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

[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 

[NWPhil]

well, I am done waiting for the Canon 14-24mm....

I like UWA lenses, and have a nice set of primes on that range.
The 17-40 is not keeping me happy anymore, but indeed was/is a very nice multi tasking lens for travelling and hiking on the light.
Tried the 16-35 mk2, and was not please with color rendition.
Tried the nikon 14-24mm with an adapter, and the the f value guessing work is really a pain - don't mind the MF focus, and compose all open, but often had to re-take the picture due to overexposing; only with live view the reading was coming correct ( maybe I can blame the cheap adapter?)
The 24-70 mk2 is very sharp and has a nice IQ but not an UWA, and old R leica lenses do not offer anything of interest as UWA zooms.
So, I decided to go after the Sigma 14-24 mk2 - yes, a compromise of many sorts, but I need it now for use - not whenever if ever Canon decides to release it.
Paired with my 24-105, I have all I need for hiking and travelling light.

Thanks for nothing Canon 

[privatebydesign]

Tried the 16-35 mk2 from, and was not please with color rendition.

Did you create a profile for it before dismissing it? It takes ten minutes and is done.

[NWPhil]

Tried the 16-35 mk2 from, and was not please with color rendition.

Did you create a profile for it before dismissing it? It takes ten minutes and is done.

No, I did not(?) - I let the 5Dmk2 UI take over and same in LR.
Similar opinion I got with the ef 8-15mm when compared with old ef 15mm

[privatebydesign]

Tried the 16-35 mk2 from, and was not please with color rendition.

Did you create a profile for it before dismissing it? It takes ten minutes and is done.

No, I did not(?) - I let the 5Dmk2 UI take over and same in LR.
Similar opinion I got with the ef 8-15mm when compared with old ef 15mm

If you had you couldn't have been unhappy with colours and contrast, corner sharpness is another thing all together though, no profile is going to sort that out!

I can't ever see me letting my 15 fisheye go, it is so small, cheap and sharp, and an f2,8, what in the world comes close?