Announcement on January 8, 2013? New Lenses [CR1]

[roimund]

As a prev. owner of 28mm f1.8 and 50 f1.4, I know both of these lenses well. None of these lenses can be shot at wide open, especially the 28mm. Both lenses need to stop down at least 1stop before you can see the sharpness.

What is the point of buying a prime with f1.ish and shoot at f2ish. Just FYI...both 35L and 50L are sharp at wide open... and yes, I have real life pictures if you want to see.

i´m on F-mount (used to own a 7D - still have the habit of coming here), the 28mm 1.8 is rather new and is not that bad when it is paired with the 16Mp sensor and on say a 20-ish Mp sensor it is more than "ok" when wide-open and the 50/1.4 is the sigma bulk of glass, had it with the 7D, was really rather sharp wide-open, so i opted to buy a Nikon mount when i traded in mounts

okay, let me see some out of the camera pictures, please

[symmar22]

Compare a 1,4 to a f2? Well, the 1,4 let's in twice the light, do you want that and shallow dof as a result? The answer to that question gives the lens you want... add weatherseal too..

For me it makes sense, I use my lenses stopped down most of the time, but I can be in need of a large aperture sometimes. It's not to compare the amount of light the lens gathers, it's clear the 1.4 is twice as fast, it's to see how sharpness compares with smaller f-stops as well (again in my case). the 1.4 can be sharper with larger apertures but can be beaten by the f2 IS around f8-f11. I can accept some softness with large apertures, considering only a part of the picture is in focus anyway, but when I stop down I expect excellent sharpness all over, since it's likely that everything in the frame will be sharp then. Vignetting and mainly distortion are a big part of the equation too. Weather-sealing is a big plus but not a must for me, IS on the other hand can be an interesting feature....

I had the Nikkor 35mm 1.4 AI-S 20 years ago and finally exchanged it for 35mm f2 AI-S that was sharper, had less distortion an vignetting.

The 35mm 1.4L vs the 35mm f2 IS not like comparing apples and oranges, they are both 35mm USM, one is 1 stop brighter, one has IS, IMO it's worth hesitating a bit....
 

Not that I am comparing to him, but David Noton uses the 35mm 1.4, though likely on a tripod for landscape.

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/david_noton_on_the_eos_5d_mark_iii.do?utm_source=newsletter-december-1-2012&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter

My guess is the old 35mm f2 was not enough IQ for him (picture 3 of the portfolio is a 35mm f1.4, stopped down to f8)

[pedro]

Should I sell my 16-35 II NOW?

I've been thinking about that...the front filter capability is what's stopping me.  Oh...that, and the fact that no 14-24/2.8 has actually been announced, and even if one is, it might be many months before it's actually available.   

As many the months maybe...I don't care As I am saving up I will be glad about its release and what is shared by early adopters... Merry Christmas to everyone west of the pond or wherever you may be.

[RS2021]

I will be keeping my 16-35 II unless the new zoom proves to be exceptionally sharp overall and noticably better in the corners (I will leave expecting pin sharp corners in a 14mm UWA with usually curved image planes to dreamers, I will be happy with moderate improvement). Though not central, the details of the mechanics, weight etc will also have some sway.

The 16-35 II is compact and is also little more versatile due to its focal length range...so no, I won't be jumping ship on a whim.

[Cory]

Do you think the 12-24 might be a good bet for crop sensors?  My "normal" lens is a Sigma 30 1.4 and I'm considering the new Tokina 11-16, but would gladly wait to see what the 12-24 is all about.

 

[RS2021]

Do you think the 12-24 might be a good bet for crop sensors?  My "normal" lens is a Sigma 30 1.4 and I'm considering the new Tokina 11-16, but would gladly wait to see what the 12-24 is all about.

 

If you mean 14-24 then I would say the two current UWA to WA zooms 17-40L and 16-35L II are both already great zooms on your crop body covering wide to normal+  range (~27-64mm and ~26-56mm, respectively). As the crop captures just the center of the image plane you will not even see the corner issues in your body. Also, barrel distortion when it exists will be less noticeable as you will be capturing the sweet spot.

But you can always wait and pay more.

[Bosman]

Canon is doing the classic, omg they have a great lens, before they snatch our potential 35 up-graders we better release ours. AKA Sigma.

[RS2021]

Canon is doing the classic, omg they have a great lens, before they snatch our potential 35 up-graders we better release ours. AKA Sigma.

And on a completely unrelated note...the ones who took the bait early and raved on at infinitum about the sigma have gone ominously quiet in this thread.

P.S Now, be gentle with me...It is Christmas. 

[tron]

As many the months maybe...

Or... years!  This is a rumors site and everyone can write his or her BS! We simply do not know. For now I prefer to enjoy my TS-E 17mm. Less wide but still wide enough, plus having Tilt and Shift capability  (and anyway the 14-24 is likely to have an equally high price).

[neuroanatomist]

The 50/1.2L stands out in the EF lens line, not for its sharpness, but for the beautiful way in which it draws, especially in the f/1.2 to f/2.8 range.  Canon obviously designed it with a certain look in mind.

Are you saying Canon designed the 50L not to be sharp but instead to get a 'certain look'? I really doubt Canon would design an L prime with sharpness NOT their top priority...

Excellent bokeh was a priority for Canon with the 50L. They stated, "With the increasing popularity of digital SLR cameras, calls for large aperture single-focal length lenses with excellent image quality and pleasing bokeh (blur effects) for portraits have increased," (Tech Report, 11/2006).  Spherical aberration results in a loss of sharpness, but completely correcting for spherical aberration results in a harsh, jittery bokeh. In the 50L design, the spherical aberration was left deliberately undercorrected to produce the creamy bokeh for which the lens is known.

Neuro, you have so many lenses I think 50L ownership is just a matter of time for you.  You want it  —you're looking for validation. 

LOL.    I've considered buying it, but I'll likely get the 24-70 II first.

[tron]

As many the months maybe...

Or... years!  This is a rumors site and everyone can write his or her BS! We simply do not know. For now I prefer to enjoy my TS-E 17mm. Less wide but still wide enough, plus having Tilt and Shift capability  (and anyway the 14-24 is likely to have an equally high price).

A shifted stitch gives you an effective 11mm fov with a 40+mp sensor, medium format quality for comparative peanuts. A shift stitched 24mm TS-E image is even higher quality and more "normal" fov, and you can use filters on it.

Well, YES and NO. You must not shift a lot since it will cause vignetting in one side and it will impact the quality.
Plus you have to shift the camera and not the lens. To do that properly you need the HARTBLEI TS Collar for 500+ euros!!!

With that amount of money you can get a panoramic solution and use more lenses...

But generally 17mm is enough for me and I quite enjoy my TS lenses.

[Daniel Flather]

LOL.    I've considered buying it, but I'll likely get the 24-70 II first.

I can read in to that.

[danski0224]

Maybe I should write an article for the site on TS-E use as few people seem to know how to get the best out of these extraordinary lenses.

Please do.

[Bosman]

Oh and the 35 that would take back some from Sigma would be a 35 F1.2. Heres hoping for the next revolution hopefully consisting of wides below F1.4.

[sagittariansrock]

Maybe I should write an article for the site on TS-E use as few people seem to know how to get the best out of these extraordinary lenses.

Please do.

+1