New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,816
35
ahsanford said:
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.
I thought that the 28mm II fit the bill?? I don't own the lens, but have read some nice things about it on this forum.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,524
1,404
dirtcastle said:
Haydn1971 said:
16-50mm ? That leaves an interesting concept in my mind of a 50-135mm F4 IS - creating a crop centric focal range that migrates to full frame when the user wants too...
Or how about a 24-50mm f/2?
That's what the Sigma 18-35 F/1.8 zoom should have been. I want that.

- A
 

Act444

EOS 6D MK II
May 4, 2011
1,080
144
Just acquired a 16-35 2.8 (I didn't have a WA beforehand...this completes the range for me)...it's a decent enough lens but its flaws are clearly noticeable...soft corners even stopped down to f9 (!) that is not an issue with any of the other lenses I have, that was a bit of a surprise...I guess most WA lenses are like that? anyway, I'm really not much of a WA shooter but given the right conditions, it's certainly an interesting perspective. I like the 2.8 though, it's already come in handy a couple times...

I learned a while ago not to make decisions based on rumors...in the past I've waited forever for stuff that never materialized, or that took an eternity to do so (and "vapor ware" does no good in the present). I've heard Canon was preparing a 14-24 and that weighed in my mind but ultimately figured it would be insanely expensive and would have a bulging front element (like the Nikon version) so I'd be unable to put a filter on it (and when would such a lens actually be available? Next year? 2015?) . Besides, I appreciate having the 35mm available to me on that lens for general shooting, I think 24 would be too limiting and force it into "niche" category...
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,524
1,404
RGF said:
ahsanford said:
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.
I thought that the 28mm II fit the bill?? I don't own the lens, but have read some nice things about it on this forum.
28mm II? If you mean the new non-L 28mm F/2.8 IS, yes, I have it, and it's a peach. It does lack weather sealing, though. That said, it's the best option for me right now.

If you mean the 24L II prime, like many huge aperture lenses, it's an art / environmental portraiture tool. Soft in the corners, spectacular in the middle. Not for me.

Hopefully these new zooms will trump the primes like the 24-70 II has recently done. Then I'm buying for sure.

- A
 

shutterlag

EOS T7i
Mar 5, 2013
64
6
Please Canon, just give us a sharp prime in the teens at a reasonable cost? I love the IQ on my 14mm SamRokinBow, but the build quality makes it almost a throwaway. We've got the choice of that for $350, or the 14mm L v2 for $2,200!!! There must be a happy medium in there, maybe an F3.5, or F4 17mm for $1,000? Please?
 
H

hmmm

Guest
That 14-24 2.8 will likely be awesome, but at my budget I'm more interested in the 16-50 f4L IS.

If the corners are sharp and the price is reasonable (~ 1.3 k) -- I'm in. :D
 

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,816
35
Will the 16-50 be an L lens and hopefully better than than 16-35?

Will Canon strike a deal with Nikon and have Nikon make their 14-24? Probably the easiest and cheapest route for Canon to get a quality UWA zoom quickly.

I would like to see Canon license its AF, .. technology to zeiss so that they can make their (Zeiss) lenses work in the fully automated mode with Canon bodies. If Sigma, etc can make lenses that work with Canon bodies, why can't Zeiss? Licensing issue or something else?
 

LetTheRightLensIn

EOS 5D SR
Apr 19, 2011
4,761
1
raptor3x said:
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.
Of course you could also get there buy just getting the 24 1.4 II instead for a lot less money and somewhat less weight.
 

LetTheRightLensIn

EOS 5D SR
Apr 19, 2011
4,761
1
ahsanford said:
RGF said:
ahsanford said:
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.
I thought that the 28mm II fit the bill?? I don't own the lens, but have read some nice things about it on this forum.
28mm II? If you mean the new non-L 28mm F/2.8 IS, yes, I have it, and it's a peach. It does lack weather sealing, though. That said, it's the best option for me right now.

If you mean the 24L II prime, like many huge aperture lenses, it's an art / environmental portraiture tool. Soft in the corners, spectacular in the middle. Not for me.

Hopefully these new zooms will trump the primes like the 24-70 II has recently done. Then I'm buying for sure.

- A
24 II corners are pretty much like the 24-70 II and much better than on the 24-105 or 24 2.8 non-IS. Of course a 24 2.8 II non-IS could cost a lot less than the 24 1.4 II and weigh less and be even better.

I wonder how the 24 2.8 IS performs.
 

dirtcastle

EOS RP
Dec 10, 2011
390
0
eric-nord.com
ahsanford said:
dirtcastle said:
Haydn1971 said:
16-50mm ? That leaves an interesting concept in my mind of a 50-135mm F4 IS - creating a crop centric focal range that migrates to full frame when the user wants too...
Or how about a 24-50mm f/2?
That's what the Sigma 18-35 F/1.8 zoom should have been. I want that.
I forgot about this Sigma! Alas, I'm on a full-frame.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,524
1,404
LetTheRightLensIn said:
24 II corners are pretty much like the 24-70 II and much better than on the 24-105 or 24 2.8 non-IS. Of course a 24 2.8 II non-IS could cost a lot less than the 24 1.4 II and weigh less and be even better.

I wonder how the 24 2.8 IS performs.
Ask and ye shall receive:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=788&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=486&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Do the mouseover and watch the arrow to show what is being shown at the time. I've compared to the gold standard 24mm T/S II, starting at F/8 but you can change that as you need to. I think the new 24 IS solid in the center but leaves something to be desired in the corners. The T/S really seems to excel there.

Alternatively, PhotoZone has data on the 24mm T/S II and the 28mm IS F/2.8:

Tilt-Shift: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/603-canon24f35tse2?start=2
28mm IS: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/774-canon28f28isff?start=1

And as you can see, the 28 is not too shabby. I do love it, but I just wish it had a WS gasket.

-100 to everyone who said to lock the 24-70 on 24. :p I know it's sharp, but it's also big and heavy.

- A
 

Hannes

EOS RP
Mar 31, 2013
279
0
RGF said:
I would like to see Canon license its AF, .. technology to zeiss so that they can make their (Zeiss) lenses work in the fully automated mode with Canon bodies. If Sigma, etc can make lenses that work with Canon bodies, why can't Zeiss? Licensing issue or something else?
Sigma and Tamron reverse engineer the AF code to make their lenses work. That is why older sigma lenses won't work very well on new bodies.

Nissin on the other hand licence the flash instructions off Canon so I'm sure they'd be amenable to licencing their AF tech but it'd mean Sigma and Tamrons would be more expensive.
 

Marsu42

Canon Pride.
Feb 7, 2012
6,316
0
Berlin
der-tierfotograf.de
Knut Skywalker said:
The 16-50 F4L IS sounds REALLY intriguing, lets hope it's around 1k and I'll buy it. :)
No way - the 17-40L already is €600 after years and years on the market, a wider version (ad $$$) plus larger zoom range (add $$$) plus better iq (add much more $$$) will result in a hefty price tag - and Canon will sell it, because a really good 14-24 will be even more expensive.

For me, this is good news because I'm very happy I bough my 17-40L at a really reasonable price for a sealed L lens, it's sturdy and has good for what I do with it :)
 

bitm2007

EOS RP
May 20, 2013
366
7
16-50mm is an interesting focal range. It would only leave a 20mm gap between it and the 70-300L and 70-200L's. It could conceivably replace my good but not stellar preforming 17-40mm and 24-105mm L's, leaving only a small gap to the 70-300mm L.
 

Vivid Color

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 7, 2012
436
0
Most welcome rumor I've seen in a while. I'm glad I've held off on buying an ultra wide. If the 14-28 turns out to be true and as good optically as the other recently issued f2.8 zooms, then I know what's going on my wish list. Only decision left will be whether to buy the ultra wide angle before or after I get Canon's 100L macro. If only all decisions were so nice.