# Any word on the Canon prime's with IS?



## Drizzt321 (Apr 11, 2012)

Remember those new primes with IS on them supposedly coming out? (see http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/02/pricing-of-the-new-lenses/) Any word on how they are coming along, or more reviews/thoughts on them?


----------



## JR (Apr 11, 2012)

Drizzt321 said:


> Remember those new primes with IS on them supposedly coming out? (see http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/02/pricing-of-the-new-lenses/) Any word on how they are coming along, or more reviews/thoughts on them?



I beleive they are still coming this summer (July or August). Dont expect them before given everything else Canon is busy manufacturing right now!


----------



## Drizzt321 (Apr 11, 2012)

Yea, that's what I had seen. Wasn't sure if anyone had heard anything else. I imagine they are much less of a priority compared to the 1Dx and new 24-70L II.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 12, 2012)

more to the point any news on finding people that are actually going to buy them?


----------



## JR (Apr 12, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> more to the point any news on finding people that are actually going to buy them?



I may be tempted to get on of them for video...not sure yet. WOuld have to try it and see some reviews, but I do a lot of family video with my 24mm. I like primes but if it was IS on top of it, I would look into it. Though I have other lenses on my hit list first, like the new 24-70 II.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 12, 2012)

JR said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > more to the point any news on finding people that are actually going to buy them?
> ...



this is my point, its a LOT of money for a slow prime with IS which goes a large way to paying for a good chunk of the upcoming 24-70 which from the charts looks to be a screamer. I guess it depends on how important the IS is. Even if they had made these primes f2 they would have had a whole lot more appeal but 2.8? hardley gets the blood pumping


----------



## JR (Apr 12, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



Yeah...would have been nicer if the price range was in the 400-500 instead...


----------



## pharp (Apr 12, 2012)

Has to be aimed at the video crowd - can't imagine these being of any interest to still shooters, especially at that price point. 

Looks like Nikon is going down the same road - slow wide angle prime with image stabilization;
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/01/15/nikon-files-patent-for-a-35mm-f2-8-vr-full-frame-lens.aspx/


----------



## JR (Apr 13, 2012)

pharp said:


> Has to be aimed at the video crowd - can't imagine these being of any interest to still shooters, especially at that price point.
> 
> Looks like Nikon is going down the same road - slow wide angle prime with image stabilization;
> http://nikonrumors.com/2012/01/15/nikon-files-patent-for-a-35mm-f2-8-vr-full-frame-lens.aspx/



Thanks for that info. I had not realized Nikon was going there too. Feels like now that the camera company realize a segment of the buyers do like DSLR for video, they are trying to milk the cow every way they can!
(even sometime at the perceived expense of traditional still shooters!)


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 14, 2012)

waiting....patiently.


----------



## FunPhotons (Apr 14, 2012)

I'm interested in them, just wish the 24mm was a 20mm. 

Canon doesn't have a lot of good, small primes. I want one for a small walkabout lens. Or a camera I can people shoot at family events without shoving a huge zoom in their face. I also have a Fuji X100 for that, but it's slow and annoying. I miss a lot of shots. 

I had the 50 1.4, until the focus mechanism crapped out. And I want wide angle. Fast would be good, but 2.8 is sufficient. IS is a nice bonus. Sure it's a little bit expensive, but Canon is jacking up the prices of everything, and if it lets me get shots I wouldn't otherwise who caress? 

I'm not sure I'll get one - probably, still thinking about it.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 14, 2012)

Those lenses will have to have out-of-this-world image quality if they're going to sell more than a small handful of them. And if the not-quite-yet-on-the-street Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 with image stabilization is at all decent, basically nobody will buy Canon's new primes.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Apr 15, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> Those lenses will have to have out-of-this-world image quality if they're going to sell more than a small handful of them. And if the not-quite-yet-on-the-street Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 with image stabilization is at all decent, basically nobody will buy Canon's new primes.



+1, why bother repeating what I've wrote half a dozen times like a parrot?


----------



## birdman (Apr 18, 2012)

I think they will be superb optically. This generation of lenses, esp. primes, are typically very good from any manufacturer. What surprises me is Tokina's lack of prime lenses. 

Like all new products, these new IS primes do seem a little overpriced. But they will fit the niche in the video market, and do it well. F/2.8 is plenty for DOF effects...have you ever heard anyone with a 70-200 2.8 complain of lacking DOF?


----------



## preppyak (Apr 18, 2012)

birdman said:


> F/2.8 is plenty for DOF effects...have you ever heard anyone with a 70-200 2.8 complain of lacking DOF?


While I agree that f/2.8 is plenty for DOF, the 70-200 has a huge advantage over either of these primes, since the focal length also effects DOF. I've found I can isolate a subject more at 200mm f/4 than I can at, say, 50mm f/2.8.

But, at 24mm and 28mm, its more about getting the low-light shot than worrying about DOF; especially on a full-frame setup.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 18, 2012)

preppyak said:


> birdman said:
> 
> 
> > F/2.8 is plenty for DOF effects...have you ever heard anyone with a 70-200 2.8 complain of lacking DOF?
> ...



The 400 f/2.8 must be the king of blurred backgrounds  Although I haven't had a real go with my 200 f/2 yet (hopefully that will be tomorrow)


----------



## Z (Apr 18, 2012)

preppyak said:


> While I agree that f/2.8 is plenty for DOF, the 70-200 has a huge advantage over either of these primes, since the focal length also effects DOF


I hate to be that annoying guy, but technically focal length does not affect depth of field. However, due to compression distortion, the out of focus background is essentially enlarged, which magnifies the blur and makes DoF appear narrower.

Still, the effect is what matters.


----------



## moreorless (Apr 18, 2012)

My guess is that these lenses will also look to target the landscape market, going from the MTF's they do seem to offer much better boarder to boarder sharpness than there predecessors or indeed the 24-105/24-70 mk1.


----------



## leftnose (Apr 20, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> more to the point any news on finding people that are actually going to buy them?


I'm not too interested in the 24 or 28mm lenses but if they come out with a 35mm f/2 IS, I would jump all over it even at the $8-900 price it seems like it would have. It would be a no-brainer instant pre-order for me.

Presumably it would slot between the current f/2 and f/1.4L in size, f/2 is plenty fast enough for 35mm and with IS, it would make a killer indoor architecture lens. It would be the absolute perfect lens for me and my shooting habits.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Apr 20, 2012)

moreorless said:


> My guess is that these lenses will also look to target the landscape market, going from the MTF's they do seem to offer much better boarder to boarder sharpness than there predecessors or indeed the 24-105/24-70 mk1.



How would landscape photographers benefit from IS? I would think this is the market which would be most likely to use a tripod, and least likely to use IS.


----------



## IWLP (Apr 20, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> How would landscape photographers benefit from IS? I would think this is the market which would be most likely to use a tripod, and least likely to use IS.



Landscape photogs may not benefit, but the video guys will probably like this, as will people who like to be "available light" portrait/street/event/etc. photos. I don't think Canon is interested in making a lens for a single contingent of photographers, so its no surprise the lens has different design choices to cater to different users.


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 20, 2012)

moreorless said:


> My guess is that these lenses will also look to target the landscape market, going from the MTF's they do seem to offer much better boarder to boarder sharpness than there predecessors or indeed the 24-105/24-70 mk1.



Uh. No. Landscape shooters will NOT want IS. Its useful if wee something and want to snap in a pinch, but on a planned landscape shoot, tripods and filters are things that come along


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 20, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> The 400 f/2.8 must be the king of blurred backgrounds  Although I haven't had a real go with my 200 f/2 yet (hopefully that will be tomorrow)



Actually, it's the physical aperture size (as opposed to the aperture ratio) that's most directly relevant to the shallowness of the depth of field. For example, a 50mm f/1.0 has an aperture of 50 / 1 = 50mm and thus can blur a background slightly more than an 85mm f/1.8: 85 / 1.8 = 47.2. The lowly 100 f/2, though, creates just as much background blur as the mystical 50 f/1...though, granted, with only half the angular field of view and in four times as much light.

The 400 f/2.8, as awesome as it is, just barely comes in second behind the 600 f/4: 143mm aperture for the former and a 150mm aperture for the latter.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Jettatore (Apr 20, 2012)

Can anyone explain why they are releasing these two lenses side by side with such a close focal length between them, instead of a more dramatic one, at least for the first release. I would think there is some reason, but I can not figure it out.


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 23, 2012)

Jettatore said:


> Can anyone explain why they are releasing these two lenses side by side with such a close focal length between them, instead of a more dramatic one, at least for the first release. I would think there is some reason, but I can not figure it out.



+1. The difference between 24 and 28 is moving the camera forward or back about 3 inches. (not an actual measurement, people on here are way too technical)


----------

