Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]

[sarangiman]

Laughable, the lighting of the two scenes was completely different.  This has become a bad joke and at this point a headache and waste of time.  Adios.

Yup, as I mentioned ages ago: different lighting due to sun sinking lower causing flare, & yet utterly irrelevant to the conclusions of this comparison, as I've already proven.

'Laughable' is more your denial of a study that shows exactly what most other studies have already shown... without doing your own tests. For example, the one psolberg linked to below...

All canon wide zooms and 14mm prime fail to touch the 5 year old 14-24. But that lens won't show up In 2012. I got tired of waiting...
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html

Yup, thank you psolberg!

[Jettatore]

Actually, the exposures are exactly the same, barring T-stop differences between the lenses. 1/320s | f/2.8 @ISO 100 is equivalent to 1/40s | f/11 @ISO 200.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_%28photography%29
"In photography, exposure is the total amount of light allowed to fall on the photographic medium (photographic film or image sensor) during the process of taking a photograph."

Yup, as I mentioned ages ago: different lighting due to sun sinking lower causing flare

Actually, the exposures are exactly the same, barring T-stop differences between the lenses. 1/320s | f/2.8 @ISO 100 is equivalent to 1/40s | f/11 @ISO 200.

My apologies to the entire forum for this entire diversion, this was entirely my fault.  If there was a user or moderator split topic function, it would be useful here.  This is all about as far away from topic as possible, I got lost and drifted out to sea and then baited back in over and over, my apologies, I will refrain in the future from any such long diversions.  Adios.

[sarangiman]

I have found that the 17-40 is best at f/8- f/11. After that the image gets softer, presumably defraction

I absolutely agree with you there. Especially with wide angle lenses, as I understand it, diffraction often sets in earlier b/c the actual opening of the aperture is quite small. E.g. 17mm at f/8 has an opening of diameter 2.125mm whereas an 85mm lens at f/8 has an opening of 10.625mm.

The reason I shot at f/18 was to deal w/ the softness on the left side... it literally kept sharpening up at smaller & smaller apertures even though the center & right started losing sharpness due to diffraction. But I thought: 'better even sharpness across the field, albeit lower, than significantly lower sharpness on one side'. Personal preference, really.

Luckily, I no longer have to worry about such things with my Nikon 14-24! But would really appreciate a Canon alternative similar in image quality...

Posting on this site further softens a jpeg

Yup, resizing algorithms vary, & output sharpening decision of course affect perceived sharpness. I chose to actually not use maximal output sharpening in this particular image b/c of the sharpening halos it created around the buildings.

Cheers!

[NWPhil]

somewhere along the way this thread content changed....


So what about this 14-24 2.8L? Can Canon turn-around and produce this in a year or so?
Wish even they had gone all way to 12mm even, it that meant a F\4 instead

[Ayelike]

I really want this lens! I was just about to buy a 16-35 f/2.8 II but think I'll wait until we at least hear more about this lens. It'd sit so nice with my 24-70 f/2.8 and my 70-200 f/2.8.

My only worry is it's going to be stupid money like the new 24-70 f/2.8 II. I think I saw a pre-order for £2300 which is over twice as much as I paid for the 24-70 I.

Canon, I'll give you £1,500 for it.

[wickidwombat]

Canon, I'll give you £1,500 for it.

LOL then they will give you half a lens

[Marsu42]

Canon, I'll give you £1,500 for it.

LOL then they will give you half a lens

But Tamron will give you one and a half!

[RLPhoto]

This is another opportunity for canon to shine and hope they don't mess up on such a great idea as a 14-24L.

[Dylan777]

This is another opportunity for canon to shine and hope they don't mess up on such a great idea as a 14-24L.

I Agreed...but I have a bad feeling about the price. My 2cents: $2500 at least 

[briansquibb]

This is another opportunity for canon to shine and hope they don't mess up on such a great idea as a 14-24L.

I Agreed...but I have a bad feeling about the price. My 2cents: $2500 at least 

I agree - itro $24-70II

[takoman46]

If the EF 14-24mm f/2.8L is going to be over $2000, then I think it would be better to just buy the 14mm f/2.8L II and get the superior optics of the prime. On a related note... if Canon is able to come very close to the optical quality and performance of the prime with this new zoom, then my guess would be that the 14-24 will be waaaaay over $2000... maybe in the ballpark of $3000?... Still probably not worth it when one can buy the prime for $2300. I wouldn't miss the zoom at an ultra wide focal length anyway.

This new lens seems to be a strange move by Canon. Who thinks that the benefits of a 14-24mm zoom outweigh the advantages of the prime? Thoughts?

[Marsu42]

Who thinks that the benefits of a 14-24mm zoom outweigh the advantages of the prime? Thoughts?

Simple: If you need flexibility, like when shooting weddings or events. 14mm is way to distorted for most uses, but if you have a 24-70 on one ff body and a 14-24 on another, you're covered (just switch to the 70-200 if the situation changes).

Then use a 1dx or wait for the 5d mk4 which might have an actual high iso improvement, and the slower aperture of these zoom won't matter anymore except for carefully staged, thin dof shots or shooting in the dark w/o flash.

[birdman]

What's crazy to me is that no one mentions the tokina 16-28. It was on sale recently for $699!!!!! Crazy cheap and has gotten very favorable reviews. I don't know if this dream 14-24 canon lens will out-resolve the Tok 16-28, if the Canon lens is even a reality.

14mm is WIDE!! So wide, for me, that you literally see little detail in the distant horizon. Nearly Too wide, for me. 17-20mm is my preferred FL, which my 17-40L quits distorting at around 19-20mm anyway. I've never needed WIDER, but many times needed sharper. If the Canon cannot accept filters, then it gets a thumbs down for me. On a bright sunny day, this lens becomes a lot less practical. At dusk and dawn (magic hours) I believe you can get by without filters.

If it does accept filters, then that opens up another thick, juicy layer of opportunities. If I had enough disposable income it would go to a good tilt/shift. One thing I haven't considered: at some point in time I would LOVE a 1d4. So the math gives me 14*1.3= 18mm & 24*1.3=31mm.   Hmmm, pretty useful for me.

[briansquibb]

14mm is so wide on a ff that you have to be carefull that the tripod legs are not in the picture

[Kernuak]

What's crazy to me is that no one mentions the tokina 16-28. It was on sale recently for $699!!!!! Crazy cheap and has gotten very favorable reviews. I don't know if this dream 14-24 canon lens will out-resolve the Tok 16-28, if the Canon lens is even a reality.

14mm is WIDE!! So wide, for me, that you literally see little detail in the distant horizon. Nearly Too wide, for me. 17-20mm is my preferred FL, which my 17-40L quits distorting at around 19-20mm anyway. I've never needed WIDER, but many times needed sharper. If the Canon cannot accept filters, then it gets a thumbs down for me. On a bright sunny day, this lens becomes a lot less practical. At dusk and dawn (magic hours) I believe you can get by without filters.

If it does accept filters, then that opens up another thick, juicy layer of opportunities. If I had enough disposable income it would go to a good tilt/shift. One thing I haven't considered: at some point in time I would LOVE a 1d4. So the math gives me 14*1.3= 18mm & 24*1.3=31mm.   Hmmm, pretty useful for me.

Actually, I often find the 17-40 too wide on full frame, especially if I need to use a combination of CPL and grad filters. I was trying an extreme shot last year (accentuating the distortion by point downwards) and I had real problems trying to keep the tripod legs out of frame. I would find 14mm very limiting and wouldn't make use of it, but I know that others would.