Will it be a EF 14-24 2,8 L is from Canon

[AprilForever]

Why does the 16-35 get so dogged on? I've oft been intrigued by it, but, as I use a 7D, I'm a little hesitant about the resultant focal length.

Therefore, I covet the Tokina 11-16. Any comparisons between the two?

(Moreover, for those who hate the 16-35, just mail that miserable lens to me! I will be glad to help alleviate your suffering!  )

[shoutout33]

I would love Canon to match Nikon with a 14-24 2.8, but would it be possible to design one, that can use normal filters? There's a company that has created a filter for Nikon's 14-24, but it's bulky and not very practicle to me. It's not like you can leave it on to put it back in your back or if you have a double strap set up to have it hanging by your side at a wedding or event. Yes, I know that it has a big buldge and that's why you can't use normal filters, but it'd be really cool if Canon found a way around this though.

[Tastino0]

Is there any news on this lens?

[J. McCabe]

Is there any news on this lens?

Canon is having problems delivering it's super teles, has a cine lenses line to develop, probably has a couple of other lenses in queue (e.g. TS-45mm & 90mm mk2), and it would compete with recently released ultra-wides lenses (24mm mk II in '08, 16-35mm mk II & 14mm mk II in '07, and a bit further - 10-22mm in '04 & 17-40mm in '03).

So my guess is Canon wouldn't be releasing an ultra-wide zoom in the near future.

[wickidwombat]

Why does the 16-35 get so dogged on? I've oft been intrigued by it, but, as I use a 7D, I'm a little hesitant about the resultant focal length.

Therefore, I covet the Tokina 11-16. Any comparisons between the two?

(Moreover, for those who hate the 16-35, just mail that miserable lens to me! I will be glad to help alleviate your suffering!  )

I absolutely love my 16-35 on a crop it is an awesome walk around lens well i havent used it on a 1.6 crop yet but on a 1.3 crop its effectively 20mm to 48mm then I have the 70-200 on the FF and got everything covered
so on a 7d it would be like 26mm to 56mm still a decent walk around and the sharpness will blow you away

[Viggo]

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.

http://minus.com/mwi8ith2f

Seriously, have you looked through 14 and 24 on a FF camera? the difference is HUGE!! I miss the extra 3mm from my 14 L II when I got the TS 17, but the IQ and endless possibilities with the TS makes me forget lightning AF, small and light, f2,8, weathersealing and all other things that are better with the 14. Because the 17 is the best UWA Canon has ever made, and Nikon (and everyone else) have nothing to challenge it with...

And if you want 2,8 to isloate an item with UWA, yo neeeed to check out what the TS 17 can do at f4.

[Jettatore]

TS-E 17 would probably be awesome to have, dunno, I've never used one but I've heard the IQ of the TS-E lenses are other-worldly.  Although I'm quite content to do tilt-shift effects in post while keeping auto-focus, I understand why they are essential to certain professions.  And yes I have seen the difference between 14mm and 16mm on full-frame, it's reasonable.  14-24 would be a decent bit bigger than the difference between a hypothetical 16-24 range and no where near the difference between 16 through 35.  If 14-24 works for you, I have no argument to that and if you told me it was for full-time interior architectural shots it would make more sense then if you told me you were a photo-journalist.  All of these lenses (even some of the better EF-S lenses) take amazing pictures, and with that, the most important thing is to find the right combination of lenses to suit your use.  Personally, I would take a 16-35 over a 14-24 for zooms, because at that point, I'd just assume switch to primes and walk around with a 14mm Prime and a 35mm Prime and use my feet for everything in between while enjoying the full 2 stops benefits of f/1.4 over f/2.8 when the wider angle isn't needed.  14-24 isn't useful enough to justify losing the 2 stops for me, but the near three primes in one lens range of the 16-35 is worth that trade for me.

[Jettatore]

Actually Viggo, if you have some moments to share I have a favor to ask.  Could you take a series of shots from the TS-E 17mm and post them as high-resolution files.  One straight on without any tilt or shift effect, and then one or two more, slightly recomposed with tilt and or shift to show off it's two main effects.  But without moving your feet too much or anything too crazy to make first challenge try on this impossible.  Because I want to try to take the original, and aside from the inevitable cropping, re-create the perspective and focal plane shifts as best as possible.  I've never had actual controlled samples from a TS-E to compare to and try to match but it will make a fun challenge.  Would be very much appreciated, Thanks.