October 23, 2014, 01:43:42 PM

Author Topic: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]  (Read 7565 times)

IsaacImage

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
    • www.IsaacImage.com
Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #30 on: May 06, 2014, 06:03:06 PM »
Eagerly waiting to buy 11-24 or 14-24.
Preferably 2.8 plsplsplsplspls and before Wedding season is heating us

canon rumors FORUM

Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #30 on: May 06, 2014, 06:03:06 PM »

SwnSng

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #31 on: May 06, 2014, 06:32:44 PM »
I'm no longer anxious about this...I purchased a Rokinon 14mm 2.8 to hold me over.

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1441
    • View Profile
Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #32 on: May 06, 2014, 06:33:21 PM »
I'm no longer anxious about this...I purchased a Rokinon 14mm 2.8 to hold me over.

+1.
EOS 5DIII, EOS 5D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3 | EOS M + EF-M 22mm f/2

sdfreeland

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #33 on: May 06, 2014, 06:49:05 PM »
A 100-400 for $3000?  That's just crazy.  Considering the current 100-400mm is pretty good already and the Tamron 150-600mm is similar but cheaper, they would have to be nuts to make it $3000.  How much better could it be besides the actual design?

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3357
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #34 on: May 06, 2014, 07:07:22 PM »
A 100-400 for $3000? Sounds reasonable,

28-300 F3.5-F5.6L IS for $2689..... A 100-400 F5.6 L IS of modern design and materials and greatly improved IQ over the series 1 lens could go for $3000...
The best camera is the one in your hands

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3930
    • View Profile
Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #35 on: May 06, 2014, 07:41:56 PM »
Quote
There was another mention of a new Canon 100-400 being priced in the $3000 range also coming.

The high price bit was tacked on to lend legitimacy to this rumor of the unicorn lens.  :P
Do you know how expensive are unicorns these days?  ;D ;D ;D

very these days

in the Middle Ages, they were pricey, but a well to do knight could afford one, a dinosaur was a bit more a reach back then however, but a few kings were said to own them as beasts of terror and in the Stone Age, well I mean they were both commonplace, in fact, dinosaurs were the typical beast of burden and mode of transport for man (I saw that last bit in some museum somewhere in the Midwest, so I'm pretty sure I'm correct in what I'm saying here about Stone Age man and dinosaurs. I don't see how I could be going wrong.).




LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3930
    • View Profile
Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #36 on: May 06, 2014, 07:42:57 PM »
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)  ;D ;D ;D

Is that too much to ask ?  8)  8)

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

no, it's not too much to ask, it's too little! We also need one with just a bit more range, some sort of 16-50 or at least 16-40 with great FF corners

 so tack that one on too

canon rumors FORUM

Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #36 on: May 06, 2014, 07:42:57 PM »

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3357
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #37 on: May 06, 2014, 07:46:57 PM »
Quote
There was another mention of a new Canon 100-400 being priced in the $3000 range also coming.

The high price bit was tacked on to lend legitimacy to this rumor of the unicorn lens.  :P
Do you know how expensive are unicorns these days?  ;D ;D ;D

very these days

in the Middle Ages, they were pricey, but a well to do knight could afford one, a dinosaur was a bit more a reach back then however, but a few kings were said to own them as beasts of terror and in the Stone Age, well I mean they were both commonplace, in fact, dinosaurs were the typical beast of burden and mode of transport for man (I saw that last bit in some museum somewhere in the Midwest, so I'm pretty sure I'm correct in what I'm saying here about Stone Age man and dinosaurs. I don't see how I could be going wrong.).
Of course dinosaurs and man co-existed.... haven't you ever seen the Flintstones on TV?
The best camera is the one in your hands

Canon 14-24

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 74
    • View Profile
Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #38 on: May 06, 2014, 07:55:09 PM »
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

I find that chart doesn't represent the ultra wide angle zoom segments that are currently out there. Can't really compare the standard zoom segments that are available with the ultra zooms as with super telephoto primes as well.

This chart attached below I think better represents the void Canon hasn't fulfilled in the FF ultra wide angle zoom segments:

Given the current offerings, I would fantasize Canon would release an EF 15-35mm f/4 USM IS (flat front element) and EF 12 or 13-14mm f/2.8 USM lens (as Canon offerings tend to be 1mm wider in each of the current segments).
« Last Edit: May 06, 2014, 08:01:06 PM by Canon 14-24 »

Khufu

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 85
  • So, this is my "personal text"! What's that mean?
    • View Profile
    • Drew K Forrest Art & Photography FB
Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #39 on: May 06, 2014, 09:01:49 PM »
Waffle, waffle, blah...

In real world shooting, people seem to love the kind of results I've had from the sadly discontinued Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 (shot on either the 60D and 5D3) which I got from eBay for a little over £200 - I couldn't tell you about corner sharpness but I can tell you it's pretty sweet for a UWA/hella-niche supplement to my kit... as is the "old" Sigma 24mm f/1.8 for WA WITH BOKEH!!

Just throwing some alt-perspective curveball spanner herring bombs in the works there. I dig Samsung's 16mm f/2.4 APS-C pancake, too. Not entirely sure why I'm still talking. Perhaps because I don't have a disposable $3500 right now but want to feel awesome regardless. Na-night! :D
5D3 // 70D // EOS M // Sigma 24/1.8 & 50/1.4 // Canon EF 400/5.6L & 100/2 // Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 // Samsung NX1000 & 16/2.4 & 30/2 & EF Adpt // SONY HDR FX1000 // Canon XM2 & HV20 // Zoom H1 // Paints, Pens & Pencils!... USA Strat, Mexican Tele, Warwick Thumb 5 ;)

ahsanford

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 926
    • View Profile
Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #40 on: May 06, 2014, 09:13:15 PM »
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

I find that chart doesn't represent the ultra wide angle zoom segments that are currently out there. Can't really compare the standard zoom segments that are available with the ultra zooms as with super telephoto primes as well.

This chart attached below I think better represents the void Canon hasn't fulfilled in the FF ultra wide angle zoom segments:

Given the current offerings, I would fantasize Canon would release an EF 15-35mm f/4 USM IS (flat front element) and EF 12 or 13-14mm f/2.8 USM lens (as Canon offerings tend to be 1mm wider in each of the current segments).

That presumes that Canon is going to have the 4 lenses for one zoom range like the 70-200s:  two F/4 and two F/2.8 lenses, with and without IS.

They don't even do that in the standard range right now (cough no 24-70 F/2.8 IS cough)...

And Canon seems to be getting out of that business.  Aren't they discontinuing one of the 70-200s?

- A

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1441
    • View Profile
Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #41 on: May 06, 2014, 09:43:31 PM »
Let's look at the market-
A. Is there a room for UWA with IS?- yes- videography, high resolution of modern sensors (see wide angle IS primes). Also, corner resolution of the 17-40 could be improved and that will attract a lot of new customers.
B. Is there a room for a sharp, fast, ultrawide? - look at Nikon 14-24 sales. I don't have the numbers- but if it sells in large numbers, then that is an indication for Canon to approach that segment.

Let's look at competitors-
A. What other UWA with IS is available for canon- none.
B. Assuming, there is a market for a sharp, fast, ultrawide- is there any competition- only from some prime lenses, which are:
a) own product- 14mm II- not particularly sharp
b) Zeiss 15mm, 18mm (?) and 21mm- expensive, manual focus
c) own product- 17mm TS-E- manual focus, expensive

Take home:
A. For an ultrawide with IS- there is definitely an unmet demand. Historically, Nikon has high sales numbers for its 16-35 f/4 VR. So I think Canon can expect a large number of 16-35 II users to move to an IS lens for a low adoption cost. There will also be a small number of people upgrading from the 17-40 due to the IS and better IQ. This will include both people using it exclusively on FF, and people buying it for APS-C with an eye on potential upgrade path.
B. For a sharp, fast ultrawide- this one is less clear. Canon needs to look at the sales figures for the 14-24 and the 16-35 2.8. If there is a bigger number for the 14-24, that means lots of people are willing to pay the premium price and trade off the filter usability and range. OTOH, if the 17-35 2.8 sells better, Canon will be better off bringing out a version III of the lens, or more likely, just keep the 16-35 II around.

(by the way, the prices are off- the 17-35 2.8 costs around $1750, not $ 1950)
[p.s. I tried not to make any assumptions, including: those hankering on the CR forums for a sharp, fast UWA necessarily make up the majority of Canon's customers.]
EOS 5DIII, EOS 5D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3 | EOS M + EF-M 22mm f/2

ahsanford

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 926
    • View Profile
Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #42 on: May 06, 2014, 10:22:02 PM »
Let's look at the market-
A. Is there a room for UWA with IS?- yes- videography, high resolution of modern sensors (see wide angle IS primes). Also, corner resolution of the 17-40 could be improved and that will attract a lot of new customers.
B. Is there a room for a sharp, fast, ultrawide? - look at Nikon 14-24 sales. I don't have the numbers- but if it sells in large numbers, then that is an indication for Canon to approach that segment.

Let's look at competitors-
A. What other UWA with IS is available for canon- none.
B. Assuming, there is a market for a sharp, fast, ultrawide- is there any competition- only from some prime lenses, which are:
a) own product- 14mm II- not particularly sharp
b) Zeiss 15mm, 18mm (?) and 21mm- expensive, manual focus
c) own product- 17mm TS-E- manual focus, expensive

Take home:
A. For an ultrawide with IS- there is definitely an unmet demand. Historically, Nikon has high sales numbers for its 16-35 f/4 VR. So I think Canon can expect a large number of 16-35 II users to move to an IS lens for a low adoption cost. There will also be a small number of people upgrading from the 17-40 due to the IS and better IQ. This will include both people using it exclusively on FF, and people buying it for APS-C with an eye on potential upgrade path.
B. For a sharp, fast ultrawide- this one is less clear. Canon needs to look at the sales figures for the 14-24 and the 16-35 2.8. If there is a bigger number for the 14-24, that means lots of people are willing to pay the premium price and trade off the filter usability and range. OTOH, if the 17-35 2.8 sells better, Canon will be better off bringing out a version III of the lens, or more likely, just keep the 16-35 II around.

(by the way, the prices are off- the 17-35 2.8 costs around $1750, not $ 1950)
[p.s. I tried not to make any assumptions, including: those hankering on the CR forums for a sharp, fast UWA necessarily make up the majority of Canon's customers.]

Good insights.  Makes sense.  IS would be cherished by handheld low-light guys and videographers.

Keep in mind the Nikon 14-24 is loved for more than it's unique focal length.  That lens is absurdly sharp for a zoom.  Canon guys get adapters just to shoot this lens.  Lee makes a comically large outrigger setup just for this lens.  Qualitatively and quantitatively Every review or test I've seen with it is off the charts -- other than susceptibility to flare and the lack of a thread-able front filter, I don't think I've heard a bad word about it.

I'm not a landscape pro, but as I understand, the 14-24 plus the D800's resolving power and low ISO dynamic range are a killer combination for landscape guys, right?

- A

canon rumors FORUM

Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #42 on: May 06, 2014, 10:22:02 PM »

adhocphotographer

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
    • View Profile
    • An ad hoc photographer
Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #43 on: May 06, 2014, 10:23:13 PM »
I'm no longer anxious about this...I purchased a Rokinon 14mm 2.8 to hold me over.

+1 but 17-40!
5D MkIII & 100D
17-40L, 24L II, 24-105L, 70-200L, 500L II
-------www.adhocphotographer.com--------

AvTvM

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1022
    • View Profile
Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #44 on: May 07, 2014, 12:04:52 AM »
Looking at the 2 recent UWA rumours i only expect the following:
• EF-S 10-24/4.0-5.6 IS STM ... Update to current 10-22 and using some design elements from the slightly better ef-m 11-22 IS STM ... Will be compact and have decent, but not stellar iq ... Price? USD 999
• EF 16-40/4.0 IS ... Successor to 17-40, with 1mm more wa and much bettet corners, plus IS. Priced much higher, similar to 24-70/4 l is

My gut feeling is, canon still has no design ready to really match nik 14-24/2.8. especially not at the nikon's really great pricepoint.  hopefully they do not bring another slightly improved but still disappointing 16-35 Iii is but keep working until they are ready to bring a f/2.8 UWA with IS that truly matches 70-200 ii and 24-70 ii iq and maked for a worthy 2.8 zoom holy trinity. If they are able to pull off a 14-24 2.8 IS, they can go and charge 2500 for it, which is still plenty more than the nikon.


canon rumors FORUM

Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #44 on: May 07, 2014, 12:04:52 AM »