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

[Ricku]

This [CR2] rumor said that it will arrive within the next 12 months.

Well, now it's been 15 months. :'( I couldn't be more annoyed.

Those unreliable 'rumors' eh?!

Yes! Someone should do something about this. :-\

 

[Dylan777]

This [CR2] rumor said that it will arrive within the next 12 months.

Well, now it's been 15 months. :'( I couldn't be more annoyed.

Last time I checked, this is STILL CanonRumors.com

 

[Daniel Flather]

This [CR2] rumor said that it will arrive within the next 12 months.

Well, now it's been 15 months. :'( I couldn't be more annoyed.

Last time I checked, this is STILL CanonRumors.com

Everything you read on the net is true, so what gives with the 12-24????

 

[scottkinfw]

I find that inaccurate rumors, especially when they don't turn out or tur out late, really annoy me,unless I don't care about the topic. I want this lens, and therefore I too am annoyed. I know it is only a rumor.

Oh well.

sek

Anything new about 14-24 F2.8L?

Yeah, it's not coming.

 

[duydaniel]

Canon should spend time improving DR before releasing this lens :

 

[Dylan777]

Canon should spend time improving DR before releasing this lens :

"Don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house" - To me, be able to shoot at higher ISO is more important than DR. That's why I jumped from crop to FF.

 

[mackguyver]

This [CR2] rumor said that it will arrive within the next 12 months.

Well, now it's been 15 months. :'( I couldn't be more annoyed.

Last time I checked, this is STILL CanonRumors.com

Everything you read on the net is true, so what gives with the 12-24????

Also, remember that Canon now announces the "development" of lenses 6 months - 2+ years before you can buy one - think the series II telephotos and the 200-400...

 

[Ricku]

Canon should spend time improving DR before releasing this lens :

I kinda agree with you.

But still, I want this lens right now! Or a 16-50L, or a 17-40L II.. Just whatever, as long as they finally give us an UWA-zoom with sharp razor sharp sharpness across the frame.

How hard can it be? It feels like we've been waiting an eternity for a real "Nikon 14-24-killer", and I do think people would pay solid money for this lens. But still nothing from Canon! .. As CR-guy recently said: "Not even a whisper".

Whay cannot Canon crack this nut? Are they just afraid to hurt the sales of the 14L and 24L?

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Canon should spend time improving DR before releasing this lens :

I kinda agree with you.

But still, I want this lens right now! Or a 16-50L, or a 17-40L II.. Just whatever, as long as they finally give us an UWA-zoom with sharp razor sharp sharpness across the frame.

How hard can it be? It feels like we've been waiting an eternity for a real "Nikon 14-24-killer", and I do think people would pay solid money for this lens. But still nothing from Canon! .. As CR-guy recently said: "Not even a whisper".

Whay cannot Canon crack this nut? Are they just afraid to hurt the sales of the 14L and 24L?

And what makes the Nikkor lens so great? It's good at shooting lens charts and that's about it. Sharp wide open, sure...but most landscape uses stop down for DOF...and there is lettle difference between it and the 16-35IIL when stopped down. It's a royal PITA to use filters with and it's exessively large and bulky. It's heavily corrected...so it's pretty much useless of shooting people or group shots....which is 80% of professional wide lens use. For architecture, TS-e are a better choice....so I struggle to see where this lens excells...except in the minds of a few lens review sites. As a photographic tool, it doens't seem to master any one genre but detract from most. Landscapes, there are better choices. Group shots, there are far better choices. Architecture, there are far better choices....so what's it good for? Oh yes, shooting lens charts and brick walls....in the mean time a 16-35IIL is generally a far better photographic tool.

 

[Marsu42]

But still, I want this lens right now! Or a 16-50L, or a 17-40L II.. Just whatever, as long as they finally give us an UWA-zoom with sharp razor sharp sharpness across the frame. How hard can it be?

Not hard at all, but *expensive*...

... for my (lack of) money I'd rather take a €600 17-40L mk1 than a €1600 17-40L mk2 with improved sharpness "across the frame" which means *corners*(!) and looking at what I shoot that really doesn't matter. The current 17-40L degrades on crop, but on ff imho fine just like it is now.

 

[M.ST]

I want to see the 14.24 2.8 L now.

And a new 17-40 L or 17-50 IS L, a 100-400 IS replacement, the 24-70 2.8 L IS and so on.

Price discussion are stupid. We want new lenses with better IQ´s.

If you don´t have the money for new lenses, then buy the old ones.

 

[Marsu42]

Maybe such comments is one of the reasons to why Canon is so sleepy nowdays.

You got it in one - and welcome to the wonderful world of economy! Canon is a mass-market manufacturer, so (thankfully) they weigh performance vs. cost. If you want performance no matter the cost and also receive a big arrogance boost for free, buy Leica.

Why improve when customers raise voice to stop improvement?

I'm all in favor of improvements, and there's plenty of room for that - just lift all the crippling of camera bodies, for example or offer sealed aps-c lenses. But "improvement" of a much higher price tag is not improvement, it's just a shift in market position.

Price discussion are stupid. We want new lenses with better IQ´s.

Who is "we" - I gather you're talking in the plurale maiestatis, your grace ?

If you don´t have the money for new lenses, then buy the old ones.

I also would like to receive technology updates like more precise af and IS systems which is little cost for the manufacturer. What I don't want is top-notch iq glass doubling the price for a performance that only few people need, even of course if some opinions might be different in a nerd or enthusiast forum.

 

[Ricku]

You got it in one - and welcome to the wonderful world of economy! Canon is a mass-market manufacturer, so (thankfully) they weigh performance vs. cost. If you want performance no matter the cost and also receive a big arrogance boost for free, buy Leica.

I also would like to receive technology updates like more precise af and IS systems which is little cost for the manufacturer. What I don't want is top-notch iq glass doubling the price for a performance that only few people need, even of course if some opinions might be different in a nerd or enthusiast forum.

Well holy moly! Thanks for making me see things much clearer. Here I thought I wanted top-notch IQ glass because of the IQ itself, sharp corners, client demand and the ability to produce huge prints. But now I understand that I'm just an arrogant nerd in need of a dick extender.

Hold the discussion! I'm gonna go and sell my "luxury item" 70-200 IS II now. Better replace it with the MK1 before someone notices my nerdy arrogance. Wohoo 17-40L, here I come!

And yeah, they better quit doing these snobby top-notch IQ upgrades. Or else the price tags of the current lenses will surely skyrocket to untouchable levels! How on earth would anyone be able to afford the 17-40L if Canon released a new version? :

 

[verysimplejason]

Ken Rockwell said "Thou shalt not use polarizer for wide angle"

but for grads, Lee SW150 System/ Lucroit-Hitech 165mm/ Cokin X-Pro are available while Singh-Ray makes filters for these three.

I think you cut it prematurely... Polarizer only makes uneven sky but not uneven water or other non-metallic objects. If you included a little to no sky in your photo, you can still use polarizer.

 

[Marsu42]

Well holy moly! Thanks for making me see things much clearer. Here I thought I wanted top-notch IQ glass because of the IQ itself, sharp corners, client demand and the ability to produce huge prints.

You're welcome ... and to make myself clearer: I think the Canon lineup needs a top 14-24, and the "top of the line" 16-35L could also receive an update for "across the frame" sharpness like the 24-70 did if market demand is there.

However, you were talking of the 17-40L which is a lens placed in the *middle* of the lineup, it's a landscapeish lens so you'll use it stopped down, and it works fine this way. Just as the softness of the 50/1.2 this is not a bug, but a rather feature because it keeps the bulk, weight and - yes - price down. If you want iq beyond that, get a prime (ts), or hope for an updated 16-35L.

But demanding an update of *both* the 16-35L to mk3 and 17-40L doesn't make much sense to me, as a much more expensive 17-50L/4 would catapult it out of the current market position, essentially not "updating" it but replacing it with another lens.

This is the reason why I think requiring every lens from the 50/1.8 to the 200-400L to aspire for top notch iq no matter the cost is a bit on the nerdy side, not to offend you, though your former (now deleted) post didn't really invite a matter of fact discussion I'm also afraid so say.

And yeah, they better quit doing these snobby top-notch IQ upgrades. Or else the price tags of the current lenses will surely skyrocket to untouchable levels! How on earth would anyone be able to afford the 17-40L if Canon released a new version? :

Indeed, here you are correct - the 24-70 mk1's skyrocketed to absurd levels after the mk2 release.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Ken Rockwell said "Thou shalt not use polarizer for wide angle"

but for grads, Lee SW150 System/ Lucroit-Hitech 165mm/ Cokin X-Pro are available while Singh-Ray makes filters for these three.

I think you cut it prematurely... Polarizer only makes uneven sky but not uneven water or other non-metallic objects. If you included a little to no sky in your photo, you can still use polarizer.

I use a polariser a lot on a 16-35IIL...it's fine. Mr Rockwell is making big bold nieve statements again. Yes there's an unevenness...but rotating the polariser can place the dark spot in a neat and compositionally strong place...so what's the problem?

 

[verysimplejason]

Ken Rockwell said "Thou shalt not use polarizer for wide angle"

but for grads, Lee SW150 System/ Lucroit-Hitech 165mm/ Cokin X-Pro are available while Singh-Ray makes filters for these three.

I think you cut it prematurely... Polarizer only makes uneven sky but not uneven water or other non-metallic objects. If you included a little to no sky in your photo, you can still use polarizer.

I use a polariser a lot on a 16-35IIL...it's fine. Mr Rockwell is making big bold nieve statements again. Yes there's an unevenness...but rotating the polariser can place the dark spot in a neat and compositionally strong place...so what's the problem?

Vonbon?

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Ken Rockwell said "Thou shalt not use polarizer for wide angle"

but for grads, Lee SW150 System/ Lucroit-Hitech 165mm/ Cokin X-Pro are available while Singh-Ray makes filters for these three.

I think you cut it prematurely... Polarizer only makes uneven sky but not uneven water or other non-metallic objects. If you included a little to no sky in your photo, you can still use polarizer.

I use a polariser a lot on a 16-35IIL...it's fine. Mr Rockwell is making big bold nieve statements again. Yes there's an unevenness...but rotating the polariser can place the dark spot in a neat and compositionally strong place...so what's the problem?

Vonbon?

Try that for an example. Polarised just over St Michael's mount.

 

[wickidwombat]

Ken Rockwell said "Thou shalt not use polarizer for wide angle"

but for grads, Lee SW150 System/ Lucroit-Hitech 165mm/ Cokin X-Pro are available while Singh-Ray makes filters for these three.

I think you cut it prematurely... Polarizer only makes uneven sky but not uneven water or other non-metallic objects. If you included a little to no sky in your photo, you can still use polarizer.

I use a polariser a lot on a 16-35IIL...it's fine. Mr Rockwell is making big bold nieve statements again. Yes there's an unevenness...but rotating the polariser can place the dark spot in a neat and compositionally strong place...so what's the problem?

ditto, only problem is if you forget you have the polariser and shoot a pano then realise later it won't stitch :'(
other than that i use the polariser on the 16-35 all the time.

 

[verysimplejason]

Ken Rockwell said "Thou shalt not use polarizer for wide angle"

but for grads, Lee SW150 System/ Lucroit-Hitech 165mm/ Cokin X-Pro are available while Singh-Ray makes filters for these three.

I think you cut it prematurely... Polarizer only makes uneven sky but not uneven water or other non-metallic objects. If you included a little to no sky in your photo, you can still use polarizer.

I use a polariser a lot on a 16-35IIL...it's fine. Mr Rockwell is making big bold nieve statements again. Yes there's an unevenness...but rotating the polariser can place the dark spot in a neat and compositionally strong place...so what's the problem?

ditto, only problem is if you forget you have the polariser and shoot a pano then realise later it won't stitch :'(
other than that i use the polariser on the 16-35 all the time.

Well here's a 17-40L with CPL.