timpdx wrote:
1.4 is more important to me than IS, I am addicted to available light shooting with the 24L. In the case of something longer like an 85IS/2.0 or something, then I may be willing to trade IS for some aperture.
hah for me i'm addicted to available light at the longer end but not the wide end
for 1.4 at 24 sure it's nice and gets used at times but I could live without it
speed at 35 and up starts mattering more and I wouldn't trade a speedy 85 or 135 for IS, we already have 70-200/300L that deliver stunning 85mm/135mm quality stopped down).
Sp12 wrote:
I just wish they were faster. Honestly F2.8 doesn't interest me in a non-tele prime.
but we already have that though with the 24 1.4 L II
you make them faster, say f/2 and then they become larger, cost even more and the performance goes down unless you raise the price even yet more, so then they are now say $1300 for the 24mm f/2, maybe just get the 1.4 at that point?
I would rather them release a 24mm 1.8 that was almost as good as the 24L. In the same vein that the 85 1.8 is good enough for most people who want that FL.
leftymgp wrote:
I would rather them release a 24mm 1.8 that was almost as good as the 24L. In the same vein that the 85 1.8 is good enough for most people who want that FL.
but then $1300 for a 24mm 1.8 that isn't quite as good as the 24 1.4 for $1650 or as good as the 24 2.8 for $850?
I'd love to own either of the new primes--assuming good IQ--but especially the EF 24 2.8 IS USM. Used the old EF 24 2.8 for 20 years and enjoyed the petite size, coverage and DOF scale! If the price drifts down a benjamin or two I'd buy it in a heartbeat. I'd never
leftymgp wrote:
I would rather them release a 24mm 1.8 that was almost as good as the 24L. In the same vein that the 85 1.8 is good enough for most people who want that FL.
Just wait for Sigma's updated 24 f/1.8 HSM. Current one is excellent, but has glacial AF.
I'm really happy with my 24-105 and have found that the IS has helped my keeper rate even at the wide end. However, 24 is its weakest point so if the new 24 IS lives up to its description I'm interested. I find that while I do use 24 mm fairly often, I rarely need wider. I have the 17-40 which has better 24 but it needs f5.6 or f8 and without IS that means tripod. So, again, a 24 f2.8 IS that is half the weight and a closer minimum focus distance than the 17-40 seems very useful as a supplement to the 24-105. We'll see what the tests show and what the street price is.
I certainly hope Canon puts out a 35 f2 IS USM that retains the 7 to 9 oz weight and size of the current 35 f2. That is one of my favorite primes (along with the 100L) but is in serious need of an update.
I loved my old 28mm 1.8 on my crop and was thinking of buying it again. I think I will wait and try the 24mm though. With the IS I think you will still be able to get some good indoor non flash photos. I don't get the 4mm/$50 difference in the 2 though. Why bother, would have rather seen a 24mm/35mm combo with IS.
svassh wrote:
I loved my old 28mm 1.8 on my crop and was thinking of buying it again. I think I will wait and try the 24mm though. With the IS I think you will still be able to get some good indoor non flash photos. I don't get the 4mm/$50 difference in the 2 though. Why bother, would have rather seen a 24mm/35mm combo with IS.
I am happy with these new lenses (both 24 and 28mm are favorite focal lengths for me) but I recognize that I am probably a small minority. I agree that a 24/35mm combo makes more sense. The release of a 24/28 combo is definitely one of those "Huh?" moments.
Personally, I'm very surprised that they would do this before addressing some of the lenses that would probably sell like crazy if they were updated...like maybe the 50/1.4 or 100-400 zoom...not really interested in these new primes. I don't shoot much video with my dSLRs but I'd imagine these would be handy for that...
They are not for me, I am more likely to spring for the 24-70 II when prices drop a bit. An updated 50 1.4 would be great.
Yeah, they could have done a 24/50 update or better a 24/85 update and maybe sold a BUNCH of lenses. I would sell my brand spankin' new 85 1.8 for a version of it with IS. A 24 1.8 w/ IS would be highly appealing.
I think they will have a good market for these lenses. I had the 24L II but I sold it for the 35L which gets a lot more use. Still, the 24 focal length is something I can use and 2.8 with 3-4 stop IS is interesting.
These FL's would also be useful for the EF-S cameras and it's quite obvious that primes are making a comeback with the mainstream hobbiest/enthusiast, at least in my circle of chums!
I don’t get the naysayers who never seem happy with anything. It’s just camera gear.
I own the current 24mm f/2.8. One day, when I have some spare cash, I might be looking to upgrade. The new 24mm f/2.8 IS will be on my short list--if it improves upon my current lens optically. It might be an affordable and decent option compared to the 24mm f/1.4L or Zeiss 21mm.
I don't need anything faster than f/2.8 in a wide angle lens. I would like something razor sharp when stopped down. My current lens isn't bad. I am not anxious about replacing it. It's still a better lens than I am a photographer
mco_970 wrote:
They are not for me, I am more likely to spring for the 24-70 II when prices drop a bit. An updated 50 1.4 would be great.
Yeah, they could have done a 24/50 update or better a 24/85 update and maybe sold a BUNCH of lenses. I would sell my brand spankin' new 85 1.8 for a version of it with IS. A 24 1.8 w/ IS would be highly appealing.
i think they did 24/28 pairing because looking at the design diagrams they have basically the same front set and rear set of elements with the middle set differing. Hopefully they hit up the 50 1.4 next.
skibum5 wrote:
i think they did 24/28 pairing because looking at the design diagrams they have basically the same front set and rear set of elements with the middle set differing. Hopefully they hit up the 50 1.4 next.
Yep, a 35 f/2 (better yet 1.8) with IS would be nice, too. While I'm dreaming, they could update the 35L to a 1.2.
Disappointing. At 2.8 there's cheaper, sharper, ZOOMs with just as much capability for APS-C. Could've gone for at least F2 to make it interesting in low light or 5.6 and 100% correction for an ultimate light+stabilized landscape lens. As is I don't see any value here.
Where's the desperately needed 50/1.4 IS with real USM and IQ to match the Sigma? Or the 85L IS, 85/1.8 IS, or 135/1.8 IS? How about the 400/5.6 IS? I think Canon's outright foolish -- look at all the stuff Nikon just got.
I believe Canon will be updating mnay lenses this year, so be patient .
timpdx wrote:
Wish they had done a 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 first, where the longer FL could take advantage of the IS better. I have a 24LII so these don't interest me.
M Vers wrote:
Personally, at this point in time I have no interest in such lenses but do see the benefits, especially for film makers.
Serious film makers are more interested in how easily you can focus the lens rather than IS. IS is not used in any professional video or film system. Most major films use completely manual, mechanical lenses and none of the ENG lenses that I've found use any sort of IS system.
Amateurs tend to be the ones who use lenses with IS in it.
.