New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]

C

crasher8

Guest
uwa, takes filters, sharp in corners…all other dream factors? 2499
 

SwnSng

EOS 80D
Jun 20, 2013
135
0
he 14-24 is exciting news! If it can match Nikon's legendary 14-24 I would be happy if it can surpass it, my mind would be BLOWN! Starting to save now for it, aside from a long telephoto 400m+, a 14-24 would be my most coveted lens.
 

RVB

1DX
Oct 18, 2012
84
0
Just a word about the Nikon 14-24mm,I have had this lens three time's in the last few years,It's really good but has one or two faults,it doesn't handle flare or backlighting as well as I would like and contrast falls off slighting at the edge's,it's also quite heavy..

I expect the Canon 14-24 to debut at a high price just like the 24-70ii and 70-200ii did but that price will fall after a few months,it will probably retail at about 2300dollars..
 

dlleno

EOS 7D MK II
Mar 23, 2012
605
0
Ayelike said:
Excellent news! I've had my mouse hovering over the buy button of a 16-35II or 14II for some time
you and me both; for once, the timing of this rumor is a benefit!

16-50 f/4 would fit the crop bodies, to be sure, but wouldn't compete directly with the 17-55 due to the aperture. I can see room for all three -- the 16-50 f/4, 16-35 III, and 14-24
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,482
730
dlleno said:
Ayelike said:
Excellent news! I've had my mouse hovering over the buy button of a 16-35II or 14II for some time
you and me both; for once, the timing of this rumor is a benefit!

16-50 f/4 would fit the crop bodies, to be sure, but wouldn't compete directly with the 17-55 due to the aperture. I can see room for all three -- the 16-50 f/4, 16-35 III, and 14-24
I found a mint & cheap 14mm II so no regrets. However, I was sorry I lost a 16-35 2.8 II used sale.
Not any more. I will use my 16-35 2.8 version 1 and my fixed wide angle lenses in the meantime ;D
 
H

Hobby Shooter

Guest
privatebydesign said:
M.ST said:
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.
You can't even post an image of a discontinued lens you claim to own, no NDA, privacy issues, or indeed any genuine reason to not back up your inflated claims in that instance, why should anybody have any trust in your hinted insider information when you can't even post a picture of your own lens?
As a general statement, if you are to be taken seriously as a 'test pilot' sitting on info of to be released gear, just once you should post a statement about something new that is to be released that is not just a response to what CR has already posted. Otherwise, one might come out as not so credible.
 

AJ

EOS 7D MK II
Sep 11, 2010
647
55
Hahaha. $1k, that's funny.

Seriously now. It'll be at least $2.5k. At least.

Knut Skywalker said:
The 16-50 F4L IS sounds REALLY intriguing, lets hope it's around 1k and I'll buy it. :)
 

Caps18

EOS RP
Feb 24, 2011
286
0
While I do wish that my 16-35 f/2.8 was a little longer, I'm not sure the 14-16mm range would make a big difference to me. Especially if I lost the 25-35mm or 25-50mm range.

I'd think about it if I were going to take 1 lens backpacking around the world for instance, but I would miss the f/2.8 of the 16-35 or the f/1.2 of the 50mm too much.
 

drjlo

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 27, 2012
805
6
dlleno said:
I can see room for all three -- the 16-50 f/4, 16-35 III, and 14-24
16-50 range appeals to me as better full frame walkaround range than 24-70; but I am afraid increasing the range will likely compromise distortion figures and corner sharpness compared to wide angles with less range, etc 14-22, 16-35. 16-35 II is already not all that great in corners wide open at 35 mm end.

If Canon manages to pull off a 16-50 with good sharpness across the ranges, especially with a good 50 mm portrait end, I will likely buy that over 14-24..
 

EchoLocation

EOS RP
Dec 26, 2011
317
0
Chongqing, China
i love this rumor. if the 14-24 accepts filters I may be interested if it's priced under $2500.
I'm really interested in this 16-50 if it is sharp and around $1300 or less. I had the 17-40 but it was really soft, so I sold it. That extra 10mm of reach gives this lens a big advantage over pretty much anything else on the market(for full frame.) I can't think of anything else available for full frame that goes from that wide to that long(anybody?)
This 16-50 could be an awesome everyday sorta lens for people who appreciate the 24 side of the 24-70 more than the 70. I'm just not sure I could give up my 2.8 aperture for it.
Still, it is exciting to think about.
 
Jun 21, 2013
1
0
for 14-24mm f/2.8
I would buy, if this lens accept regular (100mm) filters, I already have a filter collections, that's already very expensive. I wouldn't buy larger filters (>150mm) cuz they're insanely expensive.
 

Radiating

EOS RP
May 24, 2011
334
0
EchoLocation said:
i love this rumor. if the 14-24 accepts filters I may be interested if it's priced under $2500.
I'm really interested in this 16-50 if it is sharp and around $1300 or less. I had the 17-40 but it was really soft, so I sold it. That extra 10mm of reach gives this lens a big advantage over pretty much anything else on the market(for full frame.) I can't think of anything else available for full frame that goes from that wide to that long(anybody?)
This 16-50 could be an awesome everyday sorta lens for people who appreciate the 24 side of the 24-70 more than the 70. I'm just not sure I could give up my 2.8 aperture for it.
Still, it is exciting to think about.
Agree 100%, but somehow this seems too good to be true. It feels like pipe dream considering Canon's dragging their feet with good new products.
 

Etienne

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 19, 2010
1,423
231
Ottawa Ontario
I am most interested in an improved 16-35. Sharper, less distortion ... smaller and lighter would be great too, even if it has to be 18-28
 

dlleno

EOS 7D MK II
Mar 23, 2012
605
0
Etienne said:
I am most interested in an improved 16-35. Sharper, less distortion ... smaller and lighter would be great too, even if it has to be 18-28
I'd rank the importance of resolution, Flare control and CA above distortion.

18-28 is a pretty narrow 1.5:1 ratio; in my view, and with essentially no overlap with a 24-<something> zoom. not very attractive to me; I'd rather have a 21mm prime for example, or a 14-24, if there is no updated 16-35.

A "real" 16-35 (by "real" I mean the lens lable is very close to actual focal length) is a 2:1 (or very nearly so), and provides a very good combination of "extension above 24mm" and UWA coverage. Imho there's room for both a 14-24 (a 1.7:1 ratio) and a 16-35, both in f/2.8, and with 24-70 ii caliber optics.
 

Sabaki

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 4, 2012
800
0
45
Cape Town, South Africa
About 18 months ago, when I really started investing time reading lens reviews, it was pretty much unanimously stated the the 70-200 f/2.8 II was the world's sharpest zoom lens.

6 months or so ago, the 24-70 II f/2.8 was considered a contender to that crown with some reviewers stating it IS the world's sharpest zoom.

Last month, the 200-400 f/4.0 became the latest to be spoken of in such terms.

Imagine the new 14-24 f/2.8 rouses similar reviews.

So with 4 lenses, you could realistically cover the 14-560 range with potentially the 4 best zoom lenses in the world.

Add your speciality lenses. 100mm L macro, the 17 & 24 TSEs...you may just be looking at the best lens lineup in photography.

Let's hope the new cameras take a significant step up!
 

Ellen Schmidtee

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 10, 2012
439
1
Sabaki said:
About 18 months ago, when I really started investing time reading lens reviews, it was pretty much unanimously stated the the 70-200 f/2.8 II was the world's sharpest zoom lens.

6 months or so ago, the 24-70 II f/2.8 was considered a contender to that crown with some reviewers stating it IS the world's sharpest zoom.

Last month, the 200-400 f/4.0 became the latest to be spoken of in such terms.

Imagine the new 14-24 f/2.8 rouses similar reviews.

So with 4 lenses, you could realistically cover the 14-560 range with potentially the 4 best zoom lenses in the world.
The whole set would probably cost ~$20,000 - can the average participant on this forum fork that much cash for lenses?

I'm sure there are a few photographers on this forum can spend that much cash on lenses, and justify it as well, personally I'll be very happy to be able to add the 24-70mm f/2.8 II & 14-24mm f/2.8 to my collection.
 
Ellen Schmidtee said:
Sabaki said:
About 18 months ago, when I really started investing time reading lens reviews, it was pretty much unanimously stated the the 70-200 f/2.8 II was the world's sharpest zoom lens.

6 months or so ago, the 24-70 II f/2.8 was considered a contender to that crown with some reviewers stating it IS the world's sharpest zoom.

Last month, the 200-400 f/4.0 became the latest to be spoken of in such terms.

Imagine the new 14-24 f/2.8 rouses similar reviews.

So with 4 lenses, you could realistically cover the 14-560 range with potentially the 4 best zoom lenses in the world.
The whole set would probably cost ~$20,000 - can the average participant on this forum fork that much cash for lenses?

I'm sure there are a few photographers on this forum can spend that much cash on lenses, and justify it as well, personally I'll be very happy to be able to add the 24-70mm f/2.8 II & 14-24mm f/2.8 to my collection.
Drop the 200-400 out of that, and you've still got 14-200 covered, which is probably all the average participant on this forum really needs... are there people who need more than 200? Absolutely. But if we're talking averages... Not to mention I don't think there are enough 200-400s in existence to give one to everyone on this forum... ::)
 

Sabaki

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 4, 2012
800
0
45
Cape Town, South Africa
Drop the 200-400 out of that, and you've still got 14-200 covered, which is probably all the average participant on this forum really needs... are there people who need more than 200? Absolutely. But if we're talking averages... Not to mention I don't think there are enough 200-400s in existence to give one to everyone on this forum... ::)
[/quote]

lol Full heartedly agree with your take on the financial outlay on those 4 lenses.
I certainly can't afford it but damn would I love to have it! 24-70 is currently on my radar
 

moocowe

EOS M50
Nov 13, 2012
48
0
liyan said:
for 14-24mm f/2.8
I would buy, if this lens accept regular (100mm) filters, I already have a filter collections, that's already very expensive. I wouldn't buy larger filters (>150mm) cuz they're insanely expensive.
I think it's very unlikely the 14-24mm will be able to use 100mm filters.
When I designed a filter holder for my Samyang 14mm, I found that anything narrower than 125mm would show up at the sides of the frame.
The LEE holder for Nikon's 14-24mm is for 150mm filters.