Typical failure to understand the technical details, since IBIS can provide all the stabilization possible at this focal length.
Having IS in Lens is a Great must have tool for Video...
Well I don't agree with this 'Technical detail' argument.
I know what you are saying. With IS and macro the STM is a practical lens. The new lens is for when only the very best will do. I will keep both my 35 lenses. One for general use and the other for professional use...The RF35STM is my always-on, go anywhere lens, so I am trying to convince myself that size, weight and niceties such as MFD and stabilization are more important to me than optical quality.
But still the 35L just seems like a really nice lens to lust after
Thanks! So, as expected there’d be no benefit of lens IS for stills (except for bodies lacking IBIS, obviously).
Gimbal...Really?? ....How do you use a Gimbal for taking Stills???
why is this even an issue, canon has more than enough still camera bodies to suit any purpose that have IBIS.
I am no videographer, but I am astute enough to know 1. videographers do not have the cinema line to choose from if they shoot on mirrorless cameras. Cinema line is 2x to 3x $$ for the gear, much more limited in application and much more specific to more professional productions. If you are a wedding videographer, youtube video maker, etc. Mirrorless is where it's at. It's more portable, cheaper and more than capable for most people's needs. 2. Canon is a business and needs to maximize sales. Without both photographers and videographers buying mirrorless cameras and lenses, these products would fail. Canon doesn't develop separate lenses and cameras for photographers because we could never support their products alone. It's why cameras have had video features built in for 15 years. 3. Without video specific tech, we would not have half of the technology in the camera. The AF in particular would still be in the dark ages if sensors had not advanced thanks for the push for better video capabilities. 4. A 1.4 lens is not a compromise - it is the better choice between 1.2 and 1.4. It saves on size, weight and cost, at the expense of only an unoticable half-stop of light that is easily made up for in ISO or in post production, and it's missing an extra degree of razor-thin DOF that isn't even usable in 90% of applications. Feel free to boycott this lens or whatever, but Canon made the right choice here
This comment pretty much pegged you as a troll, but I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Until...
Either you're cripplingly hypocritical, or you just want to troll and complain about this lens. Pro tip: if you don't like it, don't buy it. Have a nice day.
IS is rated according to the CIPA standard. Like the US EPA mileage estimates for cars, it's not necessarily reflective of real world use. That's perfectly logical, the EPA doesn't know how I personally step on the accelerator pedal, and CIPA doesn't know how much coffee I drink. It's still useful as a relative comparison.
Sorry...but You sound too much like a 'Canon Spokesperson' - Just highlighting "this is the best 35 canon ever made!'
The MFT charts say otherwise. They are very close in real world shooting. It’s sharp, it’s new, it’s light, it’s native and it focuses a lot closer and it’s $1600 bucks for a premium L. Nice one Canon!
