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

[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.

[neuroanatomist]

I was obviously answering his question.next time you should readbefore you correct someone

Actually, I viewed it as clarification, not 'correction'. But, my profound apologies! Next time I'll try to read similarly eloquent, two-word responses withexceptional diligence and care, prior to framing a cogent response. Have a great day or night, nevertheless!

[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

[lcnewkirk]

My 50/1.8 pretty much never leaves my camera, so I got pretty excited about the talk of a 35/1.8 with similar IQ and price. The more I got to thinking about it though, the difference between 50mm and 35mm isn't that much, and probably not worth changing a lens, for the photos I take at least. I think I'd rather see a 24/2 or something along those lines. It would be really cool to see Canonraise the bar instead of just matching Nikon, and release something like an EF-S 10mm or 12mm prime! I doubt they could keep that around $200 though...


Lewis