# EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 5, 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/2012/11/ef-24-70-f4l-is-ef-35-f2-is/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/11/ef-24-70-f4l-is-ef-35-f2-is/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>New Lenses

</strong><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/10/canon-ef-24-70-f4l-is-coming-cr3/" target="_blank">As suspected</a> the new Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS will be announced. This lens should appears as a kit lens with the upcoming EOS 6D. The other lens isn’t a new 50mm at this time, it’s actually going to be a new EF 35 f/2 IS.<strong> </strong>Pricing will also be higher than the previously unconfirmed suggestions.</p>
<p><strong>EF24-70mm F4L IS USM</strong></p>
<div id="attachment_11801" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 510px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/ef2470f4is_1.jpeg"><img class="size-full wp-image-11801" title="ef2470f4is_1" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/ef2470f4is_1.jpeg" alt="" width="500" height="320" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">EF 24-70 f/4L IS</p></div>
<p><strong>

</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>15 elements in 12 groups, two aspherical lens, lens configuration sheet 2 UD lens</li>
<li>9-blade circular aperture</li>
<li>Weatherproof</li>
<li>Full-time manual focus</li>
<li>Can switch to macro mode at the telephoto end</li>
<li>0.2m minimum focusing distance, 0.7 times the maximum magnification</li>
<li>Hybrid IS Image Stabilizer</li>
<li>77mm filter size</li>
<li>600g weight, 93mm length, 83.4mm in diameter</li>
<li>Released in mid-December</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>EF 35mm f/2 IS</strong></p>
<div id="attachment_11802" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 510px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/ef35f2is_1.jpeg"><img class="size-full wp-image-11802" title="ef35f2is_1" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/ef35f2is_1.jpeg" alt="" width="500" height="320" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">EF 35 f/2 IS</p></div>
<p><strong>

</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>10 elements in 8 groups, the lens structure is glass-molded aspherical lens</li>
<li>8-blade circular aperture</li>
<li>4 stop IS</li>
<li>AF motor ring USM, full-time manual focus</li>
<li>67mm filter size</li>
<li>335g  weight, 62.6mm length, 77.9mm in diameter</li>
<li>Released in early December 2012</li>
</ul>
<div>Source: [<a href="http://digicame-info.com/2012/11/ef24-70mm-f4l-is-usmef35mm-f2.html" target="_blank">DI</a>]</div>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## sanj (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Both lenses seem interesting and practical. 

With modern cameras I THINK I f4 with IS will be more practical and have more keepers than 2.8 non IS version.


----------



## sanj (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Thanks CR guy for the info!
What does 'Hybrid IS' mean? How many stops does it translate to and how is it different than regular IS? 
THX!

PS - Am happy with my 24-105 and sure sure if 24-70 lens will entice me. Waiting to see how it will be better than the workhorse 24-105.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



sanj said:


> Thanks CR guy for the info!
> What does 'Hybrid IS' mean? How many stops does it translate to and how is it different than regular IS?
> THX!



Hybrid Image Stabilizer (IS), the world's first* optical image stabilization technology that compensates for both angle camera shake and shift camera shake.


----------



## sanj (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Thx...

Something like the 100 macro? 

Wow sounds super!


----------



## JurijTurnsek (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

What the point of having a 24-70 4L IS AND 24-105 4L IS in the line-up? Isn't it a no-brainer to just get the 105?


----------



## amazin (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Correct me if i'm wrong but what's the point of IS in such short focal lengths?

With the release of 24-70 f/4L IS it will be a tough choice for some to decide with the 2.8 non IS version, what do you think?


----------



## Ben Taylor (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

The 24-70mm f/4L IS baffles me a bit to be honest. I would have thought an updated 24-105mm f/4L IS with improved optics would be more enticing (not that it's optically poor by any stretch as it is now). 

I don't know, just doesn't seem to fill any void in the current line up to me. 

I look forward to seeing some MTF charts anyway.


----------



## squarebox (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



amazin said:


> Correct me if i'm wrong but what's the point of IS in such short focal lengths?
> 
> With the release of 24-70 f/4L IS it will be a tough choice for some to decide with the 2.8 non IS version, what do you think?



My bet is the 24-70 will be significantly better optically. Probably sharper and better colors


----------



## Ben Taylor (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

LOL it appears a couple of us had the same idea simultaneously there.


----------



## tomscott (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Ye I really dont see the point of the 24-70 F4 IS unless it offers much better quality than the 24-105 F4 IS, If it offers similar quality then why loose the extra 35mm of reach. The new IS wouldn't sway me toward it either. Odd decision by Canon again and bet its a small fortune at least £1100.


----------



## sanj (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

At this point it seems no brainer but the hybrid IS seems interesting and also lets see how the IQ is.

We must have faith in Canon. They must have reasons to release this lens.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

At last - the 35mm f/2 I was waiting for, specifically with USM & improved aperture. If the price is right, I'm buying one.


----------



## tomscott (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

It does look very small tho... small and lightweight? Discontinuation of the 24-105mm?


----------



## Ben Taylor (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



tomscott said:


> It does look very small tho... small and lightweight? Discontinuation of the 24-105mm?



That thought did cross my mind also...


----------



## TomazK (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

It is going to be interesting to see the IQ of the new 24-70 2.8 compared to the F/4 version and the old one ...
The 35 was also due for an update, not sure about the IS on such a lens. Most probably video stuff...

But still, Canon give us the 14-24 please


----------



## Einstein333 (Nov 5, 2012)

*24-70 f/4L IS probably much better than 24-105*

Well, I'm pretty sure the EF 24-70 f/4L IS will be much better optically than the 24-105. Otherwise Canon wouldn't have a reason to release it. And I agree to what a previous poster already said: f4 with IS will be much more helpful to many of us than f2.8 without IS.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



amazin said:


> Correct me if i'm wrong but what's the point of IS in such short focal lengths?



video...


----------



## Vikmnilu (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Hei!

So how much would te 24-70 be? About 1000 dollars ? translated to europe 1000 euros?....
So canon introduces the 6D dor 2000 and may add this as a kit lens to sell it for about 2700-2800 dollars and they expect that "entry level" people would buy it... Imo thats a huge increase in price compared to the APS-C entry and medium levels... sounds more like the 5D mark II when it was released....

well, lets see how things develop and how many they get sold.

Victor


----------



## insanitybeard (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



Ellen Schmidtee said:


> At last - the 35mm f/2 I was waiting for, specifically with USM & improved aperture. If the price is right, I'm buying one.



Alas, if the new 24 and 28 2.8 IS lenses are anything to go by, price will be substancially more than the old 35 f2...... :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

If those specs are true, a 0.7x max mag of the 24-70/4 is pretty darn close to a true 1:1 macro, and much higher than any other non-macro lens in the lineup (the 24-105 is 0.3x, 24-70 is 0.29x, 24-70 II is 0.21x). It's even higher than the 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro. The use of H-IS would be consistent with that high max mag (the only other lens that has it is the 100L Macro, but PowerShots also have H-IS since they have very close MFDs). 

So, this lens is a combination general purpose zoom *and near-macro* lens, something nonexistent in the current lineup. For people who like to shoot close ups (flowers, jewelry, etc.) this is like getting two lenses in one.


----------



## virsago_mk2 (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

I guess I'll stick with my 24-105 f/4 L IS then.

I don't see any point of getting 24-70 f/4 L IS unless you're a new Canon DSLR user who wants to buy the latest gear available.

Finger cross for 24-105 f/2.8 L IS or even better 24-120 f/2.8 L IS in the future.


----------



## sanj (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



amazin said:


> Correct me if i'm wrong but what's the point of IS in such short focal lengths?
> 
> With the release of 24-70 f/4L IS it will be a tough choice for some to decide with the 2.8 non IS version, what do you think?



I think IS is great to have even on a short focal length. I have wished for IS many times on lenses 100mm and below in low light situations. IS helps me keep the ISO down. But I must admit today's new cameras are changing the scenario somewhat. But I do prefer IS.. You many want to try shooting handheld some shots at 1/15 or somewhere around that with IS off, zooming in a bit and checking the corners and objects in the foreground for blur. Then do the same with IS on and see the difference.


----------



## Nishi Drew (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Ah, finally an "affordable" 35 that will replace the previous affordable one that's not too great? Nope, Sigma beat them with their 35mm 1.4 which would be coming out this month some time? Or not, maybe these two will be priced around the same seeing how the new IS wide primes are, and how Siggy primes aren't "that" cheap, only in comparison to L.
But it is funny how third party lens manufacturers are beating the big companies to the punch with lenses


----------



## kubelik (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Finally, and update to the loud, poor-bokeh poor man's 35. Still holding my breath on the pricing, I feel like this is liable to be $750 like the 24 and 28 IS versions... if they can make it $650 I think it'll be a permanent walkaround on my 5d mark 2


----------



## sandymandy (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

I think the 35mm IS is really nice! I expect it to have much better IQ and then theres finally a Canon lens available that i can keep on my APS-C body most of the time. Canon recently just released lenses with good IQ so i hope the 35 IS is one of them. And hope its not so damn pricy!


----------



## gmrza (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



JurijTurnsek said:


> What the point of having a 24-70 4L IS AND 24-105 4L IS in the line-up? Isn't it a no-brainer to just get the 105?



The point is probably to have a more affordable kit lens matched with the 6D. The 24-105 is too close in price to the 6D itself.

The only feature of this lens which doesn't look like pure marketing is the near macro magnification at the tele end.


----------



## JR (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Well, I am down for the EF 24-70 f/4L IS even though I just got the 24-70 II. I love the smaller and lighter package and IS for outside shooting. As for the 35mmf2 IS, well I will wait for the 35 1.4L II version if it ever come out. All the new IS prime (24, 28 and now 35) are really good but they still lack the contrast and color of the "L" series lenses...

Now CR guy, where is that high MP Canon camera so I can get rid of my D800 that barely focus in low light !


----------



## Nassen0f (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Please god, please dont let them be way overpriced! 
I want the 24-70 to replace my ancient 28-135! i will Accept 7-800$ / €. Anything over that they can keep it in the parts bin...


----------



## Viggo (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

The mag ratio of the 24-70 is pretty cool. My girlfriend only have the 100 L for food photography, she's always saying she wants a lens that can do a bit more, maybe this is the lens to swap the 100 L for...


----------



## Nishi Drew (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

The 24-70 better be cheaper than Tamron's 2.8 VC equivalent, although I feel the Canon would be better weather sealed and the macro option is good. It just comes down to price, this thing will either be way over what anyone expects it to be at (canon mentality of "half" of 24-70 2.8?), or it will be so cheap people will buy it just because, like the pancake!


----------



## Zv (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Oh yeah, I can see myself owning both of these! The macro capabilities seals the deal over the 24-105 I was thinking of getting. Plus it's lighter and shorter. I have full confidence in Canon that the IQ will be superb. This is great news, though I was looking fwd to a new 50! Oh well!


----------



## EchoLocation (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

i like the size of the 24-70 and the price isn't too bad. I hope the focal length is actually a little longer as admin has stated is a possibility. 
The 24-105 I had was good, but not amazing, and it definitely wasn't too small. I think this lens might actually make some sense if it turns out to be sharper and have better colors than the 105.
However, for me personally, the reason i bought a DSLR was mainly because I wanted better low light performance..... Thus I recently sold my 24-105 and bought a 24-70.
I don't understand primes that aren't in the 1.4 or at least 1.8 range. Why would i want a $700 prime that is only f2? Can someone explain this to me? i'm still baffled by the 24 and 28mm 2.8's.... Why would I want one of these instead of something faster or a zoom? If they were under 400 dollars I wouldn't ask this question.


----------



## Hillsilly (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

I would have a traded a bit of the long end for some more reach. But, hey, 24-70 is much better geared if using a crop body and probably a good overall consensus sweet spot. Can't wait to see how it compares at 24mm and 70mm.


----------



## vlim (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

this new 24-70 is interesting and i may consider it but why no new 100-400 / 300 or 400 and where's the 200-400 :-[ :-[ :-[


----------



## robbinzo (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Interesting lenses. Presumably the 24-70mm f/4.0 will complement the 6D in weight and size. Should be a good kit lens for the 6D.
I've been thinking about getting the 35mm L for my crop sensor for a while. This new 35mm sounds ideal for me. If the 35mm f/2.0 has internal focusing, I'll be very happy.


----------



## verysimplejason (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

if the 24-70 performs well, it will be a good walk-around lens for my upcoming full frame. I've got other prime lenses to take care of bokeh and low-light when needed.


----------



## verysimplejason (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



EchoLocation said:


> i like the size of the 24-70 and the price isn't too bad. I hope the focal length is actually a little longer as admin has stated is a possibility.
> The 24-105 I had was good, but not amazing, and it definitely wasn't too small. I think this lens might actually make some sense if it turns out to be sharper and have better colors than the 105.
> However, for me personally, the reason i bought a DSLR was mainly because I wanted better low light performance..... Thus I recently sold my 24-105 and bought a 24-70.
> I don't understand primes that aren't in the 1.4 or at least 1.8 range. Why would i want a $700 prime that is only f2? Can someone explain this to me? i'm still baffled by the 24 and 28mm 2.8's.... Why would I want one of these instead of something faster or a zoom? If they were under 400 dollars I wouldn't ask this question.



I think they were made for video...


----------



## kilobit (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

The hybrid IS is very good for video.

Read what Vincent Laforet (canon ambassador and movie maker) has to say about the hybrid IS in the 100mm macro:

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/mygear/lenses/ef-lenses/
---
This is a stunning Macro lens. Incredibly sharp and stunning. BUT the REAL secret with this lens is that is is the only lens to date that has the new "hybrid" IS stabilization system – which is almost like having a built-in gyro. It’s the only lens that I can operate an HDDLSR 100% handheld – the Image Stabilization is stunning. I wish they would put this new system in EVERY upcoming Canon lens.
---

So I guess they listened to him..


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

I have to admit, I'm glad to see the old 35mm f/2 to go away. It was a terrible lens. 

If the 24-70L f/4 isn't cheaper than the 24-105L, I don't see it catching on.


----------



## KyleSTL (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Why the filter size of 77mm still? Why didn't they make it 67mm just like the 70-200mm f4L and IS? I guess the 17-40mm f/4L is also 77mm, but I see most first-time FF users pairing this lens up first with the tele zoom and then adding the UWA later.

Same is true for the rumored 35mm. Why 67mm (up from 52mm of the previous model)? I would think that 58mm just like the 24 and 28mm IS lenses would make a lot more sense. 58mm is easily big enough to squeeze in the objective element for 35mm f/2. The objective elements in the 24mm and 28mm are a larger diameter than they mathematically need to be, and maybe that factors into their excellent performance. Maybe the 35mm f/2 is even larger and will have similar or superior IQ because of it.


----------



## iso79 (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

To this day I have never had a use for IS or found it useful so I will not buying either one.


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



EchoLocation said:


> I don't understand primes that aren't in the 1.4 or at least 1.8 range. Why would i want a $700 prime that is only f2? Can someone explain this to me?



Well, 1.8 is only 1/3 stop faster than 2.0. To get 1/3 of a stop out of shutter speed or ISO isn't that big a deal, so the difference doesn't matter a whole lot, IMO. 1.4 is 2/3 stop faster. Again, with the ISO performance of the modern cameras, this isn't as big a deal as it once was. 

Creatively, the DOF of the faster lenses can't be replicated. But at that point you're in the realm of very carefully focused artistic shots - the realm of a more specialized lens. I have never had any luck walking around shooting at 1.4-1.8. DOF is too difficult to manage. If stuff is moving, or the scene is busy than your keeper rate goes way down. I'd much rather have the higher resolution of the new lenses and them be just fast enough to help in dim situations. 

On another note: I'm guessing $1600 for the new 24-70F4 L IS.

-Brian


----------



## sanj (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



RLPhoto said:


> I have to admit, I'm glad to see the old 35mm f/2 to go away. It was a terrible lens.
> 
> If the 24-70L f/4 isn't cheaper than the 24-105L, I don't see it catching on.



Agree...


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Two more lenses that I don't need...where is the new 50mm and/or 14-24 Mr. Canon


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



insanitybeard said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > At last - the 35mm f/2 I was waiting for, specifically with USM & improved aperture. If the price is right, I'm buying one.
> ...



With improved diaphragm and added IS & USM, it would be surprising if Canon didn't raise it's price significantly. I wouldn't make a big fuss if the price was raise 60% to U.S.$500

Also, consider it's position relative to the 35mm f/1.4 L USM - having the same diaphragm (8 rounded blades) & USM, the two lenses are not as differentiated as before - cash & IS would win many over one f stop.

On the other hand, Canon might replace the 35mm f/1.4 L with a 35mm f/1.2 L, and make even more people happy.


----------



## Zv (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

[/quote]


On another note: I'm guessing $1600 for the new 24-70F4 L IS.

-Brian
[/quote]

I think $1600 is unrealistic. Especially as it's meant to be a kit lens for the 6D. I reckon initial price will be closer to th 24-105L and then it will fall in price to help the 24-105 fade away.


----------



## stewy (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Since I already have the 24-105, I'll wait and see how this new lens compares to it. If its noticeably sharper, has better IS, not crazily expensive and doesn't suffer from lens creep (my 24-105 does), then I may switch to it. I also have the 70-200 f4 IS, so I don't mind switching lens as needed.

I'm going to stick to my original plan when it comes to lens, which is to buy the cheaper F4 zooms and supplement with fast primes (1.4 and faster).


----------



## robbymack (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



stewy said:


> Since I already have the 24-105, I'll wait and see how this new lens compares to it. If its noticeably sharper, has better IS, not crazily expensive and doesn't suffer from lens creep (my 24-105 does), then I may switch to it. I also have the 70-200 f4 IS, so I don't mind switching lens as needed.
> 
> I'm going to stick to my original plan when it comes to lens, which is to buy the cheaper F4 zooms and supplement with fast primes (1.4 and faster).



Smart man. F2.8 is not fast enough IMHO to stop most action in low light.


----------



## sleepnever (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



Dylan777 said:


> Two more lenses that I don't need...where is the new 50mm and/or 14-24 Mr. Canon



I'm with you. I'd rather see a new 50mm, in L and non-L flavors with updated features. I have a love/hate with my 50 1.8 II.


----------



## Greg_M (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

*"Pricing will also be higher than the previously unconfirmed suggestions."*

Given recent events, I am not surprised.


----------



## trygved (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



Dylan777 said:


> Two more lenses that I don't need...where is the new 50mm and/or 14-24 Mr. Canon



I had my fingers crossed for the 14-24
With the two mid range zoom lenses starting at 24mm, you would think the lens would fit like a glove in the lineup.
I would be right as rain with a 14-24 f/4, 24-70 f/4 IS, and a 70-200 f4/IS
Toss in a fast prime or two and you've got yourself a party.


----------



## tron (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

They specialize in introducing useless or almost useless lenses : (at least relative to the lenses we all wait for)


----------



## ronderick (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



sanj said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I have to admit, I'm glad to see the old 35mm f/2 to go away. It was a terrible lens.
> ...



We won't have a choice by the time they discontinue the 24-105 and replace it with a much more expensive version of the lens... either take the new lens or stomach the 24-70 f/4L.


----------



## plutonium10 (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Am I the only one who is actually excited about this lens? The macro bit is what sold me. Provided this new lens has nice IQ and reasonable price (which by all means it should), It can effectively provide a small and light replacement for my 100L macro and 15-85. Paired with a 10-22 or 17-40, it seems like an excellent and versatile lens for travel photography and macro work.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Concerning why a "slow" prime.... Prime lenses are about image quality. Usually they are fast, but not always so.

And why 24-70 and not 24-105.... the greater the zoom range the harder it is to keep image quality. Most prime zooms are around a 3x zoom range, a ratio where the compromises made do not overly distort the image. For an extreme example, look at the superzooms with ranges of ten times or more..... the IQ sucks compared to shorter range zooms. I'll bet that the image quality of the 24-70 is much better than the 24-105.


----------



## Etienne (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

I can see a use for both of these new lenses.

GP zoom with Hybrid IS and macro to boot? not bad
35 f2 small and light with IS. sounds good to me

I hope they aren't too pricey


----------



## robbymack (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



plutonium10 said:


> Am I the only one who is actually excited about this lens? The macro bit is what sold me. Provided this new lens has nice IQ and reasonable price (which by all means it should), It can effectively provide a small and light replacement for my 100L macro and 15-85. Paired with a 10-22 or 17-40, it seems like an excellent and versatile lens for travel photography and macro work.



The macro possibilities are interesting


----------



## rbr (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

I think it will be a let's wait and see situation for the new zoom. The 24-105 isn't at its best at the very wide end where I want to use it the most. It also has a lot of distortion at that end. If the new zoom improves the wide end significantly over the 24-105 in a smaller package I will get it probably. It would be a nice lightweight travel lens to pair with one of the 70-something lenses. I hope the MTF charts come out soon.


----------



## JBeckwith (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

I'll pass on these ones as well since I have the 24-105. I doubt the IQ improvement will be worth spending the extra $$.


----------



## Woody (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

The original Japanese site stated the prices of the lenses: the 24-70 f/4L IS costs slightly more than the 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS (US$1600), and the 35 f/2 IS price is about the same as the EF-S 10-22 (US$850)


----------



## well_dunno (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

If the price is around $ or €1600 for the 24-70 f/4 , it had better be optically superior than 24-105 (and Tammy 24-70 f/2.8 ) by quite a bit. Otherwise it is not a difficult choice for homo economicus...


----------



## pierceography (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

I'm none too excited about either of these lenses. I already own the mark 1 version of the 24-70mm 2.8, and don't have any plans in the near future to upgrade, since it's an extra $1,000. I get that the new 24-70mm f/4 is likely to be angled towards a kit lens with the 6D/5Dm3, but I doubt many will buy this lens outright.

Wish it would have been a 14-24mm, 135mm II, or 50mm II.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

i disagree that the 35mm reach are worthless. 24-105 and 100-400 gives a coverage far into tele reach, if one can trade fastness for price and weight.

if the 70-300L is the successor oft the 100-400 then a slower 24-70 makes sense. 

Otherwise its just less lens for more money which gives us something new and canon more income. The same as for a 35 2.0is or even 35 2.8 is for almost the price of the old 35 1.4

As reasonable good superzooms from Nikon show, it should be possible to make a lens with more reach with the same IQ as before, but as long as marketing says what we have to want and they spend money better for advertising than for R&D it will run the oposite direction


----------



## K-amps (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Pricing at $850 for the 24-70 f4 is wishful thinking.... 

This thing might be closer to $1700. 

Have you guys not seen recent Lens pricing? They want to make more money and the 24-105 is perhaps their best selling EF lens... if they can migrate the users to a 2x priced 24-70 F4L then they will do it. The new lens should have better resolution and contrast compared to the 24-105 which would remain as the budget general purpose till it disappears or becomes the replacement for the 28-135mm

"Eventually" the price of the 24-70 F4L may drop a bit, but not for a while... They will Milk it!


----------



## Act444 (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

The 24-105 is a great walkaround- 70mm just isn't enough reach on FF for that purpose.

24-70 is a good range for indoor events, but especially for people shots, 2.8 is better given that often times, they're moving around and faster shutter speeds are needed anyway.

I don't change lenses out in the field- I usually just pick one lens for the day and stick to it. Minimizes accidents, dust on sensor, etc.

If this lens were small and under ~$700 I'd consider it for the 60D. But doesn't sound like the price will be anywhere near that reasonable. Meh.


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

as i read it (yen price) the new 24-70mm f4 is will cost around 1700-1800 euro here in germany.

well.....


----------



## tron (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



Gothmoth said:


> as i read it (yen price) the new 24-70mm f4 is will cost around 1700-1800 euro here in germany.
> 
> well.....


I believe you but it's unrealistic to expect that this lens will sell at that ridiculous price. This is expensive even for a f/2.8 version...


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



tron said:


> I believe you but it's unrealistic to expect that this lens will sell at that ridiculous price. This is expensive even for a f/2.8 version...



lets hope so.. 

the YEN price translates into ~ $1800... and from the past experience the price here in euro is the same as in dollar for the USA. :

canons pricing has gone to ridiculous levels. so i would not rule 1700 euro for this lens out.

maybe canon is going the leica way.
i really don´t know what they are thinking.

but i do know that the new prices are driving new customers away from DSLR´s.


----------



## Zv (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



Woody said:


> The original Japanese site stated the prices of the lenses: the 24-70 f/4L IS costs slightly more than the 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS (US$1600), and the 35 f/2 IS price is about the same as the EF-S 10-22 (US$850)



Where are you getting theses prices? Can you post a link? Did it quote a price in yen? If so how much Yen? Thanks.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



plutonium10 said:


> Am I the only one who is actually excited about this lens? The macro bit is what sold me. Provided this new lens has nice IQ and reasonable price (which by all means it should), It can effectively provide a small and light replacement for my 100L macro and 15-85. Paired with a 10-22 or 17-40, it seems like an excellent and versatile lens for travel photography and macro work.


Yes, a Zoom Macro, with a 0.7 magnification. Thats why it has Hybrid IS. 
Looking at their prices, I'd say they equate to
24-70 f/4L - $1300
35mm f/2 IS - $900
Thats about what I'd expect, +/- $100.

The price is on the website refered to in the CR posting.

I estimated the US price by looking at the US price of a few Canon lenses that sell for about the same prices (in Yen) in Japan. 145,000 and 74,000 yen.
The 135mmL sells for a little more, (151,200 yen), for example, while the 28mm IS sells for about 59800 Yen and the current Canon 35mm f/2 sells for about 31800. That gives a realistic estimate of what it will sell for in US dollars.


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



Zv said:


> Where are you getting theses prices? Can you post a link? Did it quote a price in yen? If so how much Yen? Thanks.



¥145 000 (including tax) 

¥74 000 (including tax)

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdigicame-info.com%2F2012%2F11%2Fef24-70mm-f4l-is-usmef35mm-f2.html


----------



## well_dunno (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



Gothmoth said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I believe you but it's unrealistic to expect that this lens will sell at that ridiculous price. This is expensive even for a f/2.8 version...
> ...


Indeed! Though, if Canon wants to go Leica way, perhaps they should consider offering Leica quality?.. :


----------



## wilddreamer (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

i believe the reason why canon dont bring out 24-70 f2.8 IS L or 35mm f1.4 II L. it got to do with strong yen. just imho


----------



## pharp (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

just call me carnac ;D
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9767.0;topicseen

The 35 might be nice if it had L  build [weather sealed] and dropped the IS


----------



## dolina (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

The great thing is none of these lenses are what I want.

Ergo, no spending. ;D

What I want is a an updated 135mm (pref at 1.8 aperture) with IS and a 400/5.6 with IS.

I semi-want an updated 35/1.4 and 180/3.5 Macro with IS.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*


The new 24-70 F/4L IS will be lighter, sure, but the price?

http://photorumors.com/2012/11/05/canon-ef-35mm-f2-is-usm-and-canon-ef-24-70mm-f4l-is-lenses-leaked-ahead-of-announcement/#more-35082

See comment in translation: "$1800, but the US price will be lower"

Weight alone is not enough to go 2x over the 24-105. That IQ better knock my socks off or this thing won't sell vs. the 24-105 at all. 

...or they'll have to obsolete the 24-105 outright. (in that case, this is a 80% takeaway, 20% nice to have, IMHO)


----------



## kilobit (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



ahsanford said:


> The new 24-70 F/4L IS will be lighter, sure, but the price?
> [snip]
> See comment in translation: "$1800, but the US price will be lower"



I'm still unsure about the price.
1600 - 1800 USD/EUR sounds in line with recent price increases, however that wouldn't fly as a 5d/6d kitlens imho.

A kit would then cost respectively EUR/USD 5200 and 3700 wich seem way too high to be interesting.


----------



## KyleSTL (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

If this indeed replaces the 24-105mm (in price and position in the lens lineup), put yourself in the shoes of a buyer for first-time FF camera:

D600 (24MP) + AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR = $2600
6D (20MP) + EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM = $2900

D600 >> 6D

Even if the 24-70mm delivers substantially better IQ, the average consumer is going to buy the Nikon on numbers alone. If Canon cannot put a $500 kit lens with the 6D they are going to be steamrolled.

EDIT: Add in the fact that the D600 has a built in flash (extra $160 for an EX270 II), an impressive sounding 39 autofocus points and a bigger screen, Canon's sales will suffer a lot.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*


Also, regarding the 35mm non-L refresh, a number of points come to mind:


If this is similar to the 24 and 28 IS lenses, the touted price of $800 is _absolutely_ worth it, and I'm strictly a still shooter. This will be an L lens without a red ring. The 28 I own is sharper than an equivalently stopped down 35L (i.e. it is not just useable, it is _great_ wide open, and stellar at F/4). The USM focusing is very fast, it's internally focusing, is very well built (on par with the 100L macro), and it's very small and unassuming. Plus, F/2.8 (with the 24 & 28) or F/2 (with the new 35) _with four stops IS_ are some of (if not _the_) most handholdable lenses you'll find.

This is good news for what I am _really_ looking for, which is a newer, sharper, better 50 prime. We're due, and though I'm bummed it's not happening now, this announcement marks the refresh of a third non-L prime. This bodes well for future upgraded versions of the 50 prime and 85 prime -- both stellar values vs. their L counterparts, but both are also quite old. Here's hoping.
Which begs the question, if I am looking for something better than my current Canon EF 50mm F/1.4 prime, do I look at the 1.2L or wait for this new non-L? As mentioned before, prior non-L refreshes were sharper than their L counterparts, and they pack a houseload of modern features (ring USM, IS, etc.) over their pro counterparts. Given all that, it begs the question why the non-Ls are getting the refresh/sharpness/feature updates before the Ls?



The 24/28 IS lenses take 58mm filters, but the rumored new 35 will jump from the current 52 filters to 67 filters. That would likely mean a new 50 (with similar upgrades) _might_ also go to 67mm. As odd as that diameter is, since I already own the 100L macro, I'm all set. 8)

The only bummer I see with all these great non-Ls coming out is that I lose the weather sealing I have been accustomed to on my other L lenses.


- A


----------



## Act444 (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



ahsanford said:


> Also, regarding the 35mm non-L refresh, a number of points come to mind:
> 
> 
> If this is similar to the 24 and 28 IS lenses, the touted price of $800 is _absolutely_ worth it, and I'm strictly a still shooter. This will be an L lens without a red ring. The 28 I own is sharper than an equivalently stopped down 35L (i.e. it is not just useable, it is _great_ wide open, and stellar at F/4). The USM focusing is very fast, it's internally focusing, is very well built (on par with the 100L macro), and it's very small and unassuming. Plus, F/2.8 (with the 24 & 28) or F/2 (with the new 35) _with four stops IS_ are some of (if not _the_) most handholdable lenses you'll find.
> ...



I have the 35L and it actually lacks weather sealing. So the only advantage it would have now over the new 35 is the extra stop of 1.4. I would be curious to see an IQ comparison...

then again, sharpness is not the whole equation. How well it controls fringing, the color reproduction, distortion, etc. are factors as well. I get the feeling the 35L will still be better in these areas.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*


@Act444: Roger at LR posted the new non-L primes vs. the 24L II here:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/06/the-other-canon-primes-why-did-they-do-that

As you can see, at similar apertures, the 28 punched its weight brilliantly, the 24 non-L almost as well.

I believe (from other sites) the 24L II has proven a sharper lens the 35L, hence (transitively) my statement of the new non-Ls outperforming the 35L.

Yet... 

Now that photozone has posted resolution figures for both the 35L and 28 non-L IS, this may be more of a dead heat (pan down to resolution charts):

New 28 IS: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/774-canon28f28isff?start=1
35L: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/516-canon35f14ff?start=1

...so I may be eating my words a bit. At F/2.8, its a virtual dead-heat, but at F/5.6 - 11, the L is slightly sharper in the off-center areas.


Different tester, different results it seems. You decide.

Full disclosure, I am an engineer, so I'll gladly drown myself in data rather than make a decision and start swimming. 

- A


----------



## tron (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



well_dunno said:


> Gothmoth said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


Well said...


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

There was a recent post where most agreed the biggest hurdle for going full frame was cost:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10265.0
I think Canon has done well to supplement an entry level FF camera with two inexpensive but good lenses (having to get the 24-70II and 35 1.4 sort of negates the effect of a sub-$2000 camera, and I am sure the new 24-70 will more than make up for the lost range, or else Canon wouldn't just mess with us out of spite).
Personally, I had hoped for a cheaper, non-IS 35mm, possibly specific to APS-Cs (_a la_ Nikon)- I don't have anything against FF users but greater FoV means higher manufacturing cost:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9611.0
But if it costs so much (justifiably, of course, because of the IS and FF format), I might rather spend a few hundred more and go with the 1.4L. Let's see...


----------



## tron (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



sagittariansrock said:


> But if it costs so much (justifiably, of course, because of the IS and FF format), I might rather spend a few hundred more and go with the 1.4L. Let's see...


+1 Exactly! Actually this is what I have done already. A 35mm 1.4L II would cost a fortune and it would raise the price of the used 35mm 1.4L (judging from 4-70 2.8 version I)


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



tron said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > But if it costs so much (justifiably, of course, because of the IS and FF format), I might rather spend a few hundred more and go with the 1.4L. Let's see...
> ...



Guess I need to act fast...


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



Canon Rumors said:


> Pricing will also be higher than the previously unconfirmed suggestions.



Now here's a surprise - not :-(

... though I have to admit the near-macro capability is very interesting since you now only need two travel lenses, the new 24-70/4 and a 70- tele like the 70-300L. And The hybrid IS will shine on the standard zoom since it's wasted on real macro lenses like the 100L - the IS is nearly useless at very close distances.

Pity they didn't announce a new 35L since they'll hardly release *two* new 35mm lenses in short succession.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



Marsu42 said:


> And The hybrid IS will shine on the standard zoom since it's wasted on real macro lenses like the 100L - the IS is nearly useless at very close distances.



By that logic, though, the Hybrid IS is equally useless on the 24-70/4L IS. The translational motion compensation, which is the 'hybrid' part of H-IS, is only effective with very close subjects; regular IS compensates for angular motion, which dominates for subjects beyond a couple of feet from the camera. That's why H-IS isn't used on other lenses. To get to the near-macro 0.7x mag with the 24-70/4 IS you're at the MFD of 20 cm, and the MFD of the 100L macro is 30 cm - further out than the new lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



neuroanatomist said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > And The hybrid IS will shine on the standard zoom since it's wasted on real macro lenses like the 100L - the IS is nearly useless at very close distances.
> ...



I wonder, is there any chance that this Hybrid IS is simply the non-mode-selectable type of IS I have on the new 28 IS? I seem to recall (sorry, no reference) reading something to the effect of the new 24 and 28 IS having a new mode of IS that simply auto-switched between a panning IS and a standard (all-purpose) IS based on the lens' movement. Any chance that is what Canon means with the new lenses' IS?

And for those not fond of the Hybrid IS with the 100L macro, though I agree that at macro focus distances the IS is less effective, two things I'd share from my use of that lens: 

1) In my hands, it seems to work just fine in keeping slower shutters stable as traditional IS would, and 

2) The 100L is not remotely a dedicated macro lens -- it's a fully functional 100mm prime. The 180L macro is _such_ a slow focuser that it's effectively a specialist lens (though I'm sure our forum's creative users have found neat ways to use it for more than as a macro). But to relegate the _100L_ to strictly macro work is a big miss, IMHO. One quick switch on focus range and it becomes a solid 100mm prime for portraiture, concerts, etc. Remember that not everyone owns the pro portrait staple lengths of 85 and 135, so the 100 is a great option for some. 

- A


----------



## t.linn (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Meh. I can't speak from experience behind the counter. I can only say that, for me, a 24-70 is not sufficient as a walk around lens. No matter how light a 24-70 f/4L is, it still means bringing two lenses and changing them. That means a heavier kit, not a lighter one.

Speaking of changing lenses, I hate it—particularly in adverse conditions. For me, overlap is helpful rather than redundant.

Really, the IQ of this lens would have to be off the charts for me to even consider it—and there is definitely room for improvement vs. the 24-105 in this respect. I'm thinking particularly of vignetting at 24mm when using even a slim filter. This drives me crazy. But if I were to go backwards in terms of focal range, I would probably go to a f/2.8L II. At least I'm getting something in return for the loss of focal length and the increased cost.


----------



## enraginangel (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

I decided to buy the 24-105mm used today because of this announcement. I think the extra reach is worth it and I think we are all waiting for the 24-70mm f2.8L IS anyway. When that comes out, my 24-105mm f4L won't feel completely redundant.


----------



## aznable (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

it is dubbed hybrid is just because the lens is almost a macro (0.7 macro factor...wow)


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



aznable said:


> it is dubbed hybrid is just because the lens is almost a macro (0.7 macro factor...wow)



Agree agree agree. That's the only arrow in the quiver (along with better IQ, to be fair) that might justify this $1800 price from the translation.

I'm probably in the minority here that I'm more likely to bring my relatively small and light 100L macro over my 70-200 F/2.8L IS II on trips. So if this magnification is true, this could become an epic kill-two-birds-with-one-not-so-big-or-heavy-stone sort of lens for travel.


----------



## kilobit (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



ahsanford said:


> aznable said:
> 
> 
> > it is dubbed hybrid is just because the lens is almost a macro (0.7 macro factor...wow)
> ...



You are both wrong.
Hybrid IS means it compensates for two types of camera/lens movement.

Read here:
http://www.canon.com/news/2009/jul22e.html

It is for angle shake and shift shake.

It is ideal for recording handheld video.


----------



## Colski (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

The rumored 35mm looks potentially amazing for aps-c cameras. I can't think of much better for hand holding in low light based on the description alone. Equivalent to a 56mm f/2.0 prime with 4 stops of image stabalization on a full frame camera. 

It'll be interesting to see how it performs (if it exists) and how much it'll cost.

Based on the prices of the 24mm IS and 28mm IS the thing will probably cost at least as much as the top end EF-S mid-range zooms (if that means anything to all you full-frame types out there). Time will tell.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



Ben Taylor said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > It does look very small tho... small and lightweight? Discontinuation of the 24-105mm?
> ...



The 24-105L is the kit lens for the 5D3.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



Ellen Schmidtee said:


> On the other hand, Canon might replace the 35mm f/1.4 L with a 35mm f/1.2 L, and make even more people happy.



I always thought I'd never would replace my 35L, when, and if, a 35LII came out, but if it's a 1.2 that might sway me.


----------



## Policar (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



Colski said:


> Equivalent to a 56mm f/2.0 prime with 4 stops of image stabalization on a full frame camera.



Closer to a 56mm f3.2.

I agree that 35mm is a nice focal length for APS-C (and for FF, too). But if this lens is $800-$1200, as expected, will it be worth the one-stop advantage in speed (and likely slightly better IS) over the 17-55mm f2.8 IS, which is the king of the crop for APS-C? 

What I'd really love to see is something like Nikon's amazing 35mm f1.8 or sigma's 30mm f1.4 (except better optically and cheaper, even if it means slower speed). The 50mm f1.8 is fine for APS-C, but it is a much harder focal length to use well because it is so subtle and elegant.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> plutonium10 said:
> 
> 
> > Am I the only one who is actually excited about this lens? The macro bit is what sold me. Provided this new lens has nice IQ and reasonable price (which by all means it should), It can effectively provide a small and light replacement for my 100L macro and 15-85. Paired with a 10-22 or 17-40, it seems like an excellent and versatile lens for travel photography and macro work.
> ...



With a tube it might hit 1:1, or beyond?


----------



## Denisas Pupka (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Theres still no official price, but only speculation, so its too early to panic, but even if pricing tag 1300£< , theres one more good option *Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 VC. * Video took me in to the DSLR 3 years ago, not photo, but after some time photography took place in my hobby at same level. 

*Canon 24-70mm f4*
+ macro capability (I was really considering 100mm f2.8 macro before)
+ 600g (tamron 825g)
+ weather proof and build quality (tamron only dust)
+ hybrid stabilization (good not only for macro option, but also video, thats for me 1st priority)
+ focus and zoom ring should be much better for manual use.

- f/4
- if! high price tag

~ and image quality still under the question


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Really is a ho-hum announcement... But upgrading the low-end stuff is good too. I was hoping for a bad-ass 50mm though :-(


----------



## ddashti (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Thought that was the 135 f/2 IS for a sec...


----------



## atvinyard (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Why are people dissing on the 35 f/2 IS USM? This is the lens I have wished for the most. An updated 35 f/2. I really like my 35 f/2 and it is my most used lens on APS-C. The focal length is great and the image quality is stellar for the price. It's only real downsides were the noise and the poor full frame corner performance. I use mine on my 5d by the way, and i don't hate it, but it could definately use some improvement. Hopefully these are the things that are fixed. 

As far as it being only a stop faster than the 17-55, f2.8 doesn't cut it for low light, no flash on APS-C when people are involved. That extra stop makes a world of difference. 

It will probably rival the L in everything but the extra stop. The L will probably retain only slightly higher center sharpness. 

It was kind of ridiculous for canon not to have a good modern consumer prime in the 35mm focal length. I'm glad they finally got around to upgrading. Hope the prices aren't too ridiculous. Hopefully that new sigma will give it a run and bring the prices down. I was really excited about it until this announcement.

I'll wait for the data though, and then probably until canon knocks $150 off the price like they did on the 24 and 28, before I buy it.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that the consumer 35 is a hell of a lot more discreet than the L.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

both lenses are completely off the mark.

35/2.0 is in need of a succssor, but like the current one it should really have been a low-cost, decent IQ lens, rather than unnecessary IS at the price of an L lens. A modern 50/1.4 Mk. II with IQ at least equivalent to the Nikon AF-S 50/1.4 at the same price would have been far more urgent. 

24-70 is a total mess. Ridiculous that the 2.8 did not come with IS on top of the excellent IQ. 
Instead of the 14-70/4 Canon should have improved the 24-105 and extended it to 24-120/4.0 IS - with better IQ than Nikon but at the same price.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Canon states:

_In macro photography, shift camera shake and angle camera shake affect both the image formed on the sensor and the image shown in the viewfinder. This is especially relevant to handheld shooting at 1x, since the inability to properly compose and focus due to a shaky image in the viewfinder makes it extremely difficult to record sharp images.
Conventional image stabilizers of the type found in Canon IS lenses incorporate a vibration gyro (angular velocity sensor) to compensate for angle camera shake. Based on the amount of camera shake detected by the sensor, the IS system calculates the amount of shake on the image plane. Lens elements in the IS are then positioned to compensate for the camera shake. However, this type of image stabilizer can neither detect nor correct shift camera shake common to handheld macro photography.

The Hybrid IS includes an acceleration sensor in addition to the conventional vibration gyro (angular velocity sensor). Based on the amount of camera shake detected by the two sensors, a newly developed algorithm calculates the amount of shake on the image plane. Lens elements in the IS are then positioned to compensate for the two types of camera shake — a first in an interchangeable lens for SLR cameras and an excellent way to solve the problem of camera shake in macro photography._


----------



## Colski (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



Policar said:


> Colski said:
> 
> 
> > Equivalent to a 56mm f/2.0 prime with 4 stops of image stabalization on a full frame camera.
> ...



OK, yes fair point - I was only thinking in terms of same light per unit sensor area. Still, for the kind of walk around photography I tend to do I don't think a slightly longer depth of field is necessarily always a bad thing for a standard lens.

Given the specs and if smaller and lighter than the 17-55 f/2.8 I think it would make for an excellent walk around lens on apc-c cameras. Sadly, like the 24mm IS and 28mm IS, I expect that it'll be on the pricey side for lowly amateurs like myself who haven't yet taken the full-frame plunge.


----------



## etg9 (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Thanks Canon, this is a real Christmas present for me as I have a lot of other stuff to buy and this won't be taking away from that. These could not be any less useful to me. I have seen no outcry on this or any other forum to replace/augment the 24-105. The 35 f2 is rarely spoken about but I understand that isn't a great lens from the few comments there are. 

Things I would have liked to have seen before this: 100-400, 14-24, EF-S 10-22, either of the 200's (2 / 2.8), Both 50 1.4/1.8, 400 5.6, I'm also hoping for a 200-500

I'm in the minority here but I believe that the canon standard zooms are lacking compared to some of the other lenses. The 17-40 and 24-70 I have the same build quality to me, the 16-35II and 70-200II feel loads better than the 24-105, 24-70, or 24-70II (although I've only spent a little time with it).

Canon seems to be focused on the video crowd and for that I'm keeping my wallet closed.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



etg9 said:


> Canon seems to be focused on the video crowd and for that I'm keeping my wallet closed.



+1


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



etg9 said:


> either of the 200's (2 / 2.8)



Love it when auto-smileys make you smile


----------



## etg9 (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



sagittariansrock said:


> etg9 said:
> 
> 
> > either of the 200's (2 / 2.8)
> ...



It totally got me. Good for one lol.


----------



## plutonium10 (Nov 5, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

In all fairness, I'm pretty sure the guys at Canon don't sit down and say "Hey, let's NOT make a 14-24 or 100-400, let's just make a 24-70 f4 instead." The 24-70 f4 and 35 f2 are nearly ready for release, so Canon is announcing them. When other lenses are ready, they too will be announced. Certain lenses are bound to take longer to perfect than others.


----------



## Ew (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



K-amps said:


> Pricing at $850 for the 24-70 f4 is wishful thinking....
> 
> This thing might be closer to $1700.
> 
> ...



The pricing on the original source page shows:
24-70/4 : 145,000 yen (~1800$)
35/2 IS: 74,000 (f~900$)

ouch! - esp on the 24-70! No low budget if this holds true. 35/2 IS seems in line with recent 24 & 28 pricing.


----------



## Etienne (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

I guess I'm in the minority, but I could go out all day with my 5DII and a sharp little 35 f/2 IS.

PS ... I was thinking of the 28 2.8 IS, but I think I'll wait for the 35 f/2


----------



## tron (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



AvTvM said:


> both lenses are completely off the mark.
> 
> 35/2.0 is in need of a successor, but like the current one it should really have been a low-cost, decent IQ lens, rather than unnecessary IS at the price of an L lens. A modern 50/1.4 Mk. II with IQ at least equivalent to the Nikon AF-S 50/1.4 at the same price would have been far more urgent.


+1 


AvTvM said:


> 24-70 is a total mess. Ridiculous that the 2.8 did not come with IS on top of the excellent IQ.
> Instead of the 14-70/4 Canon should have improved the 24-105 and extended it to 24-120/4.0 IS - with better IQ than Nikon but at the same price.


+1
I agree on both. Canon is missing the obvious.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



Marsu42 said:


> . And The hybrid IS will shine on the standard zoom since it's wasted on real macro lenses like the 100L - the IS is nearly useless at very close distances..


Why is it wasted? Because you do not use it?
I was very skeptical of the hybrid IS on the 100L, but when I found I could handhold very close images with the lens, it is certainly a worthwhile feature.
1/40th second exposure @ f/8


----------



## spinworkxroy (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



K-amps said:


> The pricing on the original source page shows:
> 24-70/4 : 145,000 yen (~1800$)
> 35/2 IS: 74,000 (f~900$)
> 
> ouch! - esp on the 24-70! No low budget if this holds true. 35/2 IS seems in line with recent 24 & 28 pricing.



Wow. at that price, the 6D kit is going to be way overpriced. Since this was meant to be a kit fo rhte 6D and the 6D is supposed to be a cheap FF camera, i highly doubt they'll be silly enough to sell it at that price...it just doesn't make sense..

However, if it IS priced like that, then the 24-105 will be even more affordabel for people wanting their first L lens...already as it is, the 24-105 price is dropping and this new lens will only drive it lower, which is good news for most.
I believe if people can afford 1.7k on the 24-70f4, they would pay a little more for the 2.8 version...this is just priced way to high IMO


----------



## DB (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



tron said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > both lenses are completely off the mark.
> ...



I beg to differ, Canon is following the money -> HD video DSLR + Lens sales. Just wait and see, the 6D will easily outsell the 1DX + 5D3 combined (obviously cheaper camera aimed at the masses), but Canon have done their homework on this, travel photographers like to shoot full-HD video to show to the folks back home, as well as taking stills. Moms + Dads love to shoot HD video of their kids playing sports etc. as well as taking photos, which explains why Canon have included similar AF-tracking in the 6D as the new 5D3. How many CR contributors justify expensive kit on the grounds that they can shoot their kids as well? (Just look at how many 50 1.2L shots are of Photogs progeny)

Canon has pandered too long to the specialist stills photographers, how about the hundreds of thousands of Amateur & Indie videographers who purchased the 5D mk II and made it the success story that it is, plus the *millions* of buyers who continue to flock to Rebel T2i/T3i/T4i and so on, so they can shoot 1080p @ 24 frames per second and post their cinematic style offerings on YouTube or Vimeo.

Canon is finally moving in the right direction - Video. Let Nikon slash prices and lose profits on high-MP DSLR bodies that have always lagged Canon in the video stakes (remember the Nikon D300s with 720p video vs Canon 7D with 1080p, then the Nikon D7000 had 1080p movie recording but no dedicated Movie button like the 7D). Canon is not just following video/still photography trends, they're shaping them.

Videographers need IS not ISO 25,600


----------



## birtembuk (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > . And The hybrid IS will shine on the standard zoom since it's wasted on real macro lenses like the 100L - the IS is nearly useless at very close distances..
> ...



Perfect answer. Your great picture is worth thousand words. I for one also think that the hybrid IS on the 100L is a fantastic feature and enables incredible handheld shots. Even with 50 mm tubes, I can clearly tell when the IS kicks in on half shutter press and can correct some from breathing swaying movements. Without it, I sure would have missed lots of shots. 

Can't wait to see the MFT's of this 24-70/4. Looks to me like the perfect buddy of the 24/II with those 77mm filters. Cheaper combo than 24-70/II with all those new 82mm filters.


----------



## tron (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



DB said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...


You know 24-105 has IS too. Even if it is a 3-stop IS the extra focal length is much more important. Unless the parents you mentioned are not interesting in focal lengths greater than 70.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



spinworkxroy said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > The pricing on the original source page shows:
> ...



I hear you. Owners of the 24-105 F/4L IS lenses should treat those lenses especially well -- there is so much overlap with this new lens that I think the 24-105 has to be obsoleted for this new one to command a high price.


----------



## sanj (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



kilobit said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > aznable said:
> ...



They both are right as the shake because of movement is a reality when hand holding if doing video OR stills.


----------



## BruinBear (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



Ew said:


> The pricing on the original source page shows:
> 24-70/4 : 145,000 yen (~1800$)
> 35/2 IS: 74,000 (f~900$)
> 
> ouch! - esp on the 24-70! No low budget if this holds true. 35/2 IS seems in line with recent 24 & 28 pricing.



So at that price it seems like it should be at or near the image quality of the 24-70 f/2.8L II and be another addition to the lineup instead of a 24-105 replacement.

And the pricing seems to fit pretty well in line with the scaling of the 70-200 lenses:
70-200 f/4 IS - 1349
70-200 f/2.8 non-IS - 1449
24-70 f/4 IS - ~1800??
24-70 f/2.8 II - 2299


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



BruinBear said:


> Ew said:
> 
> 
> > The pricing on the original source page shows:
> ...



This does create a bit of a positioning / market segmentation problem. Prior to the spec/price news dropping yesterday, this forum was leaning (but not dead-set) towards the new 24-70 F/4 IS as the likely 6D kit lens. But an $1800 asking price would be ludicrous for kitting purposes (unless you are kitting a 1DX 8 ).

So what is it? A kit lens that will obsolete the 24-105, or a standalone pricier lens?


----------



## EchoLocation (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

In the rumor a couple days ago, admin said it would be $849, and It just sounded awesome... A small, lightweight L zoom in a useful focal range with the awesome new IS, along with a cool near macro option!
Now, today we're talking $1700ish(converted from Yen, which I believe would make the price more like 1300-1500 in the US) and at this price it loses a lot of appeal for me.
$1300 isn't outrageous if the IQ is amazing, but $1500 is just way too much for f4 lens IMO. 
People who spend $1500 would rather just spend $2000ish and buy the 2.8 version. Pairing a $1500 lens with the 6D makes a $3500 kit, this does not bode well against Nikon's $2700 D600 kit.
Additionally, Canon should look at making their products more competitive to Nikon's. If this price is really upwards of $1500 dollars it will be very similarly priced to Nikon's 24-70 2.8, which is an outstanding lens.
I really hope that that admin's original price of $849 happens, although following Canon's recent pricing trends I think the $1400 US price is more likely.
This streak of minimal upgrades with dramatic price increases is exactly why I just sold my 5D for D700 and 24-70(which after 2 months I am thrilled about.)


----------



## DB (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



tron said:


> You know 24-105 has IS too. Even if it is a 3-stop IS the extra focal length is much more important. Unless the parents you mentioned are not interesting in focal lengths greater than 70.



Yeah....but they need to shoot at the wider end of the focal length after the compulsory post-sports trip to McDonalds/Burger King :


----------



## pj1974 (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

I'm quite excited to see an actual lens announcement from Canon - and well done to CR guy for predicting the 24-70mm L f/4 IS USM. 

As I don't plan to go full frame (at least not in the near future) - the 24-70mm L f/4 doesn't interest me so much. I'm very happy with my 15-85mm IS USM on both my 7D and 350D.

If the 24-70mm f/4 L has great IQ, I can imagine it will be popular as a less expensive / less bulky walk around (aka 'kit lens') for some folks having a FF, perhaps particularly the new 6D. (though I will say here that a possible price of $1800 USD is quite scary!) ???

To me, the 35mm f/2 IS USM is actually a much more interesting lens... and.... in one sense meets a lot of the criteria I have for the 'only lens' that I'm really looking forward to, or - that is what I find 'lacking' in my current lens arsenal: a sharp prime at about 50mm (+/- a few mm). 

The new 35mm has the following features, which are important to me:
- USM - my preferred AF mechanism, with FTM focus 
- 4 stop effective IS
- 7 or more blade circular aperture

The size of the 35mm f/2 IS USM is still small enough. I guess any 50mm would be a bit longer... possibly could have 58mm or 67mm filter size. (I hope if a 50mm prime comes out, that it has a 58mm, 67mm or I'd even 'put up with' a 72mm filter size - as I have filters for these sizes). 

I expect the IQ of the 35mm f/2 to be very high (better than the 40mm f/2.8 pancake, which has received lots of praise, particularly for its price!)

My 'only' concern is that the 50mm might be a f/2.8 lens.. (no, please, no!) I had already decided that f/2 is perhaps the limit that I'd be happy with for a 'fast prime'. Obviously f/1.4 would be ideal. With f/1.8 or f/2 being 'good options' - particularly if IS is included. 

There would be some situations that 35mm is more suitable than 50mm (eg some group shots, etc). However my own photography style, means that I really like the 50mm aspect on an APS-C (giving the equivalent of 80mm in FF format).

So... now that the 35mm f/2 USM IS has come out (after the 'earlier this year' new 24mm & 28mm f/2.8 USM IS lenses) - I have more hope that a 50mm f/1.4-f/2 USM (possibly IS) lens will be released in the near future. I plan to go to a bricks and mortar shop and use the 35mm f/2 USM IS sometime.... see how I like it, get a feel for it, and hopefully see a new 50mm prime in store sometime in the future too...

Cheers 8)

Paul


----------



## starship (Nov 6, 2012)

*canon - the new leica???*

well, 
2.300 $ - 24-70L II, f 2.8 (no IS)
1.500 $ - 24-70L Is, f 4.0
900 $ - 35mm, f 2.0 (non L)

that´s competion for leica. pricewise.

i´ve got a couple of canon lenses. seems that i have to change my route...


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



sagittariansrock said:


> I think Canon has done well to supplement an entry level FF camera with two inexpensive but good lenses (having to get the 24-70II and 35 1.4 sort of negates the effect of a sub-$2000 camera...



This is me eating my words. $ 1499 is not inexpensive by my standards, not by a long shot.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



DB said:


> I beg to differ, Canon is following the money -> HD video DSLR + Lens sales. Just wait and see, the 6D will easily outsell the 1DX + 5D3 combined (obviously cheaper camera aimed at the masses), but Canon have done their homework on this, travel photographers like to shoot full-HD video to show to the folks back home, as well as taking stills. Moms + Dads love to shoot HD video of their kids playing sports etc. as well as taking photos, which explains why Canon have included similar AF-tracking in the 6D as the new 5D3. How many CR contributors justify expensive kit on the grounds that they can shoot their kids as well? (Just look at how many 50 1.2L shots are of Photogs progeny)



How many parents will spend $800-$900 on a prime lens so they could shoot HD video of their kids playing sports? Most people I know who have a crop camera either don't buy any primes at all, or buy one cheap prime for the fast aperture, which often is 50mm f/1.8.

Taking photos of my family is a justification for buying lenses. It wouldn't justify an $800 35mm f/2 IS USM prime. I would be hard pressed to justify it for $600, and I'm a bachelor who, in net terms, earns ~1.5x the average salary around here.


----------



## MarkII (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



Ellen Schmidtee said:


> How many parents will spend $800-$900 on a prime lens so they could shoot HD video of their kids playing sports?



With appropriate advertising, probably the same customers that spend $4000+ to buy a DSLR to take pictures of 1 month old babies and the cat...

I like the new lenses, though as a non-video shooter I doubt that I will buy either (and I am in the camp that prefers the reach of the 24-105 to the macro of the 24-70... though I wish there was less barrel distortion at the wide end).

As to the pricing, Canon looks to be following an odd strategy across all their products just now, despite the economy. I would have thought that more budget lenses like the new pancake would have been a priority over these.


----------



## Zlatko (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: canon - the new leica???*



starship said:


> 900 $ - 35mm, f 2.0 (non L)
> 
> that´s competion for leica. pricewise.



That's not even close to Leica prices. The Leica 35/2 lens is currently $3,195. 

The new Canon 35/2 is being introduced at $849, but keep in mind that this is introductory pricing for people who must have it NOW. That price will likely fall 10% or more within a year. So figure it will be $765 within a year.

At $765, the Canon 35/2 will be a bargain. You'll be able to buy _four_ of them for the price of _one_ Leica 35/2.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



pj1974 said:


> I'm quite excited to see an actual lens announcement from Canon - and well done to CR guy for predicting the 24-70mm L f/4 IS USM.
> 
> As I don't plan to go full frame (at least not in the near future) - the 24-70mm L f/4 doesn't interest me so much. I'm very happy with my 15-85mm IS USM on both my 7D and 350D.
> 
> ...



@PJ1974:

Let me reassure one thing about a new 50 prime. The 'mid' level 50 prime to replace the ubiquitous 50mm F/1.4 will _undoubtedly_ have IS based on the 24, 28 and 35 refreshes getting IS. I'm prepared to call that an absolute given at this stage.

Be advised that this 'mid' level, consistent with the other non-L refreshes, will likely cost 2x what the 50mm F/1.4 does now. I've posted a number of times (admittedly, in a minority position) that this increase in cost is (a) consistent with the other refreshes and (b) completely warranted given the additions of IS, USM, internal focusing, wonderful small size and an almost L-series build quality. It's a great disservice to call these refreshes 'budget lenses' -- these are sleeper 'near-L' lenses without weather sealing. Someday, even newer L lenses will put these to shame, but for now, these non-Ls are great options compared the current red-ringed gear.

What we _don't_ know is whether the 50 w/IS will come with a slower speed / smaller max aperture. So far, that has not been the case. In the case of the other refreshes, the 24, 28 and 35 were all obsoleted by new IS lenses of the _same_ max aperture -- 2.8, 2.8, and 2 respectively. (Some may think the 28mm F/1.8 is an exception, but the _28mm F/2.8_ was obsoleted and the 1.8 is in fact still sold).

But, uniquely with the 50, a super fast lens (F/1.4) is the starting point of the refresh discussion. I have not yet found a reason why 50mm lenses magically can offer such wide apertures so economically while other focal lengths that offer F/1.4 require red rings and a fortune to buy. Perhaps that trend ends when trying to make F/1.4 coexist with IS. Perhaps IS in a 50 F/1.4 makes it prohibitively expensive or prohibitively large/heavy. I'd say based on the other refreshes that the former is possible (as it's never been done*), but the latter is not (the other IS refreshes are quite small).

*Side trivia -- has IS in a lens faster than F/2 _ever_ been done? The Canon 200mm F/2L IS has it, as does this new 35mm. But I am not aware of anything faster than F/2. Just curious.

- A


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



MarkII said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > How many parents will spend $800-$900 on a prime lens so they could shoot HD video of their kids playing sports?
> ...



If there are many of those parents, I'd say those advertisements were made by voodoo priests.


----------



## caMARYnon (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Official MTFs posted by Canon looks much better than 24-105 at 24mm both f4 and f8. Edit: And worse than 24-70f2.8II.

Something to worried about: MFD 200mm, lens lenght at 70 is 124mm so MFD to the front of the lens = 30-40mm so shoot only static or dead subjects


----------



## Marc_o_ (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Prices in Europe (VAT included)

24-70/4 : 1699€ = 2174 US$

35/2 : 949€ = 1214 US$


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



caMARYnon said:


> Something to worried about: MFD 200mm, lens lenght at 70 is 124mm so MFD to the front of the lens = 30-40mm so shoot only static or dead subjects



It's indeed a fact that the best macro shots are taken of frozen, bound, stunned, paralyzed or simply dead animals :-\ ... and much easier to get a "natural" background w/o distracting objects if your subject doesn't decide to flee.

I don't see the 24-70/4 as a 100% replacement for a macro lens, for shooting live animals you will need a longer focal length like 100mm on crop, 180mm on ff or a tc. But the new zoom should be sufficient for the occasional close-up while traveling which is a big plus.


----------



## BrandonKing96 (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



JurijTurnsek said:


> What the point of having a 24-70 4L IS AND 24-105 4L IS in the line-up? Isn't it a no-brainer to just get the 105?


Wouldn't be a no-brainer thinking the 24-70 f/4 would have better optic quality than an older lens? Sorry if I sound sarcastic, but it is the truth. And most people wouldn't need the extra reach.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



birtembuk said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



I still don't think so - and esp. posting a (downsized? cropped?) "good" shot doesn't mean anything. I could do the the same with old shots from my non-L macro - so what?

I'm using the IS all the time of course, but IS is all about *statistics* and a better keeper rate. If someone posts a picture and writes "just point and shoot with IS and this is what you get" this simply isn't true - you might have been very, very lucky, but in (my) real life IS raises the keeper rate esp. at medium range (like a full butterfly), but 1:1 handheld sharp shots @100% crop and lower exposure time still need a lot of exposures to get a good one. Coming from the 100 non-L, I don't see a significant improvement in these cases.

The one thing IS does help (except dual-use as a portrait lens) with is exactly what Canon states: IS on macro is for stable composing & setting the focus pane, not for getting much longer exposure times. So IS is not really "wasted" as I wrote above, but it doesn't magically axe your exposure time at macro distances, but it'll be great on the non-1:1 24-70/4:



neuroanatomist said:


> _In macro photography, shift camera shake and angle camera shake affect both the image formed on the sensor and the image shown in the viewfinder. This is especially relevant to handheld shooting at 1x, since the inability to properly compose and focus due to a shaky image in the viewfinder makes it extremely difficult to record sharp images.
> _


----------



## crasher8 (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Sure are a lot of assumptions of what lens will come with the 6D. I'm pretty sure it will not be an L designation. Any focal length L offered by Canon for a general use lens is too high priced for a 6D to not get into 5D3 territory. The exception would be the 24-105. And doing that would simply shoot sale of the new 24-70 f/4 L lens in the foot. Has Canon ever kitted an 'outgoing' lens with a new body?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



BrandonKing96 said:


> JurijTurnsek said:
> 
> 
> > What the point of having a 24-70 4L IS AND 24-105 4L IS in the line-up? Isn't it a no-brainer to just get the 105?
> ...



Who are 'most people'? Maybe you. Not me.


----------



## Zv (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



crasher8 said:


> Sure are a lot of assumptions of what lens will come with the 6D. I'm pretty sure it will not be an L designation. Any focal length L offered by Canon for a general use lens is too high priced for a 6D to not get into 5D3 territory. The exception would be the 24-105. And doing that would simply shoot sale of the new 24-70 f/4 L lens in the foot. Has Canon ever kitted an 'outgoing' lens with a new body?



Amazon.jp is taking pre-orders of the 6D with and without the 24-105L, so will they offer a choice of two lenses when the 24-70 f4 is released? How will that work then since the 24-105 kit will be much cheaper? Interesting! ???

For reference the body is ¥178,000 and kit is ¥268,000


----------



## noncho (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: canon - the new leica???*



starship said:


> well,
> 2.300 $ - 24-70L II, f 2.8 (no IS)
> 1.500 $ - 24-70L Is, f 4.0
> 900 $ - 35mm, f 2.0 (non L)
> ...



I was thinking the same - if 35/2(which should be good budget prime) goes to 900$ I don't wanna know the price of new 100-400 or 400 5.6 IS.

Thank you Canon


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

I remember everyone thought I was crazy for calling the 24-70 f4L DOA. 

Well, for 1500$ I consider that DOA.


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



RLPhoto said:


> I remember everyone though I was crazy for calling the 24-70 f4L DOA.
> 
> Well, for 1500$ I consider that DOA.


+1000


----------



## well_dunno (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

I guess Canon will not learn anything about competitive pricing until Nikon and Sony get a juicy bite from their market share.

Also lately Canon seems to be trying to defend by countering Nikon's announcements more and more, only with what appears to be higher price tags and less value offerings... :

How many were actually expecting this 24-70 f/4 prior to the 14-24 f/2.8, the new 100-400 or even the 200-400?


----------



## cptobvious (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Canon continues to dig into its own hole. Everything they've introduced in the past year or so has either been uninspired or overpriced with the exception of the 40mm pancake. I can see them falling into third place behind Nikon and Sony in a couple of years.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



Zv said:


> so will they offer a choice of two lenses when the 24-70 f4 is released? How will that work then since the 24-105 kit will be much cheaper?



The 24-105 kits will be just there as long as they've sold all old lenses and the new 24-70 are in volume production.

And the 6d+24-70/4 kit might not be more expensive, the price for the lens alone is likely to be overpriced because Canon wants to make the kit appear more discounted and attractive - otherwise the 6d is sure to loose big time against the d600.



cptobvious said:


> I can see them falling into third place behind Nikon and Sony in a couple of years.



As soon as their strategy appears even non-working to Canon shareholders, they'll come around and fire their executives and revise their pricing. The only ones sure to loose are the customers paying the current high prices until Canon realizes this won't work forever.


----------



## tron (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



RLPhoto said:


> I remember everyone thought I was crazy for calling the 24-70 f4L DOA.
> 
> Well, for 1500$ I consider that DOA.



And I had agreed with you. 

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10597.msg189704#msg189704

Unfortunatelly I was wrong about this rumor being CR0 

It seems that Canon spends valuable resources for nonsense...


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



Marsu42 said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > so will they offer a choice of two lenses when the 24-70 f4 is released? How will that work then since the 24-105 kit will be much cheaper?
> ...



I agree the pricing is unreasonable on the 24-70, but people in many cases are paying for it -- Canon thinks that these are the prices the market will bear. Hell, the EOS-M was #3 on Amazon's best seller list despite a high price + years late to the mirrorless market + numerous reviews panning it for having a glacially slow AF system. 

I know their sales numbers on aggregate haven't been stellar, but in general, the company wouldn't be here very long if it couldn't course correct as needed.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



ahsanford said:


> I know their sales numbers on aggregate haven't been stellar, but in general,* the company wouldn't be here very long if it couldn't course correct as needed.*



And then there is Kodak.... :


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



ahsanford said:


> I know their sales numbers on aggregate haven't been stellar, but in general, the company wouldn't be here very long if it couldn't course correct as needed.



A large enterprise like Canon doesn't just disappear because they can soften the fall and distribute profits and losses between divisions. They can survive quite a long time without good sales if their shares don't plummet and there's a hostile takeover. And Canon just has the advantage of a user base that is tied to their system, so they are quite safe unless they completely screw up.

That's why it takes them so long to correct a flawed strategy in one segment like dlsr - in a smaller company the execs would get fired much faster enabling changes. But if they are really persistent to ignore reality they'll indeed go the way of Kodak and all other long-gone electronics companies.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*


All good points on how companies adapt and evolve. 

I don't feel the Kodak analogy is appropriate b/c that's a much more stark black/white scenario of accepting change in a changing world. That analogy would only be appropriate if Canon demonstrated true head-in-the-sand behavior, like (hypothetically) if they decided to _never_ enter the mirrorless market.

FWIW, I liken Canon/Nikon to Toyota/Honda in that they have a mature, segmented market with very set expectations, pricing strategies, and a conservative take on innovation. Then, Sony, who I liken to Nissan/Kia/Hyundai, is trying to create new markets, or offer 'tweener' products that straddle two segments. They play a combination of innovation / disruptive offerings to shake things up in an attempt to rope in mindshare and proponents. I personally think they should be looked at more seriously by the photography community, b/c the disruptive gameplan is pretty brave -- that fixed lens FF compact (RX1, I think?) is a bold offering.

- A


----------



## kubelik (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

I wonder how much of it is just a calculated, multi-year gamble by Canon -- where they said, let's keep raising prices until the consumer market really revolts. then we can always cut prices down.

many people have mentioned how Canon is acting a little bit like Apple in trying to really stretch out their profit margins. while we complain that Canon doesn't currently offer a complete package of top technology (yes, the sensors are behind Nikon, yes, Canon still likes to be late to the game with AF upgrades), Canon does have a high reputation in the consumer market that's been built up over a long time, so there's a lot of prestige that they can lean on. plus, we tend to exaggerate how big the differences between Nikon and Canon are because, as gear heads, that's all we think about all day. 

I don't blame Canon for trying to shore up profit margins while they can, because the alternative is a race to the bottom, and while that spells short term gain for the consumer, it's a long term disaster for the industry. that being said, I do think a lot of the current prices are too stiff for the general populace, even the big prosumer crowd. so I'll vote with my wallet and wait to see the prices come down, which I do believe they will. it may mean waiting quite a few years -- people also seem to forget that, more often than not, a lens' lifespace can go decades, not just a couple years, and thus I expect Canon's pricing strategies also span multiple years.


----------



## aznable (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



ahsanford said:


> aznable said:
> 
> 
> > it is dubbed hybrid is just because the lens is almost a macro (0.7 macro factor...wow)
> ...



i dont think that taking the japanese price and converting on other currency is a good thing...the jap prices are generally higher than other countries

and yes...i agree with you...haveing a standard zoom lens that is able to do some macro works is a very nice thing


----------



## aznable (Nov 6, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



kilobit said:


> You are both wrong.
> Hybrid IS means it compensates for two types of camera/lens movement.
> 
> Read here:
> ...



infact the first lens where hubryd is has been implemented is the macro 100L IS, that's the ideal for video recording 

the hynrid IS has been devloped for macro shooting


----------



## tron (Nov 7, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



neuroanatomist said:


> BrandonKing96 said:
> 
> 
> > JurijTurnsek said:
> ...


+1 for the extra reach comment. * I for one do need the reach*. Plus we do not know the IQ of the new lens. While I believe it will be really good I am not sure about quality control. So let's not play Canon representatives. If the new lens is really good, buyers will say so. Not fans who haven't bought it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 7, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



tron said:


> If the new lens is really good, buyers will say so. Not fans who haven't bought it.



Oh how naïve you are.  Fans who haven't bought it are already saying lots on both sides...


----------



## Aputure (Nov 8, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Short focal lengths? What about 50mm to 70mm? I don't think that's short at all. It'll especially be useful on the long end. And the IS will also be useful with the "slow" f/4 aperture. Even if you're getting a shutter speed of 1/10 at the 24mm wide end, wouldn't it be nice to have IS then? The IS will also certainly help the macro shooting. So it serves a great purpose on this lens, I think. 

The choice between this and the f/2.8 should be clear = pro wedding shooters who need the speed and bokeh will go for the 2.8, hobbyists and video shooters will go for the f/4. 

A few more thoughts on this lens: http://www.aputure.com/blog/?p=4228



amazin said:


> Correct me if i'm wrong but what's the point of IS in such short focal lengths?
> 
> With the release of 24-70 f/4L IS it will be a tough choice for some to decide with the 2.8 non IS version, what do you think?


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 8, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



Aputure said:


> Short focal lengths? What about 50mm to 70mm? I don't think that's short at all. It'll especially be useful on the long end. And the IS will also be useful with the "slow" f/4 aperture. Even if you're getting a shutter speed of 1/10 at the 24mm wide end, wouldn't it be nice to have IS then? The IS will also certainly help the macro shooting. So it serves a great purpose on this lens, I think.
> 
> The choice between this and the f/2.8 should be clear = pro wedding shooters who need the speed and bokeh will go for the 2.8, hobbyists and video shooters will go for the f/4.
> 
> ...



@Aputure (nice blog, btw) -- there has been a healthy 50-75% of us on this forum that IS is not needed on wide glass, and that speed should always trump IS w.r.t. Canon's spec decisions. I cannot discern if this is due to...


Classical thinking -- the old rule of thumb that you need 1/[focal length] for shutter speed, and therefore, wide glass needs IS less than long glass.
Value thinking -- why should we pony up extra for IS when it's not truly a must, I got by without it for years, etc.
In the 'I hope the new announcement is the lens I want' / 'Canon only makes so many lenses' department, it could be sour grapes, frustration, incredulity etc. that Canon chose IS instead of a fast aperture -- see all threads re: these recent lens announcements
A stigma that IS is for beginners, soccer moms, etc. and not for enthusiasts or pros.
...but it's probably a combination of the above.

I personally believe that IS helps at _all_ focal lengths as I am frequently shooting at toxically high ISO without a flash or a tripod. So IS effectively buys me stops, plain and simple. 

Now, this is predicated on the thought that the slower glass + IS buys me a _virtually_ faster lens than the current fastest glass (again, I'm rarely shooting moving objects in very low light). This is due to some simple math of:

[# stops of IS] - [# stops slower than the fastest lens in this length] yielding a positive number. 

So if, somehow, the proposed new lens had a watered down 2 stop IS or if the aperture was much slower than the fastest alternative, then that IS lens would be less attractive than its fast non-IS alternative.

Keep in mind that IS is improving _far_ more quickly than camera companies have been offering faster glass. Consider that Canon had a constant F/2.8 standard zoom in 1993 and nothing faster has ever been developed. (Some of this is cost and weight, but still, they aren't exactly rushing an F/2 standard zoom out, much to the chagrin of this forum community.) 

One wonders if in 10 years, the majority of camera glass will be unbelieveably small/light F/4, F/5.6 glass with 7-8 stops of IS. I know that's heresy for this forum -- who constantly push their gear to get the most out of their shots -- but it's a possibility, right?

- A


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 8, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



ahsanford said:


> One wonders if in 10 years, the majority of camera glass will be unbelieveably small/light F/4, F/5.6 glass with 7-8 stops of IS. I know that's heresy for this forum -- who constantly push their gear to get the most out of their shots -- but it's a possibility, right?
> 
> - A



While I don't doubt that IS will eventually make its way down to more lenses in the future, what you suggest would not work for those shooting action. IS elements would also have to be larger to accomodate more travel to counteract lower frequency jitter/shake, which is a sizing issue.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 8, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



Random Orbits said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > One wonders if in 10 years, the majority of camera glass will be unbelieveably small/light F/4, F/5.6 glass with 7-8 stops of IS. I know that's heresy for this forum -- who constantly push their gear to get the most out of their shots -- but it's a possibility, right?
> ...



Agree 100% -- fast glass isn't going away for DOF, event, sports needs. It will always be needed.

I'm just arguing that IS technological advancements aren't creating other problems like speeding up zoom lenses might (i.e. back pain from a pickle jar of a lens). Prime example -- compare the 200mm F/2.8L vs. the 200mm F/2L IS: 6-7x the cost and 4x the weight for one stop and IS.

So if I'm Canon, there is a bigger return on investment (and more potential for improvement) in developing 5-, 6-, 7-stop IS technology for all lenses rather than building a 5 lb. F/2 standard zoom. You get more stops for more lenses (I'm presuming that any IS tech breakthroughs are transferable to other designs) rather than chasing a one-off holy grail lens for the 1% of most discriminating users to be sold for weaponized plutonium prices.

So it makes more 'useability' sense that we're seeing IS getting stapled onto modest aperture glass.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love a cake-and-eat-it-too F/2.8 standard zoom with IS. 8)


----------



## PerfectSavage (Nov 9, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



DB said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Sorry, but your post is about two years late in terms of Canon's "direction" with video. PROFESSIONAL DSLR video is pretty much DONE with the 5D3/1Dx in terms of video feature advancement. When you have guys who were 5D2 video pioneers like Vince LaForet saying "...hate to say it, but the future is Cinema EOS (Black Magic, etc) for video...no longer HDSLRs," we should listen to them. For amateurs there are a lot of Canon Vixia camcorders that are *much* better, lighter and many *cheaper* for HD videos of your kids and travel than a bulky DSLR. Those people aren't buying DSLRs nearly as much anymore. They're buying mirrorless or advanced P&S cameras that shoot HD video (EOS M - hottest camera in Japan right now bar none, G series, Powershot etc) Enter Cinema EOS and the C100, C300, C500 for indies, HD commercial and 4K feature production respectively. Canon's "direction" with professional video is there as well as the 1Dc (as a B/C cam for feature film production alongside the C500 (~4K 'RAW')).

The new primes with IS are definitely a great video choice however the 24-70 f/4 (or ANY lens with a maximum aperture smaller than f/2.8 ) are not in any shape or form targeted at video and that is the lens amongst these two that people seem to be most irritated over. But since you mention "needing" IS; how many great commercials, and short films, let alone feature films, used IS lenses? Shane Hurlbut's 'Act of Valor' grossed over $80 million USD and Drake Doremus' 'Like Crazy' which wasn't even shot FF - it was shot 100% on a Canon 7D - got $4 million USD from Paramount at Sundance for the distribution rights. Neither production used IS lenses. (Yeah, I get it, amateurs and indies don't have access to $10,000 stabilization rigs and motion control cranes etc. to hold their CinePrimes, Cooke and Arri glass) ...but my point is amateurs have been making some nice music videos, commercials and short films for four years on the 5D2 without "needing" IS...and with the new noise performance of the 5D3 sensor, ISO is DEFINITELY a more welcome feature. ISO 6,400 on the 5D3 is as clean if not cleaner video than ISO 800 on the 5D2...which means more shots, less lighting (if any needed at all fot the shot), less assistants, much more creative options - especially for the indie on a budget. Families with kids and travelers have a lot better video options for "showing the people back home" in camcorders with much better IS capabilities than DSLRs.

There will be a 24-70 f/2.8 L II IS soon, just as there are four versions of the 70-200 L (f/2.8 II IS, f/2.8 (non-IS), f/4 (non-IS), f/4 IS), there will be at least three if not four versions of the 24-70 L...and prices will drop (as they always do) and the 24-70 f/2.8 II will drop when the 24-70 f/2.8 IS comes out. Canon didn't "miss any boat", they didn't "ruin the future of the known Milky Way Galaxy"...they introduced a new lens, part of a whole new offering rolling out with optics that will make you wonder why you ever compared this lens to your 24-105 L kit lens. If you haven't shot with the new 70-200 f/2.8 IS II or the 24-70 f/2.8 II, go rent one. You'll be wowed by the difference in IQ and AF compared to the previous versions. The 24-70 f/2.8 II is as sharp or sharper than any of the EF primes in that focal range with better overall IQ...IMO. I'm taking a deductive guess that the 24-70 f/4 will similarly blow away the 17-40 f/4 (IMO the sharpest L wide zoom) and 24-105 f/4 in their respective overlap focal lengths. If you love your 24-105 or your current 24-70, then why bother worrying about how much this lens is anyway? It's a down economic market and Canon's infrastructure still isn't back to pre-earthquake capability (nor is Nikon's), Canon is focusing on lower production volumes with products that can give them higher margins. It's that simple. There is a market, it may not be you and most likely isn't you...*and that's OK*. They will make more lens options available that ARE.


----------



## Zv (Nov 9, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Well said!


----------



## kubelik (Nov 9, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

perfectsavage, I agree entirely with your take on it. however, while you are correct in terms of ACTUAL needs, I think others are also correct in terms of PERCEIVED needs. there are a ton of people on the market for lenses (both amateurs, and prosumers) who talk themselves into thinking that they need IS, whether they do or not. I find that it's typically the folks who really, really shoot seriously for a living that can cut through the crud and say, look, that's just not a feature that makes sense to me for what I'm doing. for everyone else, it tends to be "more letters! more features!"


----------



## PVS (Nov 9, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Seems like I'm part of that minority of people who are actualy grateful of having IS in a 35/2 lens.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 9, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



PVS said:


> Seems like I'm part of that minority of people who are actualy grateful of having IS in a 35/2 lens.



I like the 35 f/2 IS. The old 35mm f/2 was absolute garbage and wouldn't mind this lens if sigma didn't release a 35mm 1.4 for the same price.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 9, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



kubelik said:


> perfectsavage, I agree entirely with your take on it. however, while you are correct in terms of ACTUAL needs, I think others are also correct in terms of PERCEIVED needs.



+1 ... next to that, a part in a lens like IS that you don't need or seldom use can still break and invoke high repair costs. Btw that doesn't prevent me to think that €2200 for a 24-70 w/o IS is Canon-like overpriced.

The hard part of finding out if you need a feature or not is that few people shoulder the workload a scientific approach requires - shooting the same scenes with and without feature x and then blind-testing the results. And since IS only raises the keeper-rate, it's even more tricky. The most prominent example for this is if IS helps for 1:1 macro shots on the 100L or not.



PVS said:


> Seems like I'm part of that minority of people who are actualy grateful of having IS in a 35/2 lens.



Except for dedicated event lenses, many or most people would welcome IS even on primes - it's just about 35/1.4 vs 35/2is or $500 35/2 vs $900 35/2is, and this means that IS is not a free present but comes at a price of more $$$ or less open aperture.


----------



## crasher8 (Nov 9, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Doesn't it make sense that people would pay a premium for a much more handholdable low light lens? Up until these IS lenses (24, 28, 35) being released, what was the best low light prime from Canon? And with the exception of motion blur issues, will the ability to stop down 4 stops of shutter speed really make these lenses a low key shooters wet dream?

The next lens for me will be a wide prime…..which one?


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 9, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*




crasher8 said:


> Doesn't it make sense that people would pay a premium for a much more handholdable low light lens? Up until these IS lenses (24, 28, 35) being released, what was the best low light prime from Canon? And with the exception of motion blur issues, will the ability to stop down 4 stops of shutter speed really make these lenses a low key shooters wet dream?
> 
> The next lens for me will be a wide prime…..which one?



@PVS -- Re: IS being useful and worth paying for on wide lenses -- we are a minority indeed.

The notion that F/1.4 trumps F/2 with IS makes me shrug.

Sure, the F/1.4 glass can pull off some DOF tricks that you can't at F/2, but for the other 95% of the time you are using an F/1.4 lens, you will have to stop down and crank the ISO higher than an F/2 IS to get a useable shutter speed in low light. Not a good bargain for this low-light handheld shooter. (Again, it's about how/what you shoot.)

As such, until the 35L II arrives (where the sharpness is presumed to beat this new lens), the 35 IS is the lens to get, IMHO. One stop slower in return for 4 stops of IS? Yes, please.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 9, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



ahsanford said:


> One stop slower in return for 4 stops of IS? Yes, please.



Um, just one comment: I for one seem to have very shaky hands because I am not able to get more than 2 stops usually and *reliably* from my 70-300L or 100L IS system - that means getting the same quality like w/o IS and higher shutter speed, and not some so-so ok shot that doesn't appear to be blurred when downsized.

So if it's essentially a 2-stop IS eating up 1 stop of real light it really depends on the usage what I'd choose - because 1 stop more real light means 100% of the time and no motion blur, unlike IS which is more about statistically improving the keeper rate.


----------



## kubelik (Nov 9, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



Marsu42 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > One stop slower in return for 4 stops of IS? Yes, please.
> ...



from my experience with the new IS systems, within 2-stops it nails it pretty much every time. by 4-stops it can still give you keepers where you really couldn't before, it's just not a 99% guarantee anymore. it probably drops to 33% or so.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 9, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*


That's true about the IS -- but it's getting better all the time. From Bryan Carnathan's site:

_"Sharing the honors with its sibling 24mm f/2.8 IS Lens, the Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens is the first Canon prime lens wider than 100mm to have image stabilization. The combination of an f/2.8 aperture, 28mm focal length and 4-stop IS makes the 28 IS, at review time, arguably the second most low-light-handholdable full frame format Canon lens available (just behind the 24 f/2.8 IS). And perhaps the second most handholdable Canon lens available.

Lenses being introduced with image stabilization far outnumber those coming without it. Image stabilization has matured nicely since it was first introduced, and the IS system in the 28 f/2.8 IS is example of this maturity.

The IS sound from this lens is barely audible. I have to put my ear to the lens to hear the light IS shhhhhhh that is mixed with light clicks when the lens is moved. The viewfinder shows no evidence of image stabilization going into effect (jumping/shaking/etc.) - aside from the stabilized view in the viewfinder.

With good technique and a stable, standing shooting position, I am getting a very good percentage of sharp shots at 1/5 - 1/4 second. Beyond 1/4 sec, the keeper rate drops off gradually with sharp images still obtainable at close to 1 sec exposures. The IS assistance I experience is about 3 stops."_

Okay -- three stops in this case. But this conversation will become 4, 5, and 6 stop IS much faster than Canon can develop, say, F/1.0 lenses. IS will become a bigger and bigger part of the low light conversation, along with the body's ability to process higher and higher ISO.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 9, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



ahsanford said:


> But this conversation will become 4, 5, and 6 stop IS much faster than Canon can develop, say, F/1.0 lenses. IS will become a bigger and bigger part of the low light conversation, along with the body's ability to process higher and higher ISO.



I'm not so sure where the technical barriers for new IS systems are (does anyone know?), imho much more likely iso capability of newer cameras will solve the problem. 

But since you're quoting the review of the prime with IS and this thread is about the 24-70/4, too: The hybrid IS system is much louder and in certain angles produces frightening noises - at least on the (or my) 100L.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 9, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



Marsu42 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > But this conversation will become 4, 5, and 6 stop IS much faster than Canon can develop, say, F/1.0 lenses. IS will become a bigger and bigger part of the low light conversation, along with the body's ability to process higher and higher ISO.
> ...



Agree. I tried out the 70-200 F/4 IS and the 70-200 F/2.8 IS II side by side. The F/4's IS makes a similar sound to the 100L's whirring noise when the shutter is half pressed. Frightening might not be my word, but it's noticeable.

The 70-200/2.8L IS II is inaudible for all intents and purposes (thought I never shoot video to be fair). You have to put your ear next to it during focusing to hear it. The new 28 IS is similar.


----------



## PVS (Nov 9, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

When you compare MTF charts for 35L and 35IS published on canon website this new lens seems even more desirable.
Ditto for 4 stops of IS vs. 1 f/stop.


----------



## tron (Nov 10, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



PVS said:


> Seems like I'm part of that minority of people who are actualy grateful of having IS in a 35/2 lens.


May be you are part of the minority of people willing to pay 900$ for such a lens!!!
It's your right of course. I prefer to be part of the minority of people who enjoy the 35mm 1.4L ...


----------



## Zlatko (Nov 10, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



tron said:


> PVS said:
> 
> 
> > Seems like I'm part of that minority of people who are actualy grateful of having IS in a 35/2 lens.
> ...


The lens is being introduced at $849, not $900. And the introductory price most likely won't last. The 24/2.8 IS was also introduced at $849 and is now $669 with the instant rebate — a _much_ more reasonable price. 

So watch for the 35/2 IS to be $669 at some point, or at least closer to $700 than $900. The 35/1.4L is currently $1,329 with the instant rebate, so it looks like the 35/2 IS will cost about half as much as the 35/1.4L after the introductory price falls. That seems about right.

I love the 35/1.4L but it's quite large & heavy. I'm looking forward to trying the new 35/2 IS as a possible substitute for or addition to the 35/1.4L. A compact, high quality 35/2 with IS sounds like a _fantastic_ lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 10, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



Zlatko said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > PVS said:
> ...




+ much. I agree with everything you said.

Not only compact size, but also the compact _'noticeability'_ that comes along with it. I've recently moved to a large city, so street shooting is now easily within my reach. The new IS wide angles are great in that they are quite unassuming for that task. Most L glass, in contrast, looks like serious gear and is more likely to wind up people I may be shooting.


----------



## Denisas Pupka (Nov 10, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Short presentation from France (10:15): 

http://youtu.be/vh1dzcRZ_Rs


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Nov 11, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



crasher8 said:


> Doesn't it make sense that people would pay a premium for a much more handholdable low light lens?



Probably wrote it a hundred times - I shoot bands (read: people playing music, hence moving) in low light. Four stops better than 1/30 is 1/2. I'll admit up front some motion blur is useful in that context, but not that much motion blur, and I'll certainly not pay a 175% premium for it.


----------



## Zv (Nov 11, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Question - when you need a fast SS to freeze action is it better to switch IS off? Does it get in the way? I usually just leave my IS on all the time, should i switch it off if my SS is 1/focal length, crop factor adjusted? 

Say you were to shoot a landscape at 1/200s at 24mm (obviously don't need IS) but is is there any reason why I should switch it off? Assume I have no tripod. 

At what point does IS have a noticeable effect? what is the threshold?


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 11, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



Zv said:


> Question - when you need fast SS to freeze action is it better to switch IS off? Does it get in the way? I usually just leave my IS on all the time, should i switch it off if my SS is 1/focal length, crop factor adjusted?
> 
> Say you were to shoot a landscape at 1/200s at 24mm (obviously don't need IS) but is is there any reason why I should switch it off? Assume I have no tripod.
> 
> At what point does IS have a noticeable effect? Like what is the threshold?



Good questions - I asked the same one some time ago and no one came up with a conclusive answer. My 2 cents for handheld (for tripod turn IS off and mlu on esp. for longer exposure times):

At very high shutter speeds turn IS off because the vibration might decrease iq (also see here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10781.0). For other higher shutter speeds turn it off unless you require the stabilized viewfinder to track an object or set the af point just where you want it. Another reason for turning off IS when it's not really required is simply that it doesn't wear down that way - Canon doesn't give us a 6 year warranty like Tamron :-o

Personally I think IS is unnecessary @ 1-2 stops faster than 1/(focal lenght * crop factor).


----------



## Zv (Nov 11, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Thanks Marsu, I guess the only way to find out is to experiment!


----------



## caruser (Nov 12, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

The more I think about the 24-70 f/4 L IS USM the more I like it.

Why?

Disregarding image quality the main features for a comparison are focal length, aperture, maximum magnification, and stabilisation.

The 24-70 f/4 is worse than the 24-105 f/4 for focal length, but better for maximum magnification. Now here's my take:

In practice, when not using the macro, I am often MM limited or focal-length limited, the difference is that an MM of 0.7 could often be enough, whereas in situations where 70mm aren't enough I often need more than 105mm, too, so the 24-105 is of no real advantage.

I actually have the 24-70 f/2.8 I now, which I got over the 24-105 for the larger aperture, but since I've got a couple of fast primes this isn't half as important as it used to be.


----------



## lukemike (Nov 12, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



Colski said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > Colski said:
> ...




Maybe a bit off topic but can somebody please explain how a f/2.0 lens becomes f/3.5 on 1.6 crop. I understand a focal lenght 'change' but never heard of an aperture change. Thank you.


----------



## insanitybeard (Nov 12, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



lukemike said:


> Colski said:
> 
> 
> > Policar said:
> ...



It is referring only to the 'equivalent depth of field', not the light gathering ability of the lens. If you used the same lens and aperture on a full frame and a crop sensor camera to compose the same image, you would be further away from the subject with the crop sensor camera- this results in greater depth of field for the crop sensor image. I am sure others here can explain this better than myself. Thus, for the same composed image, your fast prime will always give you a shallower depth of field on a full frame sensor than a crop sensor.


----------



## K-amps (Nov 12, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



lukemike said:


> Colski said:
> 
> 
> > Policar said:
> ...



Refers to the Depth of field primarily. In other words the amount of background blur is more with FF for "same" framing of the subject. On the other hand if you have 2 cameras in the same plane (forget framing) then the crop has more OOF blur, but since with the FF you need to move closer to the subject, that gives you more OOF blur compared to the crop.

Also refers to the use of available light for a given level of noise: The FF will have less noise, thus you can push ISO more compared to the crop for the same noise, thus can do with a smaller aperture lens.


----------



## andy (Nov 15, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

24-70 f4 and 6D is available at Camera Canada with January delivery for $3299.00.


----------



## KyleSTL (Nov 15, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



lukemike said:


> Maybe a bit off topic but can somebody please explain how a f/2.0 lens becomes f/3.5 on 1.6 crop. I understand a focal lenght 'change' but never heard of an aperture change. Thank you.



This is exactly the reason I try to fight the 'equivalent aperture' that so many people online insert. It just confuses people that don't understand it.



andy said:


> 24-70 f4 and 6D is available at Camera Canada with January delivery for $3299.00.



$1200 for the kit lens, ouch. The Nikon D600 + 24-85 VR is going to kill this combo. It'll drop $500 in 6 months or less to be competitive. You heard it here first. Canon cannot afford to lose on price AND marketing specs and expect comparable sales.


----------



## verysimplejason (Nov 26, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



KyleSTL said:


> $1200 for the kit lens, ouch. The Nikon D600 + 24-85 VR is going to kill this combo. It'll drop $500 in 6 months or less to be competitive. You heard it here first. Canon cannot afford to lose on price AND marketing specs and expect comparable sales.



Nothing new... Introductory price is always only for early adopters suckers. Canon always exploits that.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 27, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

I think in the discussion about IS on the new 35mm something is being overlooked: Canon's new primes have seemed very expensive (and they are), but reviewers have universally agreed that they are also FANTASTIC! If they had a red ring and a rubber gasket on them, they would be called very reasonable new "L" glass. The 24 and 28 IS primes are as sharp a lens as the majority of the "L" line, and early reports put the new 35 f/2 in similar (if not better) optical quality territory (exceeding the 35L, in fact). Furthermore, Canon is including a lens hood and bag with this new lens (35 f/2), which indicates to me that this lens is a cut above the typical non L prime. Considering that the 35L is NOT weathersealed, what would we think of the price of the new 35 f/2 if it was an "L" class lens?

I am one of the (apparent) few that liked the old 35mm f/2 despite it's limitations. Canon seems to have addressed all of those issues (and some) and built what now qualifies as the most hand-holdable lens...ever? Unlike the 24 and 28, it is a full stop faster and with Hybrid IS. I will probably wait until this lens is under $800, but the only way it doesn't go into my bag is if the new Sigma 35 f/1.4 blows it out of the water.


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 27, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I think in the discussion about IS on the new 35mm something is being overlooked: Canon's new primes have seemed very expensive (and they are), but reviewers have universally agreed that they are also FANTASTIC! If they had a red ring and a rubber gasket on them, they would be called very reasonable new "L" glass. The 24 and 28 IS primes are as sharp a lens as the majority of the "L" line, and early reports put the new 35 f/2 in similar (if not better) optical quality territory (exceeding the 35L, in fact). Furthermore, Canon is including a lens hood and bag with this new lens (35 f/2), which indicates to me that this lens is a cut above the typical non L prime. Considering that the 35L is NOT weathersealed, what would we think of the price of the new 35 f/2 if it was an "L" class lens?
> 
> I am one of the (apparent) few that liked the old 35mm f/2 despite it's limitations. Canon seems to have addressed all of those issues (and some) and built what now qualifies as the most hand-holdable lens...ever? Unlike the 24 and 28, it is a full stop faster and with Hybrid IS. I will probably wait until this lens is under $800, but the only way it doesn't go into my bag is if the new Sigma 35 f/1.4 blows it out of the water.



Ditto, Any idea when the 35 F2 IS is coming out? I've been told early december for the siggy I suspect i'm gonna by the first one i get my hands on, prices should be about equal


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 27, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I think in the discussion about IS on the new 35mm something is being overlooked: Canon's new primes have seemed very expensive (and they are), but reviewers have universally agreed that they are also FANTASTIC! If they had a red ring and a rubber gasket on them, they would be called very reasonable new "L" glass. The 24 and 28 IS primes are as sharp a lens as the majority of the "L" line, and early reports put the new 35 f/2 in similar (if not better) optical quality territory (exceeding the 35L, in fact). Furthermore, Canon is including a lens hood and bag with this new lens (35 f/2), which indicates to me that this lens is a cut above the typical non L prime. Considering that the 35L is NOT weathersealed, what would we think of the price of the new 35 f/2 if it was an "L" class lens?
> 
> I am one of the (apparent) few that liked the old 35mm f/2 despite it's limitations. Canon seems to have addressed all of those issues (and some) and built what now qualifies as the most hand-holdable lens...ever? Unlike the 24 and 28, it is a full stop faster and with Hybrid IS. I will probably wait until this lens is under $800, but the only way it doesn't go into my bag is if the new Sigma 35 f/1.4 blows it out of the water.



well, IF Canon wants to CHARGE more for slow fixed focals than many current L zooms cost, then they better DELIVER L lenses, without any deficiencies, except the red ring! they can keep that one, as far as I am concerned.

At this price level, I find it ridiculous, that the lenses are not FULLY weathersealed. A couple of O-rings cost close to nothing.


----------



## insanitybeard (Nov 27, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I think in the discussion about IS on the new 35mm something is being overlooked: Canon's new primes have seemed very expensive (and they are), but reviewers have universally agreed that they are also FANTASTIC! If they had a red ring and a rubber gasket on them, they would be called very reasonable new "L" glass. The 24 and 28 IS primes are as sharp a lens as the majority of the "L" line, and early reports put the new 35 f/2 in similar (if not better) optical quality territory (exceeding the 35L, in fact). Furthermore, Canon is including a lens hood and bag with this new lens (35 f/2), which indicates to me that this lens is a cut above the typical non L prime. Considering that the 35L is NOT weathersealed, what would we think of the price of the new 35 f/2 if it was an "L" class lens?
> 
> I am one of the (apparent) few that liked the old 35mm f/2 despite it's limitations. Canon seems to have addressed all of those issues (and some) and built what now qualifies as the most hand-holdable lens...ever? Unlike the 24 and 28, it is a full stop faster and with Hybrid IS. I will probably wait until this lens is under $800, but the only way it doesn't go into my bag is if the new Sigma 35 f/1.4 blows it out of the water.



+1

I agree the new primes are expensive (at the moment, but given time prices will drop- and have already started to), but by all accounts perform very well- at least for the 28 IS, the Photozone review shows it to perform similarly to the 24L at equivalent apertures (I realise they are not the same focal length, but photozone has yet to test the 24 IS). They are considerably cheaper than the L primes, and of course they should be, being slower, not weathersealed etc. So being that ultra large aperture is not a deal breaker for me, being that landscape and walkaround are my main uses, the compact lightweight lens is ideal. And considering optically they look to be very close to the L primes at lesser cost, I am very interested in these lenses.


----------



## insanitybeard (Nov 27, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



AvTvM said:


> well, IF Canon wants to CHARGE as more than many current L lenses cost, then they better DELIVER L lenses, without any deficiencies, except the red ring, they can keep that one, as far as I am concerned.
> 
> At this price level, I find it ridiculous, that the lenses are not FULLY weathersealed. A couple of O-rings cost close to nothing.



Which L lenses Canon makes cost less? Not many- with the exception of the 100 L macro and the 200 2.8 which is an old design. As for the zooms- 17-40 and 70-200 F4 non-IS, which has also been around a long time. And remember, we are talking about the release price- not the street price that these lenses will be once they've been out a while. The cheaper L lenses you speak of have been out for years. As for weathersealing, when did Canon ever make a non-L weathersealed?

I don't dispute the new primes are expensive, but that's why I shall wait a while until the street price drops. And if optically these lenses perform as well as some reviews sugest, then the price is worth it IMO.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 27, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

The 100L macro was well over a thousand when it came out. I got a deal when I got mine and it was still slightly over a thousand...a year after it came out. The only "L" zoom that has a lower MSRP than the new 35 f/2 is the 17-40L.

BTW, comparing initial MSRP to the used/discounted prices of older lenses is a fallacious argument. You need to compare with their initial MSRP


----------



## insanitybeard (Nov 27, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> The 100L macro was well over a thousand when it came out. I got a deal when I got mine and it was still slightly over a thousand...a year after it came out. The only "L" zoom that has a lower MSRP than the new 35 f/2 is the 17-40L.
> 
> BTW, comparing initial MSRP to the used/discounted prices of older lenses is a fallacious argument. You need to compare with their initial MSRP



This was exactly the point I was trying to make in my previous post.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Furthermore, Canon is including a lens hood and bag with this new lens (35 f/2), which indicates to me that this lens is a cut above the typical non L prime.



It's now been pretty much confirmed (by two separate sources from Canon USA) that this is NOT true - the 35mm f/2 IS will ship without hood and pouch, just like nearly every other non-L lens. 

Note that in other geographies (some Asian countries), all lenses ship with a hood, even lenses like the EF-S 55-250mm and the 40mm pancake. But not here in the USA.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 28, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



neuroanatomist said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Furthermore, Canon is including a lens hood and bag with this new lens (35 f/2), which indicates to me that this lens is a cut above the typical non L prime.
> ...



That is the first that I have heard this (regarding hood and bag). I'm surprised we haven't heard any hands on previews/reviews at this point.


----------



## crasher8 (Nov 28, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

Since My L bags all sit inside my largest L bag in a box, it's a non issue. Hoods are a different matter.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 28, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



crasher8 said:


> Since My L bags all sit inside my largest L bag in a box, it's a non issue. Hoods are a different matter.


+1 on that. The bags are useless; hoods are not. That being said, I have gotten by with several $5 Ebay special hoods before and it has never been an issue.


----------



## tron (Nov 29, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*



Marsu42 said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Question - when you need fast SS to freeze action is it better to switch IS off? Does it get in the way? I usually just leave my IS on all the time, should i switch it off if my SS is 1/focal length, crop factor adjusted?
> ...



hello,

I turn IS off when I use tripod. You see once I used my 70-200 f/4 L IS in a very steady tripod, mirror lock, 2 sec delay. The speed was 30sec. I got an extremely blurry picture!!! I begun to getting confused, angry, etc when it downed on me to turn IS off. Bingo. Pictures were very sharp afterwards! Then I read at the lens' instructions that IS has to be off when the camera is in B mode. Well it was in Av mode but as the speed was 30sec I guess the instruction was close enough.


----------



## tron (Nov 29, 2012)

*Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS*

By the way, thanks for the reference to high speed SS in conjunction with IS. I remembered I had read it in the past but to tell the truth I had forgotten...


----------

