New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]

MadHungarian

EOS M50
Jun 7, 2013
33
0
Good to hear about this. I've currently got a 17-40, and was debating whether or not to get a 16-35. I guess this solves the debate...
 

hambergler

EOS T7i
May 15, 2011
53
0
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
I don't agree that canon has massive shoes to fill in the landscape department. If you are already on a tripod and doing serious landscape work than I'd put the 17 TSE against the Nikon 14-24 anyday.

Sensors are another matter of course.
 

Canon 14-24

EOS T7i
Oct 14, 2012
74
0
hambergler said:
I don't agree that canon has massive shoes to fill in the landscape department. If you are already on a tripod and doing serious landscape work than I'd put the 17 TSE against the Nikon 14-24 anyday.

Sensors are another matter of course.
Some people just like the versatility of a zoom especially in the ultra wide angle range. It doesn't hurt to even bring/have both a 14-24mm and 17mm tse as I do plan to keep my 17mm tse and pair it with a 14-24 type of lens. It doesn't hurt having a wider lens too to get a single wide shot without having to shift multiple images that results in a more narrow pano shot nor does it hurt also carrying around the 17mm for perspective correction. Additionally, in the event of wind/dust/dirt/rain environments I'd probably slap the 14-24 on over shifting/tilting with the 17mm as well.

In any case, my money is ready for this lens!
 

Zv

EOR R
Sep 23, 2012
1,766
0
www.flickr.com
No! Is it ... is it finally happening? The elusive 14-24? I just can't believe it! I don't even want this lens but I want to see Canon make it.

This rumor has already made my day!

:D
 

infared

Kodak Brownie!
Jul 19, 2011
1,411
11
YIPPEE!!!
I just picked up a 17mm TSE...(tried it out last weekend...AMAZING LENS!)....so with this news about the new Wide Angles...I will be putting my 16-35mm II on the block...it is getting less and less use with my growing collection of primes. I expect the new 14-24mm to be spectacular, (and expensive...YIKES!)....but I plan on having one in my quiver for when I need quick versatility and fast AF!
 

JonAustin

Telecom / IT consultant and semi-pro photographer
Dec 10, 2012
641
0
Horseshoe Bay, TX
Given satisfactory performance from the final product, I'd be interested in a 16-50 f/4L IS, as well.

I bought a 17-40 right after they came out 10 years ago; I was shooting with a crop-sensor body then, and the 17-40 became my walk-around lens. When I moved to full-frame, my new walk-around became the 24-105.

I'm very happy with my 17-40, but don't use it very much anymore, due to its limited zoom range. I think a 16-50L with current IS and all the other recent tech would be a nice upgrade, and something I would use more often.

In the meantime, I wait (not so) patiently for an update to the 100-400, and -- much longer term -- a 24-70/2.8 with IS (unless my 7½-year-old, heavily used 24-105 dies in the meantime).
 

ddashti

EOS 80D
Mar 27, 2012
144
0
Once the 14-24 comes out, many of those who had converted to Nikon might convert back without second thought.
 

Jim Saunders

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 9, 2012
1,125
14
hhaphoto.com
Sitting here it seems to me that I'll either have some interesting new choices or pleasantly depressed prices on a 16-35, so either way it's all coming up Milhouse.

Jim
 

Rienzphotoz

Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
Aug 22, 2012
3,303
0
Canon Rumors said:
One of the lenses will be the 14-24 f/2.8L, that will complete Canon’s run of lenses covering 14mm to 560mm.
Hallelujah
Canon Rumors said:
We’re told one of the configurations in test is an EF 16-50 f/4L IS.
Hallelujah once again
 

verysimplejason

EOS 6D MK II
Aug 6, 2012
1,464
0
www.flickr.com
ddashti said:
Once the 14-24 comes out, many of those who had converted to Nikon might convert back without second thought.
If and only if 14-24 performs better than Nikon's or at least be on par with it and Canon releases the high MP, high DR model for landscape photographers. As of now, D800/E is still the best 35mm landscape camera.
 

verysimplejason

EOS 6D MK II
Aug 6, 2012
1,464
0
www.flickr.com
I am hoping Canon will put out a CHEAPER and lighter and smaller "GOLD" version of these lenses. Maybe a refresh of the 20mm F2.8 USM (an 18mm is better) will do it for me. PLEASE Canon!
 

candyman

EOR R
Sep 27, 2011
2,196
4
www.flickr.com
Daniel Flather said:
dadgummit said:
Anyone want to buy a used 16-35 II?
I'll wait till the 14-24 is out and the market will be flooded with 16-35s

I am sure that a 14-24 f/2.8 will cost up north of 2K euro. That would make it for me less attractive to replace my 16-35 f/2.8 II. But, if a 16-50 f/4 IS would arrive with a price max 1300 euro then I might consider replacing it. It will be a good lens for indoors on FF especially equiped with IS. I am not sure what will be the price I can get for the 16-35 if more of you drop it on the market ;)
 

kennephoto

EOS RP
Jun 7, 2012
322
0
35
Minnesota
I've been trying to decide on a wide angle lens to buy since my 24-105 isn't wide enough for me. Will the 14-24 be bulbus front element and not take screw on filters? I want to take some wide angle photos using ND filters. Guess I shall keep saving and waiting.
 

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,816
35
hambergler said:
I don't agree that canon has massive shoes to fill in the landscape department. If you are already on a tripod and doing serious landscape work than I'd put the 17 TSE against the Nikon 14-24 anyday.

Sensors are another matter of course.
I would like to see Canon have fixed 17 and 14 both equal sharp as the 17 TS-E (but without the extra cost and bulk of the TS-E).

Or simply license Nikon 14-24 and make it work with the EOS bodies and put a Canon red band on it.

I wish Zeiss would make their lens AF on Canon bodies
 
Jun 20, 2013
1
0
What I have always wondered is why the manufacturers do not make the UWA lenses with drop in rear glass filters? ??? ??? The telephotos have it because nobody's going to make a 200mm CPL, so why can't we have it on wide angles - nobody's going to be making curved CPL filters... I'm sure if they make UWAs with rear drop ins it'll sell like hotcakes! That and Canon can sell their own proprietary filters for it as well, so it's a win win for everyone imo. *Wink wink Canon!* ;) :D ;D
 
M

M.ST

Guest
I can confirm that a EF 16-50 f/4 prototype exist.

The EF 14-24 f/2.8 is tested over a long time.