Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L in Late 2013 [CR2]

[sagittariansrock]

When I saw this on CR, I thought if this doesn't get a bunch of ecstatic posts, then the forum members are just plain weird.

I guess I'm weird.

My least used lens is my ultra wide rectilinear. I either use a 24-xxx rectilinear or my Sigma 15mm f/2.8 fisheye. That fish is every bit an L-prime, and I find a fisheye is a much more useful lens than an ultrawide rectilinear. I shot 18 times as many shots in 2012 with the fish as I did with my ultrawide rectilinear. That number appears to be going up over time, as it's only 3x over the last 6 years. I guess I'm getting more and more comfortable with the fish.

Oh, you're fine. An ultrawide zoom isn't what everyone wants.
But there are so many people here who have been posting repeatedly asking for the 14-24 and praising the Nikon, I wonder where they are hiding now. Even yesterday someone responded to the 50 1.4 IS post by saying where's the 14-24.

 

[Ricku]

Oh dear god! Please let it be true, and please bring it sooner than late 2013.

 

[robbymack]

interesting, may make me hold off on a purchase...then again I fully expect this to be priced around $3K so I'll just keep dreaming

 

[Canon 14-24]

I can see it being $2499+ (hopefully Canon prepares it's 2.8 trinity of the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 2.8 IS within the $2-2.5k mark), though I am personally prepared and set aside up to $3k for this lens!

Besides optics, I just hope they don't screw up the lens cap design with the protruding glass front with a cheap plastic cap cover that just comes right off in your bag like on the Canon 8-15mm fisheye, Nikon 14-24mm or like the the slide in caps on the Zeiss 15mm or Canon 14mm II that over time and use will show noticeable wear on the built in lens hood. Hopefully Canon can get it done right like the twist-on cap design on the 17mm ts-e!

 

[M.ST]

I want this lens in spring 2013.

 

[dirtcastle]

Unless the 14-24mm L is a better performer than the existing 14mm f/2.8 L, wouldn't it make nearly as much sense to combine the 14mm L with either a 24mm L II or the 24-70mm L II ?

 

[Woody]

Right, because Canon products are immune from poor QC, if that were entirely true then the wait + final cost wouldn't matter so much

Sure, they have poor 'QC' issues in the past. The truth is a number of those problems are mostly due to poor design, e.g., portrait issue of 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS, 1D3 AF problems, light leak in 5D3. But most importantly, they are officially acknowledged and rectified. Some companies don't even acknowledge their problems... like this article dated 6-Dec-2012: http://bythom.com/.

 

[dolina]

It should sell more than the Nikon equivalent.

Where's my damn 135L and 400/5.6L update!

 

[AudioGlenn]

Dear Santa,
Please make this CR2 comes true :

+1 Lol!

+1 i need this lens to go with my new mark III, 24-70 II, and 70-200 IS II. I had to give up my EF-S 10-22 and am currently without an UWA!!!!

 

[candyman]

Just as I was considering adding the 16-35mm...

Go figure :

Me too. I have this 14-24 on my list.

But the 14-24 is still not available for at least one year
The 16-35 MKII currently cost - here in the Netherlands - about 1260 euro

The 14-24 will cost - for sure - about 2200 euro

The 16-35 is certainly not perfect but a very good lens. It still will have value if you sell it next year.

 

[1982chris911]

This is the only Canon lens I would instantly buy at the moment without any reconsidering if IQ is good (nearly as good as Nikons or better) ...

 

[pedro]

<div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12256\"></glusone></div><div style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a href=\"https://twitter.com/share\" class=\"twitter-share-button\" data-count=\"vertical\" data-url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12256\">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>A New Canon Ultrawide Zoom



</strong>This lens comes up every now and then as something that will be added to the Canon lineup. A couple of patents that have referenced this optical formula are out there, which tells us it’s something that is on the minds of the R&D team at Canon.</p>
<p>I was told today that the lens is in the pipeline and will be coming in 2013 if there are no more delays with lens production. I was told to expect availability to be in late 2013, but the announcement date was unknown at this time. It makes perfect sense that this sort of lens would be announced with the imminent large megapixel camera that Canon will unveil in 2013.</p>
<p>There were a few lenses that were to be announced in 2012 that will be pushed into 2013. A lot had to do with production delays with the new supertelephotos as well as the <a href=\"http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/843008-USA/Canon_5175B002_EF_24_70mm_f_2_8L_II.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296\" target=\"_blank\">EF 24-70 f/2.8L II</a>.</p>
<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong></p>

YESSSS! Virtual Christmas present for me then. There is joy in the waiting. Hopefully it won't be more than 2k

 

[pedro]

When I saw this on CR, I thought if this doesn't get a bunch of ecstatic posts, then the forum members are just plain weird.

I guess I'm weird.

My least used lens is my ultra wide rectilinear. I either use a 24-xxx rectilinear or my Sigma 15mm f/2.8 fisheye. That fish is every bit an L-prime, and I find a fisheye is a much more useful lens than an ultrawide rectilinear. I shot 18 times as many shots in 2012 with the fish as I did with my ultrawide rectilinear. That number appears to be going up over time, as it's only 3x over the last 6 years. I guess I'm getting more and more comfortable with the fish.

Oh, you're fine. An ultrawide zoom isn't what everyone wants.
But there are so many people here who have been posting repeatedly asking for the 14-24 and praising the Nikon, I wonder where they are hiding now. Even yesterday someone responded to the 50 1.4 IS post by saying where's the 14-24.

The ones that were asking for a 14-24 in the 50 1.4 IS thread was another poster and me. And here I am, jumping up and down. ;-) See my former post.

 

[Random Orbits]

When I saw this on CR, I thought if this doesn't get a bunch of ecstatic posts, then the forum members are just plain weird.

I guess I'm weird.

My least used lens is my ultra wide rectilinear. I either use a 24-xxx rectilinear or my Sigma 15mm f/2.8 fisheye. That fish is every bit an L-prime, and I find a fisheye is a much more useful lens than an ultrawide rectilinear. I shot 18 times as many shots in 2012 with the fish as I did with my ultrawide rectilinear. That number appears to be going up over time, as it's only 3x over the last 6 years. I guess I'm getting more and more comfortable with the fish.

Oh, you're fine. An ultrawide zoom isn't what everyone wants.
But there are so many people here who have been posting repeatedly asking for the 14-24 and praising the Nikon, I wonder where they are hiding now. Even yesterday someone responded to the 50 1.4 IS post by saying where's the 14-24.

They're in shock.... and wondering how hey're going to save up all that money!

 

[Lee Jay]

When I saw this on CR, I thought if this doesn't get a bunch of ecstatic posts, then the forum members are just plain weird.

I guess I'm weird.

My least used lens is my ultra wide rectilinear. I either use a 24-xxx rectilinear or my Sigma 15mm f/2.8 fisheye. That fish is every bit an L-prime, and I find a fisheye is a much more useful lens than an ultrawide rectilinear. I shot 18 times as many shots in 2012 with the fish as I did with my ultrawide rectilinear. That number appears to be going up over time, as it's only 3x over the last 6 years. I guess I'm getting more and more comfortable with the fish.

Oh, you're fine. An ultrawide zoom isn't what everyone wants.
But there are so many people here who have been posting repeatedly asking for the 14-24 and praising the Nikon, I wonder where they are hiding now. Even yesterday someone responded to the 50 1.4 IS post by saying where's the 14-24.

They're in shock.... and wondering how hey're going to save up all that money!

I know someone that switched to Nikon for the 14-24. When he got it, he was so happy. A year later he switched back after realizing he almost never used the 14-24.

It's not that it doesn't have its uses, but it's uses are so limited for many that it just doesn't get used that much. 14 is awfully wide for a rectilinear, giving you very stretched corners, having "only" 24mm on the long end makes it even less useful than the 16-35 or 17-40, and landscapers ought to be using the 17TSE or 24TSE instead.

 

[pedro]

I will use it for nightscapes. Due to the 500 or 600 rule (500 divided into the longest length of your lens yields sharp stars without trails) the shorter the better! It may cost me a fortune as an enthusiast amateur. But it will be a great lens, one you buy once in a lifetime. Thought about the Sigma 12-24 4.5-5.6 first, but I held myself back and now I am glad I did. 16-35 seemed a bit long according to the above mentioned technique. So, can't wait to add it to my lens line up and do night sky at 14mm even wide open and ISO 6400, 8000 or even 12800 on my 5Diii! Won't buy it in the first hour once it hits the shelf, as saving up for it is almost as much as great! Meanwhile, the 28 2.8 will do. 8)

 

[Jesse]

I love Canon 2013.

 

[distant.star]

Anyone want to buy my 16-35 II?

I'll give you $500 cash for it today, Bob. No questions asked!!

 

[ronderick]

Well, if it does emerge in the second half of 2013, that means most people have to wait till early 2014 for consistent supply, quirks with the first batch fixed, and the price stabilized... business as usual. *shrug*

 

[distant.star]

The 16-35 definitely covers a wider range of focal lengths, which is useful for certain purposes, but the 14-24 is theoretically better in every aspect except for the focal length in the long-range. Here's the main question: would a photographer get the 14-24 for the wider focal length and better performance, or would a photographer get the 16-35 for the versatility in focal length? I'd definitely pick the 14-24. Any day. It just offers so much more!

I don't see the photojournalist crowd going 14-24. Everybody else (who can afford it), hell yes!

Some photojournalist will certainly get one of these. Sometimes you need to view everything that's happening but you still want to be as close as possible to your subjects. I'm not saying the 16-35 can't do this. All I'm saying is that you can capture more with 14-24.

That number will be infinitesimally small. Even with a Reuters budget, imagine trying to convince the bean counters you want a lens that's $3000 (instead of $1500) because it widens to 14mm rather than 16mm. I don't see that happening. And for the stringers, you'd have to be damn successful (monied) to add that to your expense side.

Also, the 24 limit is going to scare pros. I think they feel constrained enough with the 16-35 already, but I'm guessing that's what photo editors want. Given the overall IQ with that lens and the digital sensors, they can crop 80% and still have an image viable for 99% of what they need. (Try that with film!)