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

[Marsu42]

But still, I want this lens right now! Or a 16-50L, or a 17-40L II.. Just whatever, as long as they finally give us an UWA-zoom with sharp razor sharp sharpness across the frame. How hard can it be?

Not hard at all, but *expensive*...

... for my (lack of) money I'd rather take a €600 17-40L mk1 than a €1600 17-40L mk2 with improved sharpness "across the frame" which means *corners*(!) and looking at what I shoot that really doesn't matter. The current 17-40L degrades on crop, but on ff imho fine just like it is now.

[M.ST]

I want to see the 14.24 2.8 L now.

And a new 17-40 L or 17-50 IS L, a 100-400 IS replacement, the 24-70 2.8 L IS and so on.

Price discussion are stupid. We want new lenses with better IQ´s.

If you don´t have the money for new lenses, then buy the old ones.

[Marsu42]

Maybe such comments is one of the reasons to why Canon is so sleepy nowdays.

You got it in one - and welcome to the wonderful world of economy! Canon is a mass-market manufacturer, so (thankfully) they weigh performance vs. cost. If you want performance no matter the cost and also receive a big arrogance boost for free, buy Leica.

Why improve when customers raise voice to stop improvement?

I'm all in favor of improvements, and there's plenty of room for that - just lift all the crippling of camera bodies, for example or offer sealed aps-c lenses. But "improvement" of a much higher price tag is not improvement, it's just a shift in market position.

Price discussion are stupid. We want new lenses with better IQ´s.

Who is "we" - I gather you're talking in the plurale maiestatis, your grace :-) ?

If you don´t have the money for new lenses, then buy the old ones.

I also would like to receive technology updates like more precise af and IS systems which is little cost for the manufacturer. What I don't want is top-notch iq glass doubling the price for a performance that only few people need, even of course if some opinions might be different in a nerd or enthusiast forum.

[Ricku]

You got it in one - and welcome to the wonderful world of economy! Canon is a mass-market manufacturer, so (thankfully) they weigh performance vs. cost. If you want performance no matter the cost and also receive a big arrogance boost for free, buy Leica.

I also would like to receive technology updates like more precise af and IS systems which is little cost for the manufacturer. What I don't want is top-notch iq glass doubling the price for a performance that only few people need, even of course if some opinions might be different in a nerd or enthusiast forum.

Well holy moly! Thanks for making me see things much clearer. Here I thought I wanted top-notch IQ glass because of the IQ itself, sharp corners, client demand and the ability to produce huge prints. But now I understand that I'm just an arrogant nerd in need of a dick extender.

Hold the discussion! I'm gonna go and sell my "luxury item" 70-200 IS II now. Better replace it with the MK1 before someone notices my nerdy arrogance. Wohoo 17-40L, here I come!

And yeah, they better quit doing these snobby top-notch IQ upgrades. Or else the price tags of the current lenses will surely skyrocket to untouchable levels! How on earth would anyone be able to afford the 17-40L if Canon released a new version?

[verysimplejason]

Ken Rockwell said "Thou shalt not use polarizer for wide angle"

but for grads, Lee SW150 System/ Lucroit-Hitech 165mm/ Cokin X-Pro are available while Singh-Ray makes filters for these three.

I think you cut it prematurely... Polarizer only makes uneven sky but not uneven water or other non-metallic objects.  If you included a little to no sky in your photo, you can still use polarizer.

[Marsu42]

Well holy moly! Thanks for making me see things much clearer. Here I thought I wanted top-notch IQ glass because of the IQ itself, sharp corners, client demand and the ability to produce huge prints.

You're welcome :-p ... and to make myself clearer: I think the Canon lineup needs a top 14-24, and the "top of the line" 16-35L could also receive an update for "across the frame" sharpness like the 24-70 did if market demand is there.

However, you were talking of the 17-40L which is a lens placed in the *middle* of the lineup, it's a landscapeish lens so you'll use it stopped down, and it works fine this way. Just as the softness of the 50/1.2 this is not a bug, but a rather feature because it keeps the bulk, weight and - yes - price down. If you want iq beyond that, get a prime (ts), or hope for an updated 16-35L.

But demanding an update of *both* the 16-35L to mk3 and 17-40L doesn't make much sense to me, as a much more expensive 17-50L/4 would catapult it out of the current market position, essentially not "updating" it but replacing it with another lens.

This is the reason why I think requiring every lens from the 50/1.8 to the 200-400L to aspire for top notch iq no matter the cost is a bit on the nerdy side, not to offend you, though your former (now deleted) post didn't really invite a matter of fact discussion I'm also afraid so say.

And yeah, they better quit doing these snobby top-notch IQ upgrades. Or else the price tags of the current lenses will surely skyrocket to untouchable levels! How on earth would anyone be able to afford the 17-40L if Canon released a new version?

Indeed, here you are correct - the 24-70 mk1's skyrocketed to absurd levels after the mk2 release.

[GMCPhotographics]

Ken Rockwell said "Thou shalt not use polarizer for wide angle"

but for grads, Lee SW150 System/ Lucroit-Hitech 165mm/ Cokin X-Pro are available while Singh-Ray makes filters for these three.

I think you cut it prematurely... Polarizer only makes uneven sky but not uneven water or other non-metallic objects.  If you included a little to no sky in your photo, you can still use polarizer.

I use a polariser a lot on a 16-35IIL...it's fine. Mr Rockwell is making big bold nieve statements again. Yes there's an unevenness...but rotating the polariser can place the dark spot in a neat and compositionally strong place...so what's the problem?

[verysimplejason]

Ken Rockwell said "Thou shalt not use polarizer for wide angle"

but for grads, Lee SW150 System/ Lucroit-Hitech 165mm/ Cokin X-Pro are available while Singh-Ray makes filters for these three.

I think you cut it prematurely... Polarizer only makes uneven sky but not uneven water or other non-metallic objects.  If you included a little to no sky in your photo, you can still use polarizer.

I use a polariser a lot on a 16-35IIL...it's fine. Mr Rockwell is making big bold nieve statements again. Yes there's an unevenness...but rotating the polariser can place the dark spot in a neat and compositionally strong place...so what's the problem?

Vonbon?

[GMCPhotographics]

Ken Rockwell said "Thou shalt not use polarizer for wide angle"

but for grads, Lee SW150 System/ Lucroit-Hitech 165mm/ Cokin X-Pro are available while Singh-Ray makes filters for these three.

I think you cut it prematurely... Polarizer only makes uneven sky but not uneven water or other non-metallic objects.  If you included a little to no sky in your photo, you can still use polarizer.

I use a polariser a lot on a 16-35IIL...it's fine. Mr Rockwell is making big bold nieve statements again. Yes there's an unevenness...but rotating the polariser can place the dark spot in a neat and compositionally strong place...so what's the problem?

Vonbon?

Try that for an example. Polarised just over St Michael's mount.

[wickidwombat]

Ken Rockwell said "Thou shalt not use polarizer for wide angle"

but for grads, Lee SW150 System/ Lucroit-Hitech 165mm/ Cokin X-Pro are available while Singh-Ray makes filters for these three.

I think you cut it prematurely... Polarizer only makes uneven sky but not uneven water or other non-metallic objects.  If you included a little to no sky in your photo, you can still use polarizer.

I use a polariser a lot on a 16-35IIL...it's fine. Mr Rockwell is making big bold nieve statements again. Yes there's an unevenness...but rotating the polariser can place the dark spot in a neat and compositionally strong place...so what's the problem?

ditto, only problem is if you forget you have the polariser and shoot a pano then realise later it won't stitch 
other than that i use the polariser on the 16-35 all the time.

[verysimplejason]

Ken Rockwell said "Thou shalt not use polarizer for wide angle"

but for grads, Lee SW150 System/ Lucroit-Hitech 165mm/ Cokin X-Pro are available while Singh-Ray makes filters for these three.

I think you cut it prematurely... Polarizer only makes uneven sky but not uneven water or other non-metallic objects.  If you included a little to no sky in your photo, you can still use polarizer.

I use a polariser a lot on a 16-35IIL...it's fine. Mr Rockwell is making big bold nieve statements again. Yes there's an unevenness...but rotating the polariser can place the dark spot in a neat and compositionally strong place...so what's the problem?

ditto, only problem is if you forget you have the polariser and shoot a pano then realise later it won't stitch 
other than that i use the polariser on the 16-35 all the time.

Well here's a 17-40L with CPL.

[mackguyver]

Ken Rockwell said "Thou shalt not use polarizer for wide angle"

but for grads, Lee SW150 System/ Lucroit-Hitech 165mm/ Cokin X-Pro are available while Singh-Ray makes filters for these three.

I think you cut it prematurely... Polarizer only makes uneven sky but not uneven water or other non-metallic objects.  If you included a little to no sky in your photo, you can still use polarizer.

I use a polariser a lot on a 16-35IIL...it's fine. Mr Rockwell is making big bold nieve statements again. Yes there's an unevenness...but rotating the polariser can place the dark spot in a neat and compositionally strong place...so what's the problem?

ditto, only problem is if you forget you have the polariser and shoot a pano then realise later it won't stitch 
other than that i use the polariser on the 16-35 all the time.

Well here's a 17-40L with CPL.

You forgot the other "rule", never use a polarizer to shoot people