If you see how big the Sigma Art 14mm f/1.8 is you will not believe that they will make a 14 1.2 lens.F1.2 ?
Bigger than the aforementioned zoom?If you see how big the Sigma Art 14mm f/1.8 is you will not believe that they will make a 14 1.2 lens.
Good question! If they made a 14mm 1.2L with good IQ and no coma (or almost no coma) they would tempt me but for the price!Bigger 5han the aforementioned zoom?
Meanwhile they talk about a 14-21 f/1.4L zoom lens but they have not provided us with a 16-35 f/2.8L IS zoom
This would replace my 16-35 f/2.8L III and 16-35 f/4L IS zoom lenses (I like them both and I cannot get rid either...)
EDIT: And they haven't talked about a 16-35 f/2L...
Because they cannot make it in EF right? Oh wait Tamron could....well Canon hinted at "f/2.8" RF zooms ... RF 24-70/2.8 IS for sure, but I'd also expect an RF 16-35/2.8 L ... IS !?
Neither of the three would tempt me but I agree they would make a new trinity and that some pros would like them. I stil prefer the old fashioned set of f/2.8 ones though.Personally, a 14-28 f/2 zoom would be a great companion to the 28-70. And, a 70-150 or so f/2 tele zoom would complete the set of a new f/2 holy trinity.
Yes...it''s an obvious set piece...a stunt lens. It's inclusion in the rumours of early RF lenses is to tie off all of the forum trolls who comment on any new wide lens as being poor for astro-photography. Even though it's an extremely narrow niche. this lens is going to be big, heavy and expensive...maybe more than the illustrious 11-24L. Canon have no intention of making any profit with this lens...but will milk the cache or qudos of making it to silence a very vocal niche. Ironically, the best wide for astro work that I've used is the Canon 8-15L fisheye....but that's another story.f/1.4 is incredible for a zoom like this, but who is it for. It could be a fantastic Astro lens, but I would not plunk $4k down for it.
Good question! If they made a 14mm 1.2L with good IQ and no coma (or almost no coma) they would tempt me but for the price!
For now Sigma 14mm 1.8 made me reduce ISO a lot (from the days I was using a 14 2.8 lens)
It doesn't need to be completely coma free but there is a distance between having some coma and having horrible coma. Remember I wrote also: or almost no coma. Well a little coma is not a problem but horrible coma like the one of Canon 24mm 1.4L II is not acceptable.If you want a coma free wide lens...then try the Canon 8-15L fisheye lens. Fisheyes are naturally coma free due to the lack of rectilinear correction (image stretching to make it fit in the corners). Circles stay circular with a fish, where as on a rectilinear corrected lens...they go egg shaped and a bit wonky towards the corners. It's apart of the lens design that causes this. There is no such thing as a fully "corrected lens". A designer can either correct the straights...or the circles....but not both.
Most photographers have no idea what the new patents are, so it is not a case of Canon using them to keep people around. Canon gets patents to protect new designs from being encroached.
Hilarious. Very, very, very few people search patent applications. Very, very few... in my opinion. I don't personally think applying for patents to keep people around as customers is a business strategy. It is a business necessity to protect intellectual property. This is the only forum I belong to that looks at them. I have not personally ever taken a patent application into account when looking towards purchasing a new item. If I did that, then I'd be "paused" for decades (at times) waiting for something that might never come to fruition. So, respectfully, I strongly disagree.Most people think that a patent means that product might be in the pipeline soo it is a way to keep folks around...
I totally agree, the days of not so great wide lenses from Canon is a mantra from over 10 years ago and completely dispelled from the launch of the TS-e 17mm onwards. Going back the the EF lens history...Just to add to your innovation list here....Canon were in fact the first manufacturer to deliver a constant aperture 28-70 f2.8 (1993) then later a 24-70 f2.8 (2002 - pre digital). They also produced the first 80-200 f2.8 aka the magic drain pipe in 1989. it was the first constant f2.8 design. The more familiar 70-200 f2.8 (1995) and a 70-200 f2.8 LIS (2001). Both the original 24-70 f2.8 L and 70-200 f2.8 L were so revolutionary and so far ahead of the competition it look a long time for anyone else to even come close. When Nikon finally made their fantastic 24-70 f2.8 variant...it was a total rip off of Canon's novel design, although newer and sharper..but some 10 years later...what does one expect? In fact these two Canon lenses stayed in Canon's front line lens catalogue for a lot longer than any of the competition's...which point to how Canon innovates. They get it SO right...the first time.Which companies have delivered a...
A) 11-24mm f/4 zoom lens
B) 17mm f/4 tilt shift lens
C) 8-15mm f/4 fisheye zoom lens
D) 24-70mm f/2 zoom lens
On the way, could you also check how often do other companies' patents actually come out, and after how long? IIRC, it took Nikon ~7 years to come out with an ultra wide perspective control lens, and it isn't as wide as Canon's.