Why no L primes from 14 to 24mm

[RS2021]

14 and 24 are not in between 14 and 24....

Thread says from 14 to 24 not "between".

+1
Agreed. Plus the original poster may not have meant to be that pedantic.

[Artifex]

If you are not scared of a manual lens, you should consider the Samyang 14mm 2.8, it offers exceptional image and build quality and is dirt cheap compared to the few competitors. Mind that it has strange contortions so you probably want to use Photoshop or Lightroom with the lens correction profiles available through Adobes Profile Downloader. Just an idea even if you were looking for some mm more.

+1

The Samyang 14mm is great lens at a ridiculous price; great built quality, very good IQ (espicially at f/5.6), low and easily correctable CA. The biggest downfall is the distortion, but it is not than bad for landscape, though it can be a problem if you are more into architecture (or shooting brick walls  ).
I personally don't see a problem in the fact that it is a manual focus lens; using the hyperfocal, you can nail perfect focus every time with such a wide lens.
IMO, this lens is a fabulous lens, especially rather put the 2000$ price difference with the Canon alternative on something else (lens, body, food, car, etc ).

[And-Rew]

or you could just buy a Nikon to Canon adapter and purchase the astounding Nikon 14-24 

Probably the most in demand lens on the Canon bois wanted list that Nikon have. It is an amazing lens in every respect, unless you want to attach a filter 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I have recently added the 24-70mm f2.8L II, and I am considering droping my 16-35mm f2.8L II for a prime of around 18-21mm to save a bit of weight and space.

The Canon 20mm f2.8 is awful, but there is nothing else, why such a big gap in Canon's range.

I think my options are the Zeiss 18mm f3.5 or the Canon TSE 17mm.  Of the two the Zeiss would be smaller and lighter.  But looking at 'The Digital Picture' site the Zeiss appears to be slightly worse than my 16-35mm.  If I change I want at least equal optical quality, preferably better.
Are there any other suggestions?

umm the Canon 17TSE IS an L prime

(and 14mm and 24mm L primes too)

(samyang 14mm is $300 and super sharp edge to edge on FF)

[bdunbar79]

Despite the lack of real thinking going on in this thread, I'll add in.  It doesn't take too much brain power to know what the OP meant.  From his statement I got right away that he was not including 14 and 24mm.  To actually offer a helpful response, I don't know exactly why there isn't a real good prime between those focal lengths but I suppose I have an opinion.  The 8-15L doesn't count considering it's not a prime, as one suggested.  My guess is that users of this short focal length are doing some type of landscape photography or something like architecture, and the tilt-shift at 17mm is better suited for that.  I really doubt having a good L prime at say, 20mm would offer any benefit over the L zooms in that range.  It's probably not worth it and they are not common focal lengths used by the majority of people in photography.

[Jesse]

Again, the Zeiss 21mm. One of the best wide angle lenses available.

[crasher8]

+1 on the 18/21 Zeiss'
I think TDP is a bit harsh on his review of the 18. I have seen it reviewed elsewhere (Germany) and it's given the edge to the 16-35. Either way, both are out of my budget!

[Viggo]

I say if a 20mm is useful or not depends HIGHLY on the aperture it has, if it was as great as the 24 f1,4 LII at 20mm maybe a 1,8, I would buy that today...

[Viggo]

IF the 14-24 comes, it will be more in the price range of the 24-70 mk2, not the 16-35 mk2..

[Axilrod]

Also the 15mm Zeiss..

Which is an amazing lens, but significantly more expensive than every other lens mentioned in this thread.

[Standard]

Zeiss 21mm

+1

Although I have never used it. The  Zeiss 21mm is a stellar lens from everything I've read and seen. And yes, I would highly recommend the Samyang 14mm and don't consider the moustache distortion an issue as it's easily fixed in post.

[Viggo]

IF the 14-24 comes, it will be more in the price range of the 24-70 mk2, not the 16-35 mk2..

True. Which is why I said people may be happy to pay same as 16-35 mk II or a little more , but no doubt it would be $2,399 price territory (and people will whine a lot about it and Canon Inc., then they'll go and purchase it...then 3 months later they'll rave about it -> even better than the Nikon equivalent...then they'll speculate about what other new lens that Canon ought to have in the new product pipeline so they can complain about how long it takes Canon to update & launch new lenses  ...then once it is announced they can commence whingeing again...and so on et cetera ad nauseam.....

Amen! LOL

[crasher8]

The Canon EF 15-23 2.0L