Via Canonrumors forums:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,3201.0.html
There are three images of "new" lenses, allegedly:
Canon EF 28mm f2.8 IS USM
Canon EF 24mm f2.8 IS USM
Canon EF 24-70mmm f2.8 II
Believeable or did someone spend some time in photoshop? If true the primes would be notable as I think they'll be the first non-L primes in a very long time. But what is their target market? The 27-70 II is practically a given at some point, and would suit pairing with a 5D successor.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
The two prime images are obviously fake. Big giveaway: Look at the glass itself. Exactly a copy, same element reflections, lines and everything. So the source image for both photoshop efforts was the same.
Good spot. I guess it would be a simple operation to extend the front a little on the focus ring which could be the case here. Also looking more the area around where the focal length is written on the primes looks a little too clean too, jpeg artifacts aside. But on the other side, could the lenses be that similar in construction (on the front at least) such that they could look the same? I haven't done a side by side as I'm on a spare work laptop right now, are the front sections literally pixel clones of each other?
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
I'm not so sure. Even the Canon Marketing might occasionally use photoshop <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' /> Getting a good and not too busy reflection in the front lens can be very tricky, so simply reusing a good one makes sense to me. More than the two prime lenses themselves do <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
Why would they release a 24mm and 28mm? They are the same aperture, same features, way too close in FL. Also, if Canon were to release a new version of the 24-70 I would *hope* they would include IS in it. It's what a lot of users have wanted for a very long time!
If the new Canon 24-70 gets IS or not has been long and pointlessly discussed since the beginning of time. I'd like it, but I'm not holding my breath on it.
As to why the primes would exist, *if* the leading rumour holds out that the 24-70 replacement won't have IS, then those primes start to make some sense as it is providing something new for full frame users. At least I can't think of any other 24 or 28mm IS f/2.8 FF capable lenses right now other than the just announced Tamron. I guess the question still remains who would be interested in them? Any use for budget handheld video?
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1328542071' post='15537']
As to why the primes would exist, *if* the leading rumour holds out that the 24-70 replacement won't have IS, then those primes start to make some sense as it is providing something new for full frame users. At least I can't think of any other 24 or 28mm IS f/2.8
[/quote]
I think releasing either the 24mm or 28mm makes sense but releasing them both really doesn't make sense to me. They
are just too close in FL/features to have the extra costs of research/production.
Well, the 24mm and 28mm primes existed next to each other in harmony for many years. So that shouldn't be an issue.
And it looks like the 24-70L II will indeed not have IS (according to canonrumors).
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
[quote name='allanmb' timestamp='1328543334' post='15538']
They
are just too close in FL/features to have the extra costs of research/production.
[/quote]
I'd tend to disagree with that. The shift in perspective between 28mm and 24mm on full frame has been sufficient in the past for pretty much all manufacturers to make separate primes for the two focal lenghts.
Whether these announcements are real is another question. Looking at the photos on the source website, if those are Photoshop jobs, they are pretty damn good.
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1328536646' post='15527']
Good spot. I guess it would be a simple operation to extend the front a little on the focus ring which could be the case here. Also looking more the area around where the focal length is written on the primes looks a little too clean too, jpeg artifacts aside. But on the other side, could the lenses be that similar in construction (on the front at least) such that they could look the same? I haven't done a side by side as I'm on a spare work laptop right now, are the front sections literally pixel clones of each other?
[/quote]
The photoshopper with too much time on his hands scaled them slightly different to prevent a simple pixel perfect clone detection. However, besides the silly same optical elements, the type of the 24mm/28mm is both wrong in style and in perspective. He did not quite nail it. Also he went through a lot of trouble making the scale/distance windows different, but there are some tell tale duplicates in for instance the paint spatter pattern:
|
