December 18, 2014, 12:28:01 PM

Author Topic: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion  (Read 10590 times)

Canon Rumors

  • Administrator
  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2800
    • View Profile
    • Canon Rumors
New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« on: August 15, 2012, 10:30:41 AM »
From POTN
A forum thread on POTN talks about a replacement for the EF 16-35 f/2.8L II being due based on past history..

Quote from the thread

  • FD -> new FD = 6.2 years
  • new FD -> EF = 5.5 years
  • EF -> EF USM = 6.5 years
  • 17-35 -> 16-35 = 5.7 years
  • 16-35 -> 16-35 II = 5.3 years
  • As of today (August 2012) we are 5.4 years from the release of the 16-35L II

There has been lots of talk about an EF 14-24 f/2.8L since Nikon launched such a lens. I wouldn’t think this would be a replacement for the 16-35 f/2.8L II, as I can’t see how it can be easily filterable (without large and expensive third party solutions).

If a 14-24 does indeed become the new f/2.8 ultrawide zoom in the Canon lineup, then I expect a 16-40 f/4L IS type of lens to come quickly for the landscape world and for people that need an easy filterable ultrawide. However, the Nikon 14-24 is a monster of a lens, and would be an awkward replacement for a 16-35 at weddings if you currently shoot with one (just my opinion). The widest screw-on filter lens I have seen is the still to be released Carl Zeiss Distagon T* ZE 15mm f/2.8, which has a 95mm filter thread.

There’s enough chatter about a new wide angle zoom, I think we can start to expect one sooner than later.

Source: [POTN] via [NL]

cr

« Last Edit: August 15, 2012, 11:10:16 AM by Canon Rumors »
canonrumors.com

canon rumors FORUM

New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« on: August 15, 2012, 10:30:41 AM »

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4361
    • View Profile
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2012, 10:38:20 AM »

My 2cents:
I'm ok with 16-35 lenght mrk III or 14-24, but make it sharper at 2.8 as Nikon 14-24
Bodies: 1DX -- 5D III
Zooms: 16-35L f4 IS -- 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Primes: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 200L f2 IS -- 400L f2.8 IS II

CJRodgers

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2012, 10:52:23 AM »
Isnt there a filter holder for the nikon 14-24? I agree 16mm but sharper would be fine.

tome223

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #3 on: August 15, 2012, 10:52:40 AM »
The 17-40l is nine years old, wonder if that will have a ii version or similar replacement.   Just announce the 14-24 before mid November so I can get a Black Friday / Christmas deal on the 17-40!
5d3 --- 60d --- 50mm-f1.8 --- 18-135mm --- 60mm macro --- 70-300is --- 100-400l --- 24-105l --- 17-40l --- 430ex ii

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3288
    • View Profile
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #4 on: August 15, 2012, 11:07:27 AM »
17-40/f4.0 L, released May 2003. 9+ years.

Replacement....?

Sony

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 55
    • View Profile
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #5 on: August 15, 2012, 11:43:31 AM »
I have 24-70mm and 70-200mm. 14-24mm will be the best choice for me. That's why I dont touch 16-35mm.

Daniel Flather

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 871
    • View Profile
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2012, 11:51:42 AM »
Bring on the 14-24, and it's more money than the 14 prime I'll get the prime. ;D  I may as well buy the prime now, as we all know the 14-24 will be $2500+

| 5D3 | 8-15L | 24L II | 35L | 50L | 85L II | 100/2.8 | 200/2L | EOS M | 22 STM |

canon rumors FORUM

Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2012, 11:51:42 AM »

markko

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #7 on: August 15, 2012, 01:16:25 PM »
I own a 16-35mkII and it worked perfectly with the 1Dmk3 I had.

After I replaced the 1Dmk3 with a 5Dmk3 the 16-35mkII wasn't good enough anymore: the off-center unsharpness is just too visible. I bought the 17-40 which is a lot sharper (but obviously lacks the F/2.8).

I really like the 16/17 to 35/40mm focal range, so I'm really hoping they are going to release a sharp 16-35mm F2.8. The 14-24mm F2.8 sounds as a nice addition to the 24-70mm, but for the type of photography I'm doing I'd rather use a 16-35 + 70-200mm combo.

Just my 2 cents.

Mark.

Arkarch

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 180
    • View Profile
    • Karl Buiter Photography
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #8 on: August 15, 2012, 01:50:37 PM »
The only way I even care about new Canon wides is if they finally become edge sharp.

Regarding the tail end of the article, when does the Zeiss 15mm finally make it to the channels?  I love my Zeiss 21mm (its become my landscape walk-around) and the 15mm would complete my needs at the wide.  Except for maybe a Canon TS-E 17mm or if I want to fisheye with the 8-15mm

But if Canon finally does get their sharpness at the level of some of their longer lenses... maybe I would consider.  But that would mean they care about more than wedding and sports.


« Last Edit: August 15, 2012, 01:56:17 PM by Arkarch »
Landscape ( http://www.buiterphotography.com )
Motorsports ( http://www.buitermotorsports.com )
5DIII, 7D, EF 300/2.8 II IS USM, ZE 21/2.8, ZE 50/2 ZE 100/2, TS-E 24/3.5, EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II, EF 24-105 IS f/4, TC 1.4 III, TC 2.0 III

Etienne

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 688
    • View Profile
    • Photography by Steve Brule
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #9 on: August 15, 2012, 01:59:34 PM »
I own a 16-35mkII and it worked perfectly with the 1Dmk3 I had.

After I replaced the 1Dmk3 with a 5Dmk3 the 16-35mkII wasn't good enough anymore: the off-center unsharpness is just too visible. I bought the 17-40 which is a lot sharper (but obviously lacks the F/2.8).

I really like the 16/17 to 35/40mm focal range, so I'm really hoping they are going to release a sharp 16-35mm F2.8. The 14-24mm F2.8 sounds as a nice addition to the 24-70mm, but for the type of photography I'm doing I'd rather use a 16-35 + 70-200mm combo.

Just my 2 cents.

Mark.

You must have a really bad copy of the 16-35 mkII. The 16-35 is sharper than the 17-40 at every aperture and focal length except borders at 35 mm. This is confirmed by every review including photozone.de, and at the wide end it is as sharp at 2.8 as the 17-40 is at f4.

Razor2012

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 635
    • View Profile
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #10 on: August 15, 2012, 02:12:51 PM »
I'd actually like to see a 14-24 to fill in the gap behind the 24-70II and the 70-200 2.8II, as I don't feel the 16-35II is up to the standards of these two.  Maybe even a 16-24 and keep the 82mm filters.
5D MKIII w grip, 70-200 2.8L IS II, 24-70 2.8L II, 16-35 2.8L II, 100 2.8L IS macro, 600EX-RT

Etienne

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 688
    • View Profile
    • Photography by Steve Brule
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #11 on: August 15, 2012, 02:43:40 PM »
I'd actually like to see a 14-24 to fill in the gap behind the 24-70II and the 70-200 2.8II, as I don't feel the 16-35II is up to the standards of these two.  Maybe even a 16-24 and keep the 82mm filters.

A sharp, light 16-24 f2.8 or 20-35 f2.8 would suit me best too, but I think we are hopelessly outnumbered by those who want a 2.5 lb brick with a bulby lens.

zrz2005101

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #12 on: August 15, 2012, 02:57:38 PM »
I would hope that Canon releases a new wide angle lens in which filters are applicable since our landscape photographers need them but surely it better than the 16-35II which sucks at the wide end.
1Ds MK IIIx2/ 7D/ 1D MK III/ 16-35L II/ 24-70L/ 24-105L/ 70-200 2.8 IS L/ 50 1.4/ 100L/ 85 1.8/2x III TC

canon rumors FORUM

Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #12 on: August 15, 2012, 02:57:38 PM »

Razor2012

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 635
    • View Profile
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #13 on: August 15, 2012, 03:18:58 PM »
I'd actually like to see a 14-24 to fill in the gap behind the 24-70II and the 70-200 2.8II, as I don't feel the 16-35II is up to the standards of these two.  Maybe even a 16-24 and keep the 82mm filters.

A sharp, light 16-24 f2.8 or 20-35 f2.8 would suit me best too, but I think we are hopelessly outnumbered by those who want a 2.5 lb brick with a bulby lens.

A 16-24 2.8 that was tack sharp (same specs as the new 24-70II) would be perfect.  For anyone who needs the UW end of it, there's the 14mm 2.8II.  ;)
5D MKIII w grip, 70-200 2.8L IS II, 24-70 2.8L II, 16-35 2.8L II, 100 2.8L IS macro, 600EX-RT

KitsVancouver

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #14 on: August 15, 2012, 05:20:47 PM »
I own a 16-35mkII and it worked perfectly with the 1Dmk3 I had.

After I replaced the 1Dmk3 with a 5Dmk3 the 16-35mkII wasn't good enough anymore: the off-center unsharpness is just too visible. I bought the 17-40 which is a lot sharper (but obviously lacks the F/2.8).

I really like the 16/17 to 35/40mm focal range, so I'm really hoping they are going to release a sharp 16-35mm F2.8. The 14-24mm F2.8 sounds as a nice addition to the 24-70mm, but for the type of photography I'm doing I'd rather use a 16-35 + 70-200mm combo.

Just my 2 cents.

Mark.

You're the first person I've ever heard say the 17-40 is sharper than the 16-35 MkII.  I'm going to go further and say you outright had a defective copy of the 16-35 because every tester says the 16-35 is sharper and my own experiences have reflected that. 

canon rumors FORUM

Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #14 on: August 15, 2012, 05:20:47 PM »