PetaPixel

Canon 24-70mm f/4 IS and 35mm f/2 IS Leaked Before Announcement

Canon’s two soon-to-be-announced lenses were leaked today by Japanese website Digicam info. The first one is, as suspected, the 24-70mm f/4 IS. The second one was more a surprise: it’s not a new 50mm, but a 35mm f/2 IS. Canon is continuing its new trend of building image stabilization into wider-angle lenses — a bit strange for still photographers, but great news for people who record video with their DSLRs.

The Canon EF 24-70mm F4L IS USM will be a weatherproof lens with a 9-blade circular aperture, macro mode at the telephoto end, a minimum focusing distance of around 8 inches, hybrid IS, and a 77mm filter size. It’ll weigh 600g and be around 3.7 inches long. By comparison, the current 24-70mm f/2.8 II is 805g and 4.4 inches long.

Canon Rumors writes that this new lens will be included with the upcoming Canon 6D as the kit lens.

The Canon EF 35 f/2 IS will feature a 8-blade circular aperture, a 4-stop IS system, and a 67mm filter size. It’ll weigh 335g and be roughly 2.5 inches long.

Both lenses are set to hit store shelves sometime next month, but the official announcement should be arriving very shortly (perhaps sometime this week). In Japan, the new 24-70mm and 35mm will reportedly cost ~$1,808 and ~$923, respectively. We’ll likely see them with smaller price tags in the US, but the lenses will most likely be pricier than what the rumors from this past weekend suggested.


 
 
  • Mute

    The price seems high for the 35mm, especially if you’re not that interested in the stabilsation. I was hoping it would be in line with the current 50mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.8. I guess it’s a high IQ prime above ‘consumer’ level.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jonathan.maniago Jonathan Maniago

    I’m still wondering how Canon’s going to win over the people considering Tamron’s own 24-70 with VC considering that it’s cheaper and a stop faster, or even Canon’s own 24-104 f/4 which has greater range.

  • http://twitter.com/adamgasson Adam Gasson

    The Canon 24-105 gets quite soft after 70mm, more so when it’s shot wide open. It’s fine for video but lacks the 24-70′s IQ. I had a play with the Tamron a while ago, not really enough to judge, but it seemed well made and focused quickly. My issue with Tamron lenses in the past is that they lost sharpness quite quickly. I’ve got 15 year old L lenses that are still sharp!

  • http://www.facebook.com/crashtestaddict Michael Velardo

    I’ve been waiting for a Canon 24-70 f/2.8L with IS, instead of having only USM. Now they flip the script and crank the aperture up reducing lower light capability. I know with the DSLR’s of today that noise in low light is dealt with pretty good, but that is a lot less light gathering capability in their new 24-70. Tamron may be my next lens in this range at about $1200.

  • http://www.facebook.com/crashtestaddict Michael Velardo

    Great points.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=506573278 Alexander Petricca

    I’d take a guess that the new 24-70 mm F4 IS will replace the 24-105 F4 IS, especially as it’s rumoured to be the kit lens provided with the 6D. Or perhaps its aimed more at the videographer, hence the inclusion of the stabiliser?

  • http://photokaz.com/ Mike

    It’s one stop less light, which is significant but not the end of the world. Considering the price of the 24-70 v2 what would a stabilized one cost? If it wasn’t much more than the non-stabilized one then the market for that one vaporizes. This makes sense for Canon in terms of marketing.

  • Nathan Weir

    Seriously… $1808!?!? Canon is digging a hole that cant get out of here…

  • http://www.facebook.com/momchil.radoslavov Chill Radoslavov

    Why in the world would one need an IS on 35mm f2 lens?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Doolittle/637836375 John Doolittle

    The main problem is mostly the bokeh. From 2.8 to 4 it’s noticeable.

  • http://twitter.com/KarlHab Karl Hab

    it’s 808USD not 1808

  • Scrutinizing Non Troll

    I think 35mm IS is a sexy idea because it says IS. However at F2… well, yeah I say F it it’s great. If you can have IS, put the damn IS. Now for the 35mm part: It’s a nice size to see crammed in there and yeah until we see shots, I can’t say. That’s always the most important thing, like I tried the Tamron 24-70 then the Canon. I’m never not using the canon again. I’d like to see this versus the 16-35 L at 35 it’d be great. As far as ALL of the aftermarket except for the roki 35mm, most of the tams and smega are like digital versus analog. Or “life” versus grey. big diff. I’ve not had problems stabilizing my 24-70 by the way. yes I do both vid and still so for me, I want a FullFrame wide-ass-angle lens for flying close to subjects – 11-16 Tokina AS a canon – okay thats the 16-35 right? how about a non fisheye 12mm and full frame? Por Favor?

  • replied myself what a douche

    Oh jees what a fool I am… Give up 2.8 for 4 ? I couldn’t ….unless it kicked its ass so hard that I cried looking at the photos.

  • matt

    f4 for the 24-70, not interested.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Amber-Doyle-Daub/608367402 Amber Doyle Daub

    I have the Tamron, and I don’t like it. It’s soft, not only wide open, but up until around f/5.6. Plus the color is off. It has a yellowish tint unless I custom set the white balance (which isn’t always practical). I can fix that in post processing, but it’s a pain. I would love the Canon 24-70 f/2.8, but it’s way out of my price range. Depending on how much the f/4 version is, I would consider it.

  • Dana L

    With the six-year warranty from Tamron, it was great being able to mail in my 17-50 2.8 after using it for nearly 3 years. It came back in under a week and was tack sharp!!

  • JosephRT

    Shooting video, I would love to have it

  • Neil

    Its all well and good having IS but that’s only half the problem for folks shooting video with these lenses. A much larger problem for the video crowd is the short range of travel of the focus. Even without the IS the Samyang/Rokinon 35mm T/1.5 cine lens is a far better choice for video shooters. Try pulling focus wide open on a subject between 6′ and 15′ when the range of travel on the focus dial at those distances is only 6mm. I’d rather used a 40 year-old, built like a tank M42 Pentax Takumar lens for a fraction of the price.

  • morph8788

    i want a great and cheap 14-24mm f4 L lens.
    it would be my landscape lens.
    i was never really happy with the 16-35mm
    and there is no need for a expensive f2.8 lens for my landscape work.

  • Hambone Slim

    For those moments in, difficult light, when you need to act fast and you find yourself stabbing the shutter just a little harder than you intended to.

  • http://www.facebook.com/john.kantor John Kantor

    Canon President: “How can we double the price of our lenses?”

    Canon Marketing VP: “I know, we can add a completely unnecessary feature to them! How about Image Stabilization?”

    Canon President: “Great! Those saps will buy anything we put our logo on.”

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/KC2MJPTZ72C3FENE7V4X7XYMBE Victor

    I already orderd my copy f4L, adn will use my pancake plus 100L on my 5Dmk3 for low lighting situations.