Anyone Want an Improved 16-35mm over the much requested 14-24mm?
- By mb66energy
- Canon Lenses
- 72 Replies
Radiating said:I'm personally not too crazy about a 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. I would much much rather Canon release a further updated 16-35mm f/2.8 III, specifically based on this insane lens patent:
16-35mm f/2.8 IS Pro Lens.
http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-01-06
f/2.8 3 ED elements 5 aspherical ones, and sharpness that rivals the 14-24mm wide open, AND image stabilization!
Internal focusing, low vignette.
I really would much rather have greater flexibility and greater focal range than an ultra wide angle that only does ultra wide, and worse than this proposed lens at that.
Anyone else feel the same way?
Mostly I share your arguments except these about the lens design - I am not interested in numbers of special lens elements but the result. But: aspherical surfaces help to correct aberrations with ONE LENS ELEMENT and avoid large numbers of elements - vital for ultra wides which have light sources in the frame often to increase contrast and supress flares.
A 16-35 has - with its 35mm focal length some universal character - as you said. I am someone who thinks of 100 mm as standard focal length (in terms of FF) so 35mm is a strong wide angle lens for me, but still usable for a broad range of subjects and situations.
I think an improved close focus capability of 1:4@35mm would be very interesting ... and good IQ from center to corners in terms of contrast, good color reproduction and percepted sharpness.
Upvote
0