anyone else excited about the new pancacke 24 f2.8?

Fred Meebley wrote in post #17157092
I think it's good to have more affordable primes, and I'm happy for the crop shooters, but I don't understand why it isn't f/2 like the EFM 22mm pancake.

Because it's harder to make SLR glass, and more expensive. The 22mm 2.0 is unbelievably simple, look a up diagram of it.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17157116
No,

24mm is 24mm. 15mm is 15mm. Those are true focal lengths.

You're describing field of view.

There's a difference, and it's not just rhetorical. Depth of field for example.

Very best,

What about the first part of my statement?

hang your cross wrote in post #17157109
Yeah, but, EF lenses work on your camera. You basically have a 35mm now. For a true 24mm focal length this would have had to been a 15mm.

EF lenses may fit on my camera, but does not necessary fit my wallet. The bunch of primes Canon released in the past couple of years were all expensive FF lenses. 24mm 2.8 IS, 28mm 2.8 IS, 35mm 2.0 IS. Great focal lenses, even on crop, but so damn expensive for such slow-ish apertures (relatively speaking). 3rd parties f/2.8 normal zooms for crops are selling for cheaper than that. That was a turn off.

Glad to see Canon finally giving crop sensors some love this year. The 10-18mm and now this 24mm prime are very much welcome.

maverick75 wrote in post #17157117
Because it's harder to make SLR glass, and more expensive. The 22mm 2.0 is unbelievably simple, look a up diagram of it.

Interesting, I didn't realize there is much difference. This does make the SL1 a more appealing compact camera for me.

maverick75 wrote in post #17157117
Because it's harder to make SLR glass, and more expensive. The 22mm 2.0 is unbelievably simple, look a up diagram of it.

but the 22f2 has more elements and groups than the 24f2.8

MalVeauX wrote in post #17157116
No,

24mm is 24mm. 15mm is 15mm. Those are true focal lengths.

You're describing field of view.

There's a difference, and it's not just rhetorical. Depth of field for example.

Very best,

he said:
For a true 24mm focal length this would have had to been a 15mm.

explain to me how that statement is not true? He said nothing about them being equal on a crop, or any reference to DoF

cedm wrote in post #17157132
The bunch of primes Canon released in the past couple of years were all expensive FF lenses.

The 40mm pancake is an inexpensive prime. And a very good one at that.

mafoo wrote in post #17157169
he said:
For a true 24mm focal length this would have had to been a 15mm.

explain to me how that statement is not true? He said nothing about them being equal on a crop, or any reference to DoF

because if it was a true 24mm focal length it'd be 24mm...focal length doesn't ever change whether the lens is mounted to a crop camera, or a FF camera...the lens is still it's true focal length

Sorry, I didn't put for a true 24mm view you need a 15mm.

My point was still understood.

maverick75 wrote in post #17157117
Because it's harder to make SLR glass, and more expensive. The 22mm 2.0 is unbelievably simple, look a up diagram of it.

Wrong. The EF-M 22mm f/2 STM lens is in fact more complex than the EF-S 24mm f/2.8 for the former has six elements in seven groups while the latter has five elements in six groups.

The plain fact of the matter is that the Confirmation Bias crew is out in full force. In the case of this lens Canon has thrown a bone, and because of the dearth of similar options, it is lapped up like manna.

Lol everyone correcting each other and feeling proud. GOod!

I already have lens that can do 2.8 at 24mm so I'm not excited. I get the feeling that a lot of people are excited here because they can now fuel their GAS with this lens for very little money without really thinking about if it makes the most sense to their overall lens strategies.

first of all - when I wrote the thread - I was unaware that it was an EF-S lens. A bit disappointing, because the form factor on the 5d3 was what I was interested in. but FEChariot - i don't think it is solely for GAS. I think there is a real interest by people to have small lenses with our DSLRs. I think you can see that in other fields as well - e.g. the many threads about people trying to consider to get the 70-200 f4IS vs the 2.8 II. I can afford the II if I want, but after playing with the version II, i prefer the lighter lens by far. So the pancacke lenses, at least in form factor - are indeed interesting. I just didn't like the 40 mm focal length for me.

pkim1230 wrote in post #17156992
There you go.
I'm waiting for a EF 28mm pancake if it ever comes.

Thanks, it was a bit late when i wrote it..

And to all thinking theyre right; theyve made the 24mm 2.8 not a 2.0 because it wouldnt be a pancake anymore, its that simple!

And now i think youve killed another thread again...