October 20, 2014, 05:35:46 PM

Author Topic: Will it be a EF 14-24 2,8 L is from Canon  (Read 14646 times)

EYEONE

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
    • View Profile
Re: Will it be a EF 14-24 2,8 L is from Canon
« Reply #30 on: November 01, 2011, 11:58:02 AM »
Quote
To me a 12-24 f/4 with better sharpness would have much more appeal than an 14-24 2.8.

Agreed. There are many Nikon 14-24s for sale and almost invariably the seller says - too heavy, too big, no filters ...

You'll always find people that don't like a certain lens. I for one have been waiting for Canon to finally release a 14-24 f2.8 for a long time.

That might be an interesting poll - how much does size/weight factor into buying decisions [assuming cost doesn't figure into it, e.g. the 2.8 lens is pricier than the 4]? I've read many people say they are put off by the size/weight of this or that lens - like your 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. Obviously not a problem for you, but for others?

That's true, it would be interesting. And you're right I don't mind the weight, I actually prefer it in some cases. I've gone in shoots with my 7D gripped, 70-200 f2.8 and 430EX for hours, no sweat. It would be a problem if I had to hold it the entire time but I have a BlackRapid so I can essentially put the camera down and rest.

And regarding the 14-24: If Canon made it a f4 lens I would be less interested and probably just go with the 16-35mm F2.8 II. It is a lot more attractive at f2.8 regardless of the weight.

I love the 10-22mm. Fantastic lens. But I feel like it is too light. It felt like it might break and I didn't have a lot of confidence in its constructions.
Canon 5D Mark III w/BG-E11, Canon 7D w/BG-E7: EF 24-70mm f.2.8L, EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS II, EF 40mm f2.8 Pancake STM, Speedlite 430EXII + 430EXI, Canon EOS 3

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Will it be a EF 14-24 2,8 L is from Canon
« Reply #30 on: November 01, 2011, 11:58:02 AM »

iaind

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Will it be a EF 14-24 2,8 L is from Canon
« Reply #31 on: November 01, 2011, 04:07:02 PM »
Could well come a year or two down the line but will probably be non IS
5DIII + BGE11 / 5DII + BGE6 / 40D + BGE2N /8-15 4L / 17-35 2.8L / 24 3.5L TS-E /24-70 2.8II L / 24-105 4L IS /Zuiko 50 1.4/ 100 2.8L Macro IS / 70-200 2.8L /180 3.5L/ 300 4L / 100-400L

moreorless

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 664
    • View Profile
Re: Will it be a EF 14-24 2,8 L is from Canon
« Reply #32 on: November 02, 2011, 02:36:40 AM »
UWA's do seem more likely to run into weight problems to me if only because they tend to be used more for landscapes with the possibility of lenghty difficult walks.

I would ask aswell what exactually do people use 2.8 on an UWA for? isolating the subject doesnt really seem like something best suited to UWA and while DOF maybe deeper your also going to have alot of close foreground. Personally I find even with the extra DOF I tend to stop down more with UWA zooms than I do with normal zooms for that reason.

You look at the rest of Canon's range and I think what stands out over Nikon is that they offer quality f/4 zooms like the 24-105 and 70-200's.

John Thomas

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
Re: Will it be a EF 14-24 2,8 L is from Canon
« Reply #33 on: November 02, 2011, 12:55:38 PM »

I would ask aswell what exactually do people use 2.8 on an UWA for? isolating the subject doesnt really seem like something best suited to UWA and while DOF maybe deeper your also going to have alot of close foreground. Personally I find even with the extra DOF I tend to stop down more with UWA zooms than I do with normal zooms for that reason.


Special effects in interiors and architectural details in almost complete dark / night.

See here:

http://vatopaidi.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/spod33/

Imho, I think that is worth the effort.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14708
    • View Profile
Re: Will it be a EF 14-24 2,8 L is from Canon
« Reply #34 on: November 02, 2011, 01:26:35 PM »
I would ask aswell what exactually do people use 2.8 on an UWA for? isolating the subject doesnt really seem like something best suited to UWA and while DOF maybe deeper your also going to have alot of close foreground. Personally I find even with the extra DOF I tend to stop down more with UWA zooms than I do with normal zooms for that reason.

This:


EOS 5D Mark II, EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM @ 27mm, 1/25 s, f/2.8, ISO 3200
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

EYEONE

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
    • View Profile
Re: Will it be a EF 14-24 2,8 L is from Canon
« Reply #35 on: November 02, 2011, 01:44:00 PM »

I would ask aswell what exactually do people use 2.8 on an UWA for? isolating the subject doesnt really seem like something best suited to UWA and while DOF maybe deeper your also going to have alot of close foreground. Personally I find even with the extra DOF I tend to stop down more with UWA zooms than I do with normal zooms for that reason.


Special effects in interiors and architectural details in almost complete dark / night.

See here:

http://vatopaidi.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/spod33/

Imho, I think that is worth the effort.

Exactly. For UWA the f2.8 is important for the light, I'm less concerned about subject isolation.
Canon 5D Mark III w/BG-E11, Canon 7D w/BG-E7: EF 24-70mm f.2.8L, EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS II, EF 40mm f2.8 Pancake STM, Speedlite 430EXII + 430EXI, Canon EOS 3

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14708
    • View Profile
Re: Will it be a EF 14-24 2,8 L is from Canon
« Reply #36 on: November 02, 2011, 01:55:15 PM »
Exactly. For UWA the f2.8 is important for the light, I'm less concerned about subject isolation.

At 16mm f/2.8 on FF, with the focus distance set to 10 feet, everything from 5 feet to infinity is in focus.  Thus, f/2.8 delivers the ability to shoot handheld in very low light.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Will it be a EF 14-24 2,8 L is from Canon
« Reply #36 on: November 02, 2011, 01:55:15 PM »

Kris_P

  • Guest
Re: Will it be a EF 14-24 2,8 L is from Canon
« Reply #37 on: November 02, 2011, 02:11:00 PM »
Hey everyone, speaking of ultra wide angle, has anyone used the Samyan 14mm f2.8? It looks really nice, cheap, wide, and fast. Is there a catch? I'm a prime lens kind of hero, so I don't mind manual focus, aperature, or foot zoom. Thanks

AprilForever

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 730
    • View Profile
    • AprilForever.com
Re: Will it be a EF 14-24 2,8 L is from Canon
« Reply #38 on: November 02, 2011, 02:32:50 PM »
Any chance Canon might make a 7-14  ef-s?  ;D
What is truth?

Jettatore

  • Guest
Re: Will it be a EF 14-24 2,8 L is from Canon
« Reply #39 on: November 03, 2011, 03:29:39 AM »
I'm not sure 14-24 zoom makes too good of sense for Canon.  For Nikon, the 14-24 is effectively the replacement for the 14mm prime, and has been said to be of superior image quality to the wide 14mm Nikon Prime.  The Canon 14mm prime on the other hand is said to superior to all the aforementioned lenses, including the 16-35 L II, (all third hand information from scouring various reviews, mostly Ken Rockwell).  Also the zoom range from 14-24 seem a bit awkward.

Think of what you do with zooms, for me it's to have a bunch of lenses on hand without having to carry/swap them all, and also to be able to get an action shot while it's happening that you would otherwise have missed if you had to move or switch lenses.  14-24 really doesn't seem to fit into that, so what it's utility is, is just going from ultra wide to wide in one lens.  I guess that's mildly useful if the 14mm distortion is just too much for your shot, but on the 16 to 35, you go from near ultra-wide, to wide, to near standard and can be used as a walk-around/photo journalism lens.  If you stick the 35mm end into your subjects face, you don't get perspective distortion, so it's a nice option to switch to compositionally for many shots, vs. 16mm.  24 on the other hand just doesn't seem to useful because up close, you still get some distortion but it's not exaggerated, and I use my 16-36 normally on the 16 or the 35mm end and 24 is still there if it would prove useful for some situation.

Also, most of the reviews that talk about these various wide-angle lenses, nit-pick minute details to such a major degree, that I barely think it means too much, especially if your handy in post with your digital editing tools.  I normally go to here http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406 and just see what people are doing with the actual lenses, taking a large sample of the best pictures offered, and usually what I conclude is, that good photographers take the best pictures, not lenses, as the IQ of most all the L lenses are just phenomenal even for poorly composed/poorly lit/boring shots, and all the hype is just pixel peeping.  Pick out the lens for what you want to do with it, not for the minute results someone might criticize or praise it for under an electron microscope.  And get really good at digital editing for the small stuff when it really does count.

Personally, if it wouldn't degrade IQ, the only thing I could wish for would be perhaps IS, but I fear that would probably bring the lens into the f/4 category and I don't usually like that trade-off.

p.s. IQ on the 16 - 35 is fantastic, and any minor gripe I've heard of in reviews can be easy removed by a competent digital developer in post, if it's even effecting the image before print to begin with, and I don't find that to be the case from my use.  I took this shot with the 16-35 on a 7D at ISO 800 out of the window of my car while stopped in traffic, works for me.

http://minus.com/mwi8ith2f
« Last Edit: November 03, 2011, 03:31:33 AM by Jettatore »

wockawocka

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
    • View Profile
    • Wedding Photography
Re: Will it be a EF 14-24 2,8 L is from Canon
« Reply #40 on: November 03, 2011, 04:45:10 AM »
Exactly. For UWA the f2.8 is important for the light, I'm less concerned about subject isolation.

At 16mm f/2.8 on FF, with the focus distance set to 10 feet, everything from 5 feet to infinity is in focus.  Thus, f/2.8 delivers the ability to shoot handheld in very low light.

Neuro, how does that work? Not dubting you but I was out back shooting the stars in the sky with mine and was setting the focus to infinity. Should I be setting it to 10ft instead?
1DX, 5D3 and Hasselblad H Series owner.

moreorless

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 664
    • View Profile
Re: Will it be a EF 14-24 2,8 L is from Canon
« Reply #41 on: November 03, 2011, 05:27:58 AM »
I wouldnt say that 2.8 has no use in UWA just that its use seems much diminished to me compaired to a normal or tele zoom. Tha Muesum shot for example while useful to be able to take on the fly would IMHO have been better with a tripod and a long exposure.

As Jettatore says the relatively recently released 14mm 2.8 is there aswell and I could see Canon taking the view that those who really need the large appature will pay for it with that and the 16-35mm.

A smaller, cheaper(£800-900ish?) and wider 12-24 f/4 zoom just seems like it would have a much larger appeal without making anything in the current linup obsolete.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14708
    • View Profile
Re: Will it be a EF 14-24 2,8 L is from Canon
« Reply #42 on: November 03, 2011, 06:19:15 AM »
Neuro, how does that work? Not dubting you but I was out back shooting the stars in the sky with mine and was setting the focus to infinity. Should I be setting it to 10ft instead?

For 16mm f/2.8 on FF, 10 ft is the hyperfocal distance, i.e. the focus distance which gives the maximum DoF (it's 15.7 ft for APS-C).  So, when focused at 10 ft, the DoF extends from 5 ft to infinity, while when focused at infinity, the DoF extends from 10 ft to infinity.  For your star shots, infinity is just fine.  Many DoF calculators, such as DoFMaster, show the hyperfocal distance.

I wouldnt say that 2.8 has no use in UWA just that its use seems much diminished to me compaired to a normal or tele zoom. Tha Muesum shot for example while useful to be able to take on the fly would IMHO have been better with a tripod and a long exposure.

Agreed.  With a normal or tele zoom lens, f/2.8 is useful both for the additional light (compared to other zooms), and for the additional OOF blur for subject isolation.  With a UWA zoom, f/2.8 is really only useful for the additional light.  You're right about the museum shot, and if I'd had my tripod along for the walk, I'd have used it (and an ISO lower than 3200!).  But also for indoor shots with people, the extra stop compared to f/4 helps for subject motion, a problem that a tripod and a long exposure would not solve.   One other minor point is that all lenses benefit in IQ to some degree by stopping down, and the 'sweet spot' isn't usually a fixed aperture, but rather a given number of stops down from wide open.  So, a wider starting point means more light and possibly less diffraction effect when you hit the sweet spot.  For example, the 16-35/2.8 II hits its sweet spot at f/4-f/5.6, while the 17-40/4 hits its sweet spot (such as it is) at f/5.6-f/8 (and f/8 on 18 MP APS-C is pushing into diffraction territory.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Will it be a EF 14-24 2,8 L is from Canon
« Reply #42 on: November 03, 2011, 06:19:15 AM »

John Thomas

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
Re: Will it be a EF 14-24 2,8 L is from Canon
« Reply #43 on: November 03, 2011, 06:28:24 AM »
Hey everyone, speaking of ultra wide angle, has anyone used the Samyan 14mm f2.8? It looks really nice, cheap, wide, and fast. Is there a catch? I'm a prime lens kind of hero, so I don't mind manual focus, aperature, or foot zoom. Thanks

Yes, there's a catch, as you guessed. The lens is fully manual. I mean no AF and no focus confirmation by the camera. Perhaps, you know that some lenses even if you must manually focus, have a comunication with the camera which beeps when the chosen focus point is in focus.

If you think that you can focus manually at f/2.8 and, perhaps more difficult, depending on your situation, to "convince" your subjects to stay till you focus, then perhaps you can consider it.

Another thing is that you'll find a whopping 5.3% barrel distortion with a mustache-style sub-frequency which for architecture is a no-go. Ok, for landscape it would be (more or less) ok. Another problem is vignetting which is present in a noticeable amount.

OTOH, it seems that it has stunning resolution and the CAs are very well controlled.

HTH

moreorless

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 664
    • View Profile
Re: Will it be a EF 14-24 2,8 L is from Canon
« Reply #44 on: November 04, 2011, 07:17:56 AM »
Agreed.  With a normal or tele zoom lens, f/2.8 is useful both for the additional light (compared to other zooms), and for the additional OOF blur for subject isolation.  With a UWA zoom, f/2.8 is really only useful for the additional light.  You're right about the museum shot, and if I'd had my tripod along for the walk, I'd have used it (and an ISO lower than 3200!).  But also for indoor shots with people, the extra stop compared to f/4 helps for subject motion, a problem that a tripod and a long exposure would not solve.   One other minor point is that all lenses benefit in IQ to some degree by stopping down, and the 'sweet spot' isn't usually a fixed aperture, but rather a given number of stops down from wide open.  So, a wider starting point means more light and possibly less diffraction effect when you hit the sweet spot.  For example, the 16-35/2.8 II hits its sweet spot at f/4-f/5.6, while the 17-40/4 hits its sweet spot (such as it is) at f/5.6-f/8 (and f/8 on 18 MP APS-C is pushing into diffraction territory.

The bulb UWA's don't seem to need to be stopped down as much as the regular ones though so I wouldnt say its pushing it to beleive Canon could produce good results wide open at F/4.

As I said the market as it stands just seems better suited to the 12-24 f/4 to me. f/2.8 is already catered for by two relatively recent lenses where as f/4 is only catered to by the cheaper and not as wide 17-40 which overlaps alot with the 24-105.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Will it be a EF 14-24 2,8 L is from Canon
« Reply #44 on: November 04, 2011, 07:17:56 AM »