Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L in Late 2013 [CR2]

[killswitch]

Dear Santa,
Please make this CR2 comes true

+1 Lol!

[sagittariansrock]

Typical of canon to feed rumors and leak announcements a year in advance, and control discontent among the brand loyalists, announce as late as they can in the next year, and deliver the actual product even later still like in 2014. Seen this play before. *yawn*

Was wondering how long to wait for this comment
I think it's good to notify people well ahead of time rather than dropping surprises on them, but that's just my opinion.

[Nishi Drew]

Typical of canon to feed rumors and leak announcements a year in advance, and control discontent among the brand loyalists, announce as late as they can in the next year, and deliver the actual product even later still like in 2014. Seen this play before. *yawn*

Either the above or get the product out of the door asap with poor factory QC like some companies. Pick your poison.

BTW, the 14-24 f/2.8L patent was confirmed in 2009, filed in 2007 within Japan and 2008 within USA. See this. So, if what you say is true, then Canon must have been fueling rumors and anticipation several years prior to actual product release.

Right, because Canon products are immune from poor QC, if that were entirely true then the wait + final cost wouldn't matter so much

[RS2021]

Anyone want to buy my 16-35 II? :-)

I'll hold on to it ...till it becomes CR3 in the rumors forums or it is 2015' which ever arrives ...later.

P.S. Don't get on my case, I am that wide eyed canon loyalist who has repeatedly gone along for the ride they take me on,  least I am allowed is a snarky comment now and again

[Lee Jay]

When I saw this on CR, I thought if this doesn't get a bunch of ecstatic posts, then the forum members are just plain weird.

I guess I'm weird.

My least used lens is my ultra wide rectilinear.  I either use a 24-xxx rectilinear or my Sigma 15mm f/2.8 fisheye.  That fish is every bit an L-prime, and I find a fisheye is a much more useful lens than an ultrawide rectilinear.  I shot 18 times as many shots in 2012 with the fish as I did with my ultrawide rectilinear.  That number appears to be going up over time, as it's only 3x over the last 6 years.  I guess I'm getting more and more comfortable with the fish.

[sagittariansrock]

When I saw this on CR, I thought if this doesn't get a bunch of ecstatic posts, then the forum members are just plain weird.

I guess I'm weird.

My least used lens is my ultra wide rectilinear.  I either use a 24-xxx rectilinear or my Sigma 15mm f/2.8 fisheye.  That fish is every bit an L-prime, and I find a fisheye is a much more useful lens than an ultrawide rectilinear.  I shot 18 times as many shots in 2012 with the fish as I did with my ultrawide rectilinear.  That number appears to be going up over time, as it's only 3x over the last 6 years.  I guess I'm getting more and more comfortable with the fish.

Oh, you're fine. An ultrawide zoom isn't what everyone wants.
But there are so many people here who have been posting repeatedly asking for the 14-24 and praising the Nikon, I wonder where they are hiding now. Even yesterday someone responded to the 50 1.4 IS post by saying where's the 14-24.

[Ricku]

Oh dear god! Please let it be true, and please bring it sooner than late 2013.

[robbymack]

interesting, may make me hold off on a purchase...then again I fully expect this to be priced around $3K so I'll just keep dreaming

[Canon 14-24]

I can see it being $2499+ (hopefully Canon prepares it's 2.8 trinity of the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 2.8 IS within the $2-2.5k mark), though I am personally prepared and set aside up to $3k for this lens!

Besides optics, I just hope they don't screw up the lens cap design with the protruding glass front with a cheap plastic cap cover that just comes right off in your bag like on the Canon 8-15mm fisheye, Nikon 14-24mm or like the the slide in caps on the Zeiss 15mm or Canon 14mm II that over time and use will show noticeable wear on the built in lens hood. Hopefully Canon can get it done right like the twist-on cap design on the 17mm ts-e!

[M.ST]

I want this lens in spring 2013.

[dirtcastle]

Unless the 14-24mm L is a better performer than the existing 14mm f/2.8 L, wouldn't it make nearly as much sense to combine the 14mm L with either a 24mm L II or the 24-70mm L II ?

[Woody]

Right, because Canon products are immune from poor QC, if that were entirely true then the wait + final cost wouldn't matter so much

Sure, they have poor 'QC' issues in the past. The truth is a number of those problems are mostly due to poor design, e.g., portrait issue of 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS, 1D3 AF problems, light leak in 5D3. But most importantly, they are officially acknowledged and rectified. Some companies don't even acknowledge their problems... like this article dated 6-Dec-2012: http://bythom.com/.

[dolina]

It should sell more than the Nikon equivalent.

Where's my damn 135L and 400/5.6L update!

[AudioGlenn]

Dear Santa,
Please make this CR2 comes true

+1 Lol!

+1  i need this lens to go with my new mark III, 24-70 II, and 70-200 IS II.  I had to give up my EF-S 10-22 and am currently without an UWA!!!!

[candyman]

Just as I was considering adding the 16-35mm...

 Go figure 

Me too. I have this 14-24 on my list.

But the 14-24 is still not available for at least one year
The 16-35 MKII currently cost - here in the Netherlands - about 1260 euro

The 14-24 will cost - for sure - about 2200 euro

The 16-35 is certainly not perfect but a very good lens. It still will have value if you sell it next year.