October 30, 2014, 01:33:55 PM

Author Topic: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]  (Read 43838 times)

M.ST

  • Guest
Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #60 on: June 20, 2013, 02:52:47 AM »
I can confirm that a EF 16-50 f/4 prototype exist.

The EF 14-24 f/2.8 is tested over a long time.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #60 on: June 20, 2013, 02:52:47 AM »

Etienne

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 663
    • View Profile
    • Photography by Steve Brule
Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #61 on: June 20, 2013, 02:56:54 AM »
I guess I'm the odd guy out here, because I don't get the interest in 16-50 at f/4 over 16-35 f/2.8 even with the IS.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE image stabilization, and I like it on the new 28 2.8 IS. But f/4 does nothing for me, especially in the longer focal length; f/2.8 give me a lot of extra light when I need it.

The 14-24 could be interesting if it doesn't flare like the 4th of July as it does in Nikon-land. Otherwise I am only interested in replacing my 16-35 2.8 II ...  IF version III is significantly better, and the upgrade doesn't kill my bank account.

messus

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #62 on: June 20, 2013, 03:31:20 AM »
Thoughts:

16-50 F/4 IS is an intriguing concept.  A good percentage of us prefer a wider walkaround than 24-70.  I certainly use the 24-50 side of my 24-70 more than the 50-70.  I hope this one gets the smaller/lighter L treatment that we just saw with the currently demonized (but still an interesting design) 24-70 F/4 IS.

The 14-24 has massive shoes to fill.  I am not starting a dynamic range / low ISO / Nikon D800 conversation, but landscape work has been one of the perceived chinks in the armor of Canon's armamentarium.   Something that punches its weight against Nikon's seemingly legendary 14-24, possibly coupled with a high MP sensor, would be two huge steps towards correcting that perception.

For those not visible to the performance of Nikon's homerun hitter, it pulls in resolution figures right up there with the Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS II.  Landscape filter companies make products specifically to work around this lens' huge front element.  Canon guys use adapters to mount this on their bodies.  It's that amazing, apparently. 

I still don't understand why we don't have a breathtakingly sharp autofocusing prime for landscape work.  I am drowning in a sea of ultrawide zooms (soft in corners), arty huge aperture L lenses (ditto), tilt-shift (no AF), and Zeiss glass (no AF).  I appreciate landscapes ==> tripods ==> liveview ==> no need for AF, but some folks just want to snap a picture of a coastline or a mountain range without all that fanfare.  I'd pay $1-2K for a breathtakingly sharp autofocusing 24mm L that didn't shoot itself in the foot (i.e. corners) to offer side a wide aperture.  Negative points if you tell me to just buy the 24-70 II.   :P

- A

Totally agree!

Canon need to produce an optically competitive UWA to battle the Nikon 14-24!
I sold the 16-35 2.8 L II due to corner softness, CA, coma.. It is basically useless for low lit landscape work.
I have the 24 II 1.4, which should also be replaced soon! Corners are ridiculously bad!! The coma is the worst I have ever seen in a lens! You don't buy a 24 1.4 lens to stop it down, you buy to be able to use it wide open! Due to the bad corner performance of this lens it is also almost useless wide open.

The 24.70 II is very good! But we need a UWA lens which can compete with the Nikon 14-24!

BTW! The EF 14 L 2.8 II is also BAD in the corners, suffering from coma and CA, and needs to be replaced. As well as the 35mm 1.4, the 50mm 1.2./1.4/1.8. But it is ridiculous that those of us that actually spent 7 grand on a 1DX, and 3 grand on a 5D3, do not have a really sharp and good Canon UWA lens to use on those bodies! It is actually disrespectful to Canon FF customers!! So more important with new UWA 2.8 and 24 1.4, than 35 and 50mm.

I am using the Nikon 14-24 with adapter, and the Samyang 14. Waiting for the Canon 14-24, I will happily pay 2K for it, but I suspect it will cost 3K.

I hope the EF 14-24 2.8 L is at least equally good as the Nikon 14-24, if not, it may hurt Canon really really bad!! I think Canon is aware of this, and this may be the reason why it takes so long before this lens is announced! This lens NEEDS to be PERFECT !!

If Canon is incapable of matching the Nikon 14-24, it may be wise to just skip this lens. The negativity that will arise among Canon FF customers, if the Canon EF 14-24 is not equally good (hopefully better) as the Nikon 14-24, will be out of proportions!
« Last Edit: June 20, 2013, 03:42:02 AM by messus »

GMCPhotographics

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 728
    • View Profile
    • GMCPhotographics
Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #63 on: June 20, 2013, 03:39:28 AM »
I guess I'm the odd guy out here, because I don't get the interest in 16-50 at f/4 over 16-35 f/2.8 even with the IS.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE image stabilization, and I like it on the new 28 2.8 IS. But f/4 does nothing for me, especially in the longer focal length; f/2.8 give me a lot of extra light when I need it.

The 14-24 could be interesting if it doesn't flare like the 4th of July as it does in Nikon-land. Otherwise I am only interested in replacing my 16-35 2.8 II ...  IF version III is significantly better, and the upgrade doesn't kill my bank account.

I'm with you there! The problem with the Nikkor 14-24mm lens is that there is a very vocal group who keep telling every one that it's the best wide lens ever....and yet filters are a pain. The curved front element is very prone to damage and even water drops seem to get magnified on it. Sure it's image corners are sharp wide open, but it's not a lot greater than mose wides when stopped down (ie landscapes). It flares badly due to the bulbous front element and the angular distortion is quite high at 14mm. I don't really see much photographic value of those extra 2mm over the far more versatile 16-35IIL.

The 16-35IIL is a little dated as a design. Newer coatings would be good and less CA. Sharpness, well it's OK but I'm sure Canon can coax a little more line resolution out of a re-design. The thing I love about the 16-35IIL is that it is so versatile. It does so much so well. If I need a wide lens I can rely on...its a 16-35IIL.

I had a 17-40L for a few years. It was very nice and almost the equal to the 16-35IIL optically, except the f4 and focal range. I really liked this lens but I needed the extra stop. I used to have an ef-s 10-22mm, which again was very simular. Not as bright but again very simular to the 16-35IIL. I'm sure the extra focal range will be welcome by many although not the revised entry price I'm guessing! I don't really see the need for an image stabiliser on a wide lens. Although a lot of people will be using this lens on a 1.6x crop...so I guess it makes a bridge lens for 1.6x to full frame migrators. on a 1.6x crop it's an effective 25-80mm, quite a nice range.

Given that all of Canon's recent lens releases have been steller (I think everything AFTER the 50mm f1.2L have been amazing optically), I'm sure these two new lenses will be remarkable.

vlim

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 263
    • View Profile
Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #64 on: June 20, 2013, 04:11:33 AM »
Quote
I suspect it would be priced similar to the 24-70 f4 IS

For sure the price won't be under 1K $/€


Etienne

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 663
    • View Profile
    • Photography by Steve Brule
Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #65 on: June 20, 2013, 04:26:24 AM »
I guess I'm the odd guy out here, because I don't get the interest in 16-50 at f/4 over 16-35 f/2.8 even with the IS.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE image stabilization, and I like it on the new 28 2.8 IS. But f/4 does nothing for me, especially in the longer focal length; f/2.8 give me a lot of extra light when I need it.

The 14-24 could be interesting if it doesn't flare like the 4th of July as it does in Nikon-land. Otherwise I am only interested in replacing my 16-35 2.8 II ...  IF version III is significantly better, and the upgrade doesn't kill my bank account.

I'm with you there! The problem with the Nikkor 14-24mm lens is that there is a very vocal group who keep telling every one that it's the best wide lens ever....and yet filters are a pain. The curved front element is very prone to damage and even water drops seem to get magnified on it. Sure it's image corners are sharp wide open, but it's not a lot greater than mose wides when stopped down (ie landscapes). It flares badly due to the bulbous front element and the angular distortion is quite high at 14mm. I don't really see much photographic value of those extra 2mm over the far more versatile 16-35IIL.

The 16-35IIL is a little dated as a design. Newer coatings would be good and less CA. Sharpness, well it's OK but I'm sure Canon can coax a little more line resolution out of a re-design. The thing I love about the 16-35IIL is that it is so versatile. It does so much so well. If I need a wide lens I can rely on...its a 16-35IIL.

I had a 17-40L for a few years. It was very nice and almost the equal to the 16-35IIL optically, except the f4 and focal range. I really liked this lens but I needed the extra stop. I used to have an ef-s 10-22mm, which again was very simular. Not as bright but again very simular to the 16-35IIL. I'm sure the extra focal range will be welcome by many although not the revised entry price I'm guessing! I don't really see the need for an image stabiliser on a wide lens. Although a lot of people will be using this lens on a 1.6x crop...so I guess it makes a bridge lens for 1.6x to full frame migrators. on a 1.6x crop it's an effective 25-80mm, quite a nice range.

Given that all of Canon's recent lens releases have been steller (I think everything AFTER the 50mm f1.2L have been amazing optically), I'm sure these two new lenses will be remarkable.

+1

Agreed ... the 16-35 II is extremely versatile. It's very resistant to flare and possibly the only UW zoom that can get a decent shot even with the sun in the frame.

Of course I wish it was better in some areas. I wish that with every one of my lenses. But at the end of the day, it's the best, and most versatile, UW zoom available for Canon FF today, including the Nikon 14-24 with adapter.

Still, I hope they release a new, sharper, smaller, lighter version III with even better contrast and lower CA's.

tron

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1875
    • View Profile
Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #66 on: June 20, 2013, 04:41:19 AM »
Once the 14-24 comes out, many of those who had converted to Nikon might convert back without second thought.
;D  ;D  ;D

canon rumors FORUM

Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #66 on: June 20, 2013, 04:41:19 AM »

tron

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1875
    • View Profile
Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #67 on: June 20, 2013, 04:42:28 AM »
Just give me an ultra sharp 16-35mm f/2.8L III please...

Sith Zombie

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
    • Lightroom Images
Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #68 on: June 20, 2013, 04:56:43 AM »
I can confirm that a EF 16-50 f/4 prototype exist.

Cool!  :) any news on performance or a rough price?

Destin

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #69 on: June 20, 2013, 04:57:19 AM »
What I have always wondered is why the manufacturers do not make the UWA lenses with drop in rear glass filters?  ??? ??? The telephotos have it because nobody's going to make a 200mm CPL, so why can't we have it on wide angles - nobody's going to be making curved CPL filters... I'm sure if they make UWAs with rear drop ins it'll sell like hotcakes! That and Canon can sell their own proprietary filters for it as well, so it's a win win for everyone imo. *Wink wink Canon!*   ;) :D ;D

17-40mm has a drop in filter. It's a standard 77mm thread though. Work that one out.

messus

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #70 on: June 20, 2013, 05:44:17 AM »

I'm with you there! The problem with the Nikkor 14-24mm lens is that there is a very vocal group who keep telling every one that it's the best wide lens ever....and yet filters are a pain. The curved front element is very prone to damage and even water drops seem to get magnified on it. Sure it's image corners are sharp wide open, but it's not a lot greater than mose wides when stopped down (ie landscapes). It flares badly due to the bulbous front element and the angular distortion is quite high at 14mm. I don't really see much photographic value of those extra 2mm over the far more versatile 16-35IIL.

The 16-35IIL is a little dated as a design. Newer coatings would be good and less CA. Sharpness, well it's OK but I'm sure Canon can coax a little more line resolution out of a re-design. The thing I love about the 16-35IIL is that it is so versatile. It does so much so well. If I need a wide lens I can rely on...its a 16-35IIL.

I had a 17-40L for a few years. It was very nice and almost the equal to the 16-35IIL optically, except the f4 and focal range. I really liked this lens but I needed the extra stop. I used to have an ef-s 10-22mm, which again was very simular. Not as bright but again very simular to the 16-35IIL. I'm sure the extra focal range will be welcome by many although not the revised entry price I'm guessing! I don't really see the need for an image stabiliser on a wide lens. Although a lot of people will be using this lens on a 1.6x crop...so I guess it makes a bridge lens for 1.6x to full frame migrators. on a 1.6x crop it's an effective 25-80mm, quite a nice range.

Given that all of Canon's recent lens releases have been steller (I think everything AFTER the 50mm f1.2L have been amazing optically), I'm sure these two new lenses will be remarkable.

I am sorry to disappoint you, but as a Canon user I must admit that yes the Nikon 14-24 is THE best ultra wide zoom, EVER!

It is not perfect, and yes it is prone to flares. But in most situations I can live with the flare, or the flare is not present.

I would take the flares, and the lack of shitty filters, on any given day, as long as the lens is optically superior you will find ways to work with all the other "flaws" !

If Canon is smart, they will allow for gelatin filters at the backend, like the 17-40. But hey, filters are so nostalgic, do multiple exposures and blend in post!!

Yes the 16-35 II is versatile, but it it does not do justice to my 7 grand 1DX or my 3 grand 5D3 !

Even the heavy moustache distortion, and the vignetting on the Samyang 14 is correctable in post!
The mushy corners and the insane CA and coma distortion in the EF 16-35 II (and the EF 14  2.8 L II), is impossible to correct in post!

But I would take both a 14-24 2.8 L and  a new versatile improved 16-35 2.8 III !

Just BRING EM on this time! And don't let us wait in vain (and pain)!!
« Last Edit: June 20, 2013, 05:47:19 AM by messus »

pedro

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 785
    • View Profile
Re: New Wide Angle Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #71 on: June 20, 2013, 06:04:33 AM »
I'm for one that would welcome the 14-24mm 2.8!
If there was a lens Nikon had that Canon didn't have, the 14-24mm is that lens for me!
If I had to guess on a price I'd say your in the ballpark of $2300 based upon what Nikon's
price is for it's own 14-24mm 2.8.

I am shooting a 16-35 II since April. WA is one part. Max Aperture is another. Recently I did testshots at very low light on my terrass: candles, some sidelight from the living room, some moonlight. As a high ISO freak I set them to 51k, and exposed 1/6 sec, wide open on the 5D3. Some NR in DPP: Luminance: 7, Chrominance: 19. With the 50 f/1.4 yesterday I was much better off wide open. So, along with these fast lenses a next step in high ISO IQ would be great. Not necesarily higher ISOs. 102k is "okay" with a 5Dish body, but improved IQ at 51k and above  8) Here's a sample of the 51k shot

Moonlight51kVersion I by Peter Hauri, on Flickr
30D, EF-S 10-22/ 5DIII, 16-35 F/2.8 L USM II, 28 F/2.8, 50 F/1.4, 85 F/1.8, 70-200 F/2.8 classic,
join me at http://www.flickr.com/groups/insane_isos/

ewg963

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
    • View Profile
Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #72 on: June 20, 2013, 06:08:11 AM »
Great please bring on the the 14-24 2.8???!!! I hope that it's as good as the Nikon's version!!!
5D Mark III, 5D Mark II, 24-105mm 70-200mm 2.8 Non IS, 100-400mm 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 580EX II, 600EX-RT

canon rumors FORUM

Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #72 on: June 20, 2013, 06:08:11 AM »

ewg963

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
    • View Profile
Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #73 on: June 20, 2013, 06:11:58 AM »
Thoughts:

16-50 F/4 IS is an intriguing concept.  A good percentage of us prefer a wider walkaround than 24-70.  I certainly use the 24-50 side of my 24-70 more than the 50-70.  I hope this one gets the smaller/lighter L treatment that we just saw with the currently demonized (but still an interesting design) 24-70 F/4 IS.

The 14-24 has massive shoes to fill.  I am not starting a dynamic range / low ISO / Nikon D800 conversation, but landscape work has been one of the perceived chinks in the armor of Canon's armamentarium.   Something that punches its weight against Nikon's seemingly legendary 14-24, possibly coupled with a high MP sensor, would be two huge steps towards correcting that perception.

For those not visible to the performance of Nikon's homerun hitter, it pulls in resolution figures right up there with the Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS II.  Landscape filter companies make products specifically to work around this lens' huge front element.  Canon guys use adapters to mount this on their bodies.  It's that amazing, apparently. 

I still don't understand why we don't have a breathtakingly sharp autofocusing prime for landscape work.  I am drowning in a sea of ultrawide zooms (soft in corners), arty huge aperture L lenses (ditto), tilt-shift (no AF), and Zeiss glass (no AF).  I appreciate landscapes ==> tripods ==> liveview ==> no need for AF, but some folks just want to snap a picture of a coastline or a mountain range without all that fanfare.  I'd pay $1-2K for a breathtakingly sharp autofocusing 24mm L that didn't shoot itself in the foot (i.e. corners) to offer side a wide aperture.  Negative points if you tell me to just buy the 24-70 II.   :P

- A
I'm with you!!! +1000000  :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
5D Mark III, 5D Mark II, 24-105mm 70-200mm 2.8 Non IS, 100-400mm 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 580EX II, 600EX-RT

Jura

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
    • Travel, Conservation, Photography
Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #74 on: June 20, 2013, 06:58:48 AM »
16-50mm is an interesting focal range.  It would only leave a 20mm gap between it and the 70-300L and 70-200L's.  It could conceivably replace my good but not stellar preforming 17-40mm and 24-105mm L's, leaving only a small gap to the 70-300mm L.

Are you me? This was exactly my thought when I read this. I cant afford the 14-24 but the 16-50 has got my attention. Will help plug a gap at the wide end and free up revenue for some nice filters/better tripod/85 f1.8 etc etc....
5DII, Olympus XA, 24-105L, 40, 100L, 70-300L, Pentax 50mm F1.4 SMC Takumar, Kenko DGX 1.4x, 430EX II; on shopping list 16-35 f4, 400 f5.6, 7d2?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« Reply #74 on: June 20, 2013, 06:58:48 AM »