|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L
NL has been told to expect Canon to “match” Nikon with a 14-24 this year.
We've posted the patent to such a lens in the past
I have no current info about the release of such a lens.
cr
What, no IS? What good is a rumor for a lens without IS?
I have been waiting for a lens that matches this focal length from Canon. I told myself I would buy the next ultra wide angle lens, so now I’m quite interested.
From the diagram, it looks like it won’t be able to take filters, to be expected at those focal lengths.
Can’t wait!
I wonder who actually has use for this. UWA isn’t very good for landscapes unless you want to make something in the foreground huge looking.
Maybe interior stuff…. making your friends heads look like aliens…
Looks nice, but the question is, what’s the price going to be? Cheaper than the current 14mm f/2.8L II?
you wouldnt need IS for such a wide angle lens? I use the 16-35 and even that lens doesnt need IS
Why is this needed when canon has the 16-35mm f/2.8L?
because 14 is wider, therefore better
so if the 70-200 wasalready released, the 60 2.8 macro IS is being rumored cr2… either the source is very close or he was hanging on to this rumor…
Because 16-35mm f/2.8 sucks (vs Nikon 14-24)
Funny, we were just speaking about that yesterday… :)
I think that a 14-24 F2.8 is a great addition to get a little wider option for the 1d mark IV sport shooters. It will be great for the remote camera.
But I guess that it would be a heavy, big lens. But since when that stopped anybody! :)
he’s being sarcastic
Lots of people have use for this. From wedding interior shots to landscapes. I’ve used the Canon 14mm II for landscapes just fine and there are lots of great UWA landscape shots on the Canon 10-22, 16-35, and Nikon 14-24mm on flickr and the rest of the net.
Canon needs a revamped UWA zoom lens for their high resolution cameras than the outdated 16-35 and 17-40mm.
Not to mention there is a noticeable difference between 14mm and 16mm.
With nikon’s 14mm and 14-24, the zoom is 100 bucks more. Though personally I can’t find much pros of the prime over the zoom besides being slightly lighter and slightly more compact. I would suspect if Canon ever released this zoom the 14mm prime would lose sales and probably value dramatically.
Are you sure? I’ve read a lot of comments on this blog where people seem to seriously want to have IS even in the widest of lenses…
EF 14-24 f/2.8 USM and EF 24-70 f/2.8 USM with IS in the same year?!…
Few days ago you were speaking about a new f/4 lens…. couldn’t it be this one 14-24 f/4?!
Sounds good for me, anyway f/2.8 or f/4…. it’s better late than never!!
The 16-35II is only 5 or so years old, but then again,
it was before Canon started to use the new sub-wavelength coating which allows more radical designs
with less flare and reflections.
If the lens comes any where near the 17tse in IQ,
It will be very awesome.
It will fit in with the 24-70 & 70-200 nicely.
It makes sense, then you have an awesome trio:
14-24 f/2.8L
24-70 f/2.8L IS
70-200 f/2.8L IS
That covers most everything you could want.
At the moment with the 16-35 and 17-40 to choose from, it’s a bit of a fnarf.
Whether people want it or not, it seems Canon’s policy is not to include IS in wide lenses (= 100mm for FF, 55mm for APS-C).
In that design there is no space for IS, that is for sure.
24-105 f/4L IS ? The upcoming (probably) 24-70 f/2.8 L IS?
OK, from 50 up IS is useful
IS is always useful for video capture.
I would love a 24-70 f/2.8 L IS on my 5D mark II (but I guess it may be terribly expensive).
no, just a realllllly looooong wait.
wow, someone else agrees!
i was surprised. i compared the EF 16-35 II L with an EF-S 17-55 2.8/L on a 7D. believe it or not, the EF-S was sharper and had more color saturation in every shot, even taking into account the crop body only used the sharper center of the lens.
At the Focus on Imaging show last month I was looking at Lee Filters holder for the Nikon 14-24/2.8. An adapter ring clamps around the front of the lens and the filter holder (150mm filters) slots onto the adapter. Their rep (i.e. from Lee Filters) commented they had the matter “in hand” to produce a similar adapter to fit the coming Canon version.
I tend to switch IS off for video, as the on-board mic picks the sound up. On a lens as wide as this it would be useless and simply add more cost to something that will already be quite expensive.
Have you seen the Lee adaptor for the nikon 14-24 though? no reason that wouldn’t either work/or be adaptable to fit the canon.
If you actually read the patent, you will find that the diagram posted here on CR is not a zoom design. It is a prime lens. Furthermore, none of the embodiments or numerical examples in the patent demonstrate a 14-24/2.8 zoom. Because embodiments don’t necessarily correspond to final production lenses, it’s not really possible to know what will be developed, if anything at all. We could see a 14-20/4 zoom, for example.
mountain bike photography
get in really close to the action
i have a 16-35 II used on a 1D4
i intend to buy a 10-22 and take off the rear cap; the 10-22 can be used on a 1D4 down to 12mm
a 14-XX would be interesting
I don’t “need” this focal length in a professional sense, I “want” it as a hobbyist – I don’t mind waiting for the real thing :)
24-105 f/4L is longer than 100mm on the long side.
“The upcoming (probably) 24-70 f/2.8 L IS?”
What next ? Proving monsters do exist by giving the Loch Ness monster as an example ?
“OK, from 50 up IS is useful”
You have data to support that statement, preferably more convincing than the evidence to the existence of big foot.
I’ll repeat my self: to this day, Canon has released IS on EF lenses with a long side at least ~100mm, and EF-S lenses with a long side at least ~55mm. Based on that experience, I think it would be a safe bet that if Canon releases an EF 14-24mm, it would not have IS.
IIRC, he spoke about a new f/4 *prime* lens.
If you don’t know how to use it then you don’t need it.
Folks it’s not going to be a prime, it’s not going to be f4, it’s not going to have IS.
It’s going to be a 14-24 2.8L ( a la Nikon’s) – it’s going to be extremely crisp, it’s going to be sharp as a tack even in the corners, it’s going to have stunning color and IQ, and it’s going to be awesome.
A TRUE BELIEVER!
And it’s going to be over $2K. ;-)
I totally agree. The EF-S 17-55 is such an impressive lens! I’ll never give it away unless I switch from my 7D to FF.
Calm down.
BTW, saying that from 50mm up IS is useful implies that for a 14-24 it is not.
It is much easier to optimize a lens for an APS-C sized image field only. Especially in the wide and ultrawide range.
Of course this does *not* mean that the 16-35 could not benefit from an update.
But you are really comparing apples and oranges.
No, *prime* was not mentioned. A lot of people speculate(d) about an update of the 17-40L.
this would be an awesome lens … holding off on buying a 16-35 L II while I see if this actually drops or not
pretty much on the dot. there are a legion of uses for a lens this wide, some already pointed out by others here
architectural photography
landscapes
action sport photography (UWA looks great for skiing and kayak photos)
large group shots at events
I’ve also seen UWAs used brilliantly in automotive photography, even though it’s not the standard lens type you’d think of for it
nadda
It may match the focal length from Nikon, but it is going to be hard to match the IQ of the Nikon lens. I shoot canon, but that 14-24mm Nikon lens is supposed to be a great one.
Add a 200-400 f/4 to the list and that is called Nikon
Just because you don’t see a use for, or have a need for, something doesn’t mean I don’t. I’ll take IS in anything, Nikon seems to think enough people will buy an ultrawide with IS, Canon will have to reply. I’ll be there with my chequebook when their ultrawide zoom gets it, and I’ll be pushing people out of the way to get a 24-70 IS if it gets here before it too needs upgrading. Kinda interesting Canon ploy, take so long to release a lens that it becomes outdated before it makes it to market!
look at figure 5 “Telephoto end” “Wide angle end?
I’d be happy with a 100-400 update.
I believe. I think we will see it later though. I’d be surprised this year. I think we’ll get the 24-70 refresh before this lens.
However, I think it will be expensive. $200 more than Nikon current street. Wish it could accommodate a filter.
Count the lenses and look at their shape. There is more than one design, and Fig. 5 is not the same as Fig. 1
I always find it hilarious when a photographer posts such a closed-minded statement.
Crawl out of your box LOL (Mark II Team) there’s a whole new world out there.
Fine with me. I won’t be in that particular queue.
I also cannot understand why Canon don’t bring things to the market as soon as the development is finished.
Apparently that did not hurt the sales of the 70-200 f/2.8 II
Yes the 16-35 II is just a few years old, and the II version is better than the first version, but in comparison to the Nikon 14-24, Nikon showed Canon how to design a lens.
And to add insult to injury the Canon 14mm II cost $2100 US at BH and the Nikon 14-24 cost $1800 US at BH.
So with Nikon you get a sharper, more versatile lens for less money. Good job Nikon.
ps, I shoot Canon
Sorry, but it makes complete sense for Canon to replace the 100-400, therefore they won’t do it.
But isn’t the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM already an equivalent lens of Nikon’s 14-24 FX?
I was looking to buy Nikon’s full frame camera and the 14-24mm FX Lens is a beast! Now having bought Canon, I am looking to buy th e16-35mm as the equivalent.
One thing I did not like on the Nikon’s 14-24 was its front, can’t use filters and the lens is exposed to scratches, etc.
Well Nikon’s 16-35 f4 VR can use filters and probably support the high resolution cameras?
why not make a 12-24mm to not compete with nikon, but rather beat it?
The Canon 16-35mm F2.8 is a poor comparison to the Nikon 14-24mm. Even the Nikon 17-35mm has better IQ than the Canon 16-35mm. I dont get why they would put so much focus on since its a specialty lens amongst nikon shooters due to the design.
Amazingly sharp but still distorts.
I have to do more reading about the canon’s 16-35mm then, I almost decided to buy it. But now I may hope for the 12-24mm, hopefully it rivals the Nikon edition, or surpasses it, for that reason.
A filter slot in the rear would be an option.
That would work for anything but graded NDs. Now those take some time to set up anyways, if you spend that time with exposure blending instead – should be fine for most assignments.
As for matching the IQ of the Nikkor: Canon has the TS17 which covers about the same field of view with very good results. So they know how to design and build the challenging front portion of such a lens…
Why are you filming with the onboard mic?
canon always f*cked up wide angles even the current 16-35II wont be sharp in the corners at f/11
i have it and i tested 4 samples to get the best
i hope they can at least buy a nikon lens steal the optics design…
seriously why no IS in wide angles? if people are willling to pay it you can even build it into a fisheye
even if it was useless for the most
hope comes first with what most people want
a 24-70 IS
then something affordable above 200mm would be nice
sigma has a 150-500 OS that can produce a decent image quality canon could just make a lens a bit better and of cause a bit more expensive
a 400 5,6 IS or 200-400 4-5,6 IS woul be nice also
well at least if they are below 2000€
Uh, you know that Canon has never matched Nikon in wide angles, right? It’s weird, but Nikon seems to always have wide-angle superiority and Canon has telephoto superiority. I have seen reviews where the Nikkor 14-24 beat the pants off the EF 14L and 24L. I wouldn’t hold my breath hoping for the EF 14-24 to match the Nikkor.
As far as I am concerned, I have.
I have done some night shots recently of a distant illuminated building.
All pictures taken with the 50/1,4 were blurred, where all pictures taken with the 24-105L/4 were quite ok at 50, despite the additional weight of the zoom.
I see no reason why IS wouldn’t make a difference at ANY focal length, even 14.
YES!
Successful Troll!
Thanks guys. The troll food was awesome!
BS it’s more versitile. A max of 24mm makes it a dedicated WA lens (FF that is). The 16-35 can be a WA and at 35mm is still useful for more normal shooting.
Of course on a crop body it’s different.
Yes UA!
BS.
17 and 24 tilt and shift equal or beat anything from Nikon… at a price of course… Oh and they’re only really WA on a full frame… But still.
I think the canon 16-35 is one of the most bashed on lenses of all time (metaphorically that is).
Before I got one I was scared it was going to be really crappy… till I actually tried one.
Truth is, it’s well built, sharp (even at 2.8) has great contrast and colour. The softness in the corners is very minor (MUCH less that a lot of people will have you believe) and it deserves a fair chance.
Oh and when the corners fall out of the DOF that’s not soft. :rolleyes:
Isn’t it past your bedtime?
I forgot which site I read this from, but I read somewhere that IS was not recommended for video because that the IS tended to lag or skip in frames or frame rate or something along those lines?
When I looked at the equipment of a lot of professionals using the Dslr for video…the only lens with IS was the 70-200 2.8 is and the rest are primes?
it is more versatile than the 14 prime
like i’ve been saying
Nikon = UWA zooms (14-24, 16-35)
Canon = UWA primes (17 tse, 24 tse, 35 1.4)
tie 24 1.4 II
a rear filter slot doesn’t work for circular polarizers either – that hurts, but not enough to sway me away from a purchase.
I’m sure Canon can match the Nikon quality. Maybe even beat it – stranger things have happened!
I’ve seen slot inserts with a gear that allows you to turn the polarizer – nothing fundamentally show stopping here.
With such a lens it wouldn’t even need to be the circular kind, I wouldn’t rely on AF anyway.
The dependence on the orientation in relation to the sun is more of a issue with a lens that wide, but we can’t blame Canon for that. :)
a 14-24 mm 2.8 L series lens would definitely top off my lens setup, already having the 24-70 L2.8 and 70-200 is L2.8. bring it on… 8)
oh dear
This is standard for the superteles. They are delivered with a non-rotatable rear filter carrier, and you can buy a rotable one that has a little knob on the outside.
I think I have an ES-F 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. Quite unique in Canon policy not?
In my opinion IS is usefull in any lens when used hand held, specially if you like pixel peeping or very big prints.
My apologies, you are right. However, I did not see any mention of this variety in the patent diagrams or information.
I instinctively thought about the rear filter system in all current wide-angle lenses with bulbous front elements. This is a small holder at the very back (passed the rear element) that holds square gel filters. They cannot be rotated. They require the lens to be removed from the camera to be changed in any way.
You got a good point!
Business point of view, there are people really want IS on all lenses, canon can charge more $$$ by adding the feature. Doesn’t matter it is useful or not…
However there may be technique difficulties due to the size limitations for lens with large apertures.
Those people aren’t the brightest bulbs.
IS would of course be of benefit when doing long exposures.
So would a tripod.
Not really. It’s an EF-S lens which is targeted at the “prosumer” (rich amateur) segment.
IS is a huge selling feature in that market.
Eh. The EF-S 10-22 is pretty decent.
Well, with 14mm lens you may handhold down to [let’s say] 1/15s shutter speed. With an eventual 4-stop IS this would increase to about 1s, which sounds very, very nice.
So far with the IS butter on a UW lens though. For 1s your dog can take it to the bathroom [take a leak, flush the toilet] and be back. You will get a faint ghost of it on a 1sec-exposure picture if anything. True, with IS you can take beautiful handheld low-light, low-ISO, 1-second exposures of static objects. Think San Francisco downtown at night. However, the ability to do 1sec handheld exposures may simply not be worth the $500 IS. Leaning against a wall or a pole while taking a longer exposure is entirely free. For better results, a good tripod will cost about $200 (and can also be re-used with any other lenses).
And for the love of god, who needs a $2k lens for long, UW exposures? One can do equally well with EF 20mm f/2.8 for $500. Or, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 (at 16mm on FF) for $550. Or, the soon to-be-released Samyang 14mm f/2.8 prime for $450. For ~$1500 of savings who would need IS for landscape photography?
How do you know IS is a huge selling factor?
It is definitely not a buying factor for me.
You seem to use your camera for taking pictures, not for showing off, exercising your neck muscles, and emptying your bank account.
You are not a prosumer. MIBTY has always been a selling factor for that segment, no matter which part of the high-tech market.
I see your point. And to be honest,I was not aware of the type of filter you describe. Does the lens come with a “rear thread” for mounting the filter?
A filter holder alone would (should) not change the optical performance, therefore it does not have to be included in the patent.
On the other hand, the lens arrangement show above is already quite crowded, and the only possible place to fit a filter would be before the aperture diaphragm. I have no idea what undesirable effects addtional glass in that position might have.
In the superteles, the position of the filter also seems to be past the rear element – unless you use teleconverters.
35 1.4 is WA, not UWA.
The 17mm TS-E doesn’t have a rear filter holder. Neither does the 16-35mm II I think.
It is probably for the 17TSE (and maybe 14L II) – since I don’t think the Lee filters guys will know what upcoming lenses Canon decides to release.
The 14mm F/2.8L II and the 15mm F/2.8 Fisheye use rear gel filters. The 16-35mm F/2.8L II has an 82mm front thread and doesn’t need a rear filter slot. There may be limitations with the TS-E lenses that prevent rear filters being used.
There is no rear thread, its just a tiny little slot that a piece of gel slides into. Here’s a photo of the back of the 15mm F/2.8 Fisheye as an example:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/images/15mm/D3S_8471-rear.jpg
Thanks. I can see that there is no reasonable way to use a polarizer with that.
The TS-E lenses need to throw a very large image field. However you tilt and shift the lens, the sensor has to be fully covered. So the rear filter would probably have to be very large, and thus impractical to mount.
Happy to help :)
ROFLMAO
Well true
I just want to add, I think most people “want” UWA but don’t know how to use it properly, so they bash the lens for having “soft corners” which is the biggest load of overblown pixel peeping garbage talk I have ever heard.
How long to wait?
Add things up!
A sufficiently good 14-24 would replace 3 primes in the 500$ range. The savings melt, while bag and back relax a bit.
yep I realized that but figured might as well stick it in there
No, he was very clear there was a Canon equivalent of the Nikon zoom coming.
Don’t forget the 14mm 2.8L II – it’s a gem.
all this talk and all i really want is an 18/f2 or 2.8 prime that matches or bests the 24 1.4 –
I’d also like canon to stop following the nikon business model and stop charging insane prices for the primes no matter how good they are
I shoot almsot every day with the 35 1.4 and it’s my fave lens ever but if it had cost as much as the 24 1.4 i don’t know if i would have bought it….
Canon is one of the only companies that i know that complained about the world wide downturn and raised prices anyway… argh different story for another place.
I have the EF 16-35mm F2.8L USM lens and I love it.
One of my favorite glas – together with EF 70-200 F2.8L IS USM and EF 100mm F2.8L IS USM (which btw is an incredible sharp lens).
Using tje EF 16-35mm with my 5DMKII I found it to be sharp wide open with some softness in the corners.
Then I discovered that it needed some micro AF adjustment to show it best (tested all my lenses last week). Now it is MUCH sharper in both center and corners at F2.8!
I might add that 2 of my 6 lenses needed micro AF adjustment to show their best – the EF 16-35mm and the EF 70-300,mm F4.5- F5.6 DO).
Anyway – I love to see a EF 12-24mm F2.8L!