The 24mm F2.8 IS would be a very nice lens.
I would prefer the small size of 24mm f2.8 IS over a big heavy L zoom (24-70 f2.8 II IS).
Much better for fitting in a camera bag & for hiking to take landscape photos.
Err... can't read Japanese, but the two IS primes make no sense to me. Who is going to buy a 28/2.8 IS over a 28/1.8? Especially when the latter will most certainly be cheaper.
I do agree they need to revise some of their more pedestrian, non-L primes. However I don't think adding "IS" to everything is the way to go. People buy these lenses because they are cheap. You can expect enough of a price hike without IS, but with it I think you push the price too high for the target market.
deepbluejh wrote:
Err... can't read Japanese, but the two IS primes make no sense to me. Who is going to buy a 28/2.8 IS over a 28/1.8? Especially when the latter will most certainly be cheaper.
I do. I expect the 24/2.8 to cheaper than the 28/1.8 and much sharper. The 1.8 is known to be a turd in sharpness. A 24/28mm IS lens is a great FL to do street and landscape photography and when stopping down to F8, one has IS to compensate.
Of course if it is expensive, it defeats the purpose of the lens (small and cheap)
Adding IS is no new and special feature any longer. IS wil become a standard for all lenses I guess. There are some older boys out there. And of course some, who have to take picrures at a 5th second. Even with 28mm it is impossible to hold. IS means no tripod and more freedom in move around, too. Of course I do not understand why there is no in the zoom, too. Will they do 2 different ones like in 70-200? The picture from CR shows a very smart lens, compared to the "I" version. So why not putting IS into it?
If that image in the rumour has any truth then the mk2 has something against it already .its not reverse zoom and the hood bayonet is on the front part of the lens . so no great large hood that covers the whole zoom range
deepbluejh wrote:
. Who is going to buy a 28/2.8 IS over a 28/1.8? Especially when the latter will most certainly be cheaper.
The 28 1.8 is neither an especially cheap nor a very good lens. A Lot of lateral CA, and only the center sharpness is something to write home about, and only stopped down. If the 28 mm prime performs like a Leica, I will like it (pun intended).
safcraft wrote:
I do. I expect the 24/2.8 to cheaper than the 28/1.8 and much sharper. The 1.8 is known to be a turd in sharpness. A 24/28mm IS lens is a great FL to do street and landscape photography and when stopping down to F8, one has IS to compensate.
Of course if it is expensive, it defeats the purpose of the lens (small and cheap)
A revised 28mm with IS will almost certainly be as much as the older 28/1.8. And the 28/1.8 may be a "turd" at F1.8, but stopped down to F2.8 it will probably be very close to a revised 28/2.8.
Given all of this, plus the fact that wide angles just don't benefit a whole lot from IS, I would barely see the point to such a lens. That said, where the heck is the 400/5.6 IS already? Canon is really hard to figure out sometimes.
To be honest I don't think I'll get a 24-70 II if it doesn't have IS. f/2.8 is too slow for an event/wedding shooter like me, at least with IS it is usable, but without IS...no thanks!
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
If that image in the rumour has any truth then the mk2 has something against it already .its not reverse zoom and the hood bayonet is on the front part of the lens . so no great large hood that covers the whole zoom range
As far I see, it is reverse. But yes, the lenshood is mounted on the front so it will not cover the barrel :-(
That is working fine with 24-105 L. Maybe it just moves about 2 centimeters?
.