Reasons why 14-24L zoom will not be coming soon

[RS2021]

Canon may not be in any rush to introduce 14-24mm quickly in spite of all the hype in the rumor circuit...if it comes at all, it would be a pleasant surprise for those who are waiting....and not an expected obligatory move from Canon. In fact, some sober thought would suggest the wait is likely to be longer.

Why?

1) A minor issue is that there is no such thing as a "perfect" UWA zoom; the UWA designs are typically a jumble of compromises... and there *will be* no such perfection in the new Canon designs over and above the current UWA offerings. They may get it to be marginally better but they will face the same corner issues and will have to make compromises on distortion and vignetting and perhaps curved focal planes. So they won't be in a hurry to introduce yet another UWA zoom that comes up short…as it invariably will be given the high expectations.

2) Second problem is Canon's current line up on the WA and UWA end and its marketing strategy. The existence of a patent does not mean a product will be forthcoming soon.  They introduced relatively in quick succession  (not including the 17 TSE, and the 17-40L), the 16-35 II, and 14L II, and 24L II...and note all these are version II “updates”!  A high quality 14-24 zoom that goes across all these will be an issue. Especially with the 17-40 and relatively young 16-35II already in the lineup.

3) And above all, the worst assumption is that Canon will "have" to somehow match and compete with Nikon lenses on the EF mount! On camera bodies, yes, as Nikon can pull away new comers not attached to a brand by providing cheaper, better bodies. But on the high end EF lenses ...not so much.

Once you are in the lens kennel tied to the EF mount with multiple lenses in your collection, you are like fish in a barrel for Canon. And let’s face it, for a high priced UWA zoom, we are talking well-heeled folks who are unlikely to be newbies to the Canon Brand.

As the dominant dog in the kennel with a lens branding that is highly regarded ...Canon has less incentive to "match" anything that Nikon does.  Regardless of how stellar they are, the Nikon mount lenses do NOT compete directly with the Canon EF mount.

Yes, the whimpering from the impotent Canonites that they will switch to Nikon if Canon doesn't introduce this that or the other will continue...switch due to what? A single UWA lens while giving up the whole Canon platform? Laughable! And Canon knows this well. They can drag this out for long and still keep you guessing.

So yeah... sorry to rain on the parade, but I am just not convinced that 14-24 zoom is coming anytime soon. If it does, I will genuinely be happy for ya.

[rs]

As much as I like to believe in the rumoured 14-24 and new 35 lenses, I do wonder if that was just a combination of the Cinema 14 and 135 lenses and Chinese whispers. Those were announced at about the time the 14-24 and 35 were earmarked for.

Having said that, Canon are slowly improving their lens lineup, and as far as I know they haven't launched a dud in years. There might be price (all of them), zoom range (24-70/4), max aperture (24/2.8 IS and 28/2.8 IS) or lack of IS (24-70 II) to moan about, but nothing recent has been short of amazing. I'd love to see a new ultra wide angle zoom follow on with this tradition, and Nikon have proved it is possible to get close to it with their 14-24.

[verysimplejason]

Give me an update of the 20mm (or 18mm and no IS please to reduce the cost) and I'll be happier.  I want a UWA with filter.  I'm not a fan of zooms.

[neuroanatomist]

...the whimpering from the impotent Canonites that they will switch to Nikon if Canon doesn't introduce this that or the other will continue...

I'll take the 'whimpering from the impotent Canonites' over the incessant whining from the Nikonophilic anti-Canonites who seem to contribute nothing to these forums other than troll posts. 

Alas, both are far too common.

[rj79in]

Canon may not be in any rush to introduce 14-24mm quickly in spite of all the hype in the rumor circuit...if it comes at all, it would be a pleasant surprise for those who are waiting....and not an expected obligatory move from Canon. In fact, some sober thought would suggest the wait is likely to be longer.

Why?

1) A minor issue is that there is no such thing as a "perfect" UWA zoom; the UWA designs are typically a jumble of compromises... and there *will be* no such perfection in the new Canon designs over and above the current UWA offerings. They may get it to be marginally better but they will face the same corner issues and will have to make compromises on distortion and vignetting and perhaps curved focal planes. So they won't be in a hurry to introduce yet another UWA zoom that comes up short…as it invariably will be given the high expectations.

2) Second problem is Canon's current line up on the WA and UWA end and its marketing strategy. The existence of a patent does not mean a product will be forthcoming soon.  They introduced relatively in quick succession  (not including the 17 TSE, and the 17-40L), the 16-35 II, and 14L II, and 24L II...and note all these are version II “updates”!  A high quality 14-24 zoom that goes across all these will be an issue. Especially with the 17-40 and relatively young 16-35II already in the lineup.

So yeah... sorry to rain on the parade, but I am just not convinced that 14-24 zoom is coming anytime soon. If it does, I will genuinely be happy for ya.

While I agree that the 14-24 may take some time to materialize, your first and second argument are contradictory. As per your own argument the 14-24 will be a compromise of sorts so the IQ of the primes will be better. Prime shooters will still go for the primes regardless of the existence of the 14-24.

If this were the case, the 24-70 II would cannibalize the sales of the 24, 35 and 50 Ls. Don't see that happening.

[RS2021]

Neuro, surely it is unfair to suggest that this post makes me a "nikonophile." 
As a kid I thought if I touched a Nikon I'd get Cooties and as an adult I break out in rashes when I see a friend use one.

[neuroanatomist]

Neuro, surely it is unfair to suggest that this post makes me a "nikonophile." 
As a kid I thought if I touched a Nikon I'd get Cooties and as an adult I break out in rashes when I see a friend use one.

No, I wasn't speaking of you, specifically.  But I hear there's a cream for that rash...   

[RS2021]

Neuro, surely it is unfair to suggest that this post makes me a "nikonophile." 
As a kid I thought if I touched a Nikon I'd get Cooties and as an adult I break out in rashes when I see a friend use one.

No, I wasn't speaking of you, specifically.  But I hear there's a cream for that rash...   

Yes, i recently got the cream, it's called 1DX. 

[distant.star]

.
Sorry, 2021, no sale.

Point 1: If they can't make a "perfect" lens, they won't make any lens. They already have a whole fleet of imperfect lenses, yet they keep trying.

Point 2: It's just a patent, and the field is already overcrowded. As for patent, they probably have a patent for a lens that dispenses toilet paper in nice origami shapes. As for overcrowded it's plain to me a 14-24 would replace the older 17-40.

Point 3: I think you're mostly right that Canon doesn't feel compelled to compete directly with Nikon. But as I've often said I believe as far as marketing, the Nikon influence on Canon is greatly overestimated.

Finally, as I also keep saying -- trying to comprehend Canon and their marketing is like staring at the sun hoping to see a single hydrogen atom. You'll never see it, and you'll go blind trying.

[RS2021]

While I agree that the 14-24 may take some time to materialize, your first and second argument are contradictory. As per your own argument the 14-24 will be a compromise of sorts so the IQ of the primes will be better. Prime shooters will still go for the primes regardless of the existence of the 14-24.

I partly agree... I think the 24L II is safe... it is a faster f1.4 and is safe from internal price poaching. 

But the two f2.8 lenses (16-35II and the 14L II), I am not so sure: 16-35L II at f/2.8 though not a direct competition, is a reliable revenue generator for Canon and I think they will try to keep it even if this hypothetical zooom is planned ; but there will be some residual predation there as at least some who are currently forced to choose 16-35 II even though they have the money, will opt for the overlapping wider UWA.

Now the 14L II currently costs about $2300 and bears the usual crosses that UWA's bear (still agreat lens) may not be so safe at f/2.8. The hypothetical 14-24L zoom, even if it has a smidge less IQ, will tempt some, it will tempt me.

If this were the case, the 24-70 II would cannibalize the sales of the 24, 35 and 50 Ls. Don't see that happening.

This, I don't agree with. All three primes you list are faster at f1.4 or f1.2... with stellar reputation for the first two lenses and a controversial cult following for the 50L. not even a close comparison to the 24-70II at f/2.8. If you want faster, you will choose the L primes.

Now will one do the same with the $2300 14L II f2.8 prime if the f/2.8 zoom existed... I don't really know.

[rj79in]

Now will one do the same with the $2300 14L II f2.8 prime if the f/2.8 zoom existed... I don't really know.

Well yes ... that's a fair question and I didn't think of that. Given a choice, unless the IQ was way short, I would go for the zoom.

[RS2021]

.
It's just a patent, and the field is already overcrowded. As for patent, they probably have a patent for a lens that dispenses toilet paper in nice origami shapes. As for overcrowded it's plain to me a 14-24 would replace the older 17-40.

LOL on the toilet paper patents, but come on now, the japanese use those fancy bidet things...
The 14-24L is likely to be an "up-market" product probably skirting $2500 to $3000 at introduction... so if anything the highly affordable 17-40L will not be a direct competition...the 16-35 II, though also not exactly a direct competition, could be at somewhat more danger given importantly its ~$1400 price point.

.
I think you're mostly right that Canon doesn't feel compelled to compete directly with Nikon. But as I've often said I believe as far as marketing, the Nikon influence on Canon is greatly overestimated.

I concur, Canon will not feel compelled to match "lens-for-lens" or "focal length-for-focal length" on the EF mount. If there is a big gaping hole, may be...currently I don't see that in the UWA range.

As for starring into the Sun and Canon's marketing... we have all been there. 

[neuroanatomist]

Now will one do the same with the $2300 14L II f2.8 prime if the f/2.8 zoom existed... I don't really know.

Well yes ... that's a fair question and I didn't think of that. Given a choice, unless the IQ was way short, I would go for the zoom.

A zoom will almost certainly have more distortion than the prime at 14mm.  Correctable, yes...but only by adding softness to corners already unlikely to be exceptionally sharp.

[neuroanatomist]

A zoom will almost certainly have more distortion than the prime at 14mm.  Correctable, yes...but only by adding softness to corners already unlikely to be exceptionally sharp.

Again the Nikon example is being ignored, the 14-24 outperforms the 14 prime in almost every metric

Not ignored, but I'm not sure it's a relevant comparison. The 14-24mm is much newer than the Nikkor 14/2.8.   

Compare the 70-200/2.8 IS vs. the MkII to see how far Canon went in a similar period of time. 

[crasher8]

Who here thinks Canon would counter with a no filter, fixed hood, bulbous element UWA zoom?