December 08, 2016, 01:24:35 AM

Author Topic: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion  (Read 13314 times)

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3111
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #15 on: August 16, 2012, 12:01:32 AM »
I'm against a 16-24, because current 16-35 in terms of focal length, is perfect match of 70-200 and a 50 prime. Not everyone care about the joe six-pack 24-70 zoom lens.

True that.
2 x 1DX
B1G, MAC, GLIAC

canon rumors FORUM

Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #15 on: August 16, 2012, 12:01:32 AM »

Etienne

  • 5DSR
  • *******
  • Posts: 1041
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #16 on: August 16, 2012, 12:39:03 AM »
I'm against a 16-24, because current 16-35 in terms of focal length, is perfect match of 70-200 and a 50 prime. Not everyone care about the joe six-pack 24-70 zoom lens.

I have that setup (16-35 f2.8II, 50 f1.4, 70-200 f2.8 IS II), and while it's good, I would prefer :

16-24 f2.8 sharp and contrasty awesomeness at all focal lengths
35 f1.4 II- awesome sharp and contrasty
70-200 2.8 IS II - incredible (already in my bag)

Ellen Schmidtee

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #17 on: August 16, 2012, 02:09:40 AM »
I have a savings account with several thousands dollars in it release next year.

If Canon has a good EF 14-24mm by then, I'll buy EF 14-24mm + EF 24-70mm f/2.8 mk2, selling the 17-40mm along the way.

If not, I'm off to buy a Nikon FF camera + Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8

romanr74

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 473
  • I see, thus I am
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #18 on: August 16, 2012, 02:26:11 AM »
i also own the 16-35 f/2.8 II and corner performance to me is a real issue with this lens. i would love to see a mark III with this resolved. i would love to see a 14-24 f/2.8 too, but the missing front filter possibility would be a drawback...
EOS 5D Mark III; EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye; TS-E 17 f/4.0L; EF 85mm f/1.2L II; Macro EF 100 f/2.8L IS; EF 11-24 f/4.0L, EF 16-35 f/2.8L II, EF 16-35 f/4.0L IS, EF 24-70 f/2.8L II, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II

nicke

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #19 on: August 16, 2012, 03:39:28 AM »
I also prefer an updated 16-35/2.8 instead of the 14-24. And please keep the 82mm filter size!

traveller

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 713
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #20 on: August 16, 2012, 04:25:38 AM »
People seem to be asking for three different lenses: some want an update of the 16-35mm design with higher resolution; others are willing to sacrifice some range on the long end for extra wide angle coverage; yet others want this lens to retain front mounted filter compatibility. 

Even Nikon (who seem to be able to do no wrong when it comes to wide angle lenses -at least in some people's eyes) need three UWA zooms to do this!

It will be interesting to see if Canon simply update the optical design of the current 16-35mm, attempt to match Nikon's 14-24mm f/2.8, or whether they try something different (the position of the EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM might influence their thinking). 

c-law

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 81
    • Chris Law Photography
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #21 on: August 16, 2012, 06:54:33 AM »
Can anyone explain to me if it is possible or desirable to create a UWA like a 14-24mm with a drop in filter system like the superteles. Why? Why not?

If the front elements are to bulbous to fit a filter just as the front elements on superteles are just simply too large then why don't they have this?

Chris
Canon 5D MkII, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM, EF 70-200m f/2.8L IS USM, EF 50mm f/1.8 II, 580EX, LP160, a couple of home made macro & pinhole lenses.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #21 on: August 16, 2012, 06:54:33 AM »

traveller

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 713
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #22 on: August 16, 2012, 09:37:32 AM »
Can anyone explain to me if it is possible or desirable to create a UWA like a 14-24mm with a drop in filter system like the superteles. Why? Why not?

If the front elements are to bulbous to fit a filter just as the front elements on superteles are just simply too large then why don't they have this?

Chris

Pentax does drop in filters with their new 25mm (645) lens:

http://2.static.img-dpreview.com/files/news/8784334430/DA645_25FLT.jpg?v=1560

Of course, there could be further complications with a zoom lens, which may make the idea untenable (I'm no lens design expert).  Even if Canon could implement this, it would still not allow the use of rectangular ND grads (at least not without specialised and expensive filters/holders). 

RC

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 607
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #23 on: August 16, 2012, 11:07:04 AM »
Shooting with a 7D and have a 16-35 II.  I will be getting either the new FF or a 5D3,  looking forward to shooting landscapes on a FF with my 16-35.  What kind of issues should I expect if any (edge sharpness, CA, vignetting) shooting form 5.6 - 11 on a FF?  Thanks

tron

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2873
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #24 on: August 16, 2012, 11:36:54 AM »
An EF16-35 f/2.8 L III that has sharper edges than previous versions, not much vignetting and not much coma at the edges would be just fine.

K-amps

  • 1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1783
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #25 on: August 16, 2012, 12:03:20 PM »
I have a 17-40mm and am ok with the focal length, however I cringe at the corner distortion. It is like when Fox TV tries to widen a SD feed to a 16:9.

Yes corner sharpness needs improvement... that goes without saying, but in group shots, it is the distortion that bothers me the most.

I would like a 16-50mm f2.8 so that I am carrying fewer lenses when I go trekking.
EOS-80D & Pentax K1
EF Mount Rok 14mm F2.8; ∑ 24-105mm F4 A; 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; 100-400mm L Mk.II; EF 85mm L F/1.2 Mk. II; 100mm L F/2.8
Pentax D-FA 15-30 F2.8 & 28-105mm

5D Freak

  • Guest
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #26 on: August 16, 2012, 01:39:15 PM »
I would be stoked with a 16mm f2.8 (or even f2.0) filterable prime! Screw the zoom part to save size and cost, and to give the best image quality. Already have a 17tse (sharp but not practically filterable) and 17-40 (slow and edge softness with light falloff). A small 16mm prime would be good in the surf too!

Caps18

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #27 on: August 16, 2012, 05:57:58 PM »
I have no problems with my 16-35mm II f/2.8.

 I haven't looked real close at the 17TSe vs 16-35mm @17mm yet, but for a city skyline it wasn't too different in terms of sharpness.  The corners were blue sky and blue water though.  And it was my first time shooting the 17mm TSe, so getting the focus just right was different.
5D mark 2, 16-35mm f/2.8, 17mm TS-E f/4, 85mm f/1.8, 300mm f/4 + 1.4x, 580 EX Flash

canon rumors FORUM

Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #27 on: August 16, 2012, 05:57:58 PM »

marekjoz

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 927
    • marekjoz @flickr
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #28 on: August 16, 2012, 08:52:10 PM »
There are some interesting concepts pending:
1. Patent from March 2, 2012: EF 17-40 f/2.8-4L - http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/03/patent-canon-17-40-f2-8-4l/
2. Patent from August 2011: EF 16-35 F 2.8 DO - http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/08/canon-16-35-f2-8-do-patent/
3. Patent from April 2011: EFS 11 f/2 - http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/ef-s-11mm-f2-patent/
4. From November 2009 - EF 15-24/F3.5-4.5 Fish eye zoom - http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2009-11-27
5. From December 2009 - EF14-24 f/2.8L - http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/12/canon-lens-patents-review/
6. Finally from March 2012  - new EF16-35mm f/2.8, EF17-35mm f/2.8-4, EF16-35mm f/2-2.8 - http://photorumors.com/2012/03/29/canon-patents-for-a-16-35mm-f2-8-lens-and-2-8x-teleconverter/

It would also be great to see some lenses of this kind: http://www.*********.com/liquid-lens-patent-by-canon-and-video/

Any of the above mentioned concepts, if produced and offered the difference in quality like between the old and new 24-70 (as promised so far) would be a great step forward better quality in the wide end range. In my opinion the best moment for introducing a new wide killer would be while showing the high MP body - the perfect landscape combo.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2012, 09:00:00 PM by marekjoz »
flickr | youtube | 5D2, 50 F/1.4, 24-105 F/4 L IS, 300 F/4 L IS, x1.4 II

Axilrod

  • 5DSR
  • *******
  • Posts: 1374
Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #29 on: August 17, 2012, 12:50:29 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.

Yeah I love the 21mm as well, it's ridiculously sharp for a wide angle.  As for the 15mm, I think some people have already gotten their hands on it (in Europe at least), but I've seen some tests and it blows the 14L II away.  Then again it is almost $3k and takes 95mm filters (but at the same time the 14L doesn't take filters at all).
5DIII/5DII/Bunch of L's and ZE's, currently rearranging.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« Reply #29 on: August 17, 2012, 12:50:29 PM »