Need advice: Rumored 14-24 f/2.8L vs existing 16-35 f/2.8 L Advantages?

[bdunbar79]

I like the 16-35 f/2.8L II lens.  It snowed here heavily the last few days, and I plan on heading out tomorrow with it to shoot some scenery.  Yes it has its negatives just like any other wide-angle zoom lens, but is very good from my experiences.  One negative is the price.

[RS2021]

I like the 16-35 f/2.8L II lens.  It snowed here heavily the last few days, and I plan on heading out tomorrow with it to shoot some scenery.  Yes it has its negatives just like any other wide-angle zoom lens, but is very good from my experiences.  One negative is the price.

Just took it out myself with snow still swirling... realized I may have to grudgingly get one of those damn filters I so hate. Neuro's graphs suggest there is no major vignetting with XS-pro with this lens, not that I ever much worried about corner light loss...I have just always as an article of faith believed buy no filters UV filters!

But this effort with the 16-35 II got me thinking I need something on the front...I had fluffy snow on the front black plastic part adjacent to the front glass that moves back and forth in the 16-35II. Crow for dinner?

[Radiating]

Based on the likely optical design they will choose, the 12-24mm will simply have better image quality

[robbymack]

it will certainly not be 3k. I would suspect 1799.A few hundred more than the 16-35 yet still priced under the 14 and 17 TS.

You're dreaming...

[RS2021]

it will certainly not be 3k. I would suspect 1799.A few hundred more than the 16-35 yet still priced under the 14 and 17 TS.

$1799 Bwahahahaha I've been trying to sell this bridge...you are just the man! :p

But yes, 3K is a tad too high and I won't be surprised if the "I got it first" folks will pay that...but canon likes to not overprice products so high that “aspiration” (a highly valuable commodity in its own right) is not killed among its customers...

In other words, it makes less economic sense to sell 100 units at $5000 (to fools who will buy anything to own something new) than to sell 100,000 units at $2500 (to an average customer). Do the math and you will see that if the number of customers who can afford the product drops off radically, they will gain no major revenue by introducing such a lens.

However, as a temporary measure, sky-high prices do help during the first few months as production may be slow to meet demand and high prices will buy Canon time as they ramp up production....all along gaining revenue from the feeble minded...er I mean early adoptoers...

In the long run Canon will want to move units. 

So they will probably price it initially around what they charged the recent 24-70L II ...~$2500 to $2700 for “real” market value not what you see in mark-ups.  Within months it may slide a couple of hundreds to get to where other high volume zooms now are closer to the 2.2K mark. 

[enice128]

I've been wondering same thing. I actually have had the 17-40 for sometime, recently onm y 7D but now attached to my 1D mark IV which i love! Im looking to upgrade to the 16-35 II due to it being an f2.8. My passion is sports but do shoot events such as weddings, sweet 16's , etc. All my lenses r 2.8 or lower & feel the upgrade from an f4 would be huge either with or without my 580exii. I heard the 14-24 will be upwards of $2,000 (i'd say near $3,000!) which i cannot afford esp after my recent purchases of the 1D IV, 70-200 2.8 II & 50 1.2. I could get an excellent condition of the 16-35 II for around $1,200 which is around $300 less than a new one & worth it. Good glass is so expensive but well worth it esp if it brings u in income! DAMN YOU HOBBY!!! One other thing, i have borrowed the 10-22 which i love however for shooting people it distorts too much esp on the 10 end & im not a fan at all of the f-stop not being constant (3.5-5.6). I guess ive become a canon L "snob" (LOL) & weather sealing is huge to me. I shot the other nite in heavy snow w my 1D IV & 50 1.2 of my daughter playing in the snow but wished i had attached the 70-200 rather instead. Too late after my rig was covered in snow & didnt wanna open up to change lenses so i just went w it  http://emcphotographyblog.shutterfly.com/pictures/4428
Check out my site:
emcphotographyblog.shutterfly.com

[Axilrod]

1799.A few hundred more than the 16-35 yet still priced under the 14 and 17 TS.

You're living in a fantasy land, I'd be very surprised if it was even $2k, I'm guessing $2499.  The Nikon version is $2k, that's a pretty good indicator. There is a huge demand for it and recently Canon has taken advantage of situations like that (5D3 for instance).

[Axilrod]

Pedro, I'd recommend the 16-35mm for now, who knows when the 14-24 will actually show up, and even when it does it's going to be a hell of alot more expensive.  If you're looking for an ultra-wide on the cheap the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 14mm f/2.8 is a damn good lens, especially for $400.  Has a bit more distortion than the 14LII but in terms of sharpness it's just as good. 

[BrandonKing96]

it will certainly not be 3k. I would suspect 1799.A few hundred more than the 16-35 yet still priced under the 14 and 17 TS.

Why would a 14mm f2.8 zoom be priced less than a 14mm f2.8 prime? The 24-70 MkII was $2,299 on release, the 70-200 f2.8 L IS MkII was $2,499, if and when the 14-24 f2.8 comes out its release price will be well over $2,000, I would think $2,499-2,799 as a start and to cash in on early adopters, with an easing four to six months after that to a slightly higher volume orientated market level.

I would put money on not getting a new 14-24 under $2,000 ever, but with the Yen devaluation against the US Dollar I think there might be a reason where I might be wrong, and I would love to be proved wrong.   

Lucky you don't live in Australia.  The 70-200 IS II is around the $2900 AUD mark here.  But surprisingly I managed to get my 24-70 II for $2100 AUD (cheapest I've managed and in a physical shop).  So judging from that, I'd honestly say the 14-24 could cost around $2500/2600-$3000 USD upon release, and we may see the prie fall on the 14 f/2.8 II

[crasher8]

 Sure, who knows what it will cost, hell it's ALL speculation. Nobody knows Sh_t about this lens. Nobody.

[bycostello]

well one you can go out and buy and one you can chat about...

[BrandonKing96]

Sure, who knows what it will cost, hell it's ALL speculation. Nobody knows Sh_t about this lens. Nobody.

Nobody can because it doesn't exist yet.

[RS2021]

You can wait or go out and play in the snow now with your 16-35 II... I am not a landscape artist so don't blame the lens. 5DIII + 16-35L II at 18mm.

[pedro]

Pedro, I'd recommend the 16-35mm for now, who knows when the 14-24 will actually show up, and even when it does it's going to be a hell of alot more expensive.  If you're looking for an ultra-wide on the cheap the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 14mm f/2.8 is a damn good lens, especially for $400.  Has a bit more distortion than the 14LII but in terms of sharpness it's just as good.

@Axilroad: Thanks a lot. Guess I'll go that route. Before they discontinue it and re-release it equipped with IS to get some more bucks out of us enthusiast amatogs

[infared]

Pedro,I find the 14-24mm "rumor" to be quite exciting. It gives hope that FF Canon owners will have:
1. A relatively fast ultra-wide angle lens that would fill the slot for the ultimate triade of lenses. (Coupled with the 24-70mm f/2.8L II & 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II)
2. Finally, a high-performing Ultra-wide-angle zoom

Number 2 above is the tough one for me, as Canon is definitely unproven in this lens area. The Nikon UWZ is the benchmark.Canon has not come close to this, no doubt....but based on recent lens offerings I am hopeful that Canon will compete in this area as well especially given the recent improvements in the 24-70mm f/2.8L II & 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II lenses.

But, since the Tsunami Canon has still not resumed their prior manufacturing capabilities AND Canon has instituted irrattic pricing guidelines.

So moving forward...this new Golden Fleece is just a rumor...if announced it is a long way off (I site the massive delays from the announcement date for the 24-70mm II), and you can bet your babushka that this Golden Fleece will be expensive (I site the intro pricing on the 24-70mm II). IF this lens is produced, and IF it is of the quality that we are hoping for it will be intro priced in the mid $2000's. No doubt about that. (Yes...I know I am speculating...about a "rumored" lens. LOL!). Again, based on post-Tsunami pricing policies. Canon shooters have been waiting years for this lens..expect to pay dearly for it.

I am encouraged that this lens will be built, as I think Canon is preparing its whole lens line-up to get the most out of the upcoming megapixel body that we keep hearing about. So it makes sense that this lens will materialize.

Until then...I plan to keep using my 16-35 II ( when I need auto-focus) and my Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 ZE (for when it really matters to me :-))...and during the long wait...I may pick up the new Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 ZE ( for when it really, really matters!)....but I am still on the fence about that because of the cost (ouch!).

I hope Canon makes this lens and that it is all that we hope for...time will tell.