Canon EF 12-24mm f/2.8 L - Constructing the Enigma

[Sabaki]

So this post is purely a flight of fantasy and not based on fact but merely on hope.

Personally, I would love Canon to replace the 16-35mm focal length in favour of 12-24mm for it's flagship ultra wide lens. Yes, I do understand that there are many that enjoy that extra 11mm on the long side but as I've pointed out, this is kinda what I would ask for.

My non negotiables are these:
1. Focal length: 12-24
2. Aperture: f/2.8-f/22 (constant across focal range)
3. Weather sealed
4. Able to take filters
5. Unparalleled corner-to-corner and centre frame image quality.
6. Reticulinear

I'm not too concerned about IS for this focal range but I do acknowledge the many reviewers of the 16-35 f/4.0 IS stating IS as being impressive.

So is this lens possible and what would it look like and weigh? Just how bulbous would such a front element be and would an 82mm thread size be possible?
I'm looking at a weight of between 550g-650g max.
Filtering a lens with 12mm on the wide end will bring obvious vignetting issues. Can this be mitigated?

Lots of fantasy I know, perhaps not even possible.

But if it was real, would YOU buy this lens?

 

[rs]

If it was real and well priced, definitely. But the filter taking abilities and weight position your spec list firmly in the fantasy region of what's physically possible.

 

[Sabaki]

If it was real and well priced, definitely. But the filter taking abilities and weight position your spec list firmly in the fantasy region of what's physically possible.

So RS, I'll have to give up some on my non negotiables then?

What would you tweak, to make it possible?

 

[Random Orbits]

Sigma's 12-24 has a bulbous front element, is f/4.5-5.6 and weighs about 670g already.

If Canon were to build a constant f/4 12-24mm lens, I'd expect to to be closer to 1kg, and it'd still would not take filters.

 

[NancyP]

Nikon's 14-24mm f/2.8 is a kilo. 12-24 f/2.8 would have to be at least a kilo even with engineering plastic use.

 

[mackguyver]

Why not use the drop in C-PL from the big whites? You can also use ND filters in gelatin or screw-on format as well. That would resolve the need for a 150-200mm front filter!

If they could actually build this, I'd pay big white prices for it. The only catch for me would be the f/2.8 - I'd be happy to settle for f/4.

 

[Sabaki]

Why not use the drop in C-PL from the big whites? You can also use ND filters in gelatin or screw-on format as well. That would resolve the need for a 150-200mm front filter!

Interesting idea but how would a drop in filter system accommodate graduated filters?

 

[knoxtown]

Number 5 is ridiculous for an ultra-wide zoom. Regardless, I'll buy this in a second. I'm not THAT interested in the 16-35 range, bc there are great 35 primes out there. Not many options wider than that. Probably won't happen though.

 

[scottkinfw]

I'd love to see this lens. An f4 would be fast enough for me, and from a dof perspective at this fl, I don't see a big issue. I'd like to see IS, but that wouldn't be a deal killer. Regarding filters, I am sure there is something that could be worked out externally that on the short end, vignetting would not be a problem.

I hear such great things bout the Nikon 12-24, surely, Canon can beat it. The 24-70 is II can take up the slack on the long end. I would love to put up my SamYang 14mm with manual focus for this lens.

sek

 

[mackguyver]

Why not use the drop in C-PL from the big whites? You can also use ND filters in gelatin or screw-on format as well. That would resolve the need for a 150-200mm front filter!

Interesting idea but how would a drop in filter system accommodate graduated filters?

Poorly, but at least you'd have 2 of the 3 most used filters, and in many cases you can use an exposure blend in place of the grad NDs.

 

[seamonster]

Why bother with 2.8 at those focal legths...everything is in focus anyways and newer bodies can just crank up the ISO.....just go f/4 and keep the cost and size down to something reasonable.

 

[DRR]

I probably would not buy it, but that's just me. I find 16-35 a very good general-purpose wide focal range. Anything wider than that is welcome but not essential.

If they upgraded the line to a 14-35mm f/2.8, with or without IS, I'd consider replacing my 16-35. But I probably still wouldn't because I'm sure it would be $2k+. At that point I'd rather add to my primes or lighting instead.

 

[bowtiez]

Why bother with 2.8 at those focal legths...everything is in focus anyways and newer bodies can just crank up the ISO.....just go f/4 and keep the cost and size down to something reasonable.

It`s not always about DOF, its also about light gathering abilities. Try shooting starscapes or in general astrophotography. Even with todays iso performances you always want to gather as much light as possible.

 

[andrewflo]

That certainly would be an amazing feat, no doubt!

I personally have my doubts about threaded filterability on a lens like this.

If they were able to make this lens with a bulbous, non-filterable front element for ~$2k or less, I'd probably still be game. Make it threaded, and we'd have a game changer

 

[Canonicon]

Why bother with 2.8 at those focal legths...everything is in focus anyways and newer bodies can just crank up the ISO.....just go f/4 and keep the cost and size down to something reasonable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light

 

[tayassu]

Reading from the answers, I'd say everyone would be happy with a new 12-24/4 and a new 16-35/2.8. That is somehow logically, as I imagine the people who need 2.8 (people photogs etc.) don't need 12mm (too much distortion). That seems also as a good marketing strategy like Canon always does, make three options that are for different purposes and if you want all FL's and f's covered, you gotta at least buy two....

 

[sagittariansrock]

I'm sure many, including myself, will love to see such a lens.
However, how many will put their money where their mouth is?
In other words, if Canon brings out a ~$2.5k 12-24/2.8, how many will preorder it?
I argued, a couple of weeks before the 16-35/4 IS was even rumored, that an f/4 IS will be more sought after, and there it was on the shelves about 1.5 months later.
Companies like Canon care more about people's needs, not wants. Especially when such a significant investment is concerned. Having said that, I do feel a fast ultra wide is coming.

 

[Canonicon]

In other words, if Canon brings out a ~$2.5k 12-24/2.8, how many will preorder it?

Is that a valid argument?
How many Canon user buy a 600mm f4 or 200-400mm f4?

When it´s 1500-1700 euro (~2000$) like the Nikon model i sure will buy it in an instant. When Canon thinks it deserves a premium, as usual, i will not like it but even cash out 1800-2000 euro.

I think a f2.8 would be loved just like the nikon model.

This is the best wide angle lens I have ever used. Whenever I am standing with a fellow photographer that has a Nikon DSLR, I immediately force them to remove whatever lens they happen to have on and put this one on so they can try it out. They are amazed too.

I’d say of my favorite portfolio pieces that this lens accounts for a good 40-50% of them!
....
Pretty much every landscape I take now and in the future will use this lens. It’s much better than the Sigma 10-20mm that used to fill my nights and days. Below is a shot I took with this monster of a lens. You can click on it to zoom in (All Sizes) on the Flickr link to see how wonderful it is.

What is that “f/2.8″ about? It’s about speed. When you shoot at 2.8, you get a lot of light in very quickly. To prove how valuable this is, look at one of the shots below. I was hanging out of a helicopter shooting Chicago at sunset. There was not much light, and having a lens that shot at f/2.8 saved the day. Most of my landscape shots, however, are shot at a higher F-stop, like f/8 for example. When everything is at infinity, the F stop does not matter too much. However, as with the Chicago shot, you can see it is sometimes handy to use that “fast” 2.8 speed.

 

[infared]

I am sure that I speak for many:

"I'm sure many, including myself, will love to see such a lens." (So.... Are you just going to look at it?)
"However, how many will put their money where their mouth is?" (Do you always start conversations with challenges?)
"In other words, if Canon brings out a ~$2.5k 12-24/2.8, how many will preorder it?" (Aren't you making a wild assumption on the price considering that Canon just dropped the prices of all of its lenses worldwide and the market is getting rather tight?...also...that sounds like another challenge?)
"I argued, a couple of weeks before the 16-35/4 IS was even rumored, that an f/4 IS will be more sought after, and there it was on the shelves about 1.5 months later." (You....argue?? ...... WOW! Were you somehow responsible for its manufacture and it's incredible optics, too?)
"Companies like Canon care more about people's needs, not wants." (If that is the case why the noisey sensors and the mostly useless mirrorless camera?) "Having said that, I do feel a fast ultra wide is coming." (Well you can see the future after all!)
8)

 

[Sabaki]

See, the benchmark has been set by Nikon's superb 14-24, hasn't it? And certainly it would make Canon think "Hold on! Our user base are strapping a Nikon onto our bodies because we do not have a comparable model!'

Yes, that is a total assumption on my part and driving from my hypothetical, self created post of Canon Advisor, I feel it's a valid point.

Canon's recipe for creating lenses has improved quite substantially in the last 2-3 years. 200-400 is bloody marvellous. 24-70 f2.8 ii is already legend. 16-35 f/4.0 is quite magnificent too and it doesn't have a bulbous front element either.

So let's look at consolidating the above into an actual product! A Canon 12/14-24 f/2.8 L, with unparalleled corner to corner sharpness, created with Canon's new lens making formulae could give us an option (use ot or lose it guys) that we currently do not have.

If this is realised, can any Canonite complain about anything in the 12/14mm-400mm range? Most definitely not! A class, industry best lens collection right there.

Do note that I do understand that some prefer lighter options, options with/without IS etc etc but I do think this lens will be a remarkable product if ever realised.