If they released this, it would be the ultimate landscape zoom assuming the optics are good...
A perfect fit between the more effect-driven 8-15mm f/4 fisheye and the event-oriented 16-35mm f/2.8...
Hope this one comes out! Given Canon's current lineup, it makes more sense than a 14-24 f/2.8.
Why does everyone assume a wide angle is perfect for landscape?
FWIW, I've watched professionals use the 16-35 when shooting models...
Because land is bigger than models...........
11mm might be a bit wide for most fashion work..
24~28mm works great..
If you like landscape portraiture then ---how ya gonna do that without a landscape lens? I love my 24mm, but, there are times wen you want wider than that.
"A perfect fit between the more effect-driven 8-15mm f/4 fisheye and the event-oriented 16-35mm f/2.8..."
what about the 14mmm prime? Wider than the 16-35, less distortion, better IQ than the 8-15mm...it's a lens on my list to check out for sure!!!!
I find it very amusing to hear that the 14mm has less distortion...on a wide lens there is no such thing. A fish eye has no distortion...if you shoot a circulr object to the edge of the frame....it stays circular, but straight lines become curved. With a rectilinear corrected wide lens, stright lines remain straight but circles to the edge of the frame become distorted and heavily egg shaped....so no good for portraits or group shots.
Various wide lenses correct straight lines to various degrees. But there is always distortion present depending on the subject's shape and where it is in the frame.
The 16-35IIL walks an interesting path half way between fully corrected rectilinear and uncorrected (fish eye type of distortion). This allows a medium degree of correction, which can be pushed further in Post Production very easily. A fully corrected recilinear lens is quite rare and not particularly versatile...a 14mm and Sigma 12-24mm comes to mind. They pretty much become architecture and landscape lenses and not great outside of those genres. Where as a 16-35IIL is far more versatile and less extream correction. At the other end of the scale is a 8-15mm L fish eye zoom which is completely uncorrected and not very versatile either.
I don't see that a 12-24 /11-24 / 14L / 14-24mm lens as a replacement to a 16-35IIL. No it compliments but doesn't replace. I have never found a single ultra wide lens which "does it all". I currently have four and I can't see that this will ever change. Sigma 12-24mm, TS-e 17L, 16-35IIL and 8-15L fisheye. Guess which one gets used the most and offeres me the best display of portfolio grade photographs?
If this new Canon does get released....I'll be swapping out my Sigma for it, but keeping the other three lenses.
If I look at my lens arsenal, I have a lot of lenses which cover the 24-35mm range. Not all lenses perform the same with the same look for their focal lengths