New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
8,134
887
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
HTML:
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=13751"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=13751">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>Announcements in the fall</strong>

We’re told that two new wide angle zooms for full frame will be coming from Canon in the next 6-8 months. At least one of them could be announced in Q4 of 2013.</p>
<p>One of the lenses will be the 14-24 f/2.8L, that will complete Canon’s run of lenses covering 14mm to 560mm.</p>
<p>The other will be a replacement to both the 16-35 f/2.8L II and the 17-40 f/4L. We’re told one of the configurations in test is an EF 16-50 f/4L IS.</p>
<p>This comes from a source that has been correct in the past, although timing is always hit and miss with Canon lenses.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
 

Hannes

EOS RP
Mar 31, 2013
279
0
That 16-50 could be very interesting for lots of people, good normal zoom for crop and nice and wide for FF. Let's just hope they make one
 

Dianoda

EOS 80D
Dec 8, 2011
102
0
A weather-sealed 16-50mm f/4 IS sounds wonderful. As does the 14-24mm f/2.8 - but what'll she cost? $3K?
 
Mar 11, 2013
8
0
a 16-50 with good corner to corner sharpness would be ideal for the landscape shooters out there. i think the prices will be in line with nikon's counterpart, maybe a little higher if they come up with a really flawless optical design

2200$ for 14-24 and around 1300$ for the 16-50 is what i would be willing to pay if they both perform up to expectations

also i would expect them to launch with a new high MP body
 

Terry Rogers

EOS 80D
Jan 30, 2012
100
0
I could see a 16-50 f/4IS sell well among rebel users intending to upgrade from kit and to full frame at a later date. Though it would cut into 17-55 2.8 IS sales. I suspect it would be priced similar to the 24-70 f4 IS. Not sure which I would prefer on a crop camera, a 16-50 or 24-70 given both at f/4. That would be a tough decision.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,524
1,404
Thoughts:

16-50 F/4 IS is an intriguing concept. A good percentage of us prefer a wider walkaround than 24-70. I certainly use the 24-50 side of my 24-70 more than the 50-70. I hope this one gets the smaller/lighter L treatment that we just saw with the currently demonized (but still an interesting design) 24-70 F/4 IS.

The 14-24 has massive shoes to fill. I am not starting a dynamic range / low ISO / Nikon D800 conversation, but landscape work has been one of the perceived chinks in the armor of Canon's armamentarium. Something that punches its weight against Nikon's seemingly legendary 14-24, possibly coupled with a high MP sensor, would be two huge steps towards correcting that perception.

For those not visible to the performance of Nikon's homerun hitter, it pulls in resolution figures right up there with the Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS II. Landscape filter companies make products specifically to work around this lens' huge front element. Canon guys use adapters to mount this on their bodies. It's that amazing, apparently.

I still don't understand why we don't have a breathtakingly sharp autofocusing prime for landscape work. I am drowning in a sea of ultrawide zooms (soft in corners), arty huge aperture L lenses (ditto), tilt-shift (no AF), and Zeiss glass (no AF). I appreciate landscapes ==> tripods ==> liveview ==> no need for AF, but some folks just want to snap a picture of a coastline or a mountain range without all that fanfare. I'd pay $1-2K for a breathtakingly sharp autofocusing 24mm L that didn't shoot itself in the foot (i.e. corners) to offer side a wide aperture. Negative points if you tell me to just buy the 24-70 II. :p

- A
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,524
1,404
Terry Rogers said:
I could see a 16-50 f/4IS sell well among rebel users intending to upgrade from kit and to full frame at a later date. Though it would cut into 17-55 2.8 IS sales. I suspect it would be priced similar to the 24-70 f4 IS. Not sure which I would prefer on a crop camera, a 16-50 or 24-70 given both at f/4. That would be a tough decision.

Good comments. Tough call on walkaround length -- I think both are attractive for different reasons.

As for supplanting 17-55 business, I am not so sure. If this is simply an L refresh of the 17-40 with a little more length, you may be right. But if this is a beastmaster 2.5 pound lens with crazy IQ and top-end weather sealing, it may get priced out of the 17-55's territory.

- A
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,524
1,404
LetTheRightLensIn said:
Knut Skywalker said:
The 16-50 F4L IS sounds REALLY intriguing, lets hope it's around 1k and I'll buy it. :)
+1

let's hope it does 24mm as crisply, edge to edge as the 24-70 II
That's the elephant in the room, isn't it? The new 24-70 II is such a monster that landscape shooters who own that would need a really compelling reason to look at anything other than a stellar 14-24.

- A
 

LetTheRightLensIn

EOS 5D SR
Apr 19, 2011
4,761
1
ahsanford said:
Thoughts:

16-50 F/4 IS is an intriguing concept. A good percentage of us prefer a wider walkaround than 24-70. I certainly use the 24-50 side of my 24-70 more than the 50-70. I hope this one gets the smaller/lighter L treatment that we just saw with the currently demonized (but still an interesting design) 24-70 F/4 IS.

The 14-24 has massive shoes to fill. I am not starting a dynamic range / low ISO / Nikon D800 conversation, but landscape work has been one of the perceived chinks in the armor of Canon's armamentarium. Something that punches its weight against Nikon's seemingly legendary 14-24, possibly coupled with a high MP sensor, would be two huge steps towards correcting that perception.

For those not visible to the performance of Nikon's homerun hitter, it pulls in resolution figures right up there with the Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS II. Landscape filter companies make products specifically to work around this lens' huge front element. Canon guys use adapters to mount this on their bodies. It's that amazing, apparently.

I still don't understand why we don't have a breathtakingly sharp autofocusing prime for landscape work. I am drowning in a sea of ultrawide zooms (soft in corners), arty huge aperture L lenses (ditto), tilt-shift (no AF), and Zeiss glass (no AF). I appreciate landscapes ==> tripods ==> liveview ==> no need for AF, but some folks just want to snap a picture of a coastline or a mountain range without all that fanfare. I'd pay $1-2K for a breathtakingly sharp autofocusing 24mm L that didn't shoot itself in the foot (i.e. corners) to offer side a wide aperture. Negative points if you tell me to just buy the 24-70 II. :p

- A
Did you ever consider just getting the 24-70 II?
 

Tabor Warren Photography

I want to go shoot something with a Canon...
Feb 2, 2012
275
0
Tulsa, OK
www.photosbytabor.com
This announcement could not have had better timing. I am looking at upgrading my 17-40L within the next year. I've been on the fence about just buying a 16-35 ii just to play with it, but I will hold off until one or both of these are announced. The 14-24 2.8 is really what I'm after, but I would consider the latter depending on price. Wahoo!

-Tabor
 

preppyak

EOS 6D MK II
Oct 18, 2011
1,008
67
ahsanford said:
'd pay $1-2K for a breathtakingly sharp autofocusing 24mm L that didn't shoot itself in the foot (i.e. corners) to offer side a wide aperture. Negative points if you tell me to just buy the 24-70 II.
Except they already make that. Just tape your 24-70mm L II into the 24mm position and you're set. You don't want it to go to f/1.4 apparently, so it doesnt, it does f/2.8 sharp corner to corner. Sure, it'd be great if it was $500 cheaper, but thats the price of sharpness
 

raptor3x

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 26, 2012
589
85
State College, PA
whumber.com
preppyak said:
ahsanford said:
'd pay $1-2K for a breathtakingly sharp autofocusing 24mm L that didn't shoot itself in the foot (i.e. corners) to offer side a wide aperture. Negative points if you tell me to just buy the 24-70 II.
Except they already make that. Just tape your 24-70mm L II into the 24mm position and you're set. You don't want it to go to f/1.4 apparently, so it doesnt, it does f/2.8 sharp corner to corner. Sure, it'd be great if it was $500 cheaper, but thats the price of sharpness
Even better, set the lens to 24mm, engage the lock, and then epoxy the switch in place. 24mm prime in 5 minutes.
 

dadgummit

Canon FT-QL
Jul 18, 2012
145
0
Orange County, CA
Nice!! I am really looking forward to the 16-50!!!! The 14-24 is interesting but I hate the huge bubble front element that it will likely have, the 14-24 range has limited utility for me, and the $2500-3000 it is likely to cost is just too steep.

If the 16-50 has good corners and costs less than $1500 I am in! Close focusing at 50 would be nice too. Anyone want to buy a used 16-35 II?
 

backcountrygirl

I'm New Here
Apr 12, 2013
19
0
Re: New Wide Angle Lenses in 2013 [CR2]

I'm for one that would welcome the 14-24mm 2.8!
If there was a lens Nikon had that Canon didn't have, the 14-24mm is that lens for me!
If I had to guess on a price I'd say your in the ballpark of $2300 based upon what Nikon's
price is for it's own 14-24mm 2.8.