# A Brief Hands-On With the 3 New Lenses



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 15, 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/a-brief-hands-on-with-the-3-new-lenses/"></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/a-brief-hands-on-with-the-3-new-lenses/" 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/a-brief-hands-on-with-the-3-new-lenses/"></a></div>
<strong>From Dan Carr

</strong>Photographer Dan Carr had a brief hands-on with the 3 new lenses from Canon. He even had the chance to shoot a sample image with the new EF 24 f/2.8 IS. However, as noted in his article, the IS wasn’t operational on the prototypes.</p>
<p>There are some images of the new primes on the Canon EOS C300 as well. Are videographers looking forward to these primes?</p>
<p>There is also a sample from a hand assembled <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/ef2470f28lii" class="pretty-link-keyword">EF 24-70 f/2.8L II</a> to view.</p>
<p><strong>Dan’s take on the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/ef2470f28lii" class="pretty-link-keyword">EF 24-70 f/2.8L II</a></strong></p>
<blockquote><p>Mounted to my 5dMKII it felt like a perfectly balanced package. Another physical difference is the 82mm thread on the front element, up from 77mm on the previous version. I remember the change from the old 16-35 f2.8 to the 16-35 f2.8 II which went through the same increase in diameter. The end of the MKII 16-35 appeared a fair bit larger than it’s predecessor, with a bulge in the lens casing. I’m happy to say though the the 24-70 doesn’t suffer from this at all. I was worried it would seem a lot bulkier but actually it feels quite svelte and apart from the annoyance of all your 77mm filters no longer fitting, it’s a change that will go unnoticed by most.</p></blockquote>
<p><strong><a href="http://dancarrphotography.com/blog/2012/02/14/hands-on-with-the-new-canon-24-70-24mm-28mm-is-primes/">Read the entire article</a></strong></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>
```


----------



## scubasteve03 (Feb 15, 2012)

So does this mean that all Canon lenses will come with a lens hood from now on? If so, way to go Canon. It's about time you get with the program. 
That 24-70 looks sharp. Hopefully prices will come down closer to $1800 Usd and then they will have a winner on their hands.


----------



## libertyranger (Feb 15, 2012)

As someone who does not own the Mk. I version of the 24-70, does this photo look like it would be sharper than the Mk. 1 Version wide open?


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 15, 2012)

libertyranger said:


> As someone who does not own the Mk. I version of the 24-70, does this photo look like it would be sharper than the Mk. 1 Version wide open?



It looks amazingly sharp to me. Hard to judge a very different situation but I was a bit shocked when I saw the 100% crop. I'd say, yes, it's much sharper than version 1


----------



## bigblue1ca (Feb 15, 2012)

Also of interest....Dan Carr within the past hour replied on his FB Page https://www.facebook.com/dancarrphoto to Colby Brown (another photographer) and answered Brown's question from Monday regarding Carr's field trip:

Mon, Feb 13, 9:58 AM - Brown:
"Let me know how it goes with the 1D Dan. See if you can get anything about the battery issues I have been hearing about. I have 3 on pre-order in hopes to have one in March. Time will tell "

Tue, Feb 14 - Carr:
"Colby Brown I asked them and they were still pretty convinced we will see it in March. No comments about the battery unfortunately. I couldn't tell if they knew something or if they truly didn't on that front."


----------



## marekjoz (Feb 15, 2012)

Does anybody know why they are 24 and 28 - I mean only 4 mm difference? What kind of application is it important to differ 24 from 28? Is there any standard like 28 in cinema (or it's @apsh eq =36mm)?


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Feb 15, 2012)

Too bad the sample shots have to be taken at a high ISO, which were very evident in the 100% crops. Kinda hard to judge the lens sharpness from those shots.


----------



## zim (Feb 15, 2012)

Very excited about those two primes. Really hope this will continue to 35 and 50. I agree with the article that a either a 24 or a 28 and a 35 would have been more logical but I’m sure Canon had their reasons and as long as a 35 and 50 comes around I’ll be real happy (and I don’t do vid)


----------



## dswatson83 (Feb 15, 2012)

I really don't see alot to like with the primes. The 24-105mm f/4 IS is almost as cheap as 1 of those and is WAY better built with tons of flexibility with only 1 stop of light lost. Plus canon already has a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS for cropped bodies. A 24-70mm f/2.8 IS full frame model would make these lenses useless and thus i'm curious to see the results of the new Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 stabilized for this reason. Maybe canon avoided this lens so it didn't hurt their new IS primes. Most video is MF anyway thus the Tamron might be perfect, even if it suffers at focusing. 

The 24-70mm f/2.8 needs to be the best lens ever made to compete. Without IS, there will be less love from video users and alot of people already use the version 1 or the 24-105mm f/4 IS. Those that don't will be further swayed by the new Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 stabilized.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 15, 2012)

libertyranger said:


> As someone who does not own the Mk. I version of the 24-70, does this photo look like it would be sharper than the Mk. 1 Version wide open?



Hard to say when nothing is controlled. I will say it sure does look awfully sharp though and, as he noted too, there isn't even a hint of purple-fringing (granted PF tends to show a bit less under certain types of dim, indoor lighting, but all the same, I see not even a hint), it's just clean. I'm quite suspicious that it is sharper than the 24-70 Mk I.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 15, 2012)

zim said:


> Very excited about those two primes. Really hope this will continue to 35 and 50. I agree with the article that a either a 24 or a 28 and a 35 would have been more logical but I’m sure Canon had their reasons and as long as a 35 and 50 comes around I’ll be real happy (and I don’t do vid)



If you look at the designs, the 24 and 28 IS share the exact same basic front and rear element design to the T so it was probably economical to just release the 28 IS not too that they had made the new 24. Hopefully the 50 1.4 is next as nothing needed a fix more than that one (although the 24 2.8 had been second most in need).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 15, 2012)

dswatson83 said:


> I really don't see alot to like with the primes. The 24-105mm f/4 IS is almost as cheap as 1 of those and is WAY better built with tons of flexibility with only 1 stop of light lost. Plus canon already has a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS for cropped bodies. A 24-70mm f/2.8 IS full frame model would make these lenses useless and thus i'm curious to see the results of the new Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 stabilized for this reason. Maybe canon avoided this lens so it didn't hurt their new IS primes. Most video is MF anyway thus the Tamron might be perfect, even if it suffers at focusing.
> 
> The 24-70mm f/2.8 needs to be the best lens ever made to compete. Without IS, there will be less love from video users and alot of people already use the version 1 or the 24-105mm f/4 IS. Those that don't will be further swayed by the new Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 stabilized.



The MTFs for the 24-70 do hint it might be one of the best consumer zooms ever made. And the new primes should blow away the 24-105 for FF edge to edge sharpness for landscapes.


----------



## bainsybike (Feb 16, 2012)

I see the hoods for the new lenses are to feature locking buttons. Does this mean that the hoods will now be supplied with the non-Ls? Perhaps this explains their price.


----------



## ejenner (Feb 16, 2012)

bainsybike said:


> I see the hoods for the new lenses are to feature locking buttons. Does this mean that the hoods will now be supplied with the non-Ls? Perhaps this explains their price.



LOL, yes, $300 for the lens, $500 for the hood. Lens only operates with hood attached.


----------



## Axilrod (Feb 16, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> The MTFs for the 24-70 do hint it might be one of the best consumer zooms ever made. And the new primes should blow away the 24-105 for FF edge to edge sharpness for landscapes.



I agree the charts look great, but do you really consider a $2k+ lens to be a "consumer" zoom?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 16, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> I agree the charts look great, but do you really consider a $2k+ lens to be a "consumer" zoom?



In the sense that it is mass produced on a large scale and not some Area 51 project zoom lens or some special project lab creation or something or even a Leica hah.


----------

