, but a major redesign to improve what some people consider the biggest problem with the 24-70 lens - the focus plane curvature. If they could reduce the weight at the same time, I would be very, very happy, but I guess that is too much to ask.


----------



## akiskev (Feb 6, 2012)

See that this new 24-70 is detracted at 24mm position.
The current model becomes longest at 24mm.


----------



## Noink Fanb0i (Feb 6, 2012)

Nice find, thanks for sharing. I expect to see this on the CR frontpage very soon.


----------



## lol (Feb 6, 2012)

For those who spend more time looking at lenses than through them, do these look the right "style" for new Canon lenses? To my untrained eye I was hoping for something a little different in the 24-70, particularly a bigger zoom ring would have been nice as seems to be a trend, so I thought.

Or did someone in the far east just spend some time in Photoshop to make these?


----------



## Noink Fanb0i (Feb 6, 2012)

So I'm guessing that huge & deep petal hood won't be returning for this Mk.II version. They sacrificed shading efficiency for compactness this time around.


----------



## 00Q (Feb 6, 2012)

there seems to be an IS switch at the top for the 24-70. The AF-MF switch has already been seen, so what the button at the top that we cant see? IS


----------



## Noink Fanb0i (Feb 6, 2012)

If it had IS it would say so on the barrel label like on the other two lenses. I'm guessing that protrusion at the top is for a zoom lock switch to prevent lens creep. 8)


----------



## 00Q (Feb 6, 2012)

as an extra note, if this is the new 24-70, I am disappointed at the design. The current 24-70 is sexy as hell. It'll be like turning Kim Kadashin into Bjorn.


----------



## Noink Fanb0i (Feb 6, 2012)

To reduce the size & weight, it appears Canon decided to have a "breast & butt reduction" (to continue with the Kim K. reference)...


----------



## aaronh (Feb 6, 2012)

00Q said:


> as an extra note, if this is the new 24-70, I am disappointed at the design. The current 24-70 is sexy as hell. It'll be like turning Kim Kadashin into Bjorn.



Funny. I was just about to post the opposite. The old 24-70 looks clunky and old to me. I think this new design is pretty bad A. 

To each his own...


----------



## Noink Fanb0i (Feb 6, 2012)

Quick, somebody email CR & NL & all the other rumor sites so we can have a nice circular rumor mill going quickly... ;D


----------



## simonxu11 (Feb 6, 2012)

00Q said:


> there seems to be an IS switch at the top for the 24-70. The AF-MF switch has already been seen, so what the button at the top that we cant see? IS


It seems to be a zoom lock, otherwise they usually combine two switches together just like the other two


----------



## moreorless (Feb 6, 2012)

frisk said:


> If they could reduce the weight at the same time, I would be very, very happy, but I guess that is too much to ask.



Its hard to say for sure but as I said the impression I get is that its shorter than the Mk1, given that Nikon reduced the size of there 28-70 2.8 while still adding 4mm to the wide end I'd guess there may well be room for a size reduction.


----------



## sOL1d (Feb 6, 2012)

The new one looks really ugly : ! I think I should get an old 24-70mm as soon as possible


----------



## ferdi (Feb 6, 2012)

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)


----------



## pdirestajr (Feb 6, 2012)

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


----------



## photogaz (Feb 6, 2012)

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 (Feb 6, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> 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 (Feb 6, 2012)

ferdi said:


> 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:
> 
> ...



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 (Feb 6, 2012)

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


----------



## tron (Feb 6, 2012)

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 (Feb 6, 2012)

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 (Feb 6, 2012)

Seriously ugly, the mkI get my vote anytime.


----------



## aaronh (Feb 6, 2012)

00Q said:


> 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 (Feb 6, 2012)

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 (Feb 6, 2012)

Would a kit lens be non IS?


----------



## 00Q (Feb 6, 2012)

tron said:


> 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 (Feb 6, 2012)

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 (Feb 6, 2012)

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 (Feb 7, 2012)

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 (Feb 7, 2012)

> 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 (Feb 7, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> 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 (Feb 7, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Feb 7, 2012)

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 (Feb 7, 2012)

> 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?


----------



## Astro (Feb 9, 2012)

for once an interesting question but none seem to be able to answer it gothmoth.

people here prefer to talk endlessly about switching to nikon or why 36MP are so much better then 22MP. :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2012)

Gothmoth said:


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



You've actually got the answer in your post..."D in the case of an camera is the diameter of the lens aperture," while, "for a telescop D is the diameter of the telescope's objectiv."

The resolution of a lens is determined by it's optical aperture, which is not necessarily the smallest diameter part of the system, nor the largest.

In photography, there is a desire to have the ability to reduce the amount of light reaching the image plane, thus, the aperture of a camera lens is an adjustable diaphragm that can be closed down, and it is placed in the optical path such that the diaphragm is the optical aperture of the lens. Thus, the iris diaphragm is located at the principal focal point of the lens (the place where all the light rays 'come together'), and that aperture diameter becomes the determining factor for resolution. For a telescope, OTOH, there's no need to 'stop down' the lens, so there's no diaphragm at the focal point, and thus, resolution is limited by the diameter of the primary (front) lens or the primary (rear) mirror, for refracting and reflecting telescopes, respectively.


----------



## Gothmoth (Feb 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> You've actually got the answer in your post



i thought so but was not 100% sure. 

thought it could be possible that the elements before the aperture collect more light with a bigger front glass, bundle/bend the light and send it to the same sized aperture.
but form the math that would not make the lens resolve more... only collect more light.

i mean there has to be a reason for the bigger front element... but im not that firm in lens design to answer that question.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 10, 2012)

Gothmoth said:


> i mean there has to be a reason for the bigger front element... but im not that firm in lens design to answer that question.



Generally, the relatively larger front element is to help reduce aberrations when shooting wide open. Telescopes are usually in the f/5-f/10 range, not f/2.8 and faster like many lenses.


----------

