Canon EF 12-24 f/2.8L [CR1]

[Mika]

You may want to hold your horses on this one.

The more recent 14-24 mm patent actually contained a 14/2.8, a 17/4.0, and 14-18/4-4.7, I don't recall the fourth embodiment just now, it had a zoom factor of 1.2 and was in the 20ish millimeter range. This is not to say 14-24 does not exist on Canon - they are surely trying to find a way to do that and determine whether this would sell enough.

Canon seems to trade corner sharpness for less distortion at their wide angles, this is the reason why they don't attain high drawing capabilities - I'm sort of glad they do when using film cameras. I'm not sure on how they deal with field curvature in their ultrawides.

The question I have is what is the point of 14-24/2.8? I understand 14-24, but I don't understand the F/2.8 part in it - the purpose of F/4.0 is much more clear to me.

[Canon 14-24]

The question I have is what is the point of 14-24/2.8? I understand 14-24, but I don't understand the F/2.8 part in it - the purpose of F/4.0 is much more clear to me.

Even with the improved high-iso on the latest camera bodies, I would still say for astro-photography or indoor/outdoor low lighting events.

[Radiating]

Personally, it would be much more useful for me if Canon came up with 16-35 f/2.8 MkIII with sharpness in line with 24-70 II and 70-200 f2.8 II, as well as a real good 35 mm end..

+1....now you're talking!

-PW

Agree 100% I would rather have a 16-35mm Mk III or even better a 16-35mm f/2.8 IS (there is a nikon patent for this that promises superior IQ to the 14-24mm even).

Give us that.

[pedro]

I guess a next update of a 16-35 will be IS. I can see the reason behind that. As videopgraphy is an important medium today. Therefore I'll buy the current version soonish... Less $$$ for us amateurs

[Random Orbits]

Given how the pros and Canon picked the 24-70 II over a competing 24-70 IS, I'm guessing that the same would happen with the 16-35, that it would be a lot sharper but not have IS.  Perhaps the IS version would be a 16-35 f/4.  That would mirror that all f/4 zooms would have IS, and that wide to normal f/2.8 zooms would not.

I'd prefer a sharper 16-35 II to a 16-35 IS that is comparable in IQ to what exists today.

[etg9]

The 16-35II is my most used lens by a lot, I too would add to the ranks to be much happier with a 16-35III than a 16-35IS. I don't need this lens to be much wider than it is (although 14-24 is fine). I really want it to have much better sharpness than it currently does.

[candyman]

Personally, it would be much more useful for me if Canon came up with 16-35 f/2.8 MkIII with sharpness in line with 24-70 II and 70-200 f2.8 II, as well as a real good 35 mm end..

+1....now you're talking!

-PW

+1....bring it on

[pedro]

The 16-35II is my most used lens by a lot, I too would add to the ranks to be much happier with a 16-35III than a 16-35IS. I don't need this lens to be much wider than it is (although 14-24 is fine). I really want it to have much better sharpness than it currently does.

Convincing words here. That's why I go 16-35 on the 5D3. Have the 10-22 with my old 30D and that was a very fine lens as the crop equivalent to it. Although it is not that fast.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

If Canon publish a patent, how much time does it take till anouncement? Generally speaking...Not my lens at the moment...Instead of hunting the "phantom" I will go 16-35 

Canon does not publish patents.  They submit a application to the patent office, and the patent office approves and publishes it about 2 years later.  As often as not, a lens is released before the patent is published.  About 1 in 500 patents or less results is a new product release.

[pedro]

If Canon publish a patent, how much time does it take till anouncement? Generally speaking...Not my lens at the moment...Instead of hunting the "phantom" I will go 16-35 

Canon does not publish patents.  They submit a application to the patent office, and the patent office approves and publishes it about 2 years later.  As often as not, a lens is released before the patent is published.  About 1 in 500 patents or less results is a new product release.

Thank you for your explanation. So, no one knows what will happen. They're always good for a surprise.

[Harry68]

I've tested the Canon 8-15F4 and the Canon 17-40F4. At the first one I always used the long end and with the second one I used the short end most of the time.

For me it is now clear that I need an objective starting with 14mm and ends at 24mm or 28mm. Less than 14mm is cutting the edges at full frame. For more than 24mm I can use my 24-70.

So I hope a 14-24 or 12-24 will come soon to the dealers.

[charlesa]

It is a fabled lens on the Nikon side, but it has one big problem in my case... it is an absolute horror to find grads or ND filters without an appropriate holder specifically for this lens only.... no guarantee Canon can emulate the quality of the Nikon lens either.

[rs]

I've tested the Canon 8-15F4 and the Canon 17-40F4. At the first one I always used the long end and with the second one I used the short end most of the time.

For me it is now clear that I need an objective starting with 14mm and ends at 24mm or 28mm. Less than 14mm is cutting the edges at full frame. For more than 24mm I can use my 24-70.

So I hope a 14-24 or 12-24 will come soon to the dealers.

14mm on a fisheye is much wider than 14mm on a rectilinear lens:

14mm Rectilinear:


14mm Fisheye:


12mm rectilinear lenses do exist, as in the Sigma 12-24 - and this doesn't have cut the edges on full frame. However, the optical quality isn't up there with the Nikon 14-24:
http://www.lenstip.com/326.11-Lens_review-Sigma_12-24_mm_f_4.5-5.6_II_DG_HSM_Summary.html