I'm Torn on that 35mm f/2 IS

cptrios wrote in post #15214489
I dunno, if the IQ is excellent on this thing (including sharp corners and wildly improved bokeh over the current 35/2), $850 sounds like a steal. F/2 + IS + wide FL = low-light monster. A year from now when it's been out long enough for used prices to fall, you'll probably be able to buy one and a 5Dc for around $1200 total. Sounds good to me!

I agree. Low light monster! And smaller and lighter and cheaper than the 35/1.4L. The new 35/2 IS is exactly the 35/2 that I hoped Canon would make.

Of course, the price will come down. The other two new wide primes, the 24mm/2.8 IS & 28mm/2.8 IS, were introduced at $850 and $800 respectively, and they are already being sold for $669 with the current instant rebate. So I don't think people should be put off by the introductory price. The price will eventually settle to a more realistic level. These lenses will not come down to $400 or $500 because they are better lenses than that. I would rather that Canon build better, sharper, longer-lasting lenses and charge $669 - $700, than that they build weaker lenses and charge $369-$399 for them.

The low-cost 50/1.4 USM has been criticized for decades as photographers suffered with its inconsistent AF, its failing AF motor, and its poor performance at f/1.4. Such lenses, despite their lower price, are not a bargain — I don't think we would benefit from more lenses like that.

So I'm thrilled with the direction Canon is taking: a whole new lineup of mid-aperture (f/2 and f/2.8), mid-priced, small-sized, quiet-focusing, lighter-weight, high-quality primes, without the extra weight and cost of the f/1.2 and f/1.4 L lenses. The IS is just a nice bonus with these lenses, not essential but helpful at times.

Zlatko, they're both at $699 because Canon instituted MAP now... Thats another factor, MAP means possibly we wont see the markdowns outside of the rebate times anymore because Canon could cut BH and Adorama's authorized dealer status if they do... Its really hard to say, Other things instituted MAP before skirt it by letting you say, put an item in the cart to see the real price, its unknown if we'll see that however...

You are right really, I would rather good lenses made well as opposed to cheap lenses with issues.. and that said, Nikon DOES seem to have a few problems with "rushing" products out to market with bugs and severe issues, Like the D800 left focusing issue, the screen cast issue... the D600 getting dust on its sensor...

And I was one of the users with a bum 50mm f/1.4, First Canon lens i bought too and it was DOA.. Not a great first purchase!

As for the 35mm f/2 IS... Im really thinking about it at the moment...I might go rent a 5DIII though... Or a D600... Or a 5DII...

Echo Johnson wrote in post #15215618
Even a 50/1.4 Mark II with an $800 price tag?

If Canon does produce a 50 f/1.4 that is just as creamy as a sigmadud and spot of focus I'll throw 800 bucks at that lens.

AlanU wrote in post #15216088
If Canon does produce a 50 f/1.4 that is just as creamy as a sigmadud and spot of focus I'll throw 800 bucks at that lens.

Yeah I admit id trade my Sigmalux, even though i have a good copy and love it...

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …unetsukiphoto/8​103673227/

Zlatko Batistich wrote in post #15215981
I would rather that Canon build better, sharper, longer-lasting lenses and charge $669 - $700, than that they build weaker lenses and charge $369-$399 for them.

if canon cane make an optically great 40mm f2.8 pancake for less than $200...you'd think they can make a decent non IS prime for $4-500 though...the fact that it's going to be IS expensive prime, or nothing is what concerns me...i don't see a need for a 35mm with IS in my shooting

I am still surprised ppl are interested in this... Maybe for video? I have no use for IS at 35mm personally. Most can easily handhold a 35mm at 1/30th. What requires a slower SS that is alive? If its an nonmobile subject I will use a tripod. What I need when it's dark is more SS which I cannot acquire without higher ISO or faster aperture. 35 f2 for 800-900... No thanks.

This is not a lowlight monster as ppl are saying. IS cannot stop action only drunken photographers

AlanU wrote in post #15215410
Its unfortunate canon has their head up their rear.

If canon developed a Canon 50 f/1.4 mk2 it would sell like hotcakes instead of a 35 f/2 is.

I wouldn't think twice for a 35 f/2 IS. 35L is a total no brainer. The high ISO performance of camera's these days will probably appreciate faster glass vs image stabilization.

I can bet that you will hear all the whining and same **** if this lens was releases as it was with many lenses before that. It always have been and always will.

The way I look at it, if I'm paying $900 for a 35 f/2 non-L lens, I'd much rather save the extra $200 and get a good condition used 35 f/1.4.

Maybe if this one was in the 400 - 500 range like the other gold-ring lenses of it's class, I'd buy it.

Maybe if it didn't have IS it would cost that amount.

I'm going to wait until the Sigma gets released with it's price, and evaluate my options there.

KenjiS wrote in post #15215467
See thats the hilarity of this announcement, The 35mm f/2 and 24-70 f/4L IS are two lenses RIGHT up my alley, I adore both lenses when you take the price out of the equation... the 24-70 would find its way in my bag almost guaranteed alongside a FF DSLR actually (.7x Macro Zoom! )

But then i put the price in the equation and I start sighing... Simply put, Nikon has a better deal out there, Sure theres no AF-S 35mm f/2 right now (I bet you one is coming soon however) and the 35mm f/2D has the same bokeh problems as the Canon 35 f/2 i have now (According to photozone at least.. they mentioned "double visioned bokeh" so yeah..) Nikon has its own Pseudo-macro Zoom in the new 70-200 f/4 VR which also claims improved VR performance (5 stops) which again, is very appealing...

Right now I'd have to come up with a good $2000 out of pocket to buy a 5D Mark III, The 6D doesnt appeal to me for the simple fact of ergonomics and I somehow feel I'm giving up more getting a 5D II than I'm really gaining (Could be wrong..)

On the other hand I could trade everything off and get a D600 and a full compliment of lenses for very little to nothing out of pocket..

Maybe what you really need to be asking yourself is do you really need to go full frame before deciding whether to switch to Nikon or stay with Canon.

You seem happy with your current lens selection on your 7D so maybe you just need 1 or 2 more lenses to round that out, but if you decide ultimately you want to go FF then I can see your dilemma Nikon has a great choice for less cash.

Maybe you should rent a 5D Mark III to try your lenses on to see how you like the framing you get on FF.

BTW an update on the sigma 35mm f/1.4

http://www.dpreview.co​m …-899-dollars-street-price

Hey Kenji, the solution for you is pretty simple really.

Sell your 28, 35 and 100L and buy the new 24-70 f/4L IS.
For what you use your lenses for, this one will replace them all with world class optics.
Its only drawback is the f/4 aperture.

This IS frenzy is getting really big...

It does have a meaning for the longer lenses, but It's getting too marketing oriented now.

But Canon has a reason (we may not know) to go this way.

Maybe it's pretending to be the apple of the photography industry and charge apple prices to create an army of apple minded phorographers...

Who knows?

No need for an IS on the 35mm lens however.

match14 wrote in post #15217134
BTW an update on the sigma 35mm f/1.4

http://www.dpreview.co​m …-899-dollars-street-price

Yeah, $900.. Wow.. just wow at that..

my jaw dropped, I didnt expect it to be $900

So you can have the 35mm f/2 IS for $850 or pay $50 more for an extra stop of light... Hmn... Kinda no brainer

I wonder if the street prices on the Sigma may come down quicker too?

KenjiS wrote in post #15217164
Yeah, $900.. Wow.. just wow at that..

my jaw dropped, I didnt expect it to be $900

So you can have the 35mm f/2 IS for $850 or pay $50 more for an extra stop of light... Hmn... Kinda no brainer

It doesn't have the price gap that the Sigma 85mm has from the 85L II. But for some people that generally handholds stationary subjects, the Canon is a better buy.