Anyone Want an Improved 16-35mm over the much requested 14-24mm?

[Radiating]

I'm personally not too crazy about a 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. I would much much rather Canon release a further updated 16-35mm f/2.8 III, specifically based on this insane lens patent:

16-35mm f/2.8 IS Pro Lens.

http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-01-06

f/2.8 3 ED elements 5 aspherical ones, and sharpness that rivals the 14-24mm wide open, AND image stabilization!

Internal focusing, low vignette.

I really would much rather have greater flexibility and greater focal range than an ultra wide angle that only does ultra wide, and worse than this proposed lens at that.

Anyone else feel the same way?

 

[MARKOE PHOTOE]

Absolutely agree. I started a forum topic on this very subject a few months ago asking who was using the Nikon 14-24 on Canon EOS.

Waiting for Canon to develop, test, manufacture and deliver on a new product is a missed opportunity. I've got the 16-35 and 24TSE II and Zeiss 35mm for landscape, but I really need an ultra wide.

I just returned the new Sigma 12-24 II for Canon. Big mistake on my part, the corners are still soft and un-usable in my opinion. The Samyang 14 is calling me but I need an adapter with a chip for focus confirmation.

What has your research found for UWA? ...besides 14-24?

 

[florianbieler.de]

I'm afraid a 14-24 will be insanely expensive, let alone you'd take a 16-35 and put up an IS to that... 2000$ pew pew.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The mk II is pretty new, it can always be improved. If Canon thinks there is a profit in updating it, they will.

 

[Plamen]

I want a 16-35/4 IS (like the Nikon).

 

[Chosenbydestiny]

I'm afraid a 14-24 will be insanely expensive, let alone you'd take a 16-35 and put up an IS to that... 2000$ pew pew.

+1 and it probably won't be available until quite awhile after announcement. Hopefully the price of the 16-35 II gets affected so I can get that instead =P

 

[infared]

I would like to see a really tight 14-24mm comparable to the Nikon. Sharp at 14mm AND 24mm. I could do without the 16-35mm. Apparently is is possible to make an incredible 14-24mm...we just need to see Canon do that, and end their mediocre, underperforming Wideangle Zooms.

 

[Ricku]

Yes. As long as it is tack sharp across the frame @ all focal lengths, just like the Nikon 14-24.

 

[dolina]

A friend who shoots Nikon has the 14-24 and 16-35. He sold the 14-24 because he found it too wide and not long enough for people shots.

I am more partial to the updated 135L and 400/5.6L

 

[Ricku]

A friend who shoots Nikon has the 14-24 and 16-35. He sold the 14-24 because he found it too wide and not long enough for people shots.

Well obviously. The 14-24 is a landscape lens. A landscapers wet dream.

However, a 16-35mm can also be a landscapers wet dream, as long as it is.. *drumm roll*.. sharp across the frame. The current 16-35L is far from adequate.

 

[hambergler]

I agree. I'd take a 16-24 or 16-28 as well. I don't really like the fact that a 14-24 can't take filters unless you are looking at 6x6's which are insanely expensive.

 

[Meh]

I am more partial to the updated 135L and 400/5.6L

And the sky is blue and water is wet. What does your desire for Canon to update those lenses have to do with this thread?

 

[wickidwombat]

I'm personally not too crazy about a 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. I would much much rather Canon release a further updated 16-35mm f/2.8 III, specifically based on this insane lens patent:

16-35mm f/2.8 IS Pro Lens.

http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-01-06

f/2.8 3 ED elements 5 aspherical ones, and sharpness that rivals the 14-24mm wide open, AND image stabilization!

Internal focusing, low vignette.

I really would much rather have greater flexibility and greater focal range than an ultra wide angle that only does ultra wide, and worse than this proposed lens at that.

Anyone else feel the same way?

I'm with ya brother!

I love my 16-35
I would hope they kept it at 7 aperture blades the sparkles are awesome from this lens
if they added IS it would be sweet too (cue the seal clubbing for suggesting the herasy of IS on a wide lens)

 

[Dylan777]

+1.....same sharpness or better than Nikon. 16-35 will be fine(still like 14-24 though)

I'm not a big fan carrying a tripod around, so "IS" would be HUGE benefit for night time landscape shooting.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

For my needs, I am happy with the current 16-35 f/2.8 L II ... and I don't really care about IS on that lens as I always use it on a tripod.

 

[RMC33]

I'd buy a 14-24 f2.8 with bulbous front element and no filter thread, and a 16-35 f2.8 MkIII. Nikon make both and both have a market, they also make a 14 prime. I don't see the 16-35 and 14-24 ish as mutually exclusive, I'd use the 14-24 fpr set piece work, architecture and interiors, and the 16-35 for travel, sports, fun etc.

Thinking about it Canon could make a good deal of money off me, I'd happily buy a 45 and 90 TS-E MkII as well, but I am starting to think with the ever increasing development of the cine line that photographic orientated lenses might have peaked in their development, so many are overdue upgrades and yet we get 24-28-35 f2/2.8 IS's and a slew of cine lenses, the lens department can only work on so many designs at the same time, where in god's name is the 35 L upgrade, the 200 upgrade, or the 400 f5.6 with IS, the 100-400 upgrade? How much longer are so many pros going to have to wait for the 200-400, an 800 that is better than the 600 and a TC oh the list just goes on and on.

The 200 f/2.8? That was an early late 90's lens ya?

 

[Zlatko]

I much prefer 16-35 to 14-24.

 

[Canon 14-24]

I much prefer a 14-24 to a "third" version of the 16-35.

 

[candyman]

The 14-24mm was on my wish list. But instead I bought the 16-35 II
I actually like the range 16-35. It suites me well as landscape / walkaround and indoor lens. The thing that could be improved though is the sharpness at 2.8 in 16 to 24 mm. There are other things like some vignetting at 16mm but those can be taken care of in post-processing.

 

[BL]

sharpness is fine for me at 2.8 from 16-24

35mm at 2.8 is a whole other story