More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]

[ewg963]

Performs as good as Nik 14-24 or better + IS + screw on filter = I'm in

+1 

[nicke]

The same source also says a new 16-35 f/4 wide angle with IS is also on tap and would be quite pricey.

This lens is what I have been waiting for, if it is sharp all over... My guess for a price, if it is rumoured to be pricey is around $1500-2000... 

[ahsanford]

If "quite pricey" is more than ~$1000 then it is too expensive. $1000 is the cost of a 17-40/f4 plus add a bit for IS. If it is getting towards $1300 or more then Canon can shove it where the Sun don't shine.

The 17-40 F/4L, 24-105 F/4L IS, 70-200 F/4L, etc. are in that 'entry level L lens' bucket where you get big upgrades over non-L glass, like better build quality, weather sealing, sharper, quicker focusing, etc. but you don't get best-in-class IQ or the fastest apertures.

For more money, the 16-35 F/2.8L II, 24-70 F/2.8L II, 70-200 F/2.8L IS II, etc. represent the high end of Canon zooms and you generally net better IQ or can pull off more shots (i.e. speed) with those lenses.

So Dilbert, before I set a price limit on it, I think it all depends on what 'bucket' they put a new wide lens in:

• If it's a spiritual successor to the 17-40 f/4L -- possibly Canon's highest selling non-kit L lens -- even with IS the price should be around $1,000-1,200 at first offering.  That lens is a 7 out of 10 lens and should not be priced like top-end pro gear.  Even if they (likely) add IS and (undoubtedly) improve the corners over the current 17-40, an F/4 wide zoom shouldn't command a very high price.
  
  
• If it's a spiritual successor to the 16-35 f/2.8L II, you are talking $2,000-2,500 as that would be a best-in-focal-length offering from Canon, aimed at pros and not enthusiasts.  (Keep in mind, the current II version is still going for something like $1,600-1,700 before rebate.)
  
  
• If it's altogether something new and desired by pros and enthusiasts alike, say a 14-24L f/2.8 -- look out.  They could ask for the earth, moon and stars and people would pay it.  I'd see that lens offered at a very high starting price for the long-time wantees, perhaps $3k, and then walked down over time to where the Nikon offering is ($2k I believe).  And if that 14-24L F/2.8 is either front-filterable or (more likely) compatible with Lee's oversized filter apparatus on day one, some folks would give vital organs for it.  Such a lens would be priceless for some folks.
  
  

- A

[rbr]

The current Canon 14mm f2.8II is already over $2300 and not very sharp in the extreme corners on full frame cameras. A new zoom that is sharper in the corners is definitely not going to be less expensive.  Any sort of 14-24 zoom that matches or surpasses Nikon's is going to be well over $3000 I would expect.

In reality, 14mm is pretty extreme for most people in most circumstances. If Canon could come out with ANY lens (zoom or single focal length) in the 16-18mm range that was razor sharp in the corners when stopped down only a little and took screw on filters, a lot of people would be very happy.

[unfocused]

If "quite pricey" is more than ~$1000 then it is too expensive. $1000 is the cost of a 17-40/f4 plus add a bit for IS. If it is getting towards $1300 or more then Canon can shove it where the Sun don't shine.

The 17-40 F/4L, 24-105 F/4L IS, 70-200 F/4L, etc. are in that 'entry level L lens' bucket where you get big upgrades over non-L glass, like better build quality, weather sealing, sharper, quicker focusing, etc. but you don't get best-in-class IQ or the fastest apertures.

For more money, the 16-35 F/2.8L II, 24-70 F/2.8L II, 70-200 F/2.8L IS II, etc. represent the high end of Canon zooms and you generally net better IQ or can pull off more shots (i.e. speed) with those lenses.

So Dilbert, before I set a price limit on it, I think it all depends on what 'bucket' they put a new wide lens in:

• If it's a spiritual successor to the 17-40 f/4L -- possibly Canon's highest selling non-kit L lens -- even with IS the price should be around $1,000-1,200 at first offering.  That lens is a 7 out of 10 lens and should not be priced like top-end pro gear.  Even if they (likely) add IS and (undoubtedly) improve the corners over the current 17-40, an F/4 wide zoom shouldn't command a very high price.
  
  
• If it's a spiritual successor to the 16-35 f/2.8L II, you are talking $2,000-2,500 as that would be a best-in-focal-length offering from Canon, aimed at pros and not enthusiasts.  (Keep in mind, the current II version is still going for something like $1,600-1,700 before rebate.)
  
  
• If it's altogether something new and desired by pros and enthusiasts alike, say a 14-24L f/2.8 -- look out.  They could ask for the earth, moon and stars and people would pay it.  I'd see that lens offered at a very high starting price for the long-time wantees, perhaps $3k, and then walked down over time to where the Nikon offering is ($2k I believe).  And if that 14-24L F/2.8 is either front-filterable or (more likely) compatible with Lee's oversized filter apparatus on day one, some folks would give vital organs for it.  Such a lens would be priceless for some folks.

- A

As much as it pains me, I have to say I'm probably leaning a bit more to Dilbert's side on this one.

For one thing, neither the categories nor the assessments are quite as clear as ahsanford states.

I don't know where the 24-70 f4 IS would fit into his categories. But, it is selling at $1,200 including rebate, although I don't know whether or not anyone is actually buying that lens.

I don't know why someone would call the 17-40 F4 a "7" out of 10. Virtually every test and review shows it performs every bit as well as the 16-35 f2.8. I suppose you can "score" it slightly lower because it is an f4 lens, but only if one needs f2.8.

I'm always amused at those who make price distinctions between "pros" and "enthusiasts" assuming that pros pay more than enthusiasts, when in reality, it is usually just the opposite. Enthusiasts are more likely to pay top dollar because they have the discretionary dollars to spend. Pros need to worry about mundane things like return on investment.

Finally, I suspect that someone may be spending too much time on internet forums if they really believe there is such a huge pent-up demand for a $3,000 ultra-wide 14-24 f2.8.

[iMagic]

haha. My 14MM II is just fine in the corners from 5.6 onwards. In fact, I prefer it to the Rokinon 14mm which has such stretched corners that I find it unusable. Yes the Canon at 2.8 is soft, but really 5.6 is just peachy keeno. Albeit expensive.............

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

haha. My 14MM II is just fine in the corners from 5.6 onwards. In fact, I prefer it to the Rokinon 14mm which has such stretched corners that I find it unusable. Yes the Canon at 2.8 is soft, but really 5.6 is just peachy keeno. Albeit expensive.............

Bingo.  The Rokinon is actually bit sharper, but the extreme distortion in the corners can kill that (depending on the tilt of the sensor).

P.S.  If the rumor regarding the price of the new 100-400L is true, it had better be VERY, VERY good.  As in twice as good as the 70-300L or 3x as good as the new Tamron 150-600 VC.

[rbr]

haha. My 14MM II is just fine in the corners from 5.6 onwards. In fact, I prefer it to the Rokinon 14mm which has such stretched corners that I find it unusable. Yes the Canon at 2.8 is soft, but really 5.6 is just peachy keeno. Albeit expensive.............

You're lucky. I had one for several years and loved it when I only used 1D APS-H cameras with the outer third cropped out. When I bought my first full-frame camera it was the first lens to go. Every photo taken with it looked like someone smeared vaseline on the corners of the camera's sensor.  I traded it for a Zeiss 18mm,which isn't perfect, but fine at f8 and f11 where I need it most, and better than anything by Canon in that range that I've tried.

[sagittariansrock]

We’re told that there are two wide angle zoom lenses coming from Canon. One we’re told would be an 11-24 f/4, though it wasn’t mentioned whether or not this would be a full frame or APS-C only lens. Though the source did say the lens would be expensive, which leads me to believe it would be full frame compatible. The same source also says a new 16-35 f/4 wide angle with IS is also on tap and would be quite pricey.

If "quite pricey" is more than ~$1000 then it is too expensive. $1000 is the cost of a 17-40/f4 plus add a bit for IS. If it is getting towards $1300 or more then Canon can shove it where the Sun don't shine.

The Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR is $ 1250. I am guessing if the IQ is amazing (the Nikon's is not) then Canon will happily charge lot more than that, and get away with it. I would guess $ 1500 at least, probably as high as $ 1800. Remember, the 24-70 f/4 is still $ 1200 new, and a sharp ultrawide will be much more in demand.

[Canon 14-24]

Performs as good as Nik 14-24 or better + IS + screw on filter = I'm in

Performs as good as Nik 14-24 or better + screw on hood (not like the cheap plastic slide on hood on the nik14-24)= I'm in

Doubt there would be flat front glass for anything wider than 15mm, don't care so much for IS, just give me a good sharp ultra wide in the corners + a not cheaply constructed hood (that falls off on the Nikon) to protect the front protruding glass in my bag/transit (construct it like the 17mm ts-e please).

[thedman]

I would buy two of these three. Which of course means this is a bogus rumor.

[Etienne]

I believe Canon should introduce a 16-35 f/2.8L III, a 16-35 f/4L IS and a 14-24 f/2.8L. Then we would be OK as far as UWA FF zooms are concerned (before asking for an IS version of 16-35 2.8L with IS that is) 

Is that too much to ask ? 

P.S OK feel free to add other variations, price ranges, APS-C UWA zoom ranges, etc... After all it is a rumor site 

yes!


And what would be the speculated prices for:
- 16-35 f/2.8 MKIII = ?
- 16-35 f/4 IS = ?
- 14-24 f/2.8 = ?


Who give up the 16-35 f/2.8 MKII for a 16-35 f/4 IS?

If it's really sharp at f/4, and a little smaller and lighter, I'll probably switch.

[ahsanford]

As much as it pains me, I have to say I'm probably leaning a bit more to Dilbert's side on this one.

For one thing, neither the categories nor the assessments are quite as clear as ahsanford states.

I don't know where the 24-70 f4 IS would fit into his categories. But, it is selling at $1,200 including rebate, although I don't know whether or not anyone is actually buying that lens.

I don't know why someone would call the 17-40 F4 a "7" out of 10. Virtually every test and review shows it performs every bit as well as the 16-35 f2.8. I suppose you can "score" it slightly lower because it is an f4 lens, but only if one needs f2.8.

I'm always amused at those who make price distinctions between "pros" and "enthusiasts" assuming that pros pay more than enthusiasts, when in reality, it is usually just the opposite. Enthusiasts are more likely to pay top dollar because they have the discretionary dollars to spend. Pros need to worry about mundane things like return on investment.

Finally, I suspect that someone may be spending too much time on internet forums if they really believe there is such a huge pent-up demand for a $3,000 ultra-wide 14-24 f2.8.

I think it is a pretty clear price strategy on the zooms.  See chart below.  I'm not picking a fight on the 24-105 vs. 24-70 F/4 -- Canon simply thinks that 24-70 F/4 lens is worth more money.

But as you can see, there are 'budget' L zooms on the left, high end ones on the right, and in a few lengths, there is a middle quality/performance option.  The price points are pretty clear to me.

As for the not-really-disparaging remarks on the 17-40, I use it as a great example of an 'if you have plenty of light and your subject isn't moving' great lens.  Stopping it down for landscape work is fine.  But there are times you need F/2.8 or you need sharp results at an aperture wider than F/5.6, and the 16-35 II is the better call.  In general, though, both lenses are good but not great.  Many on this forum might argue that the 16-35 II should be in the 'better' column and not the 'best' column of ultrawide.

- A

[dilbert]

As for the not-really-disparaging remarks on the 17-40, I use it as a great example of an 'if you have plenty of light and your subject isn't moving' great lens.  Stopping it down for landscape work is fine.  But there are times you need F/2.8 or you need sharp results at an aperture wider than F/5.6, and the 16-35 II is the better call.  In general, though, both lenses are good but not great.  Many on this forum might argue that the 16-35 II should be in the 'better' column and not the 'best' column of ultrawide.

Or that even if it is in the "better" column, that is only because of the wider aperture and not because of the  increase in IQ (even when stopped down.)

From an IQ perspective, the 70-200L f/4 IS USM is also pretty damn good. You don't hear anyone asking for a newer version of that for better IQ (for example.)

All of which is me saying that I kind of don't agree that the products fit into that table you had quite so easily.

If we consider the 24-70 f/4L IS USM to set the benchmark for what all new f/4 L series lenses will be like then the new wide angle L zoom should be both priced and perform similarly. If a new wide angle f/4L zoom were to be priced above the 24-70 f/4L equivalent then questions need to be asked and to look at what Sigma and Tamron can do in that space as they've shown themselves to be quite decent of late.

[ahsanford]

As for the not-really-disparaging remarks on the 17-40, I use it as a great example of an 'if you have plenty of light and your subject isn't moving' great lens.  Stopping it down for landscape work is fine.  But there are times you need F/2.8 or you need sharp results at an aperture wider than F/5.6, and the 16-35 II is the better call.  In general, though, both lenses are good but not great.  Many on this forum might argue that the 16-35 II should be in the 'better' column and not the 'best' column of ultrawide.

...

All of which is me saying that I kind of don't agree that the products fit into that table you had quite so easily.

Fair.  We all peg this stuff differently. 

Some folks would peg good/better/best based solely on IQ and disregard handling, weather-sealing, IS, build quality, etc.  A lot of folks peg value in this forum on an odd trinity of sharpness + max aperture + if IS is offered.  There is no right/wrong way to look at it. 

If we consider the 24-70 f/4L IS USM to set the benchmark for what all new f/4 L series lenses will be like then the new wide angle L zoom should be both priced and perform similarly. If a new wide angle f/4L zoom were to be priced above the 24-70 f/4L equivalent then questions need to be asked and to look at what Sigma and Tamron can do in that space as they've shown themselves to be quite decent of late.

+1

I own the 24-70 F/4 IS and it's a splendid lens.  Sharper than the 24-70 F/2.8 I and 24-105, but not as sharp as the $2300 King of the Hill F/2.8 II.  Shorter and lighter than all of them and the 0.7x macro is the cherry on top.  It is the perfect 'better but not best' zoom.

What remains to be seen is if Canon will create 'better but not best' lenses by just slapping IS on older designs or if truly new lens designs will come forward.  But I think we should be optimistic:   the 24-70 F/4L, the trio of non-L IS refreshes (which turned out to be far better lenses than they seemed at first announcement) are all new lenses.  Here's hoping we get new designs for the ultrawide segment as well.

- A