June 22, 2018, 02:14:27 AM

Author Topic: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion  (Read 18050 times)

preppyak

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 919
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #30 on: August 17, 2012, 01:51:25 PM »
3. Patent from April 2011: EFS 11 f/2 - http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/ef-s-11mm-f2-patent/
Actually, this one was a lens for a projector; not for a DSLR

canon rumors FORUM

Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #30 on: August 17, 2012, 01:51:25 PM »

Otter

  • Guest
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #31 on: August 18, 2012, 02:08:50 PM »
I would love to see a 16-35 III, as well as a 14-24 f/2.8!  Wider and sharper Canon! 

Ellen Schmidtee

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #32 on: August 19, 2012, 12:54:35 AM »
My impression from reviews is that Nikon's equivalents to the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 (the 17-35mm f/2.8) and EF 17-40mm f/4 (the 16–35 mm f/4 VR) do not have the kind of advantage which would make people switch to Nikon, or prefer it in the first place.

Though the 16-35 & 17-40 would benefit from an upgrade, IMHO Canon's priority would be a lens to compete with the 14-24mm.

marekjoz

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 927
    • marekjoz @flickr
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #33 on: August 19, 2012, 07:34:24 AM »
My impression from reviews is that Nikon's equivalents to the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 (the 17-35mm f/2.8) and EF 17-40mm f/4 (the 16–35 mm f/4 VR) do not have the kind of advantage which would make people switch to Nikon, or prefer it in the first place.

Though the 16-35 & 17-40 would benefit from an upgrade, IMHO Canon's priority would be a lens to compete with the 14-24mm.

Looking on TDP at comparisons  between those lenses it looks like Nikons are worse than Canons in edges (less resolution, more CA) but slightly better in midframe. Tests are achieved with the use of different cameras, but intending the switch, one should consider the combo, not lenses alone.

N 14-24 F2.8 vs C 16-35 F.28 II, N 16-35 F4 vs C 17-40 F4
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=689&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=2

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=615&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

As I read those resolutions charts I conclude, that N 17-35 2.8 is a complete disaster.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=616&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=2
« Last Edit: August 19, 2012, 07:36:05 AM by marekjoz »
flickr | youtube | 5D2, 50 F/1.4, 24-105 F/4 L IS, 300 F/4 L IS, x1.4 II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #33 on: August 19, 2012, 07:34:24 AM »