Canon announces Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM

[jjphoto]

Depends on whether the IS compromises the lens in other ways but having 4 stop IS is useful. Shooting indoors at 4 stops lower iso on stationary targets is pretty good imo. IS makes taking the picture easier / more success rate, I dont see why a professional would not want such a feature.
Obviously canon knows how to make lenses so it is a little interesting why they left it out.

It depends on what you do. Wedding guys would probably appreciate IS as they are often shooting in low light. If you shoot on a tripod, as I do for 95% of my work, IS is useless.

Another thing to consider about IS is that it doesn't slow your moving subject during your 1/4 second exposure. If you shoot people, as long as they are actually alive, they will be moving about! IS is nice on longer lenses, where camera shake is a bigger problem at even medium shutter speeds.

JJ

[Bennymiata]

I have a Canon 28mm F2.8.
A very cheap lens, but good for indoor events with my 60D.

While I like to have IS, I've never really missed not having it on the 28.

I would say that these 2 lenses are used by a lot of video guys with 5D MkII's, and the IS would come in handy for them.

[mikew09]

Hmmm - I often thought about getting a 24-70, I love the 24-105 but is a bit slow at times. I think this has up-ed the priority. Was about to buy a 5D Mk II but then decided to wait for the Mk III - maybe the Minister for House hold finance will approve the extra cash when the time is due. Maybe Canon will offer a kit sell with the 5D Mk II - body and new 24-70 :-)

[andylo]

Maybe I will give Tamron standard zoom another look, the VC version is a new release just announced 2 days ago or so.

[Xenedis]

and since canon is putting IS in wide primes, would love to see a 35 1.4 IS

I have a 35/1.4L, and it's very large and heavy for its focal length (it's actually longer in physical size than the 85/1.2L II, which I also have).

Adding IS to a 35/1.4 would add extra size, weight, optical complexity and price.

[Tannin]

Xenedis, as an owner of one, what are your thoughts? I'm 99% decided to buy a 35/1.4L sometime in the next couple of months. It would be used alongside a 24-105/4L IS, with a couple of macro lenses (60mm EF-S and 100mm L) my only other primes. I used to have a 35mm/2.8 macro lens and enjoyed using that for walkaround things, especially on APS-H. I don't need the macro ability now (not with two others, either of which would usually be a beter choice for close-up work), just the walkaround general-purpose side of things.

Are you happy with your 35L? Are there faults or limitations with it that might make it better for me to wait a while for a 35/1.4L II? Or ... oh whatever. You own one, how do you feel about it?

Thanks!

[Xenedis]

Xenedis, as an owner of one, what are your thoughts? I'm 99% decided to buy a 35/1.4L sometime in the next couple of months. It would be used alongside a 24-105/4L IS, with a couple of macro lenses (60mm EF-S and 100mm L) my only other primes. I used to have a 35mm/2.8 macro lens and enjoyed using that for walkaround things, especially on APS-H. I don't need the macro ability now (not with two others, either of which would usually be a beter choice for close-up work), just the walkaround general-purpose side of things.

Are you happy with your 35L? Are there faults or limitations with it that might make it better for me to wait a while for a 35/1.4L II? Or ... oh whatever. You own one, how do you feel about it?

I love my 35/1.4L. It's a gem of a lens. Mind you, I shoot with a full-frame camera, so I'm seeing its native focal length.

There's certainly nothing about it which I'd regard as a negative point. If you want a lens of that capability, my advice is to buy it now. I'm not sure if or when a successor is to be released, but IMO and IME, it's a superb lens.

I've used mine to shoot a variety of subjects -- some serious, and some not so serious. You can see what I've shot with it here:

http://www.xenedis.net/viewalbum.php...57600059581010

I do use it for portraits, and if you want to shoot environmental portraits, it's a great lens for that. It's also very useful for indoor live music, or as a great general-purpose walk-around lens if you like primes and want something with a useful focal length and a very wide aperture for indoor usage.

[Tannin]

Excellent! Thankyou Xenedis. I've heard nothing but nice things about this lens from existing owners - including one or two I have a great deal of respect for - and after reading your report (and enjoying some very pleasing images, thankyou for that link) I'll call the matter settled.

I'll be using it with a variety of bodies, by the way, not just the 1D IV. I suppose we all have our favourite fields of view; I particularly like what 35mm does on APS-H (where it's delightfully just-slightly-wider than a 50mm lens on FX - equal to 45mm FX or 28mm on APS-C), but I'm sure it will get to take a turn on the 5D II now and then, and perhaps the 50D as well. I think of it as a sort of "buy one, get two free" arrangement.

------------------------


And this returns me to the topic - if I love that true normal field of view so much, why should continuing APS-C users not love it too? F/2.8 isn't very fast by prime standards, but for those of us who are used to zooms it's plenty fast (most zooms are f/4 or variable 4-5.6ish things; f/2.8 is relatively uncommon) and that 28mm length is perfect. A crappy 50/1.8 aside, I've never owned a genuine fast prime and have always happily made do with dual-purpose f/2.8 macro lenses instead, and I think there is a useful thought to pull out here - I always found the 60 macro so much nicer to use than the Canon 50/1.8 that the cheaper lens stayed in the bag most days. In other words, build quality, a non-rotating front element, superior optics and a ring USM focus motor all worked together to trump the faster aperture of the 50mm lens.

Now consider the 28/2.8 IS in that same light. What APS-C photographer wouldn't love to have this perfect focal length, with quality build, low weight and small size, quality optics, non-rotating front, and real ring USM? It's not cheap, but it's cheap enough to buy on impulse, or as a present, which things like a 17-55/2.8 IS or an 85/1.2 or a 24-70/2.8 are not. Now throw in the magic of IS as well .... and you know, I reckon Canon could be on a winner here!

[Xenedis]

Excellent! Thankyou Xenedis. I've heard nothing but nice things about this lens from existing owners - including one or two I have a great deal of respect for - and after reading your report (and enjoying some very pleasing images, thankyou for that link) I'll call the matter settled.

Glad I could help you with the 35/1.4L. I cannot say I've ever seen a bad word written about it, but these days I don't read about gear or discuss it much.

If you like the 35mm focal length (one I consider quite useful in 135-format), you'd love the 35/1.4L.

Now consider the 28/2.8 IS in that same light. What APS-C photographer wouldn't love to have this perfect focal length

Any photographer who doesn't consider that focal length perfect. :-)

It comes down to whether or not the focal length (whatever view it provides, depending on the camera) is appealing.

Personally I don't like the 'standard' focal length (50mm in my case), as it's neither wide nor long, and gives me a view that a camera doesn't make very interesting.

I don't have an APS-C camera, but if I did, I wouldn't bother with a 28mm or 35mm lens, as the view it provides just doesn't appeal to me.

On a full-frame camera, I'd consider those useful focal lengths, though.