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

[Ruined]

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....

This is spot on, the 12-24 f/2.8 would not be a replacement for the 16-35 f/2.8; a large amount of those who use the 16-35 need the 35 and don't need the 12.

So we'd have three UWA zooms:
1. 16-35 f/4L IS (landscape, general, non-bulbous, most economical - replaces 17-40L)
2. 16-35 f/2.8L III (event, sports, general, non-bulbous, slightly less than $2k - replaces 16-35 f/2.8L II)
3. 12-24 f/2.8L (landscape primarily I would think, bulbous, around $3k if f/2.8, would be amazing for astro if f/2.8 and no coma like the 24-70 II)

Another option instead of the 12-24 f/2.8L could be the patented 11-24 f/4L. If the lens was f/4, Canon would likely be able to sell it for a lot less. Aside from astrophotographers, I am not sure anyone would really be disappointed with f/4 at this focal length as those who want f/2.8 probably would prefer the 16-35 focal range anyway.

 

[sagittariansrock]

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)

I will try to respond to the best of my understanding of your comments.

I am not being sarcastic or rhetorical, neither am I challenging anyone. These are actual questions a company will likely ask:
What is the real demand vs people merely wanting to see if a lens is available? Many people ask for things on forums, do they eventually go out and buy it? How many people want a lens vs how many actually need it enough to pay a premium price? How many people will buy it at, say price point A, or price point B ($ 2.5K is just a point A)?
These are real numbers that a company needs to look at to size the market. Not challenges!

I was wrong about the date of my comment regarding a f/4IS being more likely than a f/2.8- it was actually after the first rumor was posted and therefore with some hindsight, but that doesn't affect the logic of the argument. Also, if it sounded like I was saying something new or unique, that isn't what I implied. It was simple logic that many other forum members have stated before or afterwards. A f/4IS just made more business sense than a f/2.8. You don't need prior knowledge for that, or to be able to see the future.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20828.30

I have no idea where the comment about my claiming to be responsible for its optics and manufacture (or for anything) came from.

Noisy sensors? Useless mirrorless camera? Well, I have the former and the latter is due today, and for some reason I feel that is sufficient to fulfill my needs (and wants too, incidentally). Canon is doing okay business-wise (compared to Sony, for example, with their noiseless sensors and useful mirrorless cameras, BTW).

I said I felt a fast UWA coming- no analysis involved. This is a hunch, or probably more of a wishful thinking. I don't know, because I don't have access to the answers to the questions I mentioned above. Future can be predicted to an extent only if one has the information necessary, because people's actions generally follow logical steps.

I will finish by saying: I really don't get the snark. This isn't the first time you launched at me. Previously it was a completely uncalled for comment on the Gura Gear competition, where I had made an inoffensive comment actually supporting those who don't waste time on social media. I had to create a Twitter account just for the competition and wasn't thrilled about it. However, you called me arrogant for no good reason, and I was completely baffled.
What is your beef with me? Or are you generally an abrasive person?

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20162.msg385585#msg385585

 

[sagittariansrock]

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....

This is spot on, the 12-24 f/2.8 would not be a replacement for the 16-35 f/2.8; a large amount of those who use the 16-35 need the 35 and don't need the 12.

So we'd have three UWA zooms:
1. 16-35 f/4L IS (landscape, general, most economical - replaces 17-40L)
2. 16-35 f/2.8L III (event, sports, general, less than $2k - replaces 16-35 f/2.8L II)
3. 12-24 f/? (landscape primarily I would think, over $2k, would be amazing for astro if f/2.8 and no coma like the 24-70 II)

Canon might just follow the Nikon model and keep the four zooms. Considering the fact that some say the Canon 16-35/2.8 II is equal to or better than the Nikon 17-35/2.8, Canon might not even (need to) update the 16-35 and just keep it as it is.

 

[Canonicon]

I am not being sarcastic or rhetorical, neither am I challenging anyone. These are actual questions a company will likely ask:
What is the real demand vs people merely wanting to see if a lens is available? Many people ask for things on forums, do they eventually go out and buy it? How many people want a lens vs how many actually need it enough to pay a premium price? How many people will buy it at, say price point A, or price point B ($ 2.5K is just a point A)?
These are real numbers that a company needs to look at to size the market. Not challenges!

How many buy a 200-400mm f4 or 800mm f5.6?

When i look at Nikon i see a market for a 12/14-24mm f2.8 for 2000$.

 

[Khalai]

I am not being sarcastic or rhetorical, neither am I challenging anyone. These are actual questions a company will likely ask:
What is the real demand vs people merely wanting to see if a lens is available? Many people ask for things on forums, do they eventually go out and buy it? How many people want a lens vs how many actually need it enough to pay a premium price? How many people will buy it at, say price point A, or price point B ($ 2.5K is just a point A)?
These are real numbers that a company needs to look at to size the market. Not challenges!

How many buy a 200-400mm f4 or 800mm f5.6?

When i look at Nikon i see a market for a 12/14-24mm f2.8 for 2000$.

Considering the launch price for the 24-70 II and 70-200 II, I'd guess more like 2500-3000 USD for a lens like this, given its complexity and challenging design.

 

[Ruined]

Canon might just follow the Nikon model and keep the four zooms. Considering the fact that some say the Canon 16-35/2.8 II is equal to or better than the Nikon 17-35/2.8, Canon might not even (need to) update the 16-35 and just keep it as it is.

Personally, I believe the 16-35 f/2.8 II is probably "good enough" for those who need f/2.8 in a 16-35 as those users probably do not care about corner sharpness as much. The 16-35 II doesn't have corners as sharp as the f/4 and it does require more post-processing to get rid of CA, but it is better than the Nikon 17-35 f/2.8.

Still, it is likely Canon could get people to upgrade if they were able to deliver a 16-35 III with less CA, improved color and improved sharpness, as those who use it might value the time saved that is needed to post post-process 16-35 II images. It also is likely more difficult to market the 16-35 f/2.8 II now at a price premium over the 16-35 f/4 IS when the f/4 IS is better than the 16-35 II in a number of ways - probably not ways that are deal breakers for 16-35 II shoppers who need f/2.8, but ability to upsell to the 16-35 II for those on the fence with a cheaper UWA is likely a lot lower now than it was when the 17-40 was the only option. A 16-35 III could remedy that issue, but I don't believe the lens will be a priority - maybe 2015 or 2016.

 

[Canonicon]

I am not being sarcastic or rhetorical, neither am I challenging anyone. These are actual questions a company will likely ask:
What is the real demand vs people merely wanting to see if a lens is available? Many people ask for things on forums, do they eventually go out and buy it? How many people want a lens vs how many actually need it enough to pay a premium price? How many people will buy it at, say price point A, or price point B ($ 2.5K is just a point A)?
These are real numbers that a company needs to look at to size the market. Not challenges!

How many buy a 200-400mm f4 or 800mm f5.6?

When i look at Nikon i see a market for a 12/14-24mm f2.8 for 2000$.

Considering the launch price for the 24-70 II and 70-200 II, I'd guess more like 2500-3000 USD for a lens like this, given its complexity and challenging design.

Because it´s Canon you mean.

Or is Nikon more able to produce great optics for less?

When Nikon can do it for 2000$ why not Canon for 2500$ max?
Im converting from Euro prices here.

 

[sagittariansrock]

I am not being sarcastic or rhetorical, neither am I challenging anyone. These are actual questions a company will likely ask:
What is the real demand vs people merely wanting to see if a lens is available? Many people ask for things on forums, do they eventually go out and buy it? How many people want a lens vs how many actually need it enough to pay a premium price? How many people will buy it at, say price point A, or price point B ($ 2.5K is just a point A)?
These are real numbers that a company needs to look at to size the market. Not challenges!

How many buy a 200-400mm f4 or 800mm f5.6?

When i look at Nikon i see a market for a 12/14-24mm f2.8 for 2000$.

Good question. Probably enough to make those lenses profitable?
Or maybe not, it might be a prestige product that Canon makes at a loss. Can't really say without inside information.
I don't feel we have enough information to size a market for the 12-24. A lot of people are interested in the lens, but what fraction of the total global market are those who frequent forums?

I will give you an example: I am not a professional photographer, but I go to these meetups where pros share tips and techniques. I found so many pros use exclusively APS-C cameras in the studios and slow zooms, even variable aperture ones. And they spend thousands instead on lights and modifiers. From frequenting the forums, one would thing fast L lenses and full frame sensors are the bench mark for professionals, and how much discussion do you see on lights? Just an example that frequenting forums can produce tunnel vision.

 

[Ruined]

I am not being sarcastic or rhetorical, neither am I challenging anyone. These are actual questions a company will likely ask:
What is the real demand vs people merely wanting to see if a lens is available? Many people ask for things on forums, do they eventually go out and buy it? How many people want a lens vs how many actually need it enough to pay a premium price? How many people will buy it at, say price point A, or price point B ($ 2.5K is just a point A)?
These are real numbers that a company needs to look at to size the market. Not challenges!

How many buy a 200-400mm f4 or 800mm f5.6?

When i look at Nikon i see a market for a 12/14-24mm f2.8 for 2000$.

Considering the launch price for the 24-70 II and 70-200 II, I'd guess more like 2500-3000 USD for a lens like this, given its complexity and challenging design.

Because it´s Canon you mean.

Or is Nikon more able to produce great optics for less?

When Nikon can do it for 2000$ why not Canon from 2500$ max?
Im converting from Euro prices here.

I think Canon has proved they are king of "great optics." The 14-24mm f/2.8 is pretty much the only lens I've heard Nikon users trumpet as something that is not available on Canon, while Canon has a host of L lenses that Nikon has no answer for.

I would also expect a 12-24 f/2.8 to run $3000. For a few reasons:
1. It is wider than 14mm, and hence from a marketing standpoint they can charge more for the expanded focal range vs the Nikon lens.
2. Canon has a history of charging big bucks at release and then lowering price a year or two later.
3. The demand is there (though somewhat alleviated for those who just wanted an ultrasharp ultrawide landscape lens by the 16-35 f/4 IS) and I think those that want this lens so badly on Canon systems will pay $3000.

 

[Canonicon]

And they spend thousands instead on lights and modifiers. From frequenting the forums, one would thing fast L lenses and full frame sensors are the bench mark for professionals, and how much discussion do you see on lights? Just an example that frequenting forums can produce tunnel vision.

Agree.

When i look at some fashion shooter i see them with Sigma lenses some Canon elitists here would never touch.

And they are well payed pros in NY, not amateurs.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Canon might just follow the Nikon model and keep the four zooms. Considering the fact that some say the Canon 16-35/2.8 II is equal to or better than the Nikon 17-35/2.8, Canon might not even (need to) update the 16-35 and just keep it as it is.

Personally, I believe the 16-35 f/2.8 II is probably "good enough" for those who need f/2.8 in a 16-35 as those users probably do not care about corner sharpness as much. The 16-35 II doesn't have corners as sharp as the f/4 and it does require more post-processing to get rid of CA, but it is better than the Nikon 17-35 f/2.8.

Still, it is likely Canon could get people to upgrade if they were able to deliver a 16-35 III with less CA, improved color and improved sharpness, as those who use it might value the time saved that is needed to post post-process 16-35 II images. It also is likely more difficult to market the 16-35 f/2.8 II now at a price premium over the 16-35 f/4 IS when the f/4 IS is better than the 16-35 II in a number of ways - probably not ways that are deal breakers for 16-35 II shoppers who need f/2.8, but ability to upsell to the 16-35 II for those on the fence with a cheaper UWA is likely a lot lower now than it was when the 17-40 was the only option. A 16-35 III could remedy that issue, but I don't believe the lens will be a priority - maybe 2015 or 2016.

That's a valid point. I wonder which will be better, a 12-24 or a 16-35 if they are both f/2.8 and equally sharp? Of course, I am assuming the former will not take conventional filters.

 

[Ruined]

I will give you an example: I am not a professional photographer, but I go to these meetups where pros share tips and techniques. I found so many pros use exclusively APS-C cameras in the studios and slow zooms, even variable aperture ones. And they spend thousands instead on lights and modifiers. From frequenting the forums, one would thing fast L lenses and full frame sensors are the bench mark for professionals, and how much discussion do you see on lights? Just an example that frequenting forums can produce tunnel vision.

I think it highly depends on where you shoot. If you shoot in a studio then obviously lighting is where your money should go as you have full control over the situation and setup. But, if you shoot outdoors or events where you do not have the ability to set up an expensive lighting system then that is where full frame and fast L lenses come into play; they allow you to turn less than ideal lighting and circumstances into something more manageable. If an indoor event where you have some control over the subject (i.e. wedding) you should still have decent modifiers (i.e. softboxes) but it is probably more practical to use 600EX-RTs as the softboxes' light source than lug around strobes in the field.

 

[Khalai]

I will give you an example: I am not a professional photographer, but I go to these meetups where pros share tips and techniques. I found so many pros use exclusively APS-C cameras in the studios and slow zooms, even variable aperture ones. And they spend thousands instead on lights and modifiers. From frequenting the forums, one would thing fast L lenses and full frame sensors are the bench mark for professionals, and how much discussion do you see on lights? Just an example that frequenting forums can produce tunnel vision.

I think it highly depends on where you shoot. If you shoot in a studio then obviously lighting is where your money should go as you have full control over the situation and setup. But, if you shoot outdoors or events where you do not have the ability to set up an expensive lighting system then that is where full frame and fast L lenses come into play; they allow you to turn less than ideal lighting and circumstances into something more manageable.

Exactly, try to shoot wedding, ball, dimly lit event or reportage with slow lenses on crop bodies. Sure, you can do that and there are workarounds as well as amazing work done with that equipment. But take a FF body with fast zooms or superfast primes and your work get much easier If you're used too shoot at f/8-f/11, then almost every lens delivers nice images. But evening wedding reception? Sometimes even f/1.6-2 on ISO 3200-6400 is barely manageable - try that with crop and variable kit zoom

 

[sagittariansrock]

I will give you an example: I am not a professional photographer, but I go to these meetups where pros share tips and techniques. I found so many pros use exclusively APS-C cameras in the studios and slow zooms, even variable aperture ones. And they spend thousands instead on lights and modifiers. From frequenting the forums, one would thing fast L lenses and full frame sensors are the bench mark for professionals, and how much discussion do you see on lights? Just an example that frequenting forums can produce tunnel vision.

I think it highly depends on where you shoot. If you shoot in a studio then obviously lighting is where your money should go as you have full control over the situation and setup. But, if you shoot outdoors or events where you do not have the ability to set up an expensive lighting system then that is where full frame and fast L lenses come into play; they allow you to turn less than ideal lighting and circumstances into something more manageable.

Exactly, try to shoot wedding, ball, dimly lit event or reportage with slow lenses on crop bodies. Sure, you can do that and there are workarounds as well as amazing work done with that equipment. But take a FF body with fast zooms or superfast primes and your work get much easier If you're used too shoot at f/8-f/11, then almost every lens delivers nice images. But evening wedding reception? Sometimes even f/1.6-2 on ISO 3200-6400 is barely manageable - try that with crop and variable kit zoom

Completely agree. Horses for courses. All I am saying is certain demographics of photographers are more common in forums than others. So it is difficult to comment on the overall market for a lens by merely observing forum member preferences.

 

[RLPhoto]

Satisfied with the 16-35 f/4L. I don't really need anything else wider or faster.

 

[Canonicon]

Satisfied with the 16-35 f/4L. I don't really need anything else wider or faster.

Good for you. Not really the topic but good for you.

 

[Ruined]

Canon might just follow the Nikon model and keep the four zooms. Considering the fact that some say the Canon 16-35/2.8 II is equal to or better than the Nikon 17-35/2.8, Canon might not even (need to) update the 16-35 and just keep it as it is.

Personally, I believe the 16-35 f/2.8 II is probably "good enough" for those who need f/2.8 in a 16-35 as those users probably do not care about corner sharpness as much. The 16-35 II doesn't have corners as sharp as the f/4 and it does require more post-processing to get rid of CA, but it is better than the Nikon 17-35 f/2.8.

Still, it is likely Canon could get people to upgrade if they were able to deliver a 16-35 III with less CA, improved color and improved sharpness, as those who use it might value the time saved that is needed to post post-process 16-35 II images. It also is likely more difficult to market the 16-35 f/2.8 II now at a price premium over the 16-35 f/4 IS when the f/4 IS is better than the 16-35 II in a number of ways - probably not ways that are deal breakers for 16-35 II shoppers who need f/2.8, but ability to upsell to the 16-35 II for those on the fence with a cheaper UWA is likely a lot lower now than it was when the 17-40 was the only option. A 16-35 III could remedy that issue, but I don't believe the lens will be a priority - maybe 2015 or 2016.

That's a valid point. I wonder which will be better, a 12-24 or a 16-35 if they are both f/2.8 and equally sharp? Of course, I am assuming the former will not take conventional filters.

If you are talking about upselling a 16-35 f/4 buyer, I think a 16-35 f/2.8 III would be light years easier to upsell than a 12-24 f/2.8, simply because the latter would cost too much to upsell. Generally when selling gear (which I did for some time), the upsell needs to be somewhat close in price to the originally desired lens. With a 16-35 III likely coming in at ~$1899 when it arrives (will likely need more/more expensive glass than the 16-35 II to improve IQ), that is a doable upsell. A 12-24 f/2.8L due to the size and complexity will likely be closer to $3000 and buyers would turn it down as it will be over double the cost of the original item desired - plus the focal range is a lot different (wider on wide end, but much more limited on telephoto end) which is not necessarily a good thing when trying to upsell.

 

[hendrik-sg]

I think 12-24 2.8 may be impossible, at least with good IQ. Lenses tend to get bulbous and big when wider and when faster.

The 14 2.8 is bulbous and the 17tse which has a medium format coverage is bulbous and huge. The Nikon 14-24 is a monstrous lens, and bulbous. the Sigma 12-24 s bulbous, slow and has mediocre IQ which nobody dreams about. The 17tse with a hypothetical 1.4x speed Booster may be a 12mm 2.8, but it's huge, expensive, bulbous and a fix focal lengh.

My unscientific guess is, that the patented 11-24 f4 is the maximum strech which is possible, and we know nothing about it's IQ. I am sure, if it would be producable for acceptable kost, and if IQ would be good, Canon would release this killer lens. If they don't, i think it's because of poor IQ or other unknown reasons.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

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?

Filter thread? The venerated Nikon 14-24 has not. Weight between 550-560 grams? The Nikon 14-24 also lacks.
If you do not give up on getting the 12mm range, there is the Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 .... Sorry to disappoint you, but there is no zoom lens as you wish.

 

[Loswr]

These are actual questions a company will likely ask:
What is the real demand vs people merely wanting to see if a lens is available? Many people ask for things on forums, do they eventually go out and buy it? How many people want a lens vs how many actually need it enough to pay a premium price? How many people will buy it at, say price point A, or price point B ($ 2.5K is just a point A)?
These are real numbers that a company needs to look at to size the market.

See, now there you go injecting a dose of reality into the 'I want it because I said so and I know everyone else shares my opinion because I believe I'm in the majority' forum crowd. That's just asking for trouble.