Gear Talk > Lenses

Anyone Want an Improved 16-35mm over the much requested 14-24mm?

(1/15) > >>

Radiating:
I'm personally not too crazy about a 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. I would much much rather Canon release a further updated 16-35mm f/2.8 III, specifically based on this insane lens patent:

16-35mm f/2.8 IS Pro Lens.

http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-01-06

f/2.8 3 ED elements 5 aspherical ones, and sharpness that rivals the 14-24mm wide open, AND image stabilization!

Internal focusing, low vignette.

I really would much rather have greater flexibility and greater focal range than an ultra wide angle that only does ultra wide, and worse than this proposed lens at that.

Anyone else feel the same way?

MARKOE PHOTOE:
Absolutely agree.  I started a forum topic on this very subject a few months ago asking who was using the Nikon 14-24 on Canon EOS.

Waiting for Canon to develop, test, manufacture and deliver on a new product is a missed opportunity.  I've got the 16-35 and 24TSE II and Zeiss 35mm for landscape, but I really need an ultra wide. 

I just returned the new Sigma 12-24 II for Canon.  Big mistake on my part, the corners are still soft and un-usable in my opinion.  The Samyang 14 is calling me but I need an adapter with a chip for focus confirmation.

What has your research found for UWA?  ...besides 14-24?

florianbieler.de:
I'm afraid a 14-24 will be insanely expensive, let alone you'd take a 16-35 and put up an IS to that... 2000$ pew pew.

Mt Spokane Photography:
The mk II is pretty new, it can always be improved.  If Canon thinks there is a profit in updating it, they will.

Plamen:
I want a 16-35/4 IS (like the Nikon).

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version