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

[RMC33]

I'd buy a 14-24 f2.8 with bulbous front element and no filter thread, and a 16-35 f2.8 MkIII. Nikon make both and both have a market, they also make a 14 prime. I don't see the 16-35 and 14-24 ish as mutually exclusive, I'd use the 14-24 fpr set piece work, architecture and interiors, and the 16-35 for travel, sports, fun etc.

Thinking about it Canon could make a good deal of money off me, I'd happily buy a 45 and 90 TS-E MkII as well, but I am starting to think with the ever increasing development of the cine line that photographic orientated lenses might have peaked in their development, so many are overdue upgrades and yet we get 24-28-35 f2/2.8 IS's and a slew of cine lenses, the lens department can only work on so many designs at the same time, where in god's name is the 35 L upgrade, the 200 upgrade, or the 400 f5.6 with IS, the 100-400 upgrade? How much longer are so many pros going to have to wait for the 200-400, an 800 that is better than the 600 and a TC oh the list just goes on and on.

The 200 f/2.8? That was an early late 90's lens ya?

[Zlatko]

I much prefer 16-35 to 14-24.

[Canon 14-24]

I much prefer a 14-24 to a "third" version of the 16-35.

[candyman]

The 14-24mm was on my wish list. But instead I bought the 16-35 II
I actually like the range 16-35. It suites me well as landscape / walkaround and indoor lens. The thing that could be improved though is the sharpness at 2.8 in 16 to 24 mm. There are other things like some vignetting at 16mm but those can be taken care of in post-processing. 

[BL]

sharpness is fine for me at 2.8 from 16-24

35mm at 2.8 is a whole other story

[John Thomas]

Yes. As long as it is tack sharp across the frame @ all focal lengths, just like the Nikon 14-24.

+1

AND if it has lower distortions, especially at the wide end. Till then, Tokina 16-28 rulez.

[barracuda]

I agree.  I'd take a 16-24 or 16-28 as well.  I don't really like the fact that a 14-24 can't take filters unless you are looking at 6x6's which are insanely expensive.

+1

If the extra 2mm on the wide end means it can't take filters, I'd much rather have an improved 16-35 or a 16-xx over a 14-24.

[Smurf1811]

I'm going to buy a D800 just for the Nikkor 14-24mm.....O.k. and the CLS .

[RS2021]

Started to dig through some of the older 16-35II shots for a different thread and I have to say I am happy with its overall performance. Lens designs to increase UWA zoom performance is an uphill battle with diminishing paybacks for the amount of design tricks needed, not to mention the increase in price.

I am ok for now.

[infared]

I much prefer a 14-24 to a "third" version of the 16-35.

I decided to jump ship...I am planning on selling my Canon 16-35mm II and buy a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 to compliment my Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 ZE...and I am saving to purchase a Zeiss 15mm...I also have the new 24-70mm II. So  once I implement my plan I wii have most basis covered in the WA dept.

[RS2021]

I decided to jump ship...I am planning on selling my Canon 16-35mm II and buy a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 to compliment my Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 ZE...and I am saving to purchase a Zeiss 15mm...I also have the new 24-70mm II. So  once I implement my plan I wii have most basis covered in the WA dept.

I love some of the zeiss glass...but the manual focus is enough of a deal breaker. Will miss too many before I can do it well, and my eyes are simply not that good even given endless time to focus. I would like their 15mm though...leave it at hyperfocal range and keep shooting.

[Rienzphotoz]

I much prefer a 14-24 to a "third" version of the 16-35.

Even if it is better than the Nikon 14-24?

[infared]

I love some of the zeiss glass...but the manual focus is enough of a deal breaker. Will miss too many before I can do it well, and my eyes are simply not that good even given endless time to focus. I would like their 15mm though...leave it at hyperfocal range and keep shooting.

My eyes are terrible too...I zone focus the 21mm!  LOL! Actually I do a lot of set-up work with a tripod...so it does not matter that much...but I still have the 16-35mm II in case I need it at this point....  the thing is, once you shoot with the Zeiss you do not want to step down to the Canon wide.
I would prefer to see a new 16-35mm III ultra-sharp zoom, (compared to a 14-24)..but Canon has made this lens twice (with modest improvement the second time out), so I do not have a lot of confidence that they can get this really "right"...Perhaps since they are rumored to be making that big megapixel camera, the designers are really under a lot of pressure to make the lens we need this time...and if they do it will cost as much as the Zeiss 15mm, no doubt!...but I would prefer the 16-35mm range.

[GMCPhotographics]

The 14-24mm was on my wish list. But instead I bought the 16-35 II
I actually like the range 16-35. It suites me well as landscape / walkaround and indoor lens. The thing that could be improved though is the sharpness at 2.8 in 16 to 24 mm. There are other things like some vignetting at 16mm but those can be taken care of in post-processing.

I think there is room in the market for both, a 12/14-24 f2.8 and a 16-35III 2.8.
The first lens will certainly have a bulbous front element and therefore be a pain with filters, which make lanscape work a pain the back side. Polarisers and NDs are pretty much precluded unless the filter sizes become huge and therefore unmanagable in the field.
The 16-35 is a compromise lens, it does a lot well but not spectacularly well. It's very wide, but these days there is wider. It's not too corrected but just enough so that post prod correction is effective. It's a useful range and quite sharp....but it could be sharper. Although it's sharp enough for most applications, there will always be some sharpess monkey out there who claims it's not sharp enough. It takes filters very very well and it's easily the most versatile wide lens. Unfortunatly it flares and ghosts quite a bit and could do with an improvement. It's weather sealed and it's easy to wipe water off the front element (or front filter), where as one rain drop on the front of a TS-e 17 is hard to remove and is massive on the final image.
If the 16-35 front element gets damaged (and I've had mine replaced) then it's expensive...but not as expensive or vaulrable as a big front bulging element.
For regular pro work, the 16-35IIL is currently the best choice. It's hardy, versatile and sharp enough. I think a 12/14-24 is more of a fan boy dream...usefull for shooting charts and not so usefull in the real pro use arena. Imagine taking a 12/14-24 to a war zone? Hell, even Cornwall UK on a windy rainy day would render this lens useless.

[Ellen Schmidtee]

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

That patent is by Nikon, I don't see Canon making a lens based on it.


Personally, I prefer a Canon EF 14-24mm as good as Nikon's. If Canon makes a 16-35mm with sharpness that rivals the 14-24mm wide open, image stabilization, and low vignette, I'll be happy to buy that one instead.