New 24-70mm f/4L IS and 35mm f/2 IS

[btaylor]

I know we don't always believe what gets posted on canon rumors but this one looks pretty well done and dusted.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/11/e...s-ef-35-f2-is/

What do you think? Personally, I don't see what void an f/4 version of this lens fills when the impressive 24-105mm f/4L IS is already in the lineup.

Hmmmm... still waiting on that 35mm f/1.4L II

[neuroanatomist]

If those specs are true, a 0.7x max mag is pretty darn close to a true macro, and much higher than any other non-macro lens in the lineup. (the 24-105 is 0.3x, 24-70 is 0.29x, 24-70 II is 0.21x). The use of H-IS would be consistent with that high max mag.

So, it would seem to 'fill the void' of a combination general purpose zoom and macro lens.

[Kayaker72]

Cost and competition with Nikon. If the street price of the 24-70 f/4 IS ($849 reported by CR-which will be the least expensive "L" zoom lens in Canon's lineup) is accurate, it's list price is $300 less than the 24-105 f/4 ($1,149 on Canon's website). Typically the 24-105 is ~$800 in kits with other cameras. Assuming that the ~$350 "kit" discount translates to the new lens, Canon's kits just got about $300 cheaper with a versatile lens, both in terms of focal length and near macro ability.

So, in competing against the D600 (whose kit includes the the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 VR for $2,700) Canon can now offer the 6D with the 24-70 f/4 IS for ~$2,600 (6D base of $2,100 plus $849 minus the $349 "kit" discount). Canon now wins on cost, constant aperture and near macro ability.

Regarding the 35 f/2 IS. That could be a tempting lens for me. I am excited to see the MTF chart.

[Dave Johnston]

Regarding the 35 f/2 IS. That could be a tempting lens for me. I am excited to see the MTF chart.

I agree... I am very interested in seeing how this one turns out. Especially price-wise.

[btaylor]

If those specs are true, a 0.7x max mag is pretty darn close to a true macro, and much higher than any other non-macro lens in the lineup. (the 24-105 is 0.3x, 24-70 is 0.29x, 24-70 II is 0.21x). The use of H-IS would be consistent with that high max mag.

So, it would seem to 'fill the void' of a combination general purpose zoom and macro lens.

I missed this spec initially but I certainly would make it a more useful lens, good pick up as always John. I guess this is why you're the one working on brains and I blow stuff up for a living.

[HDNitehawk]

If those specs are true, a 0.7x max mag is pretty darn close to a true macro, and much higher than any other non-macro lens in the lineup. (the 24-105 is 0.3x, 24-70 is 0.29x, 24-70 II is 0.21x). The use of H-IS would be consistent with that high max mag.

So, it would seem to 'fill the void' of a combination general purpose zoom and macro lens.

If the specs hold up, and this were some type of general purpose macro zoom, one would think it would be a crazy sharp lens. Wouldn't that be nice.

I am skeptical of the specifications. Not skeptical a a new 24-70mm f/4 will be released.

[ham]

The 35mm f/2 IS could well be my Christmas present...

Assuming it's not stupidly expensive.

[Jayson]

I missed this spec initially but I certainly would make it a more useful lens, good pick up as always John. I guess this is why you're the one working on brains and I blow stuff up for a living.

That was funny!

As for the release of the 24-70, I am very interested. I have considered trading my current 24-70 f/2.8 vI for the 24-105 for size and weight purposes. I love the focal length, but it is to darn heavy to run around chasing my kids with and I elect for my Tammy more often. I am outside most of the time and f/4 really isn't an issue. I have primes for inside if I need or the Tammy for f2.8. I would trade my 35mm f/2 in a heartbeat for the new one if the price is right. Never really liked that lens, but I think it was more the AF motor bugging me.

[M_Six]

Zoiks. The 24-70 is about twice what you can pick up a 24-105 for these days. It *can't* be that much better. The 24-105 is an awesome lens in its own right.

No big surprises with the 35 f2IS. Maybe a tad steeper than it's wider siblings.

[Micahouwens]

Zoiks. The 24-70 is about twice what you can pick up a 24-105 for these days. It *can't* be that much better. The 24-105 is an awesome lens in its own right.

No big surprises with the 35 f2IS. Maybe a tad steeper than it's wider siblings.

24-700 for only double what the 24-105 is worth? That's a bargain.

I think it is an intriguing lens for sure...the 0.70 maximum magnification? Thats near macro. And with the Hybrid IS, it all adds up pretty good to me. That said however, I'm perfectly content with my 24-105 at the moment. I have other things on my list...