Canon will release an EF-S 35mm f/1.8 for $200?

[Matt.s.Maneri]

Someone said this in a lower post I just wanted to hear everyone's opinions on this. Do you think its coming out, if yes when do you think it will be released, and do you see it being 200$?

[neuroanatomist]

Doubtful - but I'd be very happy to be wrong!

[clemmb]

Why would they when you can get the EF 35mm f/2.0 for $300?

[Matt.s.Maneri]

EF-S mount

[neuroanatomist]

<div>

EF-S mount

Irrelevant, from a mount perspective. EF mount lenses like the EF 35mm f/2 work on both 1.6x crop (EF-S-compatible) and full frame bodies.
</div>

Why would they when you can get the EF 35mm f/2.0 for $300?

To quote Daniel in the other thread, discussing the $200 Nikon 35mm lens:
<div>

If they copy Nikon, then it will. The Nikon 35mm f/1.8 has their best autofocus motor with Full Time Manual. It also has rounded aperture blades, an aspheric element, a good manual focus ring, and good optical performance (some ways better than the Canon 50mm f/1.8 and other ways slightly worse). All for a very low price. Personally, I'd buy it even for $300.

<div></div>
</div>


So, the EF-S mount, in the sense that it reduces production costs since the image circle needed is smaller, meaning less glass, would (hopefully) mean that better IQ and ring-type USM could be added to the lens, while keeping the cost low.

[Matt.s.Maneri]

so you just said that ef-s mount was irrelevant and then said it would make it cheaper which was my entire point.

[neuroanatomist]

I said, "Irrelevant, from a mount perspective." Sorry - I rather thought your "EF-S mount" response was a little terse and lacking in detail, and didn't make any points about costs, or anything else, really. Sort of like when Mom says, "Because I said so," it's not a very satisfying response... []

[Matt.s.Maneri]

he said why would they sell a 1.8 for 200$ when the 2.0 is 300$. I was obviously answering his question. next time you should read before you correct someone.

[Daniel Browning]

I voted yes. Although I'd prefer to see a 15mm f/2, the 35mm seems a lot more likely.

Why would they when you can get the EF 35mm f/2.0 for $300?

Because the existing (old) 35mm f/2 pales in comparison to what a quality new EF-S 35mm could be. Also, Nikon had a $300 35mm f/2, but they still came out with a $200 35mm f/1.8.

[clemmb]

Because the existing (old) 35mm f/2 pales in comparison to what a quality new EF-S 35mm could be. Also, Nikon had a $300 35mm f/2, but they still came out with a $200 35mm f/1.8.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Since I do not use EF-S lenses I have not kept up with what the market is doing. I guess they need to keep up with the Jones. A 35 f1.8 for $200 would be great. From what I can see the existing (old) 35mm f/2 has better IQ than the Nikon 35 f1.8. If Canon would upgrade the existing EF 35 f2 to USM and f1.8 I would buy it even for $350. If all I had was a crop body a EF-S 35 f1.8 for $200 would be in my bag for sure.


Mark