Canon EF 12-24 f/2.8L [CR1]

[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/2013/02/canon-ef-12-24-f2-8l-cr1/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/02/canon-ef-12-24-f2-8l-cr1/">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>Going wider?


</strong>We’ve spoken about the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/12/canon-lens-patents-review/" target="_blank">existence of an EF 14-24 f/2.8L</a> in the past, a lens that a lot of people want to see come to fruition.</p>
<p>We’ve been told that an EF 12-24 f/2.8L exists in prototype form and could become a product instead of the EF 14-24 f/2.8L. I can only recall <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0001VQ11U/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B0001VQ11U&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20" target="_blank">Sigma making such a lens for full frame</a> cameras. Going this wide would certainly put some space between the cheaper (assuming based on Canon pricing history) EF 17-40 f/4L and EF 16-35 f/2.8L II.</p>
<p>This is the first I have heard of an EF 12-24 f/2.8L, so take it with a big grain of salt. This could be a better range in an f/4 variant, as it would be great for both full frame and APS-C and would really reduce size and weight compared to a 2.8 version.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<p> </p>

 

[Rat]

A 12-24? I had the Tokina with that range, and it was great on crop. I can't even think how mindbogglingly useful it would be on FF.

I know this cartoon gets used for everything and its grandma, but what do you do. I'd happily shell out 2k$ for an f/4.

[edit]CR Guy, the amazon link is borked

 

[peederj]

I dunno about you but given the loss of DOF and light gathering on a crop sensor, I prefer my lenses to be faster on them, not slower. Also the crop tends to be forgiving of fast and wide lenses' edge blur and vignetting wide open. Bring on the 2.8!

 

[Rat]

I dunno about you but given the loss of DOF and light gathering on a crop sensor, I prefer my lenses to be faster on them, not slower. Also the crop tends to be forgiving of fast and wide lenses' edge blur and vignetting wide open. Bring on the 2.8!

Well, I don't actually use my crop anymore, so I'd be equally happy with an f/4 - more so because there might be a chance that that actually would be priced in the 2K region. An FF 2.8 would probably be in the great white price range. But I wouldn't object to the lens per se

 

[rs]

If they can somehow make a 12-24/2.8 with the optical properties of the Nikkor 14-24, it'll be very impressive. Unfortunately the front element will no doubt make the 17 TS-E look flat.

It does sound a bit far fetched to create this with the recent optical quality of their L glass. Personally I'm not interested in something to merely equal the Sigma 12-24 optically.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

Oh yeah!

 

[mustafa]

Sounds expensive.

 

[Dylan777]

12-24f2.8L? please stop tickling me ;D

 

[traveller]

Sounds very ambitious. It would be nice if it were as sharp as the Nikon 14-24 and priced similarly, but I would very much doubt that.

Lens design is all about compromise; I would prefer to see a 14-24 that could use the existing Lee filter system for the Nikon version, perhaps adding an internal circular polariser?

For my needs, I would prefer a lighter (and cheaper) f/4 version -maybe even starting at 16mm (I rarley go that wide) with a smaller, filter friendly front element. To be honest, I'm probably talking about a different lens (a 17-40 replacement).

 

[robbymack]

12-24 f2.8...meh at best, price will be well north of $3k.

 

[Loswr]

... perhaps adding an internal circular polariser?

You'd need a way to get it out of the optical path, when you don't want to lose 1.5-2 stops of light. Perhaps a drop-in type like the supertele lenses use...

 

[candyman]

12-24 f2.8...meh at best, price will be well north of $3k.

And east of 1000 gram

 

[Daniel Flather]

--SAUCE-- lots of it too. Its cost in a 2.8 in terms of size, weight, and monies would/will be great.

 

[pedro]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><glusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12985"></glusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12985">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>Going wider?


</strong>We’ve spoken about the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/12/canon-lens-patents-review/" target="_blank">existence of an EF 14-24 f/2.8L</a> in the past, a lens that a lot of people want to see come to fruition.</p>
<p>We’ve been told that an EF 12-24 f/2.8L exists in prototype form and could become a product instead of the EF 14-24 f/2.8L. I can only recall <a href="ttp://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0001VQ11U/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B0001VQ11U&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20" target="_blank">Sigma making such a lens for full frame</a> cameras. Going this wide would certainly put some space between the cheaper (assuming based on Canon pricing history) EF 17-40 f/4L and EF 16-35 f/2.8L II.</p>
<p>This is the first I have heard of an EF 12-24 f/2.8L, so take it with a big grain of salt. This could be a better range in an f/4 variant, as it would be great for both full frame and APS-C and would really reduce size and weight compared to a 2.8 version.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<p> </p>

Price at f/4.0? Still north of 2k? Then no thanks.

 

[Drizzt321]

I think my number one concern would be corner sharpness. Based off of recent lens releases they'll get the center nice and sharp, but especially with their super-wides Canon has had some trouble getting the corner and edge sharpness up.

As for f/2.8 vs f/4, I'd rather f/2.8 since I can stop down to f/4 or beyond to increase quality when I need, but sometimes I just plain need as much light as possible. Although it will make it cost a lot more, and undoubtedly weigh a lot more. *sigh* Tradeoffs, it's always about tradeoffs.

 

[PhotographAdventure]

My guess is the 12-24mm f/2.8 will start at $2,500 and eventually, it will rest in the $2,000 range.

 

[RGF]

I'd be happy if canon would make a lens equivalent to rather Nikon 14-24. In fact i would like to see canon and Nikon cooperate and make the nikon14-24 work on a canon body. Okay, I'll wake up now and realize that my dream isn't longer in kansas

 

[Loswr]

In fact i would like to see canon and Nikon cooperate and make the nikon14-24 work on a canon body.

Actually, quite a few people shoot that combo. There's an adapter from Novoflex that supports use of Nikon lenses on a Canon mount, and the 14-24 is probably the most common use for that adapter. It's manual focus, of course, and the aperture has to be set manually. But since the Nikon UWA zoom is optically superior to the Canon offerings, and most UWA uses involve tripods and plenty of time to setup the shot, it's a viable solution.

 

[ddashti]

I'd rather see a supreme 14-24 performer than an "acceptably good" 12-24. Unless Canon can pull it off and steal the show for that range, the 14-24 sounds much better (output quality guarantee-wise).

 

[facedodge]

Considering the quality of the high end lenses Canon has been putting out lately, I'd say go for it. I'm sure they can think of a way to make it wider and sharper.