Wide angle zoom L lenses from Canon in the future. Thoughts??

[willrobb]

At least the 16-35mm f/2.8LII can take filter...

+ 1, if I can't get filters on it I don't want to shoot with it.

[moreorless]

To me Nikon's range seems a little backwards, as great as the 14-24mm is do most users need f/2.8? doesnt really seem vital to me for whats going to most commonly be a landscape lens while it adds alot to the weight/price and perhaps hurts the flare resistance aswell?

A 14-24mm f/4 IS seems like it would be ideal for many people to me, espeically if Canon looked to introduce some kind of filter system into the design(drop ins or perhaps a screw off hood  that leaves a filter ring rather than a fixed one?) rather than just leaving it to 3rd parties to come up with overly expensive alternatives.

I use the Sigma 12-24 mostly for landscapes and cityscapes and I've so far never needed a wider aperture than its f4.5-5.6.

The Sigma has a two-piece lens cap as you describe but it's pointless because leaving the section with the filter thread on the lens causes massive vignetting on FF. I guess it might work with a crop camera, though. The lens accepts rear gel filters but you obviously can't use polarisers. That's really its only downside.

The problem with the Sigma to me seems to be that because the part of the lens cap thats also a filter thread needs to cover the built in hood its simpley too far away from the front element so it vignettes. What I was suggesting is that the hood itself be removeble attaching via a filter thread. That way you could take it off when need be and attach filters directly to the lens far closer to the front element thus doing away with the need for an expensive fiddley system ala the Nikon 14-24 aswell as the massive filters it needs due to that smaller distance.

[Axilrod]

I like my 16-35 II, it's just not that sharp wide open, especially if the subject isn't close to the camera.  But at f/4-f/8 I've gotten some very sharp pics with it.  But as soon as I got the 14L it made the 16-35 seem soft. 

I want to get rid of the 16-35mm and get the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8, but I shoot a lot of bands in very small places and some of them have 2 members and some have 6, so it's nice having the 16-35 to quickly adjust the static cam.  I'm just worried that if I get the 21mm there may be cases where it's not quite wide enough and the 14mm may be too wide.  Damnit why does that thing have to be so useful! 

[AdamJ]

To me Nikon's range seems a little backwards, as great as the 14-24mm is do most users need f/2.8? doesnt really seem vital to me for whats going to most commonly be a landscape lens while it adds alot to the weight/price and perhaps hurts the flare resistance aswell?

A 14-24mm f/4 IS seems like it would be ideal for many people to me, espeically if Canon looked to introduce some kind of filter system into the design(drop ins or perhaps a screw off hood  that leaves a filter ring rather than a fixed one?) rather than just leaving it to 3rd parties to come up with overly expensive alternatives.

I use the Sigma 12-24 mostly for landscapes and cityscapes and I've so far never needed a wider aperture than its f4.5-5.6.

The Sigma has a two-piece lens cap as you describe but it's pointless because leaving the section with the filter thread on the lens causes massive vignetting on FF. I guess it might work with a crop camera, though. The lens accepts rear gel filters but you obviously can't use polarisers. That's really its only downside.

The problem with the Sigma to me seems to be that because the part of the lens cap thats also a filter thread needs to cover the built in hood its simpley too far away from the front element so it vignettes. What I was suggesting is that the hood itself be removeble attaching via a filter thread. That way you could take it off when need be and attach filters directly to the lens far closer to the front element thus doing away with the need for an expensive fiddley system ala the Nikon 14-24 aswell as the massive filters it needs due to that smaller distance.

Sorry, I misread your post. I understand you now. It still wouldn't work because of the protruding bulbous front element on any lens in this focal range. To mount a filter even 1mm from the front of the element, you would first need to mount some kind of filter-holding extension. This extension would block much of the light-gathering surface of the front element. The reason the fixed hood doesn't block the light-gathering surface is because of its petal shape. The reason it is fixed is that there's no reason to take it off, given that filters can't be used. It also provides a limited amount of protection to the protruding front element.

[moreorless]

To me Nikon's range seems a little backwards, as great as the 14-24mm is do most users need f/2.8? doesnt really seem vital to me for whats going to most commonly be a landscape lens while it adds alot to the weight/price and perhaps hurts the flare resistance aswell?

A 14-24mm f/4 IS seems like it would be ideal for many people to me, espeically if Canon looked to introduce some kind of filter system into the design(drop ins or perhaps a screw off hood  that leaves a filter ring rather than a fixed one?) rather than just leaving it to 3rd parties to come up with overly expensive alternatives.

I use the Sigma 12-24 mostly for landscapes and cityscapes and I've so far never needed a wider aperture than its f4.5-5.6.

The Sigma has a two-piece lens cap as you describe but it's pointless because leaving the section with the filter thread on the lens causes massive vignetting on FF. I guess it might work with a crop camera, though. The lens accepts rear gel filters but you obviously can't use polarisers. That's really its only downside.

The problem with the Sigma to me seems to be that because the part of the lens cap thats also a filter thread needs to cover the built in hood its simpley too far away from the front element so it vignettes. What I was suggesting is that the hood itself be removeble attaching via a filter thread. That way you could take it off when need be and attach filters directly to the lens far closer to the front element thus doing away with the need for an expensive fiddley system ala the Nikon 14-24 aswell as the massive filters it needs due to that smaller distance.

Sorry, I misread your post. I understand you now. It still wouldn't work because of the protruding bulbous front element on any lens in this focal range. To mount a filter even 1mm from the front of the element, you would first need to mount some kind of filter-holding extension. This extension would block much of the light-gathering surface of the front element. The reason the fixed hood doesn't block the light-gathering surface is because of its petal shape. The reason it is fixed is that there's no reason to take it off, given that filters can't be used. It also provides a limited amount of protection to the protruding front element.

Even with the bulb like front elements at these focal lenghts though the hood still protrudes further forward plus theres nothing to attach any adaptor to. That means that a system like either the Lee one that allows for moveble filters or one like Fotodiox that allows for screw ins are excessively large and expensive both in terms of the holders and the filter sizes needed. If you allow for the hood to be removed and a filter thread to be present then the size and cost of both the holder and the filters themselves can come down since they'll be closer to the front element.

The other option I mentioned would be some kind of drop in filter system ala the Pentax 25mm 645 lens or Canon's own super teles, wouldnt be quite as effective since only fixed grads could be used but would still give it a clear advanatge over the Nikon.

I can understand not taking this route on cheaper lenses where most users will probabley not want filters but if there competing with the Nikon 14-24mm then alot of the market will be serious landscape users and a pretty high percentage of them do want filters.

[AdamJ]

Even with the bulb like front elements at these focal lenghts though the hood still protrudes further forward plus theres nothing to attach any adaptor to. That means that a system like either the Lee one that allows for moveble filters or one like Fotodiox that allows for screw ins are excessively large and expensive both in terms of the holders and the filter sizes needed. If you allow for the hood to be removed and a filter thread to be present then the size and cost of both the holder and the filters themselves can come down since they'll be closer to the front element.

The other option I mentioned would be some kind of drop in filter system ala the Pentax 25mm 645 lens or Canon's own super teles, wouldnt be quite as effective since only fixed grads could be used but would still give it a clear advanatge over the Nikon.

I can understand not taking this route on cheaper lenses where most users will probabley not want filters but if there competing with the Nikon 14-24mm then alot of the market will be serious landscape users and a pretty high percentage of them do want filters.

I've just looked at my 12-24 and actually you're right: the narrowest part of the petal hood is pretty much exactly level with the middle of the front element.

Edit: I need to correct myself. The front element is at its most retracted position at 20mm, where it is level with the narrowest part of the petal hood. It extends from 20mm to 24mm by about half a centimetre, and it extends from 20mm to 12mm by about a centimetre. So at any focal length other than around 20mm, the front element protrudes beyond the narrowest part of the hood.

[moreorless]

Even with the bulb like front elements at these focal lenghts though the hood still protrudes further forward plus theres nothing to attach any adaptor to. That means that a system like either the Lee one that allows for moveble filters or one like Fotodiox that allows for screw ins are excessively large and expensive both in terms of the holders and the filter sizes needed. If you allow for the hood to be removed and a filter thread to be present then the size and cost of both the holder and the filters themselves can come down since they'll be closer to the front element.

The other option I mentioned would be some kind of drop in filter system ala the Pentax 25mm 645 lens or Canon's own super teles, wouldnt be quite as effective since only fixed grads could be used but would still give it a clear advanatge over the Nikon.

I can understand not taking this route on cheaper lenses where most users will probabley not want filters but if there competing with the Nikon 14-24mm then alot of the market will be serious landscape users and a pretty high percentage of them do want filters.

I've just looked at my 12-24 and actually you're right: the narrowest part of the petal hood is pretty much exactly level with the middle of the front element.

Edit: I need to correct myself. The front element is at its most retracted position at 20mm, where it is level with the narrowest part of the petal hood. It extends from 20mm to 24mm by about half a centimetre, and it extends from 20mm to 12mm by about a centimetre. So at any focal length other than around 20mm, the front element protrudes beyond the narrowest part of the hood.

I wasnt saying that normal screw ins would be used simpley without the hood, just that with the ability to detach the hood it would be much easier to use an adaptor for one. Canon could perhaps bundle in a basic screw in adaptor with the lens itself, the filters would need to be larger than normal but not 145-150mm as with the Nikon.