EF 24-35mm f/2.8L pure wide angle zoom

[gnd]

Let's face it. When a wide angle zoom spans more than three focal ranges quality either end drops. Increasing the span light loss comes in the equation from the higher number of elements. Why can't we have a pure wide angle 24-35/2.8L top performer instead of stretching the limits in the name of "higher portability".

The way I see it 24-35/2.8, 50 (), 80-200/2.8 is the dream team (with 50mm possibly redundant) instead of anything else. What Canon does is marketing the exemplary 24-70/2.8L II albeit with vignetting at the higher range. Tells you instead of 24-35/2.8 + 50() I give you 24-70 with a weaker 50-70 segment. Well, alright, but some of us put quality above "portability". Give us the proper 24-35/2.8L and we'll combine it with a 50/1.2L.

Unless we expect the competitor to make the first move, like the 14-24/2.8.

 

[mrsfotografie]

The 24-35 exists, but it is called a prime and requires just a little bit of foot zooming (28mm).

 

[adhocphotographer]

The 24-35 exists, but it is called a prime and requires just a little bit of foot zooming (28mm).

+1

24-35 is too close for a zoom imho.

 

[shashinkaman]

The 24-35 exists, but it is called a prime and requires just a little bit of foot zooming (28mm).

Okay, let's settle this for once and for all: "there is no such thing as 'foot zooming'! A 28mm will never ever give you a 24mm lens field of view how ever much you walk backwards! Just as you don't get a 35mm out of your 28mm because you 'zoom walk' forwards a bit! I challenge all knowledgeable CR forum folks to put this myth finally to an end!!

 

[rumorzmonger]

Unless we expect the competitor to make the first move, like the 14-24/2.8.

The 14-24 f2.8 can't be any good because it spans more than two focal lengths...

 

[lol]

The 24-35/2.8 range is already covered by two lenses. I really can't see adding a third one unless it brings with it something extra. For example, what about a 24-35 f/2.0? Or even faster?

If you need ultimate quality, just get a set of primes.

 

[seekthedragon]

What Canon does is marketing the exemplary 24-70/2.8L II albeit with vignetting at the higher range. Tells you instead of 24-35/2.8 + 50() I give you 24-70 with a weaker 50-70 segment. Well, alright, but some of us put quality above "portability". Give us the proper 24-35/2.8L and we'll combine it with a 50/1.2L.

Unless we expect the competitor to make the first move, like the 14-24/2.8.

Give the 24-70 II a try. It is sharper, than the 24 f1.4 or the 50 f1.2. It is just the sharpest lens I ever had. With this lens, aperture controls only the depth of field, you don't need to stop down for more details. By the way, the Tamron 24-70 VC is almost that good, which is incredible for its price. There is no room for a 24-35...

 

[gnd]

The 24-35/2.8 range is already covered by two lenses. I really can't see adding a third one unless it brings with it something extra. For example, what about a 24-35 f/2.0? Or even faster?

If you need ultimate quality, just get a set of primes.

Three primes to be exact...

We're talking about 24-28-35. Existing line-up is 16-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8. Both of them have weaker performance on the upper or lower ends and are more bulky than compact. I don't mind seeing Canon launch a 8-500mm for the sake of portability, but that's not gonna make me buy it.

Forget about brightness for a while. The way things work is you launch a made-to-measure core model, then you expand on it for the all-rounders. Core model is 24-35. You may launch 8-35 or 24-100 if you want to but the centrepiece is 24-35.

The only marketing problem is that a real good 24-35/L may threaten sales of your primes. On the other hand your sales of 24-35 rise. So, in the end there's profit anyhow.

 

[distant.star]

.
Talk is cheap. Really cheap.

I see people buy tickets for these powerball lotteries, and I ask them what they'll do if they win $100 million or $200 million or whatever number it happens to be.

Never have I had anyone say something like, "I've always wanted a 24-35mm zoom lens for my Canon DSLR, and I think it would be a good seller -- so I'm going to start a company to makes lenses like that." No one has ever told me they wanted to start a company to create anything they may have a fantasy about.

And I'm willing to bet $2 right now that the OP would not produce such a lens (even a contracted one-off) if he were handed $100 million on a Monday morning.

Talk is cheap. And nothing personal, but sometimes it's also silly.

 

[mrsfotografie]

The 24-35 exists, but it is called a prime and requires just a little bit of foot zooming (28mm).

Okay, let's settle this for once and for all: "there is no such thing as 'foot zooming'! A 28mm will never ever give you a 24mm lens field of view how ever much you walk backwards! Just as you don't get a 35mm out of your 28mm because you 'zoom walk' forwards a bit! I challenge all knowledgeable CR forum folks to put this myth finally to an end!!

FOV, yes, perspective, no. I agree. Still, the added complexities of a zoom do not make sense over a prime that sits in the middle of the range.

 

[tron]

The 24-35/2.8 range is already covered by two lenses. I really can't see adding a third one unless it brings with it something extra. For example, what about a 24-35 f/2.0? Or even faster?

If you need ultimate quality, just get a set of primes.

+1 Plus,24-70 f/2.8L is a superset with very good IQ. So it would be silly to get a 24-35 instead.

 

[Dylan777]

The 24-35 exists, but it is called a prime and requires just a little bit of foot zooming (28mm).

+1

24-35 is too close for a zoom imho.

+2

In that case, I rather take prime for faster, more shallow DOF, smaller and lighter.

 

[rs]

Any zoom will suffer from the limitations you listed compared to a prime. In your opinion, how bad exactly is the 24-70 II to warrant a new zoom to cover a subset of that range for improvements?

My take on the 24-70 II is it's so close to perfection, that it seriously makes you wonder why you should bother with primes in that range. Yes, a small handful are faster (with a narrower DoF), may have less vignetting in the corners when stopped down to f2.8, and can provide more transmission. But make another f2.8 zoom, and no matter how perfect it is, its unlikely to better any of that small selection of primes on those areas listed, and in overall image quality, there's not much room for improvement over the 24-70 II.

For such a small zoom range, especially one covered by a near perfect lens already, why bother making it? How big is the market?

If you're talking about a range not covered by any near perfect zooms yet, then yes, its quite likely to be worthwhile. A theoretically perfect 16-24/2.8? Same sort of zoom range (about a 1.5x zoom) as your mentioning. However, it's still a bit short for most peoples taste - after all, if you've got all the expense, size and weight of a zoom instead of a prime, it'd be nice to not have to guess which end of the zoom its at when you hold the camera to your eye.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

There are a huge number of possible zoom ranges, and we see many posts for someone's idea of what they think would be a useful tool.

Since millions of dollars are spent developing a new lens, with tooling, inventory of parts and completed lenses, it needs to either be a big seller or have a big price. Since one like this might sell only a handful of copies, the price would be 100K dollars or more.

Regardless of the numbers, a lens must be something that will sell in large numbers or its just not practical for Canon to produce.

That's where third party makers like Samyang come in. They can do it cheaply by making it fully manual, using cheap components, and cutting corners on QC. This is what makes their lenses throw-away items, once they break, just buy another. For those who don't give a lens hard use, that can be a good thing.

 

[illogict]

Never have I had anyone say something like, "I've always wanted a 24-35mm zoom lens for my Canon DSLR, and I think it would be a good seller -- so I'm going to start a company to makes lenses like that." No one has ever told me they wanted to start a company to create anything they may have a fantasy about.

And I'm willing to bet $2 right now that the OP would not produce such a lens (even a contracted one-off) if he were handed $100 million on a Monday morning.

Talk is cheap. And nothing personal, but sometimes it's also silly.

Maybe most people don’t, but some do.
I don’t play, but I was given anything North of 100000€, I would put a part (like 5-10%) aside for me, and use the remainder to create new products I’ve been dreaming about for a long time.
I think it may depend on the background: I’ve always wanted to create products and dream of things that could be useful, at least for me. That’s what draw me to engineering.

 

[George D.]

http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/06/sigma-announces-the-24-35mm-f2-dg-hsm-art/

Sigma was listening!

 

[mrsfotografie]

http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/06/sigma-announces-the-24-35mm-f2-dg-hsm-art/

Sigma was listening!

Yes and it looks like a monster for what it does. I'd rather stick to a prime like I've said before.