It is intended more for video that stills I think. Can't say as I would see much use for it myself unless I wanted to do long exposures hand held. Might be an option if it has stellar IQ.
Image stabilization IS useful at such shorter and wider focal lengths... it's almost always the people who haven't tried it here that are convinced it's useless. But anyway... yeah, sounds a useful lens.
Pricing policy that Canon introduces lately just amazes me- make worse lens (24-70 4.0 for ex.) and charge big $$$ for it. Unfortunately that means that really good lenses when being introduced in future will be VERY expensive (24-70 2,8 II is a good example).
35 2.0 is- sounds great but price should be rather 600-800$ range.
I wish Nikon would update their 35/2, even if it was expensive. Lightweight would be the big advantage to me, and as long as it's sharp at f2 I don't really need f1.4-1.8.
brett maxwell wrote:
I wish Nikon would update their 35/2, even if it was expensive. Lightweight would be the big advantage to me, and as long as it's sharp at f2 I don't really need f1.4-1.8.
