I know all the hype is around the new 5D - and thats cool. But as a 1DSMK3 owner I was personally more excited by the new 24mm F1.4L prime. Very glad to see this lens getting an update and very much hoping it finally gives Canon a very sharp wide angle lens.

I was dissapointed since I though Canon only announced the 5D mark II today, and skipped the most important bit: the lenses.

I was pleasantly surprised to see they updated their most flawed lens (personal experience), I hope it really is much better than the mark I, as this would put the 5D on my to buy list.
Previously I would have gone for the Nikon D700.

Gotta love competitors....

well, why not a new 24-70 or a new wide zoom ? why not something like a 12-24 ? why not a 100-400 which REALLY needs to be updated.

Yes it is good if canon finally made a usable wide lens for the 1dsmk3, but I doupt already that this lens will be good compared to a Zeiss 21, leica 19 or Nikon 12-24...

Zeiss's Canon mount is uncannily timely.

Canon has a lot of lens work to do to catch up with the cameras.

I'm sure they're fine optics but I wouldn't spend the money for the Zeiss EF mount lenses. Too much $$$ for me for manual focus.

Why do you need AF on a 24 or 21 mm lens ? I certainly don't.

For focusing?

And you can't do that manually ? ^^

Sure you can do it manually, but AF can be a great help, and why would you not want AF if it works great?

I for one am glad Canon is updating the 24L. I have this lens (mark I), and it is nothing to brag about, and it ain't no 35L...now the 35L is freakin awesome...razor sharp wide open and everything the mediocre 50L & 24L should've been.

Canon's cr@p---> 24L Mark I, 50L Mark II. Two lenses that are just so-so, even after calibration.

Those two lenses are not in the same IQ category as these awesome pieces of glass:

35L
85L
135L
200L
all the tele-L primes.....

Actually those new Zeiss lenses are cheaper then their Canon L counterparts by loads of dollars. And what good is the $1,400 50L if that prime has boolsheet AF performance? If those Zeiss lenses provide awesome IQ over their Canon L counterparts, but must be focused manually, then they are worth the money, and again less then the corresponding L's too. Having to use manual focus is a small price to pay for stellar IQ.

Whats the difference between focusing a 24mm and a 50mm or 85 or whatever?

I like this quote:
"The new biomimetic coating is inspired by features found within the eyes of moths."

Not with the focusing screens supplied with my 1D2 or 5D. What focusing screens do you recommend?

I was expecting a very good 24mm but TS-E :-(

Yes something like that

Right. Manual focusing with AF cameras is difficult, especially with wide angle lenses at very wide apertures. You can try the high-precision screens, which are somewhat better, but then they have inherent problems (very dark with f/2.8 lenses).

I gave up trying to manually focus my 24 and my 35 -- I sent the bodies and lenses into Canon, had them calibrated, and just trust the AF. It's more accurate (and quicker) than my eyes.

BTW I'm not sure I understand all the hatred for the 24/1.4. Mine does what I want it to do -- shoot under lousy lighting conditions and/or provide extremely shallow DOF -- quite well. Sure, it's not sharp in the corners wide open, but I don't want it to be sharp in the corners wide open.

Actually, the current 24 TS-E is much better than the old 24mm (no TS).
It just doesn't need to be replaced as badly....

Whats going to be the best lens.

I need a prime 50mm.

Canon 1.2 L or Zeiss Planar T 1.4

Do you want auto focus capability?

I cant speak to the Zeiss - but I regularly use the 50 1.2L on a 1DSMK3 and its VERY sharp with very nice Bokeh.

Not really.

Then it's the Zeiss.