Canon EF 135mm f/2L IS USM Coming First Half of 2018 [CR1]

michi

EOS RP
Jul 26, 2011
264
4
Berowne said:
Re unreliable AF of the EF 85/1.8 - I made the same experience. Nevertheless, if AF hits, it is pin sharp even wide open.
Yes, the few shots where the AF nails it, this lens produces amazing shots. It really is a shame they didn't make a version II with a better AF module or whatever it takes to make AF work better. I would gladly pay $600 for a II lens if I knew AF would nail it every time.
 

Luds34

EOS 6D MK II
May 15, 2014
919
0
ahsanford said:
The Sigma is not stabilized. And it is still 80% the weight of a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom!

IMHO, a 135 prime needs to be sharper/creamier/shorter/lighter than the 70-200 f/2.8 zoom that so many folks already own or it will be relegated to niche use status. ... which is kind of where the 135L has sat since the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II came out.

- A
I agree with this.

I shoot the 70-200 when I'm not sure of what I'm exactly shooting and want the zoom versatility. If I'm stepping out to shoot a portrait shot I reach for the 135 every time as it is (arguably) the ultimate portrait lens.
 

Luds34

EOS 6D MK II
May 15, 2014
919
0
mjg79 said:
I'm totally uninterested in how sharp it is; instead they must pay attention to the rendering. I have tried (borrowed never owned) the Zeiss 135/2 as well as the Sigma 135. I prefer the rendering of the Canon over the other two and I know that's a completely subjective and rather controversial to say here but I just think it renders in a pleasing way, especially the background. I use it on a 5DS and it is plenty sharp wide open. Is the Zeiss sharper? Yes. Will anybody in the real world ever notice the difference? No. The 135L has such a beautiful bokeh, such lovely colours, I really would just love to see it slightly improved wherever they can, especially if we can have IS and leave it at that. If the bokeh gets compromised then I am not interested, however sharp they make it.

I fear the constant demand for "more sharpness" can sometimes lead lens designers astray. Sigma's 50mm Art for example is an amazingly sharp 50mm lens but the old 50mm DG EX (the Sigmalux as it was called) had a nicer rendering and bokeh and produces photos eerily similar to Nikon's legendary Noct 58/1.2.

So for once, I rather hope they don't change too much!
Count me in on the 135L being "sharp enough". It is actually quite sharp and like any other lens in this category the DOF is quite narrow shooting wide open. While the AF on this lens is incredibly accurate (my copy anyway) it just takes a slight subject movement/shift to throw off focus and lead to softer image. I enjoy the rendering, out of focus highlights etc with this lens. It does have a little bit of "magic" to the images it produces.

As a once owner of the old Sigma 50mm EX I completely agree on the images produced, rendering of that lens as well. The AF was just too slow for run and gun shooting that I wanted to use the FL with. And while the centerpoint was consistent, outer AF points never seemed to work quite right. With that said I never replaced the 50mm focal length (still waiting on Canon here I guess for a consumer level, affordable prime) and do miss this lens from time to time.

Total thread hi-jacking (sorry) but a couple shots of the old EX 50, memory lane time.

20150610-IMG_1913-M by Ryan Ludwig, on Flickr

It's my birthday and I can cry if I want to by Ryan Ludwig, on Flickr
 

Dholai

EOS T7i
Feb 5, 2014
53
4
I have compared the following 4 lenses in identical settings in one session.
1) Canon 135 F2
2) sigma Art 135 F1.8
3) Canon 70-200 F 2.8L MK II
4) Zeiss Milvus 135 F2

In my opinion-

Zeiss is first and far ahead. Nothing comes closer.
Sigma and Canon are close second. Sigma may be a tad better
Canon 70-200 is a distant last.

This is JUST the image quality(IQ) viewed on a 30 inches 4K color calibrated monitor- because to me, only IQ matters!
 

MayaTlab

EOS 80D
Oct 6, 2015
183
65
Meanwhile I'm still looking for modern Canon mid-range primes above 35mm...

Personally at 135mm I could easily do with an f4 lens - but with great bokeh and sharp / blur transitions.

Dear Mr Canon, there's at least 500 euros in my bank account for each of the following lenses :

- 50mm f/nofasterthanf2 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.
- 85mm f/nofasterthanf2 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.
- 100mm macro f/nofasterthanf4 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.
- 135mm f/nofasterthanf4 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.

Of course that's never going to happen.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,015
153
Davidson, NC
Larsskv said:
+1. I rarely use my 135L. The focal length doesn’t suit my kind of shooting very well, but whenever I use it, I find it to be sharp enough on my 5Ds, even at f2. For critical sharpness I will often shoot at f2.8, and then it performs great.
I've never seen much point in 135mm for my own shots. I think I may have owned one back in my film days, and hardly ever used it. I didn't use zooms back then. If I was traveling, and therefore limiting what lenses I took with me, I packed a 28mm, an 85mm, and a 200mm. I don't recall ever missing having something in between. So I'm unlikely to consider getting a 135mm prime.

For a telephoto with my Rebels, I have a less-than-stellar 75-300mm zoom. I don't think I used it much on the low end, approximating a 120mm equivalent. Now that I have a 6D2, I use that lens only when I want a lot more reach than the kit 24-105mm. When I can afford and get around to buying a decent telephoto lens, I guess I'll get a zoom that would incorporate that length. My two current primes are the 50mm f/1.4 and the 100mm f/2.8 macro. I used the former as my portrait lens for the Rebels, and I guess I'll use the latter with my 6D2, at least until I get an 85mm, if I do.
 

YuengLinger

EOR R
Dec 20, 2012
2,267
293
Southeastern USA
MayaTlab said:
Meanwhile I'm still looking for modern Canon mid-range primes above 35mm...

Personally at 135mm I could easily do with an f4 lens - but with great bokeh and sharp / blur transitions.

Dear Mr Canon, there's at least 500 euros in my bank account for each of the following lenses :

- 50mm f/nofasterthanf2 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.
- 85mm f/nofasterthanf2 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.
- 100mm macro f/nofasterthanf4 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.
- 135mm f/nofasterthanf4 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.

Of course that's never going to happen.
As a successful matchmaker, I hereby declare ahsanford has a soulmate! (Now go out and make some images together, both of you!) ;D
 

MayaTlab

EOS 80D
Oct 6, 2015
183
65
YuengLinger said:
MayaTlab said:
Meanwhile I'm still looking for modern Canon mid-range primes above 35mm...

Personally at 135mm I could easily do with an f4 lens - but with great bokeh and sharp / blur transitions.

Dear Mr Canon, there's at least 500 euros in my bank account for each of the following lenses :

- 50mm f/nofasterthanf2 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.
- 85mm f/nofasterthanf2 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.
- 100mm macro f/nofasterthanf4 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.
- 135mm f/nofasterthanf4 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.

Of course that's never going to happen.
As a successful matchmaker, I hereby declare ahsanford has a soulmate! (Now go out and make some images together, both of you!) ;D
Haha, I had already noticed the potential for a strong lens based relationship :D.

On a more serious note, regarding some of the comments in this thread : it's just wrong to assert that mid range primes aren't selling well and that there is no market for them.

Amazon rankings are just a poor snapshot of reality but some valid data can still be extracted from them. Guess which of the two cheaper Nikon 50s is selling the most ? Nope, it isn't the f1.8G one. It's the f1.4G.

And more telling : Fuji actually stopped developing faster aperture lenses, at least temporarily, and put a strong priority on delivering their f2 line when they noticed how well it was selling.

The fact that Canon hasn't continued developing the 24/28/35mm lineup doesn't mean that there is no potential for mid range 50s, 85s, etc., particularly given how Canon makes some decisions regarding which lens they'll produce. In this rather astonishing interview of a number of Canon managers by Focus Numérique, here's what Canon said :

"nous avions en quelque sorte le choix entre un 11-24 mm f/4 et un 12-24 mm f/2,8. Les deux objectifs auraient eu à peu près les mêmes dimensions et les coûts de production auraient été les mêmes. L'objectif de base étant d'être les premiers à produire les meilleurs objectifs du monde, nous avons opté pour le 11-24 mm f/4"

"In a way we had the choice between a 11-24mm f4 and a 12-24mm f2.8. The two lenses would have had roughly the same size and production costs would have been similar. Since our goal is to be the first to produce the best lenses in the world, we picked the 11-24mm f4."

https://www.focus-numerique.com/news/entretien-avec-mm-okada-hayakawa-et-izuki-de-canon-19731.html

So there you go : the only reason we got a 11-24mm is because Canon just wanted to play who's got the biggest. I don't think that at any point they actually asked themselves the question : are we actually serving out customers' needs ? Are we actually developing a lens that's relevant to the art of photography ?

That mindset is quite sad because it means that some lenses which are WAY more relevant to the practice of actually taking pictures, are falling by the wayside just because their specifications wouldn't exactly be seen as exciting.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 28, 2015
3,192
783
Irving, Texas
MayaTlab said:
YuengLinger said:
MayaTlab said:
Meanwhile I'm still looking for modern Canon mid-range primes above 35mm...

Personally at 135mm I could easily do with an f4 lens - but with great bokeh and sharp / blur transitions.

Dear Mr Canon, there's at least 500 euros in my bank account for each of the following lenses :

- 50mm f/nofasterthanf2 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.
- 85mm f/nofasterthanf2 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.
- 100mm macro f/nofasterthanf4 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.
- 135mm f/nofasterthanf4 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.

Of course that's never going to happen.
As a successful matchmaker, I hereby declare ahsanford has a soulmate! (Now go out and make some images together, both of you!) ;D
Haha, I had already noticed the potential for a strong lens based relationship :D.

On a more serious note, regarding some of the comments in this thread : it's just wrong to assert that mid range primes aren't selling well and that there is no market for them.

Amazon rankings are just a poor snapshot of reality but some valid data can still be extracted from them. Guess which of the two cheaper Nikon 50s is selling the most ? Nope, it isn't the f1.8G one. It's the f1.4G.

And more telling : Fuji actually stopped developing faster aperture lenses, at least temporarily, and put a strong priority on delivering their f2 line when they noticed how well it was selling.

The fact that Canon hasn't continued developing the 24/28/35mm lineup doesn't mean that there is no potential for mid range 50s, 85s, etc., particularly given how Canon makes some decisions regarding which lens they'll produce. In this rather astonishing interview of a number of Canon managers by Focus Numérique, here's what Canon said:

"In a way we had the choice between a 11-24mm f4 and a 12-24mm f2.8. The two lenses would have had roughly the same size and production costs would have been similar. Since our goal is to be the first to produce the best lenses in the world, we picked the 11-24mm f4."

https://www.focus-numerique.com/news/entretien-avec-mm-okada-hayakawa-et-izuki-de-canon-19731.html

So there you go : the only reason we got a 11-24mm is because Canon just wanted to play who's got the biggest. I don't think that at any point they actually asked themselves the question : are we actually serving out customers' needs ?
1. I don't understand what you are saying here. Canon has not stopped developing the 24 and 35mm L prime lenses. The outstanding EF 35mm f/1.4L USM was released October of 2015 (I own this lens). The Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM, introduced December 2008. I don't own the 24mm F/1.4L II so have no personal experience with it. However, the reviews I've read are very positive. EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM, announced February 2012, available since June 2012.
EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM, announced September 2014. (Source is Wikipedia)

2. "...the only reason we got a 11-24mm is because Canon just wanted to play who's got the biggest." ::) Canon said: "Since our goal is to be the first to produce the best lenses in the world, we picked the 11-24mm f4." It sounds to me like Canon is saying the f/4 was chosen because it will be better than the f/2.8. There are people on this forum who own the 11-24 who say they are very happy with it. I've read one member saying the 11-24 is a "masterpiece" because of it's ability to not have barreling. F/2.8? Maybe people who actually own the lens can speak to whether that makes a difference to them. I've never read anyone complaining about this lens being an f/4. Some may, but are they even in the market to spend that kind of money? I don't know and neither do you. You know for you and you only, regardless of what you hear others say or write. There are people here that say they know numerous professionals using this or that product working for this magazine or that. They almost never name the numerous photographers even though they are anonymous on this website.

3. "I don't think that at any point they actually asked themselves the question : are we actually serving out customers' needs?" What? Canon is so successful because they meet their customer's needs better than the competition for a large number of people.. That Canon fails to meet your personal needs is irrelevant when it comes to Canon's lens development philosophy. You are not Canon's only customer. There is nothing astonishing about that.

I personally don't believe the interview you quote is astonishing at all. I think your take away from the interview is quite astonishing.
 

MayaTlab

EOS 80D
Oct 6, 2015
183
65
CanonFanBoy said:
MayaTlab said:
YuengLinger said:
MayaTlab said:
Meanwhile I'm still looking for modern Canon mid-range primes above 35mm...

Personally at 135mm I could easily do with an f4 lens - but with great bokeh and sharp / blur transitions.

Dear Mr Canon, there's at least 500 euros in my bank account for each of the following lenses :

- 50mm f/nofasterthanf2 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.
- 85mm f/nofasterthanf2 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.
- 100mm macro f/nofasterthanf4 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.
- 135mm f/nofasterthanf4 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.

Of course that's never going to happen.
As a successful matchmaker, I hereby declare ahsanford has a soulmate! (Now go out and make some images together, both of you!) ;D
Haha, I had already noticed the potential for a strong lens based relationship :D.

On a more serious note, regarding some of the comments in this thread : it's just wrong to assert that mid range primes aren't selling well and that there is no market for them.

Amazon rankings are just a poor snapshot of reality but some valid data can still be extracted from them. Guess which of the two cheaper Nikon 50s is selling the most ? Nope, it isn't the f1.8G one. It's the f1.4G.

And more telling : Fuji actually stopped developing faster aperture lenses, at least temporarily, and put a strong priority on delivering their f2 line when they noticed how well it was selling.

The fact that Canon hasn't continued developing the 24/28/35mm lineup doesn't mean that there is no potential for mid range 50s, 85s, etc., particularly given how Canon makes some decisions regarding which lens they'll produce. In this rather astonishing interview of a number of Canon managers by Focus Numérique, here's what Canon said:

"In a way we had the choice between a 11-24mm f4 and a 12-24mm f2.8. The two lenses would have had roughly the same size and production costs would have been similar. Since our goal is to be the first to produce the best lenses in the world, we picked the 11-24mm f4."

https://www.focus-numerique.com/news/entretien-avec-mm-okada-hayakawa-et-izuki-de-canon-19731.html

So there you go : the only reason we got a 11-24mm is because Canon just wanted to play who's got the biggest. I don't think that at any point they actually asked themselves the question : are we actually serving out customers' needs ?
1. I don't understand what you are saying here. Canon has not stopped developing the 24 and 35mm L prime lenses. The outstanding EF 35mm f/1.4L USM was released October of 2015 (I own this lens). The Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM, introduced December 2008. I don't own the 24mm F/1.4L so have no personal experience with it. However, the reviews I've read are very positive.

2. "...the only reason we got a 11-24mm is because Canon just wanted to play who's got the biggest." ::) Canon said: "Since our goal is to be the first to produce the best lenses in the world, we picked the 11-24mm f4." There are people on this forum who own the 11-24 who say they are very happy with it. I've read one member saying the 11-24 is a "masterpiece" because of it's ability to not have barreling.

3. "I don't think that at any point they actually asked themselves the question : are we actually serving out customers' needs?" What? Canon is so successful because they meet their customer's needs better than the competition for a large number of people.. That Canon fails to meet your personal needs is irrelevant when it comes to Canon's lens development philosophy. You are not Canon's only customer. There is nothing astonishing about that.

I personally don't believe the interview you quote is astonishing at all. I think your take away from the interview is quite astonishing.
They have stopped developing the mid-range 24/28 f2.8 and 35mm f2 IS USM lineup. No mid range 50 or 85, despite the latter being crucially needed (and one of the best sellers in all camera manufacturers' lineups).

There are no doubts that the 11-24 is a superb lens, and that a very small number of people make excellent use of it. But you can't deny that a mid range 50mm will be far more useful to many times more people than the 11-24. The number of use cases for that lens is vanishingly small in comparison.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 28, 2015
3,192
783
Irving, Texas
MayaTlab said:
CanonFanBoy said:
MayaTlab said:
YuengLinger said:
MayaTlab said:
Meanwhile I'm still looking for modern Canon mid-range primes above 35mm...

Personally at 135mm I could easily do with an f4 lens - but with great bokeh and sharp / blur transitions.

Dear Mr Canon, there's at least 500 euros in my bank account for each of the following lenses :

- 50mm f/nofasterthanf2 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.
- 85mm f/nofasterthanf2 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.
- 100mm macro f/nofasterthanf4 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.
- 135mm f/nofasterthanf4 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.

Of course that's never going to happen.
As a successful matchmaker, I hereby declare ahsanford has a soulmate! (Now go out and make some images together, both of you!) ;D
Haha, I had already noticed the potential for a strong lens based relationship :D.

On a more serious note, regarding some of the comments in this thread : it's just wrong to assert that mid range primes aren't selling well and that there is no market for them.

Amazon rankings are just a poor snapshot of reality but some valid data can still be extracted from them. Guess which of the two cheaper Nikon 50s is selling the most ? Nope, it isn't the f1.8G one. It's the f1.4G.

And more telling : Fuji actually stopped developing faster aperture lenses, at least temporarily, and put a strong priority on delivering their f2 line when they noticed how well it was selling.

The fact that Canon hasn't continued developing the 24/28/35mm lineup doesn't mean that there is no potential for mid range 50s, 85s, etc., particularly given how Canon makes some decisions regarding which lens they'll produce. In this rather astonishing interview of a number of Canon managers by Focus Numérique, here's what Canon said:

"In a way we had the choice between a 11-24mm f4 and a 12-24mm f2.8. The two lenses would have had roughly the same size and production costs would have been similar. Since our goal is to be the first to produce the best lenses in the world, we picked the 11-24mm f4."

https://www.focus-numerique.com/news/entretien-avec-mm-okada-hayakawa-et-izuki-de-canon-19731.html

So there you go : the only reason we got a 11-24mm is because Canon just wanted to play who's got the biggest. I don't think that at any point they actually asked themselves the question : are we actually serving out customers' needs ?
1. I don't understand what you are saying here. Canon has not stopped developing the 24 and 35mm L prime lenses. The outstanding EF 35mm f/1.4L USM was released October of 2015 (I own this lens). The Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM, introduced December 2008. I don't own the 24mm F/1.4L so have no personal experience with it. However, the reviews I've read are very positive.

2. "...the only reason we got a 11-24mm is because Canon just wanted to play who's got the biggest." ::) Canon said: "Since our goal is to be the first to produce the best lenses in the world, we picked the 11-24mm f4." There are people on this forum who own the 11-24 who say they are very happy with it. I've read one member saying the 11-24 is a "masterpiece" because of it's ability to not have barreling.

3. "I don't think that at any point they actually asked themselves the question : are we actually serving out customers' needs?" What? Canon is so successful because they meet their customer's needs better than the competition for a large number of people.. That Canon fails to meet your personal needs is irrelevant when it comes to Canon's lens development philosophy. You are not Canon's only customer. There is nothing astonishing about that.

I personally don't believe the interview you quote is astonishing at all. I think your take away from the interview is quite astonishing.
They have stopped developing the mid-range 24/28 f2.8 and 35mm f2 IS USM lineup. No mid range 50 or 85, despite the latter being crucially needed (and one of the best sellers in all camera manufacturers' lineups).

There are no doubts that the 11-24 is a superb lens, and that a very small number of people make excellent use of it. But you can't deny that a mid range 50mm will be far more useful to many times more people than the 11-24. The number of use cases for that lens is vanishingly small in comparison.
The 35 f/2 IS was released December of 2012. Current price: $549 (list $599)
The EF-s 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS was released April 2017 Current price: $349
The EF-s 24mm f/2.8 STM was released September 2014 Current price: $149
The EF 28mm f/1.8 IS USM was released June of 2012 Current price: $509
The EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM was released June of 2012 Current price: $549 ($599 list price)

So what are you defining as mid-range? Were there ever lenses in what you call the "mid-range" price point? The 500 euros you talk about having for each lens on the wishlist you mention only equals $589 today. So what is mid-range?

Back to the 11-24 vs 12-24: Canon said the two would be roughly the same size. How is that a quest for the biggest?

Also, why would you even compare the usefulness of the 11-24 to a mid-range 50mm? The 11-24 is an L lens that has a much higher pricepoint and a completely different market. Do the current 50mm lenses have a larger market? Of course they do, but you are comparing a $3,000 lens to a $550 lens. The rumor is that Canon is developing a new 50mm.
 

MayaTlab

EOS 80D
Oct 6, 2015
183
65
CanonFanBoy said:
MayaTlab said:
CanonFanBoy said:
MayaTlab said:
YuengLinger said:
MayaTlab said:
Meanwhile I'm still looking for modern Canon mid-range primes above 35mm...

Personally at 135mm I could easily do with an f4 lens - but with great bokeh and sharp / blur transitions.

Dear Mr Canon, there's at least 500 euros in my bank account for each of the following lenses :

- 50mm f/nofasterthanf2 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.
- 85mm f/nofasterthanf2 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.
- 100mm macro f/nofasterthanf4 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.
- 135mm f/nofasterthanf4 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.

Of course that's never going to happen.
As a successful matchmaker, I hereby declare ahsanford has a soulmate! (Now go out and make some images together, both of you!) ;D
Haha, I had already noticed the potential for a strong lens based relationship :D.

On a more serious note, regarding some of the comments in this thread : it's just wrong to assert that mid range primes aren't selling well and that there is no market for them.

Amazon rankings are just a poor snapshot of reality but some valid data can still be extracted from them. Guess which of the two cheaper Nikon 50s is selling the most ? Nope, it isn't the f1.8G one. It's the f1.4G.

And more telling : Fuji actually stopped developing faster aperture lenses, at least temporarily, and put a strong priority on delivering their f2 line when they noticed how well it was selling.

The fact that Canon hasn't continued developing the 24/28/35mm lineup doesn't mean that there is no potential for mid range 50s, 85s, etc., particularly given how Canon makes some decisions regarding which lens they'll produce. In this rather astonishing interview of a number of Canon managers by Focus Numérique, here's what Canon said:

"In a way we had the choice between a 11-24mm f4 and a 12-24mm f2.8. The two lenses would have had roughly the same size and production costs would have been similar. Since our goal is to be the first to produce the best lenses in the world, we picked the 11-24mm f4."

https://www.focus-numerique.com/news/entretien-avec-mm-okada-hayakawa-et-izuki-de-canon-19731.html

So there you go : the only reason we got a 11-24mm is because Canon just wanted to play who's got the biggest. I don't think that at any point they actually asked themselves the question : are we actually serving out customers' needs ?
1. I don't understand what you are saying here. Canon has not stopped developing the 24 and 35mm L prime lenses. The outstanding EF 35mm f/1.4L USM was released October of 2015 (I own this lens). The Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM, introduced December 2008. I don't own the 24mm F/1.4L so have no personal experience with it. However, the reviews I've read are very positive.

2. "...the only reason we got a 11-24mm is because Canon just wanted to play who's got the biggest." ::) Canon said: "Since our goal is to be the first to produce the best lenses in the world, we picked the 11-24mm f4." There are people on this forum who own the 11-24 who say they are very happy with it. I've read one member saying the 11-24 is a "masterpiece" because of it's ability to not have barreling.

3. "I don't think that at any point they actually asked themselves the question : are we actually serving out customers' needs?" What? Canon is so successful because they meet their customer's needs better than the competition for a large number of people.. That Canon fails to meet your personal needs is irrelevant when it comes to Canon's lens development philosophy. You are not Canon's only customer. There is nothing astonishing about that.

I personally don't believe the interview you quote is astonishing at all. I think your take away from the interview is quite astonishing.
They have stopped developing the mid-range 24/28 f2.8 and 35mm f2 IS USM lineup. No mid range 50 or 85, despite the latter being crucially needed (and one of the best sellers in all camera manufacturers' lineups).

There are no doubts that the 11-24 is a superb lens, and that a very small number of people make excellent use of it. But you can't deny that a mid range 50mm will be far more useful to many times more people than the 11-24. The number of use cases for that lens is vanishingly small in comparison.
The 35 f/2 was released December of 2012. Current price: $549
The EF-s 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS was released April 2017 Current price: $3490
The EF-s 24mm f/2.8 STM was released September 2014 Current price: $149
The EF 28mm f/1.8 IS USM was released June of 2012 Current price: $509 (
The EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM was released June of 2012 Current price: $549 ($599 list price)

So what are you defining as mid-range? Were there ever lenses in what you call the "mid-range" price point? The 500 euros you talk about having for each lens on the wishlist you mention only equals $589 today. So what is mid-range?

Back to the 11-24 vs 12-24: Canon said the two would be roughly the same size. How is that a quest for the biggest?

Also, why would you even compare the usefulness of the 11-24 to a mid-range 50mm? The 11-24 is an L lens that has a much higher pricepoint and a completely different market. Do the current 50mm lenses have a larger market? Of course they do, but you are comparing a $3,000 lens to a $550 lens. The rumor is that Canon is developing a new 50mm.
I don't understand your mid-range point. The 24, 28, 35mm IS USM are all around €500 these days. A mid-range 50 and 85mm would fall in that gap as far as I see things.

The 11-24mm is a d...ck contest because the usefulness of the 11mm focal range is so niche that's it's nearly non-existent (any way the main interest of that lens is in the 14-20mm range where distortion is very well controlled). A 12-24mm f2.8 may sound less exciting but I'm fairly certain that in a poll a majority of people would have picked the latter if they had been asked which one they'd like (all else being equal).

The point of comparing these lenses is to ask about Canon's priority. Is it to show off or to actually make work tools ? I think that Canon's current 50mm range is far more lacking than 1mm at the wide end.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 28, 2015
3,192
783
Irving, Texas
MayaTlab said:
CanonFanBoy said:
MayaTlab said:
CanonFanBoy said:
MayaTlab said:
YuengLinger said:
MayaTlab said:
Meanwhile I'm still looking for modern Canon mid-range primes above 35mm...

Personally at 135mm I could easily do with an f4 lens - but with great bokeh and sharp / blur transitions.

Dear Mr Canon, there's at least 500 euros in my bank account for each of the following lenses :

- 50mm f/nofasterthanf2 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.
- 85mm f/nofasterthanf2 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.
- 100mm macro f/nofasterthanf4 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.
- 135mm f/nofasterthanf4 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.

Of course that's never going to happen.
As a successful matchmaker, I hereby declare ahsanford has a soulmate! (Now go out and make some images together, both of you!) ;D
Haha, I had already noticed the potential for a strong lens based relationship :D.

On a more serious note, regarding some of the comments in this thread : it's just wrong to assert that mid range primes aren't selling well and that there is no market for them.

Amazon rankings are just a poor snapshot of reality but some valid data can still be extracted from them. Guess which of the two cheaper Nikon 50s is selling the most ? Nope, it isn't the f1.8G one. It's the f1.4G.

And more telling : Fuji actually stopped developing faster aperture lenses, at least temporarily, and put a strong priority on delivering their f2 line when they noticed how well it was selling.

The fact that Canon hasn't continued developing the 24/28/35mm lineup doesn't mean that there is no potential for mid range 50s, 85s, etc., particularly given how Canon makes some decisions regarding which lens they'll produce. In this rather astonishing interview of a number of Canon managers by Focus Numérique, here's what Canon said:

"In a way we had the choice between a 11-24mm f4 and a 12-24mm f2.8. The two lenses would have had roughly the same size and production costs would have been similar. Since our goal is to be the first to produce the best lenses in the world, we picked the 11-24mm f4."

https://www.focus-numerique.com/news/entretien-avec-mm-okada-hayakawa-et-izuki-de-canon-19731.html

So there you go : the only reason we got a 11-24mm is because Canon just wanted to play who's got the biggest. I don't think that at any point they actually asked themselves the question : are we actually serving out customers' needs ?
1. I don't understand what you are saying here. Canon has not stopped developing the 24 and 35mm L prime lenses. The outstanding EF 35mm f/1.4L USM was released October of 2015 (I own this lens). The Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM, introduced December 2008. I don't own the 24mm F/1.4L so have no personal experience with it. However, the reviews I've read are very positive.

2. "...the only reason we got a 11-24mm is because Canon just wanted to play who's got the biggest." ::) Canon said: "Since our goal is to be the first to produce the best lenses in the world, we picked the 11-24mm f4." There are people on this forum who own the 11-24 who say they are very happy with it. I've read one member saying the 11-24 is a "masterpiece" because of it's ability to not have barreling.

3. "I don't think that at any point they actually asked themselves the question : are we actually serving out customers' needs?" What? Canon is so successful because they meet their customer's needs better than the competition for a large number of people.. That Canon fails to meet your personal needs is irrelevant when it comes to Canon's lens development philosophy. You are not Canon's only customer. There is nothing astonishing about that.

I personally don't believe the interview you quote is astonishing at all. I think your take away from the interview is quite astonishing.
They have stopped developing the mid-range 24/28 f2.8 and 35mm f2 IS USM lineup. No mid range 50 or 85, despite the latter being crucially needed (and one of the best sellers in all camera manufacturers' lineups).

There are no doubts that the 11-24 is a superb lens, and that a very small number of people make excellent use of it. But you can't deny that a mid range 50mm will be far more useful to many times more people than the 11-24. The number of use cases for that lens is vanishingly small in comparison.
The 35 f/2 was released December of 2012. Current price: $549
The EF-s 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS was released April 2017 Current price: $3490
The EF-s 24mm f/2.8 STM was released September 2014 Current price: $149
The EF 28mm f/1.8 IS USM was released June of 2012 Current price: $509 (
The EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM was released June of 2012 Current price: $549 ($599 list price)

So what are you defining as mid-range? Were there ever lenses in what you call the "mid-range" price point? The 500 euros you talk about having for each lens on the wishlist you mention only equals $589 today. So what is mid-range?

Back to the 11-24 vs 12-24: Canon said the two would be roughly the same size. How is that a quest for the biggest?

Also, why would you even compare the usefulness of the 11-24 to a mid-range 50mm? The 11-24 is an L lens that has a much higher pricepoint and a completely different market. Do the current 50mm lenses have a larger market? Of course they do, but you are comparing a $3,000 lens to a $550 lens. The rumor is that Canon is developing a new 50mm.
I don't understand your mid-range point. The 24, 28, 35mm IS USM are all around €500 these days. A mid-range 50 and 85mm would fall in that gap as far as I see things.

The 11-24mm is a d...ck contest because the usefulness of the 11mm focal range is so niche that's it's nearly non-existent (any way the main interest of that lens is in the 14-20mm range where distortion is very well controlled). A 12-24mm f2.8 may sound less exciting but I'm fairly certain that in a poll a majority of people would have picked the latter if they had been asked which one they'd like (all else being equal).

The point of comparing these lenses is to ask about Canon's priority. Is it to show off or to actually make work tools ? I think that Canon's current 50mm range is far more lacking than 1mm at the wide end.
The mid-range point? You said Canon has stopped developing mid-range 24/28/35mm lenses. It just ain't true. That's the point.

Canon's priority? Profit. That's the priority.

Saying that Canon is showing off is an opinion. It is not fact. That is just you making things up. Just like you saying has Canon stopped development of mid-range primes. You just made it up without even looking at release dates.

Once again: What are you defining as mid-range?

You also say the 24/28/and 35 are critically needed. They've recently been released. So the question is what is your source for saying Canon has stopped development of the 24/28/35? Your imagination.
 

geekpower

EOS 80D
Feb 22, 2015
187
0
a thread about a telephoto L derailing into an argument about wide angle mid-range lenses? seems legit.
 

MayaTlab

EOS 80D
Oct 6, 2015
183
65
CanonFanBoy said:
MayaTlab said:
CanonFanBoy said:
MayaTlab said:
CanonFanBoy said:
MayaTlab said:
YuengLinger said:
MayaTlab said:
Meanwhile I'm still looking for modern Canon mid-range primes above 35mm...

Personally at 135mm I could easily do with an f4 lens - but with great bokeh and sharp / blur transitions.

Dear Mr Canon, there's at least 500 euros in my bank account for each of the following lenses :

- 50mm f/nofasterthanf2 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.
- 85mm f/nofasterthanf2 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.
- 100mm macro f/nofasterthanf4 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.
- 135mm f/nofasterthanf4 internalfocusfaststuff maybeIS with flat field of focus, low astigmatism, low CA, great bokeh, good transitions blur / sharp, and reasonable (but not necessarily through the roof) definition wide open.

Of course that's never going to happen.
As a successful matchmaker, I hereby declare ahsanford has a soulmate! (Now go out and make some images together, both of you!) ;D
Haha, I had already noticed the potential for a strong lens based relationship :D.

On a more serious note, regarding some of the comments in this thread : it's just wrong to assert that mid range primes aren't selling well and that there is no market for them.

Amazon rankings are just a poor snapshot of reality but some valid data can still be extracted from them. Guess which of the two cheaper Nikon 50s is selling the most ? Nope, it isn't the f1.8G one. It's the f1.4G.

And more telling : Fuji actually stopped developing faster aperture lenses, at least temporarily, and put a strong priority on delivering their f2 line when they noticed how well it was selling.

The fact that Canon hasn't continued developing the 24/28/35mm lineup doesn't mean that there is no potential for mid range 50s, 85s, etc., particularly given how Canon makes some decisions regarding which lens they'll produce. In this rather astonishing interview of a number of Canon managers by Focus Numérique, here's what Canon said:

"In a way we had the choice between a 11-24mm f4 and a 12-24mm f2.8. The two lenses would have had roughly the same size and production costs would have been similar. Since our goal is to be the first to produce the best lenses in the world, we picked the 11-24mm f4."

https://www.focus-numerique.com/news/entretien-avec-mm-okada-hayakawa-et-izuki-de-canon-19731.html

So there you go : the only reason we got a 11-24mm is because Canon just wanted to play who's got the biggest. I don't think that at any point they actually asked themselves the question : are we actually serving out customers' needs ?
1. I don't understand what you are saying here. Canon has not stopped developing the 24 and 35mm L prime lenses. The outstanding EF 35mm f/1.4L USM was released October of 2015 (I own this lens). The Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM, introduced December 2008. I don't own the 24mm F/1.4L so have no personal experience with it. However, the reviews I've read are very positive.

2. "...the only reason we got a 11-24mm is because Canon just wanted to play who's got the biggest." ::) Canon said: "Since our goal is to be the first to produce the best lenses in the world, we picked the 11-24mm f4." There are people on this forum who own the 11-24 who say they are very happy with it. I've read one member saying the 11-24 is a "masterpiece" because of it's ability to not have barreling.

3. "I don't think that at any point they actually asked themselves the question : are we actually serving out customers' needs?" What? Canon is so successful because they meet their customer's needs better than the competition for a large number of people.. That Canon fails to meet your personal needs is irrelevant when it comes to Canon's lens development philosophy. You are not Canon's only customer. There is nothing astonishing about that.

I personally don't believe the interview you quote is astonishing at all. I think your take away from the interview is quite astonishing.
They have stopped developing the mid-range 24/28 f2.8 and 35mm f2 IS USM lineup. No mid range 50 or 85, despite the latter being crucially needed (and one of the best sellers in all camera manufacturers' lineups).

There are no doubts that the 11-24 is a superb lens, and that a very small number of people make excellent use of it. But you can't deny that a mid range 50mm will be far more useful to many times more people than the 11-24. The number of use cases for that lens is vanishingly small in comparison.
The 35 f/2 was released December of 2012. Current price: $549
The EF-s 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS was released April 2017 Current price: $3490
The EF-s 24mm f/2.8 STM was released September 2014 Current price: $149
The EF 28mm f/1.8 IS USM was released June of 2012 Current price: $509 (
The EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM was released June of 2012 Current price: $549 ($599 list price)

So what are you defining as mid-range? Were there ever lenses in what you call the "mid-range" price point? The 500 euros you talk about having for each lens on the wishlist you mention only equals $589 today. So what is mid-range?

Back to the 11-24 vs 12-24: Canon said the two would be roughly the same size. How is that a quest for the biggest?

Also, why would you even compare the usefulness of the 11-24 to a mid-range 50mm? The 11-24 is an L lens that has a much higher pricepoint and a completely different market. Do the current 50mm lenses have a larger market? Of course they do, but you are comparing a $3,000 lens to a $550 lens. The rumor is that Canon is developing a new 50mm.
I don't understand your mid-range point. The 24, 28, 35mm IS USM are all around €500 these days. A mid-range 50 and 85mm would fall in that gap as far as I see things.

The 11-24mm is a d...ck contest because the usefulness of the 11mm focal range is so niche that's it's nearly non-existent (any way the main interest of that lens is in the 14-20mm range where distortion is very well controlled). A 12-24mm f2.8 may sound less exciting but I'm fairly certain that in a poll a majority of people would have picked the latter if they had been asked which one they'd like (all else being equal).

The point of comparing these lenses is to ask about Canon's priority. Is it to show off or to actually make work tools ? I think that Canon's current 50mm range is far more lacking than 1mm at the wide end.
The mid-range point? You said Canon has stopped developing mid-range 24/28/35mm lenses. It just ain't true. That's the point.

Canon's priority? Profit. That's the priority.

Saying, in your opinion, that Canon is showing off is an opinion. It is not fact. That is just you making things up. Just like you saying Canon has Canon stopped development of mid-range primes. You just made it up without even looking at release dates.

Once again: What are you defining as mid-range?
OK, where is the 50mm EF mount lens around 500 euros that's desperately needed ? It isn't there. Last FF EF prime, as you rightly pointed out, is from 2012. The excellent trio of the 24, 28, 35 IS USM has not been mirrored by a 50mm prime in the same price range or a replacement for the 85mm f1.8 (the latter is less of an urgency though). That 50mm, which is a major seller for all camera manufacturers, isn't there. Let's hope when it comes that it won't disappoint.

If a lens' specifications is only chosen because they want to be the first to reach them and not because they're relevant to the practice of photography, that's showing off. Canon's answer in that interview makes it perfectly clear that they just wanted to be the first to reach these specifications.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,068
1,288
MayaTlab said:
OK, where is the 50mm EF mount lens around 500 euros that's desperately needed ? It isn't there. Last FF EF prime, as you rightly pointed out, is from 2012. The excellent trio of the 24, 28, 35 IS USM has not been mirrored by a 50mm prime in the same price range or a replacement for the 85mm f1.8 (the latter is less of an urgency though). That 50mm, which is a major seller for all camera manufacturers, isn't there. Let's hope when it comes that it won't disappoint.
Why is a new 50mm lens 'desperately needed'? The current 50/1.4 remains a best seller, meaning demand for it is strong. Now, if you had stated, "A new 50mm for around 500€ is desperately wanted by some people," I'd agree. By one person, in particular (you know who you are, ahsanford!)


MayaTlab said:
If a lens' specifications is only chosen because they want to be the first to reach them and not because they're relevant to the practice of photography, that's showing off. Canon's answer in that interview makes it perfectly clear that they just wanted to be the first to reach these specifications.
As an aside, I'd say that for some people, an 11mm rectilinear lens is highly relevant to the practice of photography. Just ask someone who shoots real estate for a living.

Here's the Google Translate rendering of the interview answer to which you refer:

For example we had some sort of choice between 11-24mm f / 4 and 12-24mm f / 2.8. Both objectives would have had about the same dimensions and the production costs would have been the same. The basic goal being to be the first to produce the best lenses in the world, we opted for the 11-24 mm f / 4 (NB: there is already a 14-24 mm at Nikon).

You are interpreting that to mean they wanted to be the first to have a rectilinear zoom starting at 11mm, and that is just 'showing off'. But that's hardly 'perfectly clear'. What is descibed is a choice between an 11-24mm f/4 and a 12-24mm f/2.8. Given the optical constraints, it is highly likely that an 11-24/4 would be optically superior to a 12-24/2.8 – the aberrations introduced by a 1mm wider focal length are far less than those introduced adding a full stop wider aperture. So, it is quite possible – and I'd say, more likely – that what the answer actually means is that Canon chose to produce the best lens from those two options, the 11-24/4. It was quality, not 'being first', that drove the decision as described.
 

MayaTlab

EOS 80D
Oct 6, 2015
183
65
neuroanatomist said:
MayaTlab said:
OK, where is the 50mm EF mount lens around 500 euros that's desperately needed ? It isn't there. Last FF EF prime, as you rightly pointed out, is from 2012. The excellent trio of the 24, 28, 35 IS USM has not been mirrored by a 50mm prime in the same price range or a replacement for the 85mm f1.8 (the latter is less of an urgency though). That 50mm, which is a major seller for all camera manufacturers, isn't there. Let's hope when it comes that it won't disappoint.
Why is a new 50mm lens 'desperately needed'? The current 50/1.4 remains a best seller, meaning demand for it is strong. Now, if you had stated, "A new 50mm for around 500€ is desperately wanted by some people," I'd agree. By one person, in particular (you know who you are, ahsanford!)


MayaTlab said:
If a lens' specifications is only chosen because they want to be the first to reach them and not because they're relevant to the practice of photography, that's showing off. Canon's answer in that interview makes it perfectly clear that they just wanted to be the first to reach these specifications.
As an aside, I'd say that for some people, an 11mm rectilinear lens is highly relevant to the practice of photography. Just ask someone who shoots real estate for a living.

Here's the Google Translate rendering of the interview answer to which you refer:

For example we had some sort of choice between 11-24mm f / 4 and 12-24mm f / 2.8. Both objectives would have had about the same dimensions and the production costs would have been the same. The basic goal being to be the first to produce the best lenses in the world, we opted for the 11-24 mm f / 4 (NB: there is already a 14-24 mm at Nikon).

You are interpreting that to mean they wanted to be the first to have a rectilinear zoom starting at 11mm, and that is just 'showing off'. But that's hardly 'perfectly clear'. What is descibed is a choice between an 11-24mm f/4 and a 12-24mm f/2.8. Given the optical constraints, it is highly likely that an 11-24/4 would be optically superior to a 12-24/2.8 – the aberrations introduced by a 1mm wider focal length are far less than those introduced adding a full stop wider aperture. So, it is quite possible – and I'd say, more likely – that what the answer actually means is that Canon chose to produce the best lens from those two options, the 11-24/4. It was quality, not 'being first', that drove the decision as described.
Fair point for the 50. That being said, it isn't exactly like it's got tremendous competition in its price / size range.

I wad kind of expecting the "real estate" moment to happen. Do you shoot real estate ? I'm not sure you'd make the comment then that 11mm is that relevant. A 12-24mm would have been just fine. In fact a lens wider than 16mm still remains quite niche for real estate. Just so you know, if you were to shoot for AirBnB in Paris, they tend to refuse shots wider than 20-24mm, even in tiny Parisian apartments :D.

BTW, why not make it a 12-24mm f4 and improve even more so other aspects of the design (or lower the price) ?