Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
You forgot to post the obligatory $1900 price tag 
This sounds like a very good FF lens and a wicked crop-body lens . . . seriously though, if we're super lucky it'll be $1400
This sounds like a very good FF lens and a wicked crop-body lens . . . seriously though, if we're super lucky it'll be $1400
Upvote
0
The big issue with the 14-24 is flare. With the lens protruding out so far, it reaches out and grabs flare that you would not normally expect. This makes it rather specalized, and requires some careful setup and planning. The results can be worth it, but its not a lens to just walk out and start shooting, you really have to watch out for the flare. You often will not see it thru the viewfinder, only when you start editing the images and find it where it was not expected.
Upvote
0
D
D_Rochat
Guest
dstppy said:You forgot to post the obligatory $1900 price tag
This sounds like a very good FF lens and a wicked crop-body lens . . . seriously though, if we're super lucky it'll be $1400
By the way Canon has been pricing new lenses and compared to what the Nikon 14-24 is priced at, I'll eat my camera and film it if it's even close to $1400. I'm expecting no less than $2000.
Upvote
0
D_Rochat said:
I'm expecting a lot more than $2000 because in contrast to a midrange zoom like the 24-70, an uwa zoom is a specialist lens - so people wanting this over the 16-35L will know what they want it for and will be ready to pay a lot.
Upvote
0
I don't know..but somehow i'm not too excited about this lens..It's "specialized" in a way to me..14-24 is a small zoom range and it is VERY wide. Yes, it will fit in nicely with the zoom trinity..but that also means you'll have to carry around super heavy f2.8 glass with a equally heavy FF body...
That was one reason why i didn't go 16-35 and went for 17-40...i wanted a wide yet light enough lens to be a nice walkabout lens as well in times where i'm not specifically going to shoot landscapes.
That was one reason why i didn't go 16-35 and went for 17-40...i wanted a wide yet light enough lens to be a nice walkabout lens as well in times where i'm not specifically going to shoot landscapes.
Upvote
0
M
MarkWebbPhoto
Guest
I've been waiting for this lens for some time, the 16-35mm lens has lots of distortion and the corners are crap. The good part is that the front lens element sits nice and safe behind an optional protective uv filter. The front lens element on Nikons 14-24 has no protection. I've seen a few of them get banged up. One part of me wants the lens and another part of me thinks that I'll spend all of my money on it, put it on a second body, and then I sling the camera to my side as I always do with my 5D2 and 16-35 and I bump a table. The hood and filter on the 16-35 saves me all the time but the protruding element on a 12-24 would be at a high risk. The lens would definitely be around 2k so this is a very tough call.
Upvote
0
spinworkxroy said:
Personally, I wouldn't say 14-24mm is a tiny range. It could replace a 14mm and a 24mm in many shooter's bags (as is the case with the Nikon 14-24mm). But the range is narrow enough (and wide enough) that it might not pair up as well with other lenses, as a 16-35mm or a 17-40mm does.
I'm guessing a price of at least $2500.
What's this about Canon/Nikon patent swap rumors?
Upvote
0
Why so much bad talk about the 16-35 2.8L II. It is not a perfect lens, but it rarely let's me down. It's the lens I use the most, and I frequently use it as a walk around, even more than my 24-105.
I also find that a cp is not really needed for blue skies on the UW lens, they usually turn out quite blue without it. Maybe to get rid of reflections, but mostly use the CP on the 24-105, and occasionally on the 70-200.
I'll wait and see on the 14-24. I'm a little concerned about size, weight and price, and will it really deliver that much more than my very convenient, and pretty damn good 16-35 ? By the time it's released there might be an improved samyang 14 2.8 with a chip and no mustache for $500
I also find that a cp is not really needed for blue skies on the UW lens, they usually turn out quite blue without it. Maybe to get rid of reflections, but mostly use the CP on the 24-105, and occasionally on the 70-200.
I'll wait and see on the 14-24. I'm a little concerned about size, weight and price, and will it really deliver that much more than my very convenient, and pretty damn good 16-35 ? By the time it's released there might be an improved samyang 14 2.8 with a chip and no mustache for $500
Upvote
0
Because for landscapes that you may wish to print large, it's not even in the same league as the Nikon 14-24. It's orders of magnitude worse. I've tested 4 Nikon 14-24 lenses all of which with their collective copy variability still, at f/5.6, outperform any of the 16-35 & 17-40 lenses I've tested at f/11 (in edge-to-edge sharpness).
If edge-to-edge sharpness is not important to you, then, by all means, the Nikon 14-24 is a waste of money, weight & protruding front element
Upvote
0
dstppy said:You forgot to post the obligatory $1900 price tag
This sounds like a very good FF lens and a wicked crop-body lens . . . seriously though, if we're super lucky it'll be $1400
Considering Canon isn't shy sticking high prices on new lenses, and that the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 is priced at $2000, I think it's safe to assume an EF 14-24mm f/2.8 L would cost as much.
Actually, I think that if Canon priced the EF 14-24mm f/2.8 L much lower than the Nikkor, people will suspect it must be optically or otherwise much inferior to the Nikkor.
Upvote
0
This would so completely my dream team of lenses, I'd buy one the moment it's available.
The new 24-70 2.8 II looks sharp enough on paper to actually be useful to me (personally I chose to lug around a bunch of primes over depending on the 24-70 2.8, so it'll make a huge difference to be if it turns out to be as good as the charts say), the 70-200 2.8 II is obviously a smashingly good lens as well that I'd never hesitate to use - the only thing that's missing is a really great wide angle zoom.
Right now I'm depending on my 14mm 2.8, which you know, is decent enough, but we all also know it doesn't hold a candle to Nikon's 14-24 2.8's sharpness or versatility.
So yes, a hundred times yes
The new 24-70 2.8 II looks sharp enough on paper to actually be useful to me (personally I chose to lug around a bunch of primes over depending on the 24-70 2.8, so it'll make a huge difference to be if it turns out to be as good as the charts say), the 70-200 2.8 II is obviously a smashingly good lens as well that I'd never hesitate to use - the only thing that's missing is a really great wide angle zoom.
Right now I'm depending on my 14mm 2.8, which you know, is decent enough, but we all also know it doesn't hold a candle to Nikon's 14-24 2.8's sharpness or versatility.
So yes, a hundred times yes
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
