# Canon EF 24 f/2.8 IS USM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 6, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/02/canon-ef-24-f2-8-is-usm/"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/02/canon-ef-24-f2-8-is-usm/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/02/canon-ef-24-f2-8-is-usm/"></a></div>
<strong>Canon EF 24 f/2.8 IS USM</strong>

The 24 f/2.8 that showed up in a patent a few months ago, shows up in image form as an IS prime.</p>
<div id="attachment_8765" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 585px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/24-IS.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-8765" title="Canon 24 f/2.8 IS USM" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/24-IS-575x431.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="431" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Canon 24 f/2.8 IS USM</p></div>
<p><strong>Source:</strong> [<a href="http://digicame-info.com/2012/02/ef28mm-f28-is-usmef24mm-f28-is.html">DC</a>] & Submissions (thanks)</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<div class="prli-social-buttons-bar"><a href="http://del.icio.us/post?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/delicious_32.png" alt="Delicious" title="Delicious" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/stumbleupon_32.png" alt="StumbleUpon" title="StumbleUpon" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/digg_32.png" alt="Digg" title="Digg" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://twitter.com/home?status=RT @prettylink:  [url=http://www.canonrumors.com/]http://www.canonrumors.com/[/url] (via @prettylink)" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/twitter_32.png" alt="Twitter" title="Twitter" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.mixx.com/submit?page_url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/mixx_32.png" alt="Mixx" title="Mixx" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://technorati.com/faves?add=http://www.canonrumors.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/technorati_32.png" alt="Technorati" title="Technorati" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&t=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/facebook_32.png" alt="Facebook" title="Facebook" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.newsvine.com/_tools/seed&save?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&h=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/newsvine_32.png" alt="News Vine" title="News Vine" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://reddit.com/submit?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/reddit_32.png" alt="Reddit" title="Reddit" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/linkedin_32.png" alt="LinkedIn" title="LinkedIn" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://myweb2.search.yahoo.com/myresults/bookmarklet?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/yahoobuzz_32.png" alt="Yahoo! Bookmarks" title="Yahoo! Bookmarks" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a></div>
```


----------



## mkln (Feb 6, 2012)

nice! not an L lens! such a long time. 
and small! great, just great.


----------



## Justin (Feb 6, 2012)

Very interesting indeed. First non-L prime in quite some time and with IS. But the 24-70 is without?! FTW


----------



## candyman (Feb 6, 2012)

Justin said:


> .............. First non-L prime in quite some time and *with IS*...................




Would that be for video purposes?
Or to make it more easy for HDR (bracketing) indoor and not using mono/tri-pod?


Why IS on a 24mm?


----------



## mkln (Feb 6, 2012)

candyman said:


> Justin said:
> 
> 
> > .............. First non-L prime in quite some time and *with IS*...................
> ...


handheld night pics of still objects (architecture, landscape, whatever).
4 stops of IS means you can put f/8 and get a great pic handheld.


----------



## Justin (Feb 6, 2012)

Right! Since Canon and Nikon refuse to implement in-camera IS, and tout the "vastly superior" in-lens version, you really have to cry foul when they leave it out of any lens design, save maybe the widest of angles. 



mkln said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > Justin said:
> ...


----------



## kubelik (Feb 6, 2012)

mkln said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > Justin said:
> ...



a lot of time wide-angle lenses are useful for architectural photography. photographing architecture is dim or low light (evening shots, cathedral shots, other interior spaces) is a very common occurrence. since none of Canon's current wide primes (nor the current or apparently future 24-70) have IS, this is a great addition.

as mkln noted, with architecture you really want more DOF, so being able to hold steady longer is a great feature.


----------



## DramaMask (Feb 6, 2012)

Why IS? Marketing...

Most of the cheaper lenses have IS. Probably because the Marketing Machine has led a lot of consumer to believe that lenses with IS are better than lenses without IS.


----------



## TheOm3ga (Feb 6, 2012)

I can't understand these two new prime lenses. I mean, 2.8? Seriously? I'd rather dump the IS and have a 1.8 or 2.0 lens. Canon, please, do yourself some good and release a 35mm 2.0 II .


----------



## whatta (Feb 6, 2012)

sorry, but where do we see in the picture that it is 2.8?


----------



## candyman (Feb 6, 2012)

whatta said:


> sorry, but where do we see in the picture that it is 2.8?




It's a rumor based on: http://digicame-info.com/2012/02/ef28mm-f28-is-usmef24mm-f28-is.html#more


----------



## dstppy (Feb 6, 2012)

IS on a 28mm prime?

Are we sure no one is having fun with us?


----------



## Alfonso (Feb 6, 2012)

guess it'll be great for video, as the only Canon wide lens with IS would be 24-105 f/4
but not sure id sell my 28 1.8 for this, unless its THAT much sharper than the 1.8 @ 2.8
any ideas on price range? same goes for the 28mm


----------



## mkln (Feb 6, 2012)

DramaMask said:


> Most of the cheaper lenses have IS. Probably because the Marketing Machine has led a lot of consumer to believe that lenses with IS are better than lenses without IS.



hmm let me think about this...

yeah they're better.

( can make taking pics easier in lots of situations = better ) 

I'll also take IS over f/2. Not a big deal on a 24mm lens. 
then even less of a big deal for a non-L lens.
would you prefer a 24 f/2 non-IS non-L with probably harsh bokeh so that when (when!) you get OOF areas, they're also ugly? thanks but no thanks.

this is just about right. leave the f/2 for L glass. give the poor, marketing-indoctrinated consumers the 2.8 IS's.
we finally get cheap glass for FF. just great. finally!


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 6, 2012)

Justin said:


> Right! Since Canon and Nikon refuse to implement in-camera IS, and tout the "vastly superior" in-lens version, you really have to cry foul when they leave it out of any lens design, save maybe the widest of angles.



For composition purposes is it vastly superior.

And at 24mm and 28mm there is no reason for IS at all. I have no problem at all buying a non-IS lens that is below 100mm. Now I suppose I'll hear from the video people about that.


----------



## AprilForever (Feb 6, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> Justin said:
> 
> 
> > Right! Since Canon and Nikon refuse to implement in-camera IS, and tout the "vastly superior" in-lens version, you really have to cry foul when they leave it out of any lens design, save maybe the widest of angles.
> ...



No reason for IS at 24? Really? Why do you think it is in the 24-105? The 17-50?

IS is really quite helpful even at wider focal lengths. To be sure, not the same as at 600mm, but, still helpful.


----------



## bear (Feb 6, 2012)

f/2.8 prime and it's not even pancake lens? It has to be cheaper than 50/1.8


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 6, 2012)

AprilForever said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > Justin said:
> ...



I think IS is in the 24-105 because it zooms to 105mm... :
I think the 17-55mm (I assume that's what you meant) has IS because on APS-C 55mm is 88mm. Though back in the day I had a 18-55 IS and I never noticed the effect at 55mm. I'd argue that the 17-55mm doesn't really need IS either.

I certainly don't think they included IS because of the short end of the focal range. It was because of the long end.

Helpful? Oh, of course IS is always helpful. What I think we should steer clear of is whining, complaining, and declaring that any lens without IS unfit for use by a photographer. I do have to remind myself of this often, honestly. Sometimes I really want better ISO performance or a higher ISO range and then I remember that people shot weddings and all kinds of events on cameras with a top ISO of 1600 or less. If they can do it I can do it. IS didn't always exist. Feel free to smite me, but that's what I think.


----------



## Stuart (Feb 6, 2012)

Good, i've wanted a good 2nd prime for my aps-c - this is neat, though if IS add more than £50 to the price i'll be upset.


----------



## whatta (Feb 6, 2012)

candyman said:


> whatta said:
> 
> 
> > sorry, but where do we see in the picture that it is 2.8?
> ...


ok, so it is indeed not visible


----------



## drozz (Feb 6, 2012)

These have to be video lenses. These are both ideal focal lengths for crop and FF. 2.8 seems slow for a pro, but is fast for suzi homemaker.


----------



## Raddy (Feb 6, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Comparing the image of the 24/2.8 IS USM with that of the 28/2.8 IS USM, the only difference between the pictures appears to be the "4" and "8".



Maybe there have been other pictures online while you posted that, but I do see some differences there, besides the "4" and "8". But as it's been only 5 minutes ago, I'd suggest to take another look at them.


----------



## rbr (Feb 6, 2012)

Canon has needed to update their selection of non-L primes for a while now, and these seem to be a good start. I think that these IS lenses would be good for all sorts of outdoor use such as hiking without a tripod. It's often necessary to stop down for dof in low light. If the IQ is there, and the price and weight are low, I think these will be a great addition to any camera bag. There are already faster lenses in these lengths.


----------



## bvukich (Feb 6, 2012)

Justin said:


> Right! Since Canon and Nikon refuse to implement in-camera IS, and tout the "vastly superior" in-lens version, you really have to cry foul when they leave it out of any lens design, save maybe the widest of angles.



You would prefer moving the sensor? So we can have overheating problems like the Sonys?


----------



## ecka (Feb 6, 2012)

If this is real and "cheap" then I would definitely buy one. IS prime - great for video


----------



## Fish_shooter (Feb 6, 2012)

Looks like no weather sealing, very disappointing :-[
In an area where annual rainfall is measured in meters this is more important than IS.


----------



## KyleSTL (Feb 6, 2012)

Comparing the picture of the new lens to the existing 24mm f/2.8 shows that both use a 58mm filter and the front elements are the same size ~43mm. I would assume, then, that the new lens would have the same aperture as the old lens.

For comparison, the 24mm f/1.4L II USM has a 77mm filter thread and a front element with a diameter ~50mm.


----------



## mkln (Feb 6, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Comparing the image of the 24/2.8 IS USM with that of the 28/2.8 IS USM, the only difference between the pictures appears to be the "4" and "8". I find that very hard to believe in reality - the lenses would seemingly need to be more different, if only that it would be next to impossible to take photographs of two products that were the same in every way (reflections, etc) except for two numbers.
> 
> Has anyone loaded both of these into photoshop and done some pixel peeping?
> 
> I suspect that one of these two is real and the other is not.



nope the 24 is longer and has a larger focus ring and different focus scale.
as is to be expected.


----------



## 4jphotography (Feb 6, 2012)

Are we sure this is an EF lens? Aren't the ones with the silver taping EF-S? Would make sense for IS then, if it's a marketing tactic aimed at folks with entry level / prosumer bodies.


----------



## JR (Feb 6, 2012)

This lens (and the 28mm rumored with it) would be usefull for video shooting...


----------



## Michael7 (Feb 6, 2012)

Very interested in this lens.


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 6, 2012)

4jphotography said:


> Are we sure this is an EF lens? Aren't the ones with the silver taping EF-S? Would make sense for IS then, if it's a marketing tactic aimed at folks with entry level / prosumer bodies.



The mount marking on this lens is for EF (red). The mount marking for EF-S lenses is white.


----------



## Woody (Feb 6, 2012)

The release of the 24 and 28 f/2.8 IS USM lenses provide us an insight into what Canon is planning: compact FF. I will not be surprised if Canon releases mirrorless or Rebel-like FF some time this year.


----------



## KyleSTL (Feb 6, 2012)

Woody said:


> ... I will not be surprised if Canon releases mirrorless or Rebel-like FF  some time this year.



I like the way you think. 


As for the comments about the silver ring:
75-300mm III has a silver ring (1999) -





90-300mm had it too (2003) -




28-90mm III as well (2004) -





Canon attempted to differentiate lenses with USM by using the gold ring (see 17-85mm, 70-300mm IS non-L, 10-22mm, 17-85mm) regardless of mount (EF or EF-S). Looks like since 2009, they have abandoned that practice (see 15-85mm). The 15-85mm lens is the only non-L lens released with USM since 2006 (17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM).

Additionally, the mounting dot is red, which is 100% indicative of EF mount.


----------



## foobar (Feb 6, 2012)

Hmm... interesting... I wished for a new consumer prime in the 24-28mm range from Canon but I thought more about something in the lines of f/1.4-2.0, maybe even as an EF-S lens. Now we get these two lenses and I don't know what to think of them. f/2.8 is putting me off but image stabilization, FF and the fact that these lenses look pretty light and compact makes things interesting again, especially if the price is right and the lenses are sharp wide open.




Fish_shooter said:


> Looks like no weather sealing, very disappointing :-[
> In an area where annual rainfall is measured in meters this is more important than IS.


Canon wants you to buy the 24L, simple as that. 




dilbert said:


> In one of the other threads, it was mentioned that these images look like renderings rather than product images taken with a camera.
> 
> Given the various reflection details, etc, I think that explains why the images of the two lenses look so alike. It would be virtually impossible to recreate the same lighting, reflections, etc, on two objects that aren't identical,.


These look like normal product shots to me, in line with other product shots we've seen from Canon so far.


----------



## tysonboh (Feb 7, 2012)

when should this lens be getting released? lucky i missed out on buying a 24mm 2.8 on ebay the other day, now that a new ones coming


----------



## DJL329 (Feb 7, 2012)

Holy crap, it's real!

http://usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/lenses/ef_lens_lineup/lens_wide_pro/ef_24mm_f_2_8_is_usm

And yes, it's EF. As I stated on the page for the new EF 28mm f/2.8 IS, the long drought of Canon non-L primes is finally coming to an end!


----------



## tysonboh (Feb 7, 2012)

they announced the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM not long ago, so not too long until this and the 28mm 2.8 is announced as well! also the above post proves this is actually on the way!


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Feb 7, 2012)

DJL329 said:


> Holy crap, it's real!
> 
> http://usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/lenses/ef_lens_lineup/lens_wide_pro/ef_24mm_f_2_8_is_usm
> 
> And yes, it's EF. As I stated on the page for the new EF 28mm f/2.8 IS, the long drought of Canon non-L primes is finally coming to an end!



I want a 24mm prime for two reasons - shoot in low light situations, and panoramas using a tripod. I've considered buying the 24mm f/2.8, but the max aperture and IQ at corners made me decide against it, and wait for Samyang 24mm f/1.4, even though it's fully manual.

The new 24mm f/2.8 IS USM is as slow as the 24mm f/2.8, and from the MTF it appears to me the corners wouldn't be significantly better, so I'll pass. Had Canon made a 24mm f/2 USM with good corners, I would have bought it.

So, with all due respect to "up to 4 stops of shake correction", I'd rather keep on waiting for the Samyang f/1.4, and gain two stops aperture.

With this trend, the most I'll spend on the new primes would be to upgrade to 85mm f/1.8 IS USM & 50mm f/1.4 [IS would be nice] non-micro-USM.


----------



## SnapHappy (Feb 7, 2012)

Hopefully this is the start of a bunch of refreshes coming our way. In all honesty, these new 2.8 lenses make no sense to me especially looking at the rumored prices. Now if they were 1.8 or 2.0 then I'd be very interested but 2.8? for almost as much as a 2.8 zoom? ****** that shit!


----------



## Haydn1971 (Feb 7, 2012)

Hang on a moment, what have you all been barking about the last several years ? Now that Canon has offered up a new prime product in the new age of quality zooms. The two decade old designs are now outclassed by modern zooms, so why buy them except for the low f stop, but really, after the initial novelty of using a low f stop, most of us step back and enjoy the image quality. 

So what if the new lenses are f2.8, they appear to be much better built, have USM focusing, 7 circular blades, special coatings to reduce flare and 4 stop Image Stability. The cracking L primes are generally out of my amateur price range, but a 98% lens at a third of the price is starting to appeal to me, I'm not in the market for a full range of entry level primes, but really interested in reading the reviews of the new primes before making judgement and may well be persuaded into making a long term investment in a couple of these new primes, the 24mm sounds good to me, a new 85mm might also appeal too... I'm still waiting for the flexible EF-S 2.8/2.0 zooms, but how will these new primes compare and importantly, how will they compare to the current L primes.


----------



## kubelik (Feb 7, 2012)

Haydn1971 said:


> So what if the new lenses are f2.8



well, most of us buy primes BECAUSE they have a larger max aperture than f/2.8 ... as you noted, the f/2.8 zooms right now are pretty good. for an APS-C shooter at those focal lengths, it makes a heck of a lot more sense to buy the 17-55 f/2.8 IS than it does to buy one (or heaven forbid two) of these primes, unless you are insanely picky about IQ yet nonchalant about light-gathering capabilities. for a FF shooter, you'd probably get more use out of purchasing a 16-35 L f/2.8. the odds of someone reaching for a 24mm f/2.8 or 28mm f/2.8 in their bag against all other lens options out there seems very low to me.


----------



## PJshooter (Feb 7, 2012)

Glad to see that Canon thinks the global recession is over 

In what reality are they living? Can I get some of those meds?


----------



## kubelik (Feb 7, 2012)

PJshooter said:


> Glad to see that Canon thinks the global recession is over
> 
> In what reality are they living? Can I get some of those meds?



the only thing I can think of is Canon wants to clear the shelves of other old-but-reasonably-priced lenses. when you look at a 24mm f/2.8 IS USM at $800, suddenly the 28mm f/1.8 USM looks like a crazy winning purchase. even the 35mm f/1.4 L USM at $1300 looks unbelievably fantastic at only $500 more. (you can't tell me that L-build quality and f/1.4 aren't worth 60% more than a non-L f/2.8 prime) in fact, I'm so scared of what the future has in hold that I am very close to purchasing the current 35 L because it's looking like the bargain purchase of the year at this point.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 7, 2012)

these have to be aimed at budding cinematographers with the IS and the price is still significantly lower than any cine lenses. that is all i can think of to justify it


----------

