Canon EF 12-24 f/2.8L [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
I personally would be totally please with a great performing (AS GOOD AS THE NIKON LENS, CANON!) 14-24mm. Let's see if Canon can get that right, first. They are the weakest in the wide-angle zoom dept..so I would prefer to see them get the basics correct before they try breaking any focal length barriers. The last thing I want to see is a mediocre performing 12-24mm. Skip the wide angle extra reach and focus on sharpness across the image plane, low distortion, realistic cost, etc. I don't need a $3000 home run...I will buy a Zeiss 15mm if I need that (hmm...I might anyway! LOL!)...just give us something solid, sharp and useful. I know Canon can do this without screwing it up..I just know that they have the capability.
This seems to be the sentiment of many here.....hopefully Canon corporate occasionally comes here and reads what we have to say...
This seems to be the sentiment of many here.....hopefully Canon corporate occasionally comes here and reads what we have to say...
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Would require a "neck" like the supers have for the filter to seat in the optical path properly and make the lens 17mm longer (width of the current 52 drop in) which may impact the design. It would also be considered an "element" in the lens.
Upvote
0
I would absolutely LOVE a 12-24 f/2.8 L for wide-field astrophotography! Imagine the length of exposures you could get, or at lower ISOs, with a 12mm f/2.8 lens! Ooooh, the bliss! I'd spend the money for it, too...12mm f/2.8 astrophotography...man I'm DROOLIN!! ;D
In terms of exposure time, here is what I figure. Currently, with my 16-35 f/2.8 L, I usually get about 30 seconds at 16mm out of it, at ISO 800 - 1600, for a decent "printable" shot (i.e. a shot that could be printed at native size...13x19 for the 7D...without particularly noticeable startrailing. Rule of 600 would indicate 38 seconds, so I shorten that a bit for printability). For a web-sized shot, I can usually expose for about 40-45 seconds, and often use a higher ISO. With the 12-24 f/2.8 L, I figure I could get 45-50 seconds out of it for printables, and maybe as much as 65-75 seconds for web-sized shots! And that is nothing to say of the wider field of view, which would be nice at times...
In terms of exposure time, here is what I figure. Currently, with my 16-35 f/2.8 L, I usually get about 30 seconds at 16mm out of it, at ISO 800 - 1600, for a decent "printable" shot (i.e. a shot that could be printed at native size...13x19 for the 7D...without particularly noticeable startrailing. Rule of 600 would indicate 38 seconds, so I shorten that a bit for printability). For a web-sized shot, I can usually expose for about 40-45 seconds, and often use a higher ISO. With the 12-24 f/2.8 L, I figure I could get 45-50 seconds out of it for printables, and maybe as much as 65-75 seconds for web-sized shots! And that is nothing to say of the wider field of view, which would be nice at times...
Upvote
0
rs said:If you're using a 7D, why not get the cheap Tamron 11-16/2.8 for astrophotography? Wider, fraction of the cost, and it exists nowjrista said:
Do you mean Tokina 11-16? I don't think Tamron makes such a lens.
I stick with Canon lenses. I've used third-party lenses and teleconverters before, and had problems. Currently, the only third-party thing I use is a Kenko 1.4x GDX Pro 300 teleconverter...it works well most of the time, but with the new Mark II lenses, the camera doesn't get the right information and over-exposes by a stop. I don't like those kinds of issues, and I've had other problems using a Sigma lens in the past, etc. At least when you stay within the brand, those kinds of things never occur.
Besides, I would expect an EF 12-24 f/2.8 L to offer the best resolution possible in such a lens design. I can't imagine Tamron or Tokina, or Sigma or anyone else, to produce lenses that rival the newest lenses from Canon. I've never seen such resolution before, even in Canon's past lenses (with the exception of maybe the 300 f/2.8 L). The Tokina 11-16 seems to do well against past-generation Canon lenses, but even Canon's own older designs, such as the 16-35, often don't compare to the newer L-series lenses released in the last couple of years. I would also use the 12-24 for landscapes, and the 24mm focal length (on FF, ~16mm on APS-C, although I intend to either get a 5D III or the Canon megapixel monster for my landscapes in the future) is one that I like for landscapes, and it would be nice to have a single lens that covers the wide to ultra wide focal lengths for both landscapes and astrophotography, so I don't have to swap out lenses when I head out to do that kind of photography.
Upvote
0
I have the Sigma 12-24 and in reality probably pull it out a couple of times a year. I've got a good copy. It's a limited use lens that has greater relevance for crop shooters. Still, it's about time Canon got a high IQ UWA into the market. Whether it's f/2.8 or f/4 probably doesn't matter too much. I'd be more likely to buy a stellar 14-24 f/2.8 than a merely good, higher priced 12-24.
-PW
-PW
Upvote
0
rs said:
If the IQ of Canon 12-24 L is only slightly better than the IQ of Sigma one, Canon has better not put this lens on the market. I had Sigma 12-24 years ago. The IQ is too soft, so I decided to sell it. Now I am very satisfied my Samyang 14mm which has much better IQ than Sigma 12-24.
Upvote
0
Yeah, I meant the Tokina. You make a great point there about compatibility, and if you plan to go FF, the extra cost of the large UWA imaging circle and inconvenience of the front element shape won't be wasted on you.jrista said:
If this lens will ever become a reality, I expect Canons high MP FF body to be out by then. It's been rumoured for long enough...
I just hope this lens (if it ever becomes a reality) is less Sigma 12-24 and more Nikon 14-24 when it comes to image quality.
Upvote
0
jrista said:
@jrista: Did I get that wrong with rule of 600? I thought the calculation 600:lens length refers to its LONG end? So the 16-35 won't give you more than about 16 sec of exposure. Therefore I like the 5D3 which allows me to crank up the ISOs significantly compared to my trust rusty 30D. Cheers, Pedro
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
