Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]

[Canon Rumors]

<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=10422"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10422" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10422"></a></div>
<strong>New Ultrawide Zoom


</strong>There has been chatter about the possibilty of this lens since the day after Nikon announced their highly regarded 14-24 lens.</p>
<p>The latest is we’ll see this lens announced within the next 12 months. As always, nailing down lens announcement dates is near impossible with Canon. It was suggested that the EF 14-24 f/2.8L would be announced after the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x begins shipping, suspected late in 2012 or the first half of 2013.</p>
<p>An EF 14-24 f/2.8L would complete a pretty remarkable range of lenses in the Canon lineup along with the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II, EF 70-200 f/2.8L II & the unannounced EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x.</p>
<p>Could it also be filterable (with a very large ring) for a circular polarizer?</p>
<div id="attachment_10423" class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 510px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/1424patent.jpg"><img class="size-full wp-image-10423" title="1424patent" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/1424patent.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="300" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L Patent Example Diagram</p></div>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[Dylan777]

Awesome....I better start saving my $$$ NOW. I guess $2500-$3000

I took some shots with Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 with D800, I like this range more than Canon 16-35 II.

 

[Loswr]

Hope this one becomes a reality. If IQ is similar to the Nikon version, I'll drop my 16-35mm f/2.8L II like a hot potato.

 

[Etienne]

I'm coming around to wanting one of these, although mental blocks include:

Likely huge price
No front filters
Likely big and heavy (whereas 16-35 II is not a bad weight and size, and takes filters)

Must wait and see.

 

[crasher8]

I'll go FF for this Zoom Trinity wide.

 

[lonelywhitelights]

"Could it also be filterable (with a very large ring) for a circular polarizer?"

don't think I'd want the wacky looking skies you would get using a CPL on something this wide

 

[Vonbon]

Ken Rockwell said "Thou shalt not use polarizer for wide angle"

but for grads, Lee SW150 System/ Lucroit-Hitech 165mm/ Cokin X-Pro are available while Singh-Ray makes filters for these three.

 

[Canon-F1]

Awesome....I better start my saving $$$ NOW. I guess $2500-$3000

the nikon costs 1600 euro.... so i guess canon will sell it for 2400 euro.... :

 

[akiskev]

Could it also be filterable (with a very large ring) for a circular polarizer?

Using a circular polarizer on an UWA lens is tricky when shooting landscapes with a lot of sky in the frame. Have you ever tried it? Below 24mm you should be very careful and below 17mm* it is almost useless due to the noticeable difference in polarization angle. The variation in the "blueness" of the sky is horrid..
The increased saturation and the reduced distant haze it provides are very welcome, though.

*I'm talking about full frame of course.

 

[trulandphoto]

Oh my. Not again. One of my dream lenses.

At least the 40mm pancake is cheap. This one will not be. But I won't be happy until I have it.

 

[traveller]

Surely if Canon wanted to enable usage of such a lens with filters, they would design it with a rear filter holder like the super-teles (or the new Pentax 25mm MF lens)?

 

[FunPhotons]

Hope this one becomes a reality. If IQ is similar to the Nikon version, I'll drop my 16-35mm f/2.8L II like a hot potato.

Why? I find the 16-35 quite good and useful in that it gives me 35 mm. And it is weather sealed and takes filters, which I seriously doubt this will

 

[Jettatore]

Hope this one becomes a reality. If IQ is similar to the Nikon version, I'll drop my 16-35mm f/2.8L II like a hot potato.

I wouldn't, but your style and needs as well as budget, I know, are quite different than mine and still, I am very happy to see this lens releasing for Canon systems. I wonder if this will best, the 14mm Canon prime (I hear that currently, maybe someone can confirm, Canon's 14L prime is superior to the 14mm end of Nikon's 14-24 as well as superior to Nikon's 14mm primes???) I think if I was willing to chop off the 35 mm end of the zoom, with an intention to pair it to a 24-70, that I would just go for a 14mm prime instead and save a little size and weight. I also don't like that the 14mm prime and the 14-24 lenses have unprotectable, aspherical front elements and I'm not at all convinced that leaving the house with just a 14-24 would be anywhere near as useful for many forms of photography as the same scenario with a 16-35. The 35mm end of the 16-35 is what lets the lens go from ultra wide angle, to a normal viewing angle. You can stick the 35mm end in someones face and get an intimate portrait that doesn't make them look like a mutant, not so with the 24.

 

[KitsVancouver]

Hope this one becomes a reality. If IQ is similar to the Nikon version, I'll drop my 16-35mm f/2.8L II like a hot potato.

I wouldn't, but your style and needs as well as budget, I know, are quite different than mine and still, I am very happy to see this lens releasing for Canon systems. I wonder if this will best, the 14mm Canon prime (I hear that currently, maybe someone can confirm, Canon's 14L prime is superior to the 14mm end of Nikon's 14-24 as well as superior to Nikon's 14mm primes???) I think if I was willing to chop off the 35 mm end of the zoom, with an intention to pair it to a 24-70, that I would just go for a 14mm prime instead and save a little size and weight. I also don't like that the 14mm prime and the 14-24 lenses have unprotectable, aspherical front elements and I'm not at all convinced that leaving the house with just a 14-24 would be anywhere near as useful for many forms of photography as the same scenario with a 16-35. The 35mm end of the 16-35 is what lets the lens go from ultra wide angle, to a normal viewing angle. You can stick the 35mm end in someones face and get an intimate portrait that doesn't make them look like a mutant, not so with the 24.

I was just going to ask how many people would ditch their 16-35s for a 14-24. I will likely get the 14-24 at some point, but the 35 is very useful on the 16-35. Indoors where I shoot mostly my kids, I find I use 35 more than I do 16. There are not many instances when I wish I had wider than 16 either in the house or out.

Thanks for the above post as it made me realize I need both lenses.

 

[bp]

drool

 

[t.linn]

One can't really be bothered with blanket statements like that no matter who it comes from. I use a CPL on the ultra-wide angles (10-22 & 16-35L) all the time. Tell me if you see anything wrong with the sky:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/h_ssan/6407001159/#lightbox/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/h_ssan/6900330628/#lightbox/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/h_ssan/7070347189/#lightbox/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/h_ssan/6964494411/##lightbox/

I would actually argue that you can make generalizations. That CPL's are problematic with ultra wide angle lenses is one I would agree with, even if there are exceptions. Everyone's tolerance is different but I would have probably dodged the dark band above the building in the first image. The CPL banding isn't bad but it's there. The skies in the second and fourth images don't work for me at all. To be clear, I'm not arguing that these are bad images or that there aren't benefits to your using a CPL for these shots; I'm saying that the generalization holds true.

 

[ssan]

One can't really be bothered with blanket statements like that no matter who it comes from. I use a CPL on the ultra-wide angles (10-22 & 16-35L) all the time. Tell me if you see anything wrong with the sky:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/h_ssan/6407001159/#lightbox/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/h_ssan/6900330628/#lightbox/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/h_ssan/7070347189/#lightbox/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/h_ssan/6964494411/##lightbox/

I would actually argue that you can make generalizations. That CPL's are problematic with ultra wide angle lenses is one I would agree with, even if there are exceptions. Everyone's tolerance is different but I would have probably dodged the dark band above the building in the first image. The CPL banding isn't bad but it's there. The skies in the second and fourth images don't work for me at all. To be clear, I'm not arguing that these are bad images or that there aren't benefits to your using a CPL for these shots; I'm saying that the generalization holds true.

It's always nice to get fresh feedback on things your own eyes might prefer not to see, so thank you for that. Personally though, I'd work towards perfecting my use of the filter on my wide angle as opposed to doing away with it entirely.

 

[akiskev]

ssan nice pics. I said that it is tricky, not impossible. And I mentioned that I was talking about the sky, not the reflections.. Plus I was talking about below 17mm situations, as in 14-17mm.

 

[drjlo]

I'm coming around to wanting one of these, although mental blocks include:

Likely huge price

I'm thinking more along the lines of Ginormous price.

I'd much rather see full frame 14-24 f/4 lens that's smaller, lighter, sharper, and less expensive than current 16-35 II, i.e. at least as sharp as Tokina 11-16..

 

[ssan]

ssan nice pics. I said that it is tricky, not impossible. And I mentioned that I was talking about the sky, not the reflections.. Plus I was talking about below 17mm situations, as in 14-17mm.

Thanks. But I was referring to the Rockwell quote. And all those were taken with the 10-22mm on the widest end on a crop sensor (16mm equivalent?) so they're technically below 17mm.