Underwater shooters will be very pleased with these two, as will video/cinematographers needing AF and panning-IS on remote booms.
These are pro level lenses, not consumer models, and will be in housings, or used in groups of five or more tethered for simultaneous recording of subject. The auto sensing of pano movement is major, along with a defined sized and minimal weight for both pole and wire rigs and housings, plus four stops of stabilizing when not panning.
These are nice little tools, and will likely be bought by the dozen, not one at a time, especially since hobby shooters will either go zoom or large aperture prime.
Smart move on Canon's part to produce these little guys.
ragsn_old_iron wrote:
Underwater shooters will be very pleased with these two, as will video/cinematographers needing AF and panning-IS on remote booms.
These are pro level lenses, not consumer models, and will be in housings, or used in groups of five or more tethered for simultaneous recording of subject. The auto sensing of pano movement is major, along with a defined sized and minimal weight for both pole and wire rigs and housings, plus four stops of stabilizing when not panning.
These are nice little tools, and will likely be bought by the dozen, not one at a time, especially since hobby shooters will either go zoom or large aperture prime.
Smart move on Canon's part to produce these little guys....Show more →
Video/cinematographers don't typically use either AF nor IS.
skibum5 wrote:
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 was thinking more $5-600 for a 24mm 1.8 that would be good enough for most. Hell, I would pay as much as the new f/2.8 IS version and just trade the IS for a wider aperture (assuming the optics are good).
leftymgp wrote:
I was thinking more $5-600 for a 24mm 1.8 that would be good enough for most. Hell, I would pay as much as the new f/2.8 IS version and just trade the IS for a wider aperture (assuming the optics are good).
Your 5D is compatible with the EE-S focusing screen that allows for easier manual focusing with large aperture lenses. I know at least Nikon makes a 24mm f/2 lens that is well-regarded and can be had for ~ the same price as a new Canon EF 24 f/2.8.
Just something to consider if you'd really like a fast 24mm lens that's not f/1.4.
Are you talking about the 24mm f/2 AIS? If so, I had several copies of this lens over the years and I found the corners to be soft. Bjorn Rorslett also writes something similar in his review of this lens (if memory serves me correctly).
I was actually thinking of buying the new Samyang 24mm but I am going to wait until I see some reviews for both the Samyang and Canon's new f/2.8 IS. If the Samyang 24mm is anything like the 85 and 35mm they have already made, then it will be a very strong performer!
[Edit] - it's the Nikkor 28mm f/2 that is well received. Perhaps that is what you are referring to?
galenapass wrote:
I was actually thinking of buying the new Samyang 24mm but I am going to wait until I see some reviews for both the Samyang and Canon's new f/2.8 IS. If the Samyang 24mm is anything like the 85 and 35mm they have already made, then it will be a very strong performer!
Despite the rave reviews, I really didn't like the 85 f/1.4. I was disappointed with the results I had when shooting wide open and I also didn't like the aperture shaped flare in the center of the frame that would appear from time to time when I stopped down. I eventually sold it.
kakomu wrote:
Video/cinematographers don't typically use either AF nor IS.
I don't think pro video shooters are the intended market for these lenses. Instead, it's gentleman amateurs, prime pervs, street shooters and weekend landscapers like me.
[\quote]I don't think pro video shooters are the intended market for these lenses. Instead, it's gentleman amateurs, prime pervs, street shooters and weekend landscapers like me.
It will be interesting to see how LAN with up to 10 FF cameras tethered all using liveview with auto-focus and image stabilizing will used by commercial production teams, surely Canon has something in mind when they implement this type of remote gigabit control; it is hard to imagine cine lenses utilizing these features (not to mention cost and risk) so I assume along with these lenses being featured in the Canon Professional Network literature that they will find use as underwater and post-modern cinema tools. The market will decide if the price holds, but they seem a bargain to me for commercial use.
I can't help wondering why they didn't add IS and improved the optics of the 28/1.8 USM. With faster aperture and IS it could be a little cracker. Yes, it would cost over 1K but with a faster aperture it could offer something current zoom can't.
Yakim Peled wrote:
Yes, it would cost over 1K but with a faster aperture it could offer something current zoom can't.
Currently Canon offers no zoom on FF that covers 24mm or 28mm and has IS too. Next best thing is 24-105 f/4.0, with 2nd generation IS (and it's not great at 24mm).
Maybe they kept IS out of 24-70 to improve sales of those new primes?
On crop we have the 17-55 f/2.8, but it has 2nd generation IS too, so the new primes should still have 1-stop advantage (for what's worth).
Sp12 wrote:
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.
+100 Were these lenses on anybody's wish list?
The 50/1.4 desperately needs to be replaced. And Canon really needs a 30/1.8 for the crop cameras, a fast normal lens like the 35/1.8DX lens Nikon offers. Why f/2.8 primes? If they were f/2, they'd be much more useful, especially with IS. I do mostly low-light indoor work. The only time I reach for the primes is when the light levels are too low for proper shutter speed with the f/2.8 zooms. Aside from the video market - which may well be driving this decision by Canon - how many photographers are going to purchase f/2.8 primes, when that same capability is available in good quality zooms covering the same focal lengths?
Massimo Foti wrote:
Currently Canon offers no zoom on FF that covers 24mm or 28mm and has IS too. Next best thing is 24-105 f/4.0, with 2nd generation IS (and it's not great at 24mm).
Possibly poor phrasing on my part. I was referring to the wider aperture.
Massimo Foti wrote:
Maybe they kept IS out of 24-70 to improve sales of those new primes?
With the current release of two primes nobody wished for and 24-70/2.8 without IS I wonder if that was not what Canon's marketing managers actually thought.
Massimo Foti wrote:
On crop we have the 17-55 f/2.8, but it has 2nd generation IS too, so the new primes should still have 1-stop advantage (for what's worth).
Yakim Peled wrote:
With the current release of two primes nobody wished for and 24-70/2.8 without IS I wonder if that was not what Canon's marketing managers actually thought.
I know very well. I own a 24-105 with a 2nd generation IS. But I also own a 70-200 IS and a 15-85 with 3rd generation IS.
In my experience I get 2 stops out of 2nd generation and 3 stops out of 3rd generation IS. Occasionally I can push a bit more, but then my keepers rate goes down.
Your results, of course, may vary, but I think it's safe to say that latest IS have a 1-stop advantage.
Like many others, I too am baffled by Canon's decision to make these two lenses. While I truly wish they added IS to the 24-70 zoom, I am not unhappy that they added it to the 24mm. (The 28 is a lens I don't understand at all - too wide for some shots, not wide enough for most shots.)
Why? Landscape shooters rarely use 2.8 anyway and the extra stability will come in very handy for people who shoot in the early morning and/or evening when the light is low. It will allow you stop down without fear of camera shake and is actually quite a nice addition to one's kit.
Also, it seems to be a pretty good sized improvement over the old f2.8. I use that lens frequently in combination with a Singh-Ray Vari-N-Duo filter and a step-up ring to counter the vignetting that one would get from using the filter with a 24L or other 77mm front thread wide angle. This would give me a better quality lens that is actually usable for wide angle, daytime, long exposure shots.
The more I think about it, the more I like it. The 28 though, not so much.
alundeb wrote:
I tend to think so about almost every prime I use, but for the 28 mm it is more like too wide for most shots, not wide enough for some shots.
Maybe Canon just started from the wide end, and we will see a 35/1.8 IS and a 50/1.8 IS soon.
The difference in shooting styles is why I sold my 35L.
What baffles me the most is not that Canon releases unexpected products, or that people get baffled by such product releases. What baffles me the most is that somebody always seem to know that the product I find to suit me best, should never have existed.
.
