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

[ddashti]

That's quite a nice post you have here.
Very good point on the improvement of corners and such.

[NWPhil]

hate to say it, but maybe the 14-24 will be a F/4 instead of 2.8.
That would be indeed more in line of replacing the 17-40, and sort of leaving the 16-35 mk2 and other primes in "peace"; and along the way, the f/4 could be sharper to start with, and aiming towards landscapers.
After all, even f/4 is seldon used, unless you are into night shots or low light situations that iso can't really solve.

[RS2021]

hate to say it, but maybe the 14-24 will be a F/4 instead of 2.8.
That would be indeed more in line of replacing the 17-40, and sort of leaving the 16-35 mk2 and other primes in "peace"; and along the way, the f/4 could be sharper to start with, and aiming towards landscapers.
After all, even f/4 is seldon used, unless you are into night shots or low light situations that iso can't really solve.

This is not that far fetched actually. 

Hell, if they went f/4, they can even leave the 17-40L around for the budget minded and the 16-35II for the slightly higher price and still ask $1600 for the new 14-24L f/4. The f/4 will also make the new zoom more affordable and target more buyers than coming up with an expensive superduper f/2.8 that only a few can buy at upward of $2500.

Should such a hypothetical zoom show up in the Canon UWA lineup, one would be still forced to choose between the 16-35II with faster f/2.8 but less wide and the new zoom with slower f/4 but starting wider at 14mm. And Canon can still keep the prime 14L II f/2.8 in its place for the really IQ minded with more $$$'s.

Canon is not dumb enough to offer a *single* lens that does it ALL and well...including best IQ, speed, IS, build, focal range etc  ..their strategy is to split the features and gain more revenue... so f/4 makes sense, but I am still not convinced this is a near term thing.

[Aglet]

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. 

The Samyang 14mm prime is even sharper than the vaunted Nikon 14-24 and much better in the corners too...  At the expense of a lot of bulbous barrel distortion in the middle.  Not much of a problem for nature but nasty for anything with straight lines not running right down the center of your composition.
So Nik's 14-24mm is a compromised but very nicely behaving UWA lens for a variety of uses and you get to pay many x the price for that.  Canonites can expect Canon to produce a similarly well behaved and likely even better optic but you'll be paying for that.

[crasher8]

aha! My 1799 price isn't seeming so outrageous now! Whatever, just ordered a 16-35. I have a bada$$ southern utah/nevada landscape trip coming up and I think I'll be in heaven with it and using the 2.8 on the strip as well!

[Aglet]

FWIW, I've recently tried (by way of purchase) a new Tokina 17-35mm f/4, hoping to find a lens that performed better at the wide end than the 17-40 f/4 L. (to use on my FF F-mount system)
I've only done some flat-field, close-in test photos and a few other landscape types.

For the price, I'd not take the Tokina over the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L.
On F-mount it's a cheap enough option to consider.
 

[Zlatko]

hate to say it, but maybe the 14-24 will be a F/4 instead of 2.8.

I'm guessing a high quality f/4 version would be more attractive generally.  Lower price, smaller size & weight.  The ultra-wide range of 14-24 is very cool, but how many of us really need it to be f/2.8 and want to pay extra for it to be f/2.8 and want to carry the a big bulbous design that f/2.8 requires?  I'm sure some people want it to be f/2.8, but I'm guessing many would be as happy or even much happier with with an f/4 version.

[rs]

Wouldn't a 14-24/4 FF lens would still have a bulbous front element? Either that of something verging on impractical like a 95mm filter like the Zeiss 15/2.8 has.

I'd have thought a 14-24/2.8 is a very different lens to a 16-35/2.8, and therefore if it is released, it doesn't necessarily mean the end of the other.

The 16-35 range is better for some purposes - it zooms in more, so for anyone choosing to take just an ultra wide zoom and a 70-200, the 16-35 potentially makes much more sense. And then there's the whole filter/lens protection issue.

The rumours of the 14-24 offer two main changes from the 16-35 - a wider field of view, and the hope of sharper optics.

I can see room for three ultra wide angle lenses in the Canon line up.

[Ellen Schmidtee]

1) A minor issue is that there is no such thing as a "perfect" UWA zoom; ... 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.

I'm not expecting an EF 14-24mm to be perfect, but rather about as good as the Nikkor 14-24mm.

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.

I agree a patent does not mean a product will be introduced, but I do think it indicates Canon is considering introducing one.

The 17-40mm is part of the cheap[er?] f/4 line, and I don't think it would compete with a new 14-24mm. The 24mm f/1.4 is two stops faster, and therefore has it's own niche.

IMHO, a 14-24mm wouldn't compete with the 16-35mm as there's a big difference between 24mm and 35mm. E.g. I see a wedding photographer using a 16-35mm, but not a 14-24mm.

3) And above all, the worst assumption is that Canon will "have" to somehow match and compete with Nikon lenses on the EF mount! ...

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.

There already are used Nikon D700 & Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 on sale, plenty good for A4-A3 prints. I'll be happy to settle for that. Canon would not lose sale on a 14-24mm it wouldn't make, but the next time I buy a lens I would consider buying it Nikkor for the D700 - and that's a sale Canon might lose.

Why didn't I buy those yet? Cause I can wait for that saving account to be release in October.

[NWPhil]

hate to say it, but maybe the 14-24 will be a F/4 instead of 2.8.

I'm guessing a high quality f/4 version would be more attractive generally.  Lower price, smaller size & weight.  The ultra-wide range of 14-24 is very cool, but how many of us really need it to be f/2.8 and want to pay extra for it to be f/2.8 and want to carry the a big bulbous design that f/2.8 requires?  I'm sure some people want it to be f/2.8, but I'm guessing many would be as happy or even much happier with with an f/4 version.

I would be happier with the price and range, but 2.8 helps a bit in nightscapes. For daytime shots, not so much; after all general rule for it, places the apt in the f5.6-f11 range.
With that in mind, what about a 1.4 or 1.8 UWA prime? a 16mm focal would be fine with me 

[pedro]

hate to say it, but maybe the 14-24 will be a F/4 instead of 2.8.

I'm guessing a high quality f/4 version would be more attractive generally.  Lower price, smaller size & weight.  The ultra-wide range of 14-24 is very cool, but how many of us really need it to be f/2.8 and want to pay extra for it to be f/2.8 and want to carry the a big bulbous design that f/2.8 requires?  I'm sure some people want it to be f/2.8, but I'm guessing many would be as happy or even much happier with with an f/4 version.

I would be happier with the price and range, but 2.8 helps a bit in nightscapes. For daytime shots, not so much; after all general rule for it, places the apt in the f5.6-f11 range.
With that in mind, what about a 1.4 or 1.8 UWA prime? a 16mm focal would be fine with me 

An F/4 UWA - great. I'd go for such a lens. Even for nightscapes, as I often stop it down to f/8. Results with the 28 f/2.8 and the forementioned settings are pretty fine.


Z96A2899bMasterKLEIN by Peter Hauri, on Flickr


So, I would prefer a 14-24 f/4 over a 2.8 as the price tag would be much nicer...
For inhouse low light photography I re-discovered my 50 f/1.4 after my recent upgrade to FF.

Recently I was shooting my cat at ISO 51200 in an almost dark bedroom at 6:30 a.m.  Canon 5D3, Canon EF 50 F/1.4 @ F/1.6, 1/40 sec. While a small amount of ambiental light fingered into the room I manually focussed at the animals ears which I saw better than it's eyes, therefore the face is slightly out of focus. Photograph above: no NR applied. Photograph below: NR value in both Luminance Noise & Chromniance Noise: 14 out of 20 in Canon's free software Digital Photo Professional. This goes way beyond my wildest enthusiast amateur dreams! Watch it in full mode, although due to reduction in post for webupload the difference is less obvious. But the pic without NR looks as grainy as back in the filmdays...But that's quite awesome at these ISOs!


Shooting my Cat at ISO 51k by Peter Hauri, on Flickr