p.3 #2 · Canon 24 f/2.8 IS And 28 f/2.8 IS Announced
Sven Jeppesen wrote:
And if the lens didn't have IS, I'm sure you would complain over that
Personally, I can honestly say no to that. I don't own a single IS lens, and I'm not on the lookout for one, nor am I waiting and hoping for one to come into my price range. It's just not very important to me, particularly on a wide angle lens.
I can't speak for the market as a whole though, so maybe Canon has a better read on that than I. Having said that, I have never seen anything online (the home of "here's what I want, and I'd like it now please") from people wanting IS on their wide angle primes. On their longer lenses, and zooms like the 24-70 sure, but never for wide angle primes*. Knowing that, and making the very reasonable assumption that IS constitutes a considerable price increase, I think it's safe to say that the market would respond better to a wide angle prime without IS, rather than one at an increased price due to its inclusion.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Do you really belive they can "toss in one or two UD elements for not much extra cost". And if doing that they will improve the IQ a lot. But they don't do it because they don't like their lenses to have good IQ
Well no, I'm not quite that naive. What I do believe though, is that if lens design engineers are given the option (by the bean-counters, of course) to use a UD element, they would almost always take that option, and it would result in an optically superior lens. My only assumption beyond that was to suggest that the cost of an IS system might be comparable to that of a UD lens element. Is that unreasonable?
*I'm not claiming they don't exist, just that I've never seen one, and therefore am drawing the conclusion that they're extremely rare.
p.3 #6 · Canon 24 f/2.8 IS And 28 f/2.8 IS Announced
Leaving the IS would have been an option, but then f/2.8 would be too slow to compete with zooms I am afraid...
Without IS I would expect f/1.8 or 2.0 (kind like Nikon 35mm f/1.8). Faster aperture would have made it bigger and maybe expensive anyway...
I am just wild guessing here, but it's clear there are trade-off behind any product's design.
p.3 #7 · Canon 24 f/2.8 IS And 28 f/2.8 IS Announced
alundeb wrote:
How much do you think the IS costs in the $170 EF-S 18-55 IS II?
Obviously a lot less than in these two lenses. Keep in mind markup vs actual cost. Retail is probably 3-4 times what actual cost is. It wouldn't be shocking if the IS unit in these new lenses cost about $50, which would correspond with an increase of $150-$200 retail.
p.3 #8 · Canon 24 f/2.8 IS And 28 f/2.8 IS Announced
alundeb wrote:
How much do you think the IS costs in the $170 EF-S 18-55 IS II?
Fair point, and I can certainly say that for me, if the IS were only costing me $70, I'd take it for sure. I doubt that's the case here though. After all, if IS were indeed cheap to implement, why would it be left off the new 24-70 L lens, when the photographic community seems to have been waiting for/demanding/foreseeing that it be the major upgrade from the old version of that lens?
Still on the inclusion of IS: I must say I hadn't thought about the video crowd, which is becoming a much bigger part of the DSLR market these days. They do certainly justify its inclusion here well beyond what I was thinking.
Feb 07, 2012 at 08:52 AM
Guest
Guest
p.3 #9 · Canon 24 f/2.8 IS And 28 f/2.8 IS Announced
alundeb wrote:
Snopchenko: All Canon 28 mm offerings are decent stopped down, but none, I repeat none, is stellar, in the league of the 24 TSE II or the 35 L.
Whether these new lenses are in that league is an open question at best. But again... something is wrong here IMO. Either the stats or the pricing. I just had a thought, I can have a 28/1.8 with lots of money to spare for the price of the new 28... but for the price of the new 24 I can almost buy a used 24/1.4L (non-II)! I'm sure many people would think the same.
p.3 #10 · Canon 24 f/2.8 IS And 28 f/2.8 IS Announced
I'd assume that it is a lot more expensive to implement IS in a production run that is surely more limited than that of the nearly ubiquitous 18-55 and 55-250.
p.3 #12 · Canon 24 f/2.8 IS And 28 f/2.8 IS Announced
I'm interested in the 24 mm. I had the 24L II but I preferred the 35L for the FL and bokeh. I'm sure a 24 2.8 with four stops of IS would be useful, once the price gets to $650-ish next year I may just get one!
Feb 07, 2012 at 09:55 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #13 · Canon 24 f/2.8 IS And 28 f/2.8 IS Announced
Snopchenko wrote:
Whether these new lenses are in that league is an open question at best. But again... something is wrong here IMO. Either the stats or the pricing. I just had a thought, I can have a 28/1.8 with lots of money to spare for the price of the new 28... but for the price of the new 24 I can almost buy a used 24/1.4L (non-II)! I'm sure many people would think the same.
You can't compare the prices between a brand new not yet released lens. And a very old used lens that was released 15 years ago, and discontinued about 4 years ago.
With that kind of logic we should never buy any new lenses. All of them are much cheaper if we buy very old discontinued lenses with the same focal length
Whatever lens or body Canon release, people here will always complain and say it should have been a lot better and at half the price
Feb 07, 2012 at 09:56 AM
Guest
Guest
p.3 #14 · Canon 24 f/2.8 IS And 28 f/2.8 IS Announced
Lars Johnsson wrote:
You can't compare the prices between a brand new not yet released lens. And a very old used lens that was released 15 years ago, and discontinued about 4 years ago.
With that kind of logic we should never buy any new lenses. All of them are much cheaper if we buy very old discontinued lenses with the same focal length
Whatever lens or body Canon release, people here will always complain and say it should have been a lot better and at half the price
I see where you're coming from but I'm judging these lenses on their objective stats relative to pricing, Can't speak for IQ of course. And what's wrong with buying discontinued gear if some of it is known as well-performing despite the age? Many people here overwhelmingly positive about MDP (20 year old), just like the Minolta people are proud of the old Beercan lens which was still highly sought 5 years ago when I was using that mount (not sure about today, I'm no longer paying heed). Why should I restrict myself to whatever is available in shops brand new? Even if these new lenses sell at 80% of the MSRP the points I made in previous posts (and really don't feel like re-iterating) still stand.
Feb 07, 2012 at 11:32 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #15 · Canon 24 f/2.8 IS And 28 f/2.8 IS Announced
Snopchenko,
There is nothing wrong with buying 20 year old lenses or discontinued lenses.
But it's wrong to compare those used prices against brand new lenses and their prices
p.3 #16 · Canon 24 f/2.8 IS And 28 f/2.8 IS Announced
I guess I fall into the consumer segment that these lenses appeal to. The 24 weighs 10 oz, has a MFD of 8 inches, and has IS. So as a compact supplement to my 24-105 standard zoom it adds quite a bit. Assuming the IQ lives up to Canon's description, it should have less distortion and less vignetting than the zoom at 24. As a supplement, I'd never pay the cost and weight of 24L. We'll see what the street price of the new 24 becomes, but its probably worth a couple of hundred more than the Voigtlander 40 which B&H currently lists at $500. The price of lenses these days
I hope they will do a similar update to the 35f2 soon. What a sweet walkaround kit a 5D + 24 IS, 35 IS, and 100L IS would be!
No consequence, but I wonder why Canon has dropped the gold band for USM, full time manual focus lenses?
p.3 #19 · Canon 24 f/2.8 IS And 28 f/2.8 IS Announced
Jeff Nolten wrote:
I guess I fall into the consumer segment that these lenses appeal to. The 24 weighs 10 oz, has a MFD of 8 inches, and has IS. So as a compact supplement to my 24-105 standard zoom it adds quite a bit. Assuming the IQ lives up to Canon's description, it should have less distortion and less vignetting than the zoom at 24. As a supplement, I'd never pay the cost and weight of 24L.
I am exactly in the same situation, I own a 24-105 and I was considering 24L and 35L but the prices were too step..
I was dreaming for something along the line of Nikon's 35mm f/1.8. These new primes aren't what I hoping for, nonetheless, they could fit my needs pretty well.
Jeff Nolten wrote:
I hope they will do a similar update to the 35f2 soon.
I guess a new, non-L 35mm was less urgent, since the current f/2.0 has pretty decent IQ, even with a crappy AF. Hope 35mm would be next.
p.3 #20 · Canon 24 f/2.8 IS And 28 f/2.8 IS Announced
Is anybody even seriously considering buying a slow prime wide-angle non-L $700+ lens?
Those who can afford it will always go L. In this FL range, that's the 24-70L or the 24 TS-E or the 24 1.4.
Those more on a budget are not going to drop $700 for a non-L prime. More attractive would be the 28-135IS or the 24-105L IS or L v1 prime second-hand.
