Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]

[infared]

I will buy this lens..but it will be at least $2000. I suspect more with the outrageous increase coming out of Canon Japan on camera bodies and lenses. I would expect $2400 or higher.

I hope Canon doesn't read this - or it will be $3000+ or as much as they can possibly get away with, looking at the huge amount of photogs who have been waiting this for years.

Well...if they are charging $2300 for the 24-70mm.... I KNOW this is going to cost more. Undoubtedly. I am still trying to recover for the $3500 I just laid out for the MkIII. Thank God for eBay and a lot of willing buyers for my 5DII and accessories. I just hope that if Canon produces a 14-24 that it is exceptional as the NIkon appears to be. Canon has had a LOT of weakness in the WA zoom area in the past for full-frame zooms. I have my fingers crossed on this one. And I have more than a year to put the pennies in the piggie bank!!!!!

 

[Deleted member 42026]

I thought the nikonians had been paying about $2500 for their 14-24 anyway. I'd personally expect at least that from canon, and if its actually turns out to be better, it may well be something around $3000.

Still half exciting though.

 

[Ricku]

I hope Canon doesn't read this - or it will be $3000+ or as much as they can possibly get away with, looking at the huge amount of photogs who have been waiting this for years.

Of course they can get away with it, and they will! Just look at the 5D3 vs D800 pricetag. Canon did get away with that just fine, even though the D800 is arguably a better camera with a sensor that blows the 5D3 halfway across the galaxy.

As long as canonites continue to bend over, Canon will get away with their crazy pricing.

 

[JEAraman]

I'm sold!

 

[Jettatore]

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.

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

I'm not doubting you are trying to put you on the spot, but do you have any comparison samples handy to illustrate this? Also, from your 1st hand experience, would you comment on the ISO Chart Tests from The Digital Picture that was posted earlier in the thread and how that compares to your direct findings?

 

[Daniel Flather]

Yes please!

For the record, I'd rather have the ef 20mm f1.8L.

What the hell is that, and were do i get one?

You get them at te same place as the new 200-400.

 

[photophreek]

I agree with Neuro, 14-24L in the bag and 16-35L II out and I have a very sharp copy of this lens according to my eyes.

For all those responders hoping for a $2000 price tag.....get ready and start saving now. IMHO, this lens will be $2500 or more.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

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.

For all insensitive porpoises, the TS-E 24mm doesn't have any lens flare. Even straight into the Sun. (Well, okay, there's one veeeery thin faint ring. But no loss of contrast.)

I think it's safe to assume that the same engineers who figured out how to get rid of flare on the 24 will be the ones designing the 12-24, and I'd expect them to improve on their already-unbelievable performance with the 24.

And, no. This lens will not be cheap. It'll be more expensive than either the 24-70 or the 70-200, probably by 10% - 15%.

Personally, I don't expect to buy this lens. Generally, when I want wide, I want movements...I'd get the TS-E 17mm to supplement my TS-E 24mm before I got a 12-24, and I'd only do that if I felt the 24 wasn't wide enough. Considering that 24 still feels like the perfect perspective for my wide-angle stuff, I don't expect that to happen for a long time (though, if I started doing architecture or real estate or the like, I could see that changing).

I've got the 16-35, but I don't use it as much as I thought I might. For me, it's best suited for comedic stuff, like closeup shots of Shriner cars in a parade. That sort of thing is fun, but one only needs so much fun of that type....

And 12mm? I know there're people who put something that insanely wide to good use, but I'm not one of 'em.

Cheers,

b&

 

[sarangiman]

I'm not doubting you are trying to put you on the spot, but do you have any comparison samples handy to illustrate this? Also, from your 1st hand experience, would you comment on the ISO Chart Tests from The Digital Picture that was posted earlier in the thread and how that compares to your direct findings?

No problem. Please view the following images at 100% by following the links. All images are taken on my Canon 5D Mark III. The Nikon lens was mounted via a Novoflex adapter.

Here's the Nikon 14-24 at f/2.8 (left) vs. the Canon 16-35 at f/11 (right); first, we'll look at the left side of the frame, middle of the image vertically (i.e. this is not a corner):

Full size image here: http://f.cl.ly/items/2X0R0Z3n2F0M2y1T1T0n/Nikon14-24_vs_Canon16-35_Left.jpg

Now, here's the right side of the frame, middle of the image vertically:

Full size image here: http://f.cl.ly/items/3y0o3e391v352M1O3K26/Nikon14-24_vs_Canon16-35_Right.jpg

As you can see, f/2.8 on the Nikon lens is significantly sharper than f/11 on the Canon lens, on both sides of the frame. Meaning, this isn't even a decentering issue.

Now, I could show you the f/2.8 comparisons, but that would just be mean

As for the the-digital-picture's findings, I find it completely consistent with my findings. If you look at the 'mid-frame' portions, the Canon lens doesn't sharpen up until f/8. The Nikon lens is already sharp at mid-frame at f/2.8 (in fact, at f/2.8 it's sharper mid-frame than the 16-35 ever gets, at f/8 or f/11), with CA disappearing by f/4 to f/5.6.

In the extreme corners, the Nikon 14-24 at f/5.6 is sharper than the Canon 16-35 ever gets. In fact, it's so sharp at f/5.6 in the corner that by f/8 you're already seeing diffraction-induced softness.

 

[moreorless]

As far as CPL's on ultrawides go there are many situations where your not going to have the sky in the frame, looking to take the reflections off a specific part of a body of water for example...

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/3899/walesreflectionssmall.jpg

Perhaps one route to take with filters might to be have a petal hood but allow it to be unscrewable with the option to replace it with a filter holder with a normal filter thread. Something like this but smaller because it wouldnt need to go over the petal hood...

 

[Dylan777]

I hope Canon doesn't read this - or it will be $3000+ or as much as they can possibly get away with, looking at the huge amount of photogs who have been waiting this for years.

Of course they can get away with it, and they will! Just look at the 5D3 vs D800 pricetag. Canon did get away with that just fine, even though the D800 is arguably a better camera with a sensor that blows the 5D3 halfway across the galaxy.As long as canonites continue to bend over, Canon will get away with their crazy pricing.

-1...sony sensor has Pros and Cons. Same for Canon

 

[sarangiman]

Well, since we're on the subject, here's the Nikon 14-24 vs. the Canon 16-35 II both at f/2.8:

Full-size image here: http://cl.ly/HQaY/Nikon14-24_vs_Canon16-35_f2.8_Left.jpg

I told you it wasn't going to be pretty

If this were a copy variation thing (which I doubt, given all other comparisons on the 'net, e.g.: http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon1424_17mm/nikon1424_17mm1.html), then one should wonder how this unit made it past QC. I've also tested a number of 17-40s, used to own one as well, & saw similar performance, which is why I got rid of them all.

FYI, here's what copy variability looks like between my friend's & my Nikon 14-24 lenses at f/2.8, extreme left edge of the frame (mid-section vertically):

Full-size image here: http://f.cl.ly/items/1O0k1E0X0D3Z1y3G0c1X/Nikon14-24_CopyVariation_f2.8-Left.png

And now extreme right edge of the frame (mid-section vertically):

Full-size image here: http://f.cl.ly/items/2l2V1c0D0V3o1K0u130e/Nikon14-24_CopyVariation_f2.8-Right.png

I've tested 4 different Nikon 14-24s; so now let's look at the the biggest difference between copies of the 14-24 I've seen (in terms of decentering issues). Again, please view images at 100% by following the link.

Left edge, middle of frame vertically, f/2.8:

Full-size image here: http://cl.ly/HRUJ/Nikon14-24_CopyVariation2_f2.8-Left.jpg

Right edge, middle of frame vertically, f/2.8:

Full-size image here: http://cl.ly/HSLa/Nikon14-24_CopyVariation2_f2.8-Right.jpg

As you can see, one lens is better on the left, the other better on the right. But all pretty acceptable for f/2.8, given sharpness differences clear up by f/5.6.

This sort of performance is something Canon UWA zoom users can only dream of. Let's hope Canon fixes that w/ this rumored 14-24.

 

[Dylan777]

I'm not doubting you are trying to put you on the spot, but do you have any comparison samples handy to illustrate this? Also, from your 1st hand experience, would you comment on the ISO Chart Tests from The Digital Picture that was posted earlier in the thread and how that compares to your direct findings?

No problem. Please view the following images at 100% by following the links. All images are taken on my Canon 5D Mark III. The Nikon lens was mounted via a Novoflex adapter.

Here's the Nikon 14-24 at f/2.8 (left) vs. the Canon 16-35 at f/11 (right); first, we'll look at the left side of the frame, middle of the image vertically (i.e. this is not a corner):

Full size image here: http://f.cl.ly/items/2X0R0Z3n2F0M2y1T1T0n/Nikon14-24_vs_Canon16-35_Left.jpg

Now, here's the right side of the frame, middle of the image vertically:

Full size image here: http://f.cl.ly/items/3y0o3e391v352M1O3K26/Nikon14-24_vs_Canon16-35_Right.jpg

As you can see, f/2.8 on the Nikon lens is significantly sharper than f/11 on the Canon lens, on both sides of the frame. Meaning, this isn't even a decentering issue.

Now, I could show you the f/2.8 comparisons, but that would just be mean

As for the the-digital-picture's findings, I find it completely consistent with my findings. If you look at the 'mid-frame' portions, the Canon lens doesn't sharpen up until f/8. The Nikon lens is already sharp at mid-frame at f/2.8 (in fact, at f/2.8 it's sharper mid-frame than the 16-35 ever gets, at f/8 or f/11), with CA disappearing by f/4 to f/5.6.

In the extreme corners, the Nikon 14-24 at f/5.6 is sharper than the Canon 16-35 ever gets. In fact, it's so sharp at f/5.6 in the corner that by f/8 you're already seeing diffraction-induced softness.

+1....I agreed. Friend of mine has D800 + 14-24mm. Yes...his 14-24mm is much sharper than my 16-35 II.

That's why I was hoping Canon can respond to this lens. As a wide angle lens, 14-24 seems to be better.

 

[Marsu42]

This sort of performance is something Canon UWA zoom users can only dream of. Let's hope Canon fixes that w/ this rumored 14-24.

Omg - this is brutal and lets the 16-35L look like a p&s lens. And considering the price of the 16-35L2, it gets even worse. If I need an uwa now, I guess I'm better off with one of the efs lenses (Canon 10-22, Tamron 11-16)...

 

[Jettatore]

Thanks Sarangiman,

I'm not quite sure what to do with those comparisons, with widely different settings. Were you handheld or on a tri-pod for these? Something(s) seems a bit off, I would say hopefully non-offensively, that this samples makes both lenses seem unimpressive (please don't take any offense to that, as none is intended).

I'm posting a recent sample from the Canon 16-35II shot handheld on a 5D (classic) @35mm, f/11, ISO 1600 with a fast shutter of 1/1600 s. I'm posting a full resolution sample .jpg that was originally shot in RAW and slightly tweaked in Adobe Camera Raw.

This shot was never meant as any sort of test of this lens and I don't expect it to impress anyone, or to drip the last drop of quality out of the lens, I was just walking around and snapping some pictures, it's not the best shot technically or artistically and the noise at ISO 1600 on my camera likely degrade the sharpness slightly, but I thought it might be useful to post as I had it handy.

http://i.minus.com/ibayVUvqc4tBP0.jpg (10MB)

Here is another image from the same day, this time a smaller file size and shot at the 16mm end.
f/2.8, 1/1250, ISO 100

 

[D_Rochat]

Thanks Sarangiman,

I'm not quite sure what to do with those comparisons, with widely different settings. Were you handheld or on a tri-pod for these? Something(s) seems a bit off, I would say hopefully non-offensively, that this samples makes both lenses seem unimpressive (please don't take any offense to that, as none is intended).

I'm posting a recent sample from the Canon 16-35II shot handheld on a 5D (classic) @35mm, f/11, ISO 1600 with a fast shutter of 1/1600 s. I'm posting a full resolution sample .jpg that was originally shot in RAW and slightly tweaked in Adobe Camera Raw.

This shot was never meant as any sort of test of this lens, or to drip the last drop of quality out of the lens, I was just walking around and snapping some pictures, it's not the best shot technically or artistically and the noise at ISO 1600 on my camera likely degrade the sharpness slightly, but I thought it might be useful to post as I had it handy.

http://i.minus.com/ibayVUvqc4tBP0.jpg (10MB)

Looks good and I think that might be an interesting high contrast b&w. What are the blotches from on the top part of the image?

 

[Jettatore]

Looks good and I think that might be an interesting high contrast b&w. What are the blotches from on the top part of the image?

Thanks, I'll give that B&W conversion a try and post the results. The blotches are quite probably smudges of gunk on my lens filter.

 

[sarangiman]

I'm not quite sure what to do with those comparisons, with widely different settings. Were you handheld or on a tri-pod for these? Something(s) seems a bit off, I would say hopefully non-offensively, that this samples makes both lenses seem unimpressive (please don't take any offense to that, as none is intended).

What exactly do you mean by widely different settings? If you speak of the flare on the Canon lens -- that's simply b/c the sun had set further during the time between shots on the Nikon vs. the Canon. But sharpness is still quite easy to judge. If you're talking about my different apertures-- that was the whole point: that at f/2.8 the Nikon lens exceeds f/11 performance on the Canon. Additionally, I posted both f/2.8 lenses.

These are all taken on a tripod.

I also don't see anything unimpressive about the Nikon shots... care to clarify? The Nikon shots are pretty much sharp edge to edge!

Your shot looks good, but it doesn't speak to the edge-to-edge performance of the lens. You have continually varying distance of subject from the bottom of the frame to the top, with not much/any detail for comparison at the top (mostly just sky). My tests were designed to evaluate the flat field performance of the lens, something of interest typically to landscape photographers. And my tests are hardly showing anything surprising or new for those of who've actually compared the performance of the Nikon 14-24 against lesser lenses. For example, the guys over at 16-9.net.

Also keep in mind: often a wide angle lens can't maintain focus at infinity across the field (when you've intended to focus at infinity) because of field curvature. This'll often result in closer subjects coming in to focus around the edges if you focused the center at infinity. Therefore your image with subjects of varying distance is not indicative of the ability of the lens to focus on distant landscapes across the field-of-view.

Also remember that a 12MP camera will not show defects as well as a 22MP camera, or 36MP, etc.

 

[sarangiman]

Here is another image from the same day, this time a smaller file size and shot at the 16mm end.
f/2.8, 1/1250, ISO 100

Even at that small image size, I can see incredible softness on the sides... and even well into the frame from the sides.

So, no surprises.

And, again, none of these shots speak to the flat field ability of the lens. Which is where the Nikon shines.

 

[briansquibb]

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.

Wouldn't this logic also apply to Nikon bodies being cheaper than Canon

If the Canon 14-24 came in $500 less than the Nikon would there be a stream of Nikon users swapping to Canon ;D ;D ;D