note DPR's "Ultimately, the most interesting thing about these launches is the fact that Canon feels the need to update various full-frame lenses, almost as if something likely to test the quality of its existing versions was in the offing."
I wonder if that is not a strong hint.
And don't forget the 5D3 MP calculation thread here that came up with 30MP or so as the most likely estimate.
5D3 does not = CR's 7.5fps 22MP 1DX AF but rather 32MP, 6.3fps, better than 7D and worse than 1DX AF, that's my story and I'm sticking to it (even after they release a 22MP 5D3 with 7.5fps and 1DX AF )
p.1 #9 · Canon 24 f/2.8 IS And 28 f/2.8 IS Announced
"The EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM lens is expected to be available in June for an approximate retail price of $849.99, while the EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM lens is expected to be available in June for an approximate retail price of $799.99."
p.1 #11 · Canon 24 f/2.8 IS And 28 f/2.8 IS Announced
hmm the 24 2.8 IS MTF charts actually look a tiny bit better than the ones for the 24 1.4 II at f/8 landscape DOF, nice if it bears out in practice, wonder what the CA is like with zero UD elements though....
the f/2.8 of th f/2.8 looks better than the 1.4 of the 24 1.4 II, but that doesn't really say much....
this may be a way to do top quality FF landscapes for half the price of the 24 1.4 II....
one wonders how insanely great the MTF may have been if they just sprung for a UD element (small ones don't really cost that much)
EDIT: the new 24-70 MTFs beat the new 24 2.8 primes MTFs! So it is a shame canon cheaped out from using UD elements in the new prime, the new zoom should not beat the new prime, it also shows if they made a f/2.8 L prime series that they could have much better performance than the f/1.4-2 fast series primes do and cost a bit less too.
p.1 #12 · Canon 24 f/2.8 IS And 28 f/2.8 IS Announced
Would anyone else prefer NOT to pay for IS? The price premium is bound to be similar to that for longer lenses, but in this case it wouldn't be anywhere near as necessary IMO.
If the same lens was made without IS, for a cheaper price, wouldn't that represent far better value?
EDIT: or maybe drop the IS for a UD element or two?
p.1 #14 · Canon 24 f/2.8 IS And 28 f/2.8 IS Announced
rosscova wrote:
Would anyone else prefer NOT to pay for IS? The price premium is bound to be similar to that for longer lenses, but in this case it wouldn't be anywhere near as necessary IMO.
If the same lens was made without IS, for a cheaper price, wouldn't that represent far better value?
EDIT: or maybe drop the IS for a UD element or two?
To be honest, maybe, toss in a UD element and looking how the new 24-70 does, this new 24 2.8 with UD would deliver beyond off the chart results. So yeah I'd maybe have traded the IS for UD, that said the IS could be useful certainly.
Feb 07, 2012 at 12:50 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · Canon 24 f/2.8 IS And 28 f/2.8 IS Announced
skibum5 wrote:
To be honest, maybe, toss in a UD element and looking how the new 24-70 does, this new 24 2.8 with UD would deliver beyond off the chart results. So yeah I'd maybe have traded the IS for UD, that said the IS could be useful certainly.
Canon already have the 24L. A 24mm lens with UD glass and no IS. Why would they make the same lens again and call it a non L lens ?
p.1 #16 · Canon 24 f/2.8 IS And 28 f/2.8 IS Announced
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Canon already have the 24L. A 24mm lens with UD glass and no IS. Why would they make the same lens again and call it a non L lens ?
Because you can make one that costs less and performs better if it is f/2.8 instead of f/1.4.
Feb 07, 2012 at 01:41 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · Canon 24 f/2.8 IS And 28 f/2.8 IS Announced
The price increase a lot in every new lens. So this one with better glass would probably cost nearly as much as the 24L. Look at the new 24-70.
You just like to change everything and make your own home-made lens. And you can't just "toss in one or two UD glass in a lens either" I think this looks very good for being a non L lens
p.1 #18 · Canon 24 f/2.8 IS And 28 f/2.8 IS Announced
rosscova wrote:
Would anyone else prefer NOT to pay for IS? The price premium is bound to be similar to that for longer lenses, but in this case it wouldn't be anywhere near as necessary IMO.
At 24mm I agree. IS must be a huge selling point though. I imagine there may be a large segment of the population out there that thinks if the lens doesn't have IS it's just not a good lens.
Or maybe this is marketed more towards videographers?
p.1 #20 · Canon 24 f/2.8 IS And 28 f/2.8 IS Announced
Lars Johnsson wrote:
The price increase a lot in every new lens. So this one with better glass would probably cost nearly as much as the 24L. Look at the new 24-70.
You just like to change everything and make your own home-made lens. And you can't just "toss in one or two UD glass in a lens either" I think this looks very good for being a non L lens
No, an f/2.8 24mm would not cost as much as an f/1.4 24mm.
They use UD element in the 55-250 IS I believe.
)