New lenses - what is Canon thinking?

http://www.canonrumors​.com …24-70-f4l-is-ef-35-f2-is/

A 24-70 f/4L IS? We already have a 24-105 f/4 IS. What are they thinking?

A 35 f/2 IS? Why? I suppose for video?

If these lenses are significant grades optically for similar prices to the lenses they replace it would be good, but I'm sure they will NOT be cheap.

Canon's direction is really beginning to puzzle me.

n1as wrote in post #15208565
http://www.canonrumors​.com …24-70-f4l-is-ef-35-f2-is/

A 24-70 f/4L IS? We already have a 24-105 f/4 IS. What are they thinking?

A 35 f/2 IS? Why? I suppose for video?

If these lenses are significant grades optically for similar prices to the lenses they replace it would be good, but I'm sure they will NOT be cheap.

Canon's direction is really beginning to puzzle me.

The 35 has USM focusing and an 8 bladed aperture, which improves the 2 biggest complaints people had about the old 35 f2. The old one was sharper than the 35L in the center and equally sharp everywhere else from f2.8 and on. The only problem will be if the price is significantly higher... which it probably will be. I would gladly pay $450-600 for the new model if it performs optically better than the original 35 f2.

Perhaps to eliminate the focal length overlap? The 24-70mm f2.8L II USM is quite a good lens but there exists the overlap with the 24-105mm f4L IS USM and a loss of a stop as well. Once one moves beyond the wide angle zooms into the tele region, several possibilities (list below) exist that all begin at 70mm. One can stay at f2.8 and now cover the entire range from 24 out to 200mm with f2.8.

70-200mm f2.8L IS USM
70-200mm f2.8L USM
70-200mm f4L IS USM
70-200mm f4L USM
70-300mm f4-5.6L IS USM

drzenitram wrote in post #15208586
I would gladly pay $450-600 for the new model if it performs optically better than the original 35 f2.

I would too. But I bet it will be $800 just like the new 24mm and 28mm f/2.8 IS USM

Marm O. Set wrote in post #15208605
I would too. But I bet it will be $800 just like the new 24mm and 28mm f/2.8 IS USM

Probably even more than that considering it's a stop faster.

i would sell my 35L for the 35 f/2 IS ... if it's the same price as the other two 2.8 IS primes.
it is now the shortest and fastest prime with IS ... before, it was the 200 f/2

meh on the f/4 IS zoom.

John from PA wrote in post #15208598
Perhaps to eliminate the focal length overlap? The 24-70mm f2.8L II USM is quite a good lens but their exists the overlap with the 24-105mm f4L IS USM and a loss of a stop as well. Once one moves beyond the wide angle zooms into the tele region, several possibilities (list below) exist that all begin at 70mm. One can stay at f2.8 and now cover the entire range from 24 out to 200mm with f2.8.

70-200mm f2.8L IS USM
70-200mm f2.8L USM
70-200mm f4L IS USM
70-200mm f4L USM
70-300mm f4-5.6L IS USM

I do not understand this thinking. Focal length overlap can be a good thing -- it can mean fewer lens changes, or allow a person to carry fewer lenses in certain situations.

I would never trade in my 24-105L for a 24-70 f/4 lens. The added range is one of the reasons why I selected this lens over the 24-70 f/2.8. Why give up both the extra f-stop and the range, too?

The 24-70 f/4L make no sense to me. Neither do the 24 and 28 f/2.8IS. A new 50 f/1.4 would be nice, but it will be at least twice the price of the old lens. The 40 f/2.8 pancake has limited use for those traveling light and is cheap. As for the "MkII" L lenses, while they may be improved, Canon's primary objective is to jack the prices though the roof.

yeah the 24-70 f4 IS is just stupid. The 24-105mm is an old lens but it is such a great lens if you pair it with the 100-400mm.

The only good thing about it is possibly sharper images than the 24-105mm and geared towards video, but that is just my opinion.

One new lens that is interesting is the 35 f/2 IS. It will be interesting to see how it compares in price to the new Sigma 35 f/1.4.

Scott M wrote in post #15208777
I do not understand this thinking. Focal length overlap can be a good thing -- it can mean fewer lens changes, or allow a person to carry fewer lenses in certain situations.

I would never trade in my 24-105L for a 24-70 f/4 lens. The added range is one of the reasons why I selected this lens over the 24-70 f/2.8. Why give up both the extra f-stop and the range, too?

I'll agree.
If I buy one more, it might be 17-40 f/4L and I'll get overlap again and fever changes.

inernets wrote in post #15208793
yeah the 24-70 f4 IS is just stupid. The 24-105mm is an old lens but it is such a great lens if you pair it with the 100-400mm.

The only good thing about it is possibly sharper images than the 24-105mm and geared towards video, but that is just my opinion.

So what if the new 100-400 starts at 70mm?

I can see the sense, smaller, lighter, probably sharper than the 24-105 and hopefully none of the god awful corners and CA seen at the wide end.

I think the 35mm is interesting. I wish the new prime was the 50mm f/1.4 instead though. Maybe that's still coming.

Like the CR guy says, a new 35 prime has the potential to be Canon's most popular prime. It's a more natural fit on a crop, not as tight as the 50mm lenses, and with true ring USM it should beat the 50 1.8 and 1.4 in terms of focus performance. Look at Nikon with their 35mm f/1.8, hugely popular lens and Canon really hasn't had anything in their lineup to compare aside from going third party with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.

The big question will be price. If it stays above $500 like the other IS primes have it won't sell. At least not compared to the other nifty fifties.

The 35 is interesting for sure. Any idea of a price? I will guess $800 considering that seems to be new going rate for non L primes