Canon Working on Faster f/2.8 Ultra Wide Zoom [CR2]

[tron]

I realise f2.8 means faster shutter speeds, was just wondering where you need it in real-world situations with such a wide angle. Astrophotography makes sense but ... sports? What sport gets shot at 16mm, chess? ;-) Just curious, does one normally go wider than 24mm for events/weddings of photojournalism? Maybe travel photography? (artisan in small dark workshop)

Lots of dramatic sports shots are taken with Wide and UW lenses. The first three olympic shots at telegraph here are ultrawide http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/picturegalleries/9461272/London-2012-Olympics-Photographers-tricks.html?frame=2302709
More on that http://magicvalley.com/blogs/between-the-frames/wide-angle-sports-shooting/article_d875ca72-43ed-11e2-8493-0019bb2963f4.html

Google will get you tons of examples wide shots. And a huge proportion of winning journalism shots are captured at wide - ultrawide.

From the article: Tech Specs: Canon EOS 1D Mark II 1/400sec f/2.8 ISO 1250 @16mm

This means 16*1.3 = 20.8 ~ 21mm. OK very wide and out of 24-70 range but not that Ultra wide. In addition a 1DMkII at 1250 ISO must be equivalent or worse than a 1DX or a 5DMkIII at ISO 2500. So the f/4 lens would do. I acknowledge however that in cases like that a f/2.8 lens with worse corners is more useful than an f/4 with excellent corners.
Until Canon makes the ultimate UWA zoom, its horses for courses I guess...

 

[e17paul]

Canon Working on Faster f/2.8 Ultra Wide Zoom [CR2]

Nah. How about working on slower prime?
20mm f/4.0 STM pancake would be nice.

+1. I know this is a thread for all the fans of ultra wide zooms, but it would be really good to see a quality prime with depth of field scale wider than 24IS/24L, more practical and not so ultra wide as the 14L, and with less mixed reviews than the 20/2.8. At the moment the best options are the TS-E 17L the Zeiss 18/3.5.

Back to zooms, if Canon do release the mythical 14-24/2.8, that would leave a gap in the range for a better quality 18ish-35/2.8. That would allow better quality optics than the existing 2.8 without much extra weight.

I read in (I think) the dpreview review of the 24-70/2.8 that Canon did not make an IS version of the 2.8 because the weight would increase. If Canon made an 18ish-35 2.8/IS, it would be excellent and versatile for low light interiors. I know that is far from the only use for ultra wide zooms, but it would be smart to cover all the bases.

On the other hand, a good prime at or just below 20mm, would be awesome, especially with reasonably sized filters. As a prime fan, I will cross my fingers, watch and wait. My credit card is safe for now.

 

[Ruined]

Back to zooms, if Canon do release the mythical 14-24/2.8, that would leave a gap in the range for a better quality 18ish-35/2.8. That would allow better quality optics than the existing 2.8 without much extra weight.

I read in (I think) the dpreview review of the 24-70/2.8 that Canon did not make an IS version of the 2.8 because the weight would increase. If Canon made an 18ish-35 2.8/IS, it would be excellent and versatile for low light interiors. I know that is far from the only use for ultra wide zooms, but it would be smart to cover all the bases.

On the other hand, a good prime at or just below 20mm, would be awesome, especially with reasonably sized filters. As a prime fan, I will cross my fingers, watch and wait. My credit card is safe for now.

Just to keep in mind, I believe the only example put out thus far of a f/2.8 16mm-ish lens without bulbous element sharper than the 16-35 II was the Zeiss 15mm, which has a 95mm filter thread. Could you imagine how large that would be if made into a zoom?

While I think we will see small improvements in quality similar to the 16-35 I to 16-35 II generation, I don't think we will see an improvement the 24-70 got unless the 16-35 is made significantly larger/heavier (arguably incompatible with its target market). Which is also why I think the 16-35 II will not be updated for a long time, with a wider bulbous zoom complementing it instead (i.e 12-24, 14-24, etc).

 

[Etienne]

Non of this is urgent for me, but I always will welcome more options.
I'd like to see a top notch 20mm f/2.8 prime, and a 50 f/1.4 IS and a new 85 1.8 IS

 

[ecka]

Back to zooms, if Canon do release the mythical 14-24/2.8, that would leave a gap in the range for a better quality 18ish-35/2.8. That would allow better quality optics than the existing 2.8 without much extra weight.

I read in (I think) the dpreview review of the 24-70/2.8 that Canon did not make an IS version of the 2.8 because the weight would increase. If Canon made an 18ish-35 2.8/IS, it would be excellent and versatile for low light interiors. I know that is far from the only use for ultra wide zooms, but it would be smart to cover all the bases.

On the other hand, a good prime at or just below 20mm, would be awesome, especially with reasonably sized filters. As a prime fan, I will cross my fingers, watch and wait. My credit card is safe for now.

Just to keep in mind, I believe the only example put out thus far of a f/2.8 16mm-ish lens without bulbous element sharper than the 16-35 II was the Zeiss 15mm, which has a 95mm filter thread. Could you imagine how large that would be if made into a zoom?

While I think we will see small improvements in quality similar to the 16-35 I to 16-35 II generation, I don't think we will see an improvement the 24-70 got unless the 16-35 is made significantly larger/heavier (arguably incompatible with its target market). Which is also why I think the 16-35 II will not be updated for a long time, with a wider bulbous zoom complementing it instead (i.e 12-24, 14-24, etc).

Yes. The new 16-35/4L IS USM is almost as big and heavy as the 16-35/2.8L II USM. IS is nice for videos, but if it's not much better than the 17-40/4L, then it may end up on the same shelf with 70-300 DO, 200/2.8II and 28-300L.

 

[Ruined]

Back to zooms, if Canon do release the mythical 14-24/2.8, that would leave a gap in the range for a better quality 18ish-35/2.8. That would allow better quality optics than the existing 2.8 without much extra weight.

I read in (I think) the dpreview review of the 24-70/2.8 that Canon did not make an IS version of the 2.8 because the weight would increase. If Canon made an 18ish-35 2.8/IS, it would be excellent and versatile for low light interiors. I know that is far from the only use for ultra wide zooms, but it would be smart to cover all the bases.

On the other hand, a good prime at or just below 20mm, would be awesome, especially with reasonably sized filters. As a prime fan, I will cross my fingers, watch and wait. My credit card is safe for now.

Just to keep in mind, I believe the only example put out thus far of a f/2.8 16mm-ish lens without bulbous element sharper than the 16-35 II was the Zeiss 15mm, which has a 95mm filter thread. Could you imagine how large that would be if made into a zoom?

While I think we will see small improvements in quality similar to the 16-35 I to 16-35 II generation, I don't think we will see an improvement the 24-70 got unless the 16-35 is made significantly larger/heavier (arguably incompatible with its target market). Which is also why I think the 16-35 II will not be updated for a long time, with a wider bulbous zoom complementing it instead (i.e 12-24, 14-24, etc).

Yes. The new 16-35/4L IS USM is almost as big and heavy as the 16-35/2.8L II USM. IS is nice for videos, but if it's not much better than the 17-40/4L, then it may end up on the same shelf with 70-300 DO, 200/2.8II and 28-300L.

well, I think the 16-35 f/4 *will* be significantly better than the 17-40 and based on the mtf sharper than the 16-35 II. But, while it replaces the 17-40 it does not replace the 16-35 II as it is a full stop slower. In low light for event photographers/journalists that will likely be a deal breaker regardless of the sharpness. The market is there for both though as landscape photographers won't use f/2.8 much and would rather have the sharpness.

 

[ecka]

Back to zooms, if Canon do release the mythical 14-24/2.8, that would leave a gap in the range for a better quality 18ish-35/2.8. That would allow better quality optics than the existing 2.8 without much extra weight.

I read in (I think) the dpreview review of the 24-70/2.8 that Canon did not make an IS version of the 2.8 because the weight would increase. If Canon made an 18ish-35 2.8/IS, it would be excellent and versatile for low light interiors. I know that is far from the only use for ultra wide zooms, but it would be smart to cover all the bases.

On the other hand, a good prime at or just below 20mm, would be awesome, especially with reasonably sized filters. As a prime fan, I will cross my fingers, watch and wait. My credit card is safe for now.

Just to keep in mind, I believe the only example put out thus far of a f/2.8 16mm-ish lens without bulbous element sharper than the 16-35 II was the Zeiss 15mm, which has a 95mm filter thread. Could you imagine how large that would be if made into a zoom?

While I think we will see small improvements in quality similar to the 16-35 I to 16-35 II generation, I don't think we will see an improvement the 24-70 got unless the 16-35 is made significantly larger/heavier (arguably incompatible with its target market). Which is also why I think the 16-35 II will not be updated for a long time, with a wider bulbous zoom complementing it instead (i.e 12-24, 14-24, etc).

Yes. The new 16-35/4L IS USM is almost as big and heavy as the 16-35/2.8L II USM. IS is nice for videos, but if it's not much better than the 17-40/4L, then it may end up on the same shelf with 70-300 DO, 200/2.8II and 28-300L.

well, I think the 16-35 f/4 *will* be significantly better than the 17-40 and based on the mtf sharper than the 16-35 II. But, while it replaces the 17-40 it does not replace the 16-35 II as it is a full stop slower. In low light for event photographers/journalists that will likely be a deal breaker regardless of the sharpness. The market is there for both though as landscape photographers won't use f/2.8 much and would rather have the sharpness.

I hope it *will* be significantly better than 17-40L, which has very soft corners at 17mm. However, it may be considered sharper than 16-35L'II, because that one has a bit blurry corners as well . I know many "landscapers" who prefer Sigma 12-24mm or even adapting Nikkor 14-24mm over Canon L UWA zooms, because of the bad corners. If Sigma releases a cheaper and perfectly sharp 12-24mm ART, then it could hurt Canon sales very much. That could explain why did they put the IS in it - to add one more reason for choosing Canon over the competition.