November 26, 2014, 12:31:11 AM

Author Topic: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]  (Read 7877 times)

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1498
    • View Profile
Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #45 on: May 07, 2014, 12:13:44 AM »
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.

Of course, I was talking about the sharpness, not the FL (sharp, fast, UWA).
You are probably right about the popularity of the 14-24.
But without concrete data about the demand, it is just a speculation, a rumor.
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

canon rumors FORUM

Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #45 on: May 07, 2014, 12:13:44 AM »

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1640
    • View Profile
Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #46 on: May 07, 2014, 04:03:27 AM »
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

I laughed long and hard.

Canon 14-24

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 74
    • View Profile
Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #47 on: May 07, 2014, 04:09:12 AM »
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

It's not just 70-200 lenses in that segment, telephoto zoom also encompasses cheap and L 70-300s, the 100-400, and an all in one lens compromise 28-300 L - just like the various options in the ultra wide angle segment. There is no same amount spread across each different segment - in specific to the ultra wide angle ZOOM, there is definitely a void that hasn't been filled for ultra wide Canon users since freaking 2007 when the 14-24 was released.

The Bad Duck

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
    • View Profile
Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #48 on: May 07, 2014, 04:28:15 AM »
I'd love to replace my samyang 14/2.8 with something like 10-20 give or take 4mm on each side. F/4 seems fine, I would not mind f/5.6 either. But please make it a screw on filter on the front lens, I find that I stick my vurrent 14mm lens really close to dusty mashines and cows that actually lick it out of curiosity.

pablo

  • Guest
Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #49 on: May 07, 2014, 05:15:28 AM »
At wide angles, f2.8 is less relevant in terms of depth of field.

Current cameras and future cameras can go up to silly silly iso's, so that lost stop (f4 rather than f2.8) probably doesn't mean much to most folk these days.  One stop of iso is no longer life or death in terms of noise.

AF performance, sure it would be great to have an IS UWA that works with the cameras AF at it's best, but even at f4 modern AF systems are all pretty good, and going forward with live view dual pixel focus, the extra light is less relevant that with the phase detection systems we will come to see as old fashioned soon enough.

This is not a lens for your 6 year old 5D2.  This is a lens for your 5D4, your 80D, your 7Dmk2.



climber

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 284
    • View Profile
Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #50 on: May 07, 2014, 06:40:34 AM »
And what about 14mm f/2.8, which is already there?

I also wanted that Canon make 14-24 f/2.8, but then I thought, would I really miss that range between 15 - 23 mm, if I buy 14mm f/2.8. Actually now I don't have money to buy it, but if they won't make 14-24 f/2.8, I will probably buy 14mm which already exist. I also didn't read any tests about that lens yet, so I don't know if it has any weak points.

I'd rather have f/2.8 than f/4 on a UWA lens, because of shooting night skies.

nicke

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #51 on: May 07, 2014, 06:42:41 AM »
More information on the two rumored lenses;
  • Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
  • Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM

http://photorumors.com/2014/05/06/canon-rumored-to-announce-two-new-wide-angle-lenses

canon rumors FORUM

Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #51 on: May 07, 2014, 06:42:41 AM »

Maximilian

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 464
  • The dark side - I've been there
    • View Profile
Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #52 on: May 07, 2014, 07:19:07 AM »
*yawn*
I feel somehow sympathy with CR if this and the other lens rumors are the only information they can get there.
But these rumors of rumors about rumors are so vacuous, that I now stop reading them until more detailed specs and dates appear and prefer to go out shooting with the lenses I already have.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2014, 07:21:07 AM by Maximilian »
sometimes you have to close your eyes to see properly.

ahsanford

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1010
    • View Profile
Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #53 on: May 07, 2014, 10:58:52 AM »
More information on the two rumored lenses;
  • Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
  • Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM

http://photorumors.com/2014/05/06/canon-rumored-to-announce-two-new-wide-angle-lenses

Digicame / Photo Rumors scoops CR again?

'Will' and 'next few days' is roughly CR2 material for PR.  When it's a done deal (usually 24-48 hours prior), they will simply say 'This is the new [product]'.

- A

pablo

  • Guest
Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #54 on: May 07, 2014, 12:04:55 PM »
And what about 14mm f/2.8, which is already there?

I also wanted that Canon make 14-24 f/2.8, but then I thought, would I really miss that range between 15 - 23 mm, if I buy 14mm f/2.8. Actually now I don't have money to buy it, but if they won't make 14-24 f/2.8, I will probably buy 14mm which already exist. I also didn't read any tests about that lens yet, so I don't know if it has any weak points.

I'd rather have f/2.8 than f/4 on a UWA lens, because of shooting night skies.

Yeah, what about it?  What about the 17mm f3.5 TS-E, what about this? what about that?

All these folk bemoaning the fact that it's not rumoured to be an f2.8...  my point was, that is less and less relevant these days.  With more capable AF systems, with new AF types that no longer excel with only the fastest lenses, with new digic engines that perform well up to 10's of thousands of ISO....

Perhaps Canon have figured that f4 is workable for more people, or that they can make the lens cheaper and therfore sell more...

Who knows.  It's all a rumour.  But the fact is Canon make a 14mm f2.8.  So we can't speculate.  What exactly was your point?

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1498
    • View Profile
Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #55 on: May 07, 2014, 01:53:58 PM »
And what about 14mm f/2.8, which is already there?

I also wanted that Canon make 14-24 f/2.8, but then I thought, would I really miss that range between 15 - 23 mm, if I buy 14mm f/2.8. Actually now I don't have money to buy it, but if they won't make 14-24 f/2.8, I will probably buy 14mm which already exist. I also didn't read any tests about that lens yet, so I don't know if it has any weak points.

I'd rather have f/2.8 than f/4 on a UWA lens, because of shooting night skies.

Yeah, what about it?  What about the 17mm f3.5 TS-E, what about this? what about that?

All these folk bemoaning the fact that it's not rumoured to be an f2.8...  my point was, that is less and less relevant these days.  With more capable AF systems, with new AF types that no longer excel with only the fastest lenses, with new digic engines that perform well up to 10's of thousands of ISO....

Perhaps Canon have figured that f4 is workable for more people, or that they can make the lens cheaper and therfore sell more...

Who knows.  It's all a rumour.  But the fact is Canon make a 14mm f2.8.  So we can't speculate.  What exactly was your point?

I think he just wanted some information on the 14 II.
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 X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1010
    • View Profile
Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #56 on: May 07, 2014, 02:02:04 PM »

This thread has moved -- CR2, specs, etc.  Looks like new wide glass is finally coming...

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20839.0

FYI

Pixel

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #57 on: May 07, 2014, 09:00:07 PM »
I'm having a hard time mustering up any excitement for a 16-35mm f4. I was hoping for the rumored 14-24mm.  :-[

canon rumors FORUM

Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #57 on: May 07, 2014, 09:00:07 PM »

tron

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1896
    • View Profile
Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #58 on: May 08, 2014, 11:02:52 AM »
I'm having a hard time mustering up any excitement for a 16-35mm f4. I was hoping for the rumored 14-24mm.  :-[
No excitement at all either. I was hoping for a 16-35 2.8 L III  :(

pedro

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 787
    • View Profile
Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #59 on: May 08, 2014, 12:42:22 PM »
An 11-24 F/4.0 would be nice. Bulb lens? And I wonder, what third party brands would do with that. A Sigma 11-24, about the same quality at less $$$? I'm almost in ;-)
30D, EF-S 10-22/ 5DIII, 16-35 F/2.8 L USM II, 28 F/2.8, 50 F/1.4, 85 F/1.8, 70-200 F/2.8 classic,
join me at http://www.flickr.com/groups/insane_isos/

canon rumors FORUM

Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« Reply #59 on: May 08, 2014, 12:42:22 PM »