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

[bchernicoff]

To everyone saying they would buy this lens immediately, I have to ask, and I'm not trolling...how is the current 14mm L lens letting you down? Is the ability to zoom from 14-24 that killer of a feature?

 

[fegari]

Very interesting focal range, hopefully it can compete with the Zeiss 21/2.8 in IQ.

However the more people say they are willing to pay 3k, 4k for it and that they'll buy ten of them...the more that Canon is going to charge 3k, 4k.

I've always thought they only leak products preciselly to finetune their price point...and have a bunch of people reading forums...see what happened with the 5D3, all forums full of people saying they were willing to sell a kidney for it...and then I had to sell mine to get it! now is significantly cheaper, not very long after release.

Anyway, hope the 14-24L becomes a reality :=)

 

[iMagic]

To everyone saying they would buy this lens immediately, I have to ask, and I'm not trolling...how is the current 14mm L lens letting you down? Is the ability to zoom from 14-24 that killer of a feature?

I am loving my 14mm L. I have done amazing landscapes with it. I really don't know if the 14-24 would be attractive. If it turns out killer perhaps I might consider parting with the 14L and 24L. But I really dont think so. For me I think the primes will complete my needs for landscape.

 

[iMagic]

As for photojournalists, many of them that are using 16-35's are still shooting 1D MkIII and MkIV's, the 16-35 works very well in the pack on a 1.3 crop camera, the 14-24 would not be anywhere near as attractive, that is why Nikon still offer a 17-35 f2.8 as well as the 14-24.

Why would I get one? Well yes the zoom is nice but it wouldn't replace my 16-35, however the Canon 14mm, well the two I have shot with, one a loaner via CPS and one from LensRentals, were both crap in the corners. I do some high end real estate work and currently use the 17mm TS-E for most of it, but when I want wider and not stitch then I have found the 15mm fisheye defished is better in the corners than the 14mm L prime, and it gives a wider field of view.

After CPS adjustment, my 14L is very good to excellent

 

[mcconkeyb]

Why has no one asked about the use of filters on this lens. How wide is the front element likely to be and will it be designed to accommodate filters?

 

[Daniel Flather]

To everyone saying they would buy this lens immediately, I have to ask, and I'm not trolling...how is the current 14mm L lens letting you down? Is the ability to zoom from 14-24 that killer of a feature?

Yeah, my thoughts too. If I had the 14-24, I know I'd use it at 14mm 90% of the time. I had the 10-22 and I used it at the wide end all the time. But, the range from 14 to 24 is huge.

 

[Daniel Flather]

To everyone saying they would buy this lens immediately, I have to ask, and I'm not trolling...how is the current 14mm L lens letting you down? Is the ability to zoom from 14-24 that killer of a feature?

I am loving my 14mm L. I have done amazing landscapes with it. I really don't know if the 14-24 would be attractive. If it turns out killer perhaps I might consider parting with the 14L and 24L. But I really dont think so. For me I think the primes will complete my needs for landscape.

A 2.8 zoom is NOT a replacement for the 24/1.4II. If you wana jump and dump the 14L, PM me.

 

[Daniel Flather]

I'll make a bold guess. For the cost of the 14-24, I bet you could almost buy the 14L and 17L.

 

[AdamJ]

Why has no one asked about the use of filters on this lens. How wide is the front element likely to be and will it be designed to accommodate filters?

I shouldn't think there will be any native provision for front-mounted filters (rear gels only) but third party front filters and filter holders are available for the Nikon from Lee (150mm square) and Photodiox (145mm circular), so I'm sure they will be on the case.

 

[dirtcastle]

I'll make a bold guess. For the cost of the 14-24, I bet you could almost buy the 14L and 17L.

That's exactly what I was thinking. OR even a 14L + 24L (which takes filters). Plus, so many shots in the UWA range are done with tripods, for which the versatility of a zoom is diminished a bit, imo. That said, for long treks it would make a lot of sense to pack a 14-24mm to keep the load light.

 

[rj79in]

I guess this makes my plans to upgrade from the 17-40L with the 16-35L in the next 6 months go for a spin.

A big dilemma here ... whether to upgrade to the 16-35 or to wait for the 14-24 - biggest problem is that one might be tempted to wait but with Canon maybe I will end up waiting too long :-\

 

[Canon 14-24]

To everyone saying they would buy this lens immediately, I have to ask, and I'm not trolling...how is the current 14mm L lens letting you down? Is the ability to zoom from 14-24 that killer of a feature?

For me it's sharpness and the chromatic aberrations in the corners on the 14 II. Also the versatility to compose ultra wide angle shots from 14-24mm when you may be restricted by a fence/trail/cliff/etc.

 

[sagittariansrock]

To everyone saying they would buy this lens immediately, I have to ask, and I'm not trolling...how is the current 14mm L lens letting you down? Is the ability to zoom from 14-24 that killer of a feature?

Yeah, my thoughts too. If I had the 14-24, I know I'd use it at 14mm 90% of the time. I had the 10-22 and I used it at the wide end all the time. But, the range from 14 to 24 is huge.

From your post below on the 50 1.4IS thread I thought you were asking for the 14-24 and this was a typo. From this post, I guess not. So you're really looking for a 12-24?

Where's the 12-24?

 

[sanj]

To everyone saying they would buy this lens immediately, I have to ask, and I'm not trolling...how is the current 14mm L lens letting you down? Is the ability to zoom from 14-24 that killer of a feature?

I totally agree. If a person is attempting to shoot with ultra wide then he/she is in this market. And then 14 works best as its the widest...

 

[Ricku]

I guess this makes my plans to upgrade from the 17-40L with the 16-35L in the next 6 months go for a spin.

A big dilemma here ... whether to upgrade to the 16-35 or to wait for the 14-24 - biggest problem is that one might be tempted to wait but with Canon maybe I will end up waiting too long :-\

If you use your UWA-zoom for landscapes, you should wait for the 14-24.

Edge to edge and corner sharpness is very important when it comes to landscapes, and the 16-35 just doesn't cut it.

I think (and hope) the 14-24L will be a winner.

 

[pharp]

I want to hear from someone who actually bought the Nikon version and 16-9/ Novoflex (or cheap Chinese versions) Nikon-G to Canon adapter for their 5D. Was the view worth the climb? Would you trade for a Canon version (for an extra grand*)? I'm assuming the Canon version won't be a big (or any) improvement. By most accounts (that I've read anyway), and seems to be born out by the constant stream of barely used Nikon 14-24's on E-Bay - great lens, but is big, heavy, prone to flare, bothersome front element and just not that useful. See also here.

* The Nikon is currently $2K new @ B&H - considering current pricing, the Canon is probably going to be at least $3K (or $4k with IS).

I'd rather just have a killer 16L prime that takes filters, but that'd probably be $3K also. Looks like Sigma has really stepped up their game - how about it? The Zeiss 15mm looks really good, but its also $3K - trend? or I'm still waiting for a FF mirrorless with smaller and hopefully cheaper UWA lenses.

 

[AdamJ]

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!

My Sigma has a flock-lined metal slide-on cap that fits over the metal petal hood. I don't use it; instead I use a LensCoat Hoodie which is made of stretchy neoprene with a rigid disc in the base which abuts the petal hood and protects the front element. It fits very nicely with no chance of scuffing the hood, yet tightly enough not to come off accidentally. They come in lots of sizes.

 

[NWPhil]

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.

not hiding, probably just looking at their lens collection and selecting what to dump in order to get funds ;D
I have been moving away from zooms, but if this one is anything close to the Nikon version, YES I WILL BUY 8)
btw - 24mm is not UWA, just WA
There is a niche for this lens, otherwise Canon would not consider producing it.

 

[pharp]

prediction - many will buy this out of the gate, then there will will be plenty of used ones available once they've actually taken it out and used it.

 

[pedro]

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!

My Sigma has a flock-lined metal slide-on cap that fits over the metal petal hood. I don't use it; instead I use a LensCoat Hoodie which is made of stretchy neoprene with a rigid disc in the base which abuts the petal hood and protects the front element. It fits very nicely with no chance of scuffing the hood, yet tightly enough not to come off accidentally. They come in lots of sizes.

@AdamJ: and how is your Sigma doing so far. I do nightsky/nightscapes at ISOs 6400 or so. How does it behave? Would it work out well, as my exposures avoid stars from trailing? 25 sec ISO 6400 to 8000 on the 5DIII is that an okay value for enough light? I guess so, my 28 F/2.8 does well even wide open...So I'd like to hear some Sigma results...as the price of the Canon lens will be very high...Thanks!