Guess what Canon's next wide angle zoom will be

[Ricku]

Take a guess.

Will it be 16-35 III?
17-40 II?
Or perhaps Canon's answer to Nikon 14-24? - the best UWA-zoom ever made.

What are you hoping for?

T.b.h, I'd like a 16-35 III, with the same uber sharpness and IQ as the Nikon 14-24.

[ishdakuteb]

i want my 14-24mm please.....

[RLPhoto]

14-24 2.8L.

[Dylan777]

i want my 14-24mm please.....

+1....at f2.8, sharpness needs to be as good as Nikon or better. Price tag: $1999....I know you what you thinking 

[DoJo]

14-24mm 2.8L would be a dream come true!

[symmar22]

20-28mm f4.5-5.6 STM - 1200$

OK I'm out....

[Menace]

Something atleast as good as the Nikon 14-24 - thank you Canon 

[picturesbyme]

20-25 f/8 IS for $2666

[crasher8]

17-40 2.8L

[DB]

 I would buy a 14-24mm f/2.8L USM lens in a heartbeat. I would even go so far as to say that I would buy a 14-24 before I'd buy the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM.

16-35mm overlaps with my 24-70. 17-40mm f/4L has an aperture about this size....'O'..enough said.

[mortadella]

The way things are going my best guess is:

17-40mm f4L IS

Just to keep in-line with the pointless "IS-on-wide-angle-lenses" kick that Canon seems to be on these days, oh yeah and a lens nobody is asking for either!!

[wickidwombat]

Take a guess.

Will it be 16-35 III?
17-40 II?
Or perhaps Canon's answer to Nikon 14-24? - the best UWA-zoom ever made.

What are you hoping for?

T.b.h, I'd like a 16-35 III, with the same uber sharpness and IQ as the Nikon 14-24.

I'm with you on an uber sharp 16-35 my mk2 is very sharp and i am happy with it but i would be tempted to upgrade if a better one came out

but i really think it will be a 14-24 so far not really a lens i'm allthat interested in though

[DB]

I can understand why wedding or event photographers like the 16-35mm focal range, and that a 14-24 might be too wide for them (big noses and distorted faces), but for landscape and videographers it would be great, especially the latter.

[ishdakuteb]

I can understand why wedding or event photographers like the 16-35mm focal range, and that a 14-24 might be too wide for them (big noses and distorted faces), but for landscape and videographers it would be great, especially the latter.

to my understand that wedding photographers, most of them want to see new 14-24mm, and they are currently using 14mm which currently costs more than $2000...

[Hillsilly]

Another vote for the 17-40 f/4 IS.  Unless it came with a significant price increase, I think it would be a winner.  I assume it would replace the current 17-40.  As such, it would be a lens with wide market appeal and would find a home in a lot of amateur photographer's bags.