Lots of New Lenses Coming in 2014 [CR2]

[TrabimanUK]

I predict a 1400mm f5.6 IS to replace the legendary 1200mm. Of course, a realistic price would be circa $200K, but it would be so cool and a definite drool over lens. And if you can afford that, you can afford the staff to carry it for you

 

[Albi86]

BTW, why hasn't anyone considered some of those 8 lenses might be for cinema?

+1

And also EF-S and EF-M...

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

They have a very good value for money 85mm 1.8 and a superb 85 1.2L II that most probably focus much better than Sigma...

I keep hearing the 85mm f/1.2L II focuses so slowly... ;-)

The 85 1.2L II focusing keeps coming back as a problem. It is clearly a love or hate lens. I am in the love category. I can only say that when you learn how to use it and you don't shoot F-1 cars coming right at you, it is a phenomenal lens. But if they updated it with same IQ, added IS and a faster (regular USM) focusing mechanism, I'd probably buy it.

Well, if I had the money & guts to work as a photographer, I would buy it to shoot portraits, and use a tripod.

My point was Canon might have benefit from upgrading one or both lenses, e.g. to sell you an improved f/1.2.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

BTW, why hasn't anyone considered some of those 8 lenses might be for cinema?

+1

And also EF-S and EF-M...

I've listed EF-S lenses, e.g. EF-S 18-200mm IS STM.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

They have a very good value for money 85mm 1.8 and a superb 85 1.2L II that most probably focus much better than Sigma...

I keep hearing the 85mm f/1.2L II focuses so slowly... ;-)

It's slow to move from MFD to infinity...so if it hunts it's pretty laborious. But minor AF adjustments are quite quick and repsonsive. It acn certainly handle AI Servo movement. It's slower than most L lenses, although not much slower than the 50mm f1.2 L which never seems to get critised for it's slow AF. What it looses in speed it gains in accuracy. It's certainly more accurate than the Sigma. I would prize AF accuracy over AF speed any day.
I tend to find the 35mm f1.4 L less accurate but fast AF in low light.

 

[Woody]

BTW, why hasn't anyone considered some of those 8 lenses might be for cinema?

And also EF-S and EF-M...

In an interview with CEO Imaging of Canon, he says:

"The concept of the EOS M is to make an interchangeable lens camera as small as possible while retaining the quality we would expect from an EOS product. It must be able to support a wide range of lenses - without that support, there's no point making it. Looking at the data, we're not seeing the EOS-M users making use of a variety of lenses. So one of the challenges is to roll-out a lineup of attractive lenses - that is our response to encourage people to use them"

- http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0336328811/cp-2013-interview-with-canons-masaya-maeda?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_1

Will be rather sad if Canon does not roll out more EF lenses....

 

[Albi86]

What I meant is to sober up people who assumed they would all be L lenses

 

[Hannes]

Would there be a market for a 135/1.4 IS? Basically a shorter 200/2 with similar dimensions and price. I think there could be for indoor sports and for the densest bokeh ever seen

 

[NWPhil]

everyone has a wish list :, so has Canon...
taking clues from what has received rebates,due to an update, rumours,showing in wish lists, etc...

- TSE 45mm
- TSE 90mm
- 35mm 1.4
- 50mm with IS (maybe 1.4)
- 100-400mm
- 14-24mm (one can only wish)
... cine lens, EF-s lens, M or/and pancake lens, and a long telephoto

darn, I am already above 8

 

[Eldar]

Even though my hopes are for some new L-series lenses, I haven´t seen many expectations for an upgrade to the 18-200. That gives a focal length no phone or simple p&s can compete with. But the current Canon lens is pretty rotten. My wife likes this lens a lot, despite its deficiencies, but would be very happy to see an improved version.

 

[chromophore]

They have a very good value for money 85mm 1.8 and a superb 85 1.2L II that most probably focus much better than Sigma...

I keep hearing the 85mm f/1.2L II focuses so slowly... ;-)

It's slow to move from MFD to infinity...so if it hunts it's pretty laborious. But minor AF adjustments are quite quick and repsonsive. It acn certainly handle AI Servo movement. It's slower than most L lenses, although not much slower than the 50mm f1.2 L which never seems to get critised for it's slow AF. What it looses in speed it gains in accuracy. It's certainly more accurate than the Sigma. I would prize AF accuracy over AF speed any day.
I tend to find the 35mm f1.4 L less accurate but fast AF in low light.

Also consider that AF speed is also a function of the body the lens is mounted to. If you're using an 85L on a 5D or 5DII, these older AF systems won't be as fast to acquire focus, and the USM won't be driven as quickly as on a 1DX or even a 1DsIII. So, when different people report different experiences with the 85L, it may be partly due to the body they're using.

 

[messus]

Now there are other lenses, but these are the most crucial IMO: (I have / or have had, all these lenses)

Canon EF 14 2.8 L II (2007) has bad IQ, lot's of CA/coma in the corners, beaten well by the Zoom lens 14-24 2.8 Nikon, as well as the Samyang 14mm.
Canon EF 16-35 2.8 L II (2007) has bad IQ,, lot's of CA/coma and soft in the corners. It has it's strengths in weight and portability but need an IQ upgrade.
Canon EF 24 1.4 L II (2008) has REALLY BAD IQ!! CA and so much coma in the corners that it basically useless in low lit sutations wide open. Beaten well by Samyang 24 1.4! Wake up Canon!!
Canon EF 35 1.4 L II (1998) has bad IQ, lot's of CA/coma/soft in the corners. An old lens well beaten by Samyang 35 1.4 and Sigma 35 1.4, needs an upgrade, but IMO 24 1.4 is more important to prioritize!
Canon EF 50 1.8 II, (1990), the oldest 50mm is the best 50mm Canon has. Corner sharpness is bad, but still beets all other 50mm from Canon, still this lens suffers from CA and is beaten well by the Nikon 50 1.8 and Sigma 50 1.4.
Canon EF 50 1.4 (1993) is suffering from severe CA wide open, well beaten by the Nikon 50 1.8 / Sigma 50 1.4.

Canon need to pull their finger out of wherever they are currently (the Cinema division) and respect and prioritize the DSLR customers which have put Canon where they are.

Have you even tried these lenses or are you chart watching? Your comments are extream and very irritating to those of us who actually use these items in a professional guise....which the L lenses were created. They weren't designed for web trolls who claim knowledge, but their experiance seems to come from looking at web reviews. I use a 35mm f1.4 L, 24mm f1.4 II L and 16-35IIL day in day out professionally and have for many years. If you think those lenses are junk because of a few minor aberations...then you really need to get a grip. No lens is perfect, end of subject. All of the lenses above, I use wide open and I have produced great photos which sell and sell. A fast prime shot a f1.2 or f1.4 is a remarkable thing and a lens which is delivered to the customer with pro build, AF and great optics for around £1200 is quite remarkable. These lenses are astonishing and can produce amazing photographs in the right hands. If you pass over these gems because of some crazy elitest attitude...it really is your loss....but please don't come on here and spout your views as verbatim...as you will be challenged!
Consider this, most of the best photographs ever taken were taken on quite lowly kit...Steve McCurry, Cartier Bresson...to name a few. Perhapse we should be more critical of our photographs than our lenses? I suspaect that 99% of modern lenses and cameras out perform their users.

Can you read?? I wrote that I have or have had all the mentioned lenses.

Frankly I find your comment quite rude!

I have spent the last 10 years as a professional nature/landscape/astro-photographer, and I have countless hours out in the dark in the cold, waiting for the right moment light and moment. I produce HQ quality photos for print/sale and 4K+ timelapse and film footage for professional productions. I spent thousands-of-thousand-of-thousands of dollars on Canon. Currently I have the 1DX, the 5D3 and 2 x 5D2, 4 x T3. - And I find it totally unacceptable to come home after a long and tiresome trip out in the cold, to find out that the corners of those photos are soft and suffering from CA/Coma, or that the stars in a dark nightsky looks like bananas, which are impossible to recover! - TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!!

It is disrespectful of Canon to their DSLR customers, to produce the 1DX and the 5D3 and not provide any decent wide angle lens to go along with it! Currently I shoot with the Nikon 14-24 (with adapter) and the Samyang 14, since they are WAY WAY better than anything Canon has to offer. Not to mention that I can get almost 2 x Nikon 14-24 for the price of 1 x Canon EF 14mm 2.8 L II. Canon are sucking the blood out of you!

I am sorry if I hurt your Canon-feelings, but what I say is true! And Canon knows it! (If not Canon need to start check out the pictures online, user experiences, reviews, and the growing number of people using the Nikon 14-24 on their Canon bodies)

And yes I read reviews, and yes I do pixel-peep. I am a CPS platinum memeber, and after having committed the way I have to Canon, I expect nothing but respect and top- notch quality back in return. The least Canon could do is to MATCH the competition.

You should never, NEVER, let brand loyalty blind you, or prevent you from critizizing. I mostly love my Canon bodies, and my Canon Tele-lenses are superb (EF 600 2.8 L IS, EF 300 2.8 L IS USM II, EF 70-200 2.8 L IS USM II), but Canon are seriously lagging behind the competition in the wide angle department!

If you have been payin attention you know that Canon have prioritized the Cinema production line, with lenses, neglecting us DSLR users who have been buying their new full frame bodies (wide angle lenses).

 

[Eldar]

Now there are other lenses, but these are the most crucial IMO: (I have / or have had, all these lenses)

Canon EF 14 2.8 L II (2007) has bad IQ, lot's of CA/coma in the corners, beaten well by the Zoom lens 14-24 2.8 Nikon, as well as the Samyang 14mm.
Canon EF 16-35 2.8 L II (2007) has bad IQ,, lot's of CA/coma and soft in the corners. It has it's strengths in weight and portability but need an IQ upgrade.
Canon EF 24 1.4 L II (2008) has REALLY BAD IQ!! CA and so much coma in the corners that it basically useless in low lit sutations wide open. Beaten well by Samyang 24 1.4! Wake up Canon!!
Canon EF 35 1.4 L II (1998) has bad IQ, lot's of CA/coma/soft in the corners. An old lens well beaten by Samyang 35 1.4 and Sigma 35 1.4, needs an upgrade, but IMO 24 1.4 is more important to prioritize!
Canon EF 50 1.8 II, (1990), the oldest 50mm is the best 50mm Canon has. Corner sharpness is bad, but still beets all other 50mm from Canon, still this lens suffers from CA and is beaten well by the Nikon 50 1.8 and Sigma 50 1.4.
Canon EF 50 1.4 (1993) is suffering from severe CA wide open, well beaten by the Nikon 50 1.8 / Sigma 50 1.4.

Canon need to pull their finger out of wherever they are currently (the Cinema division) and respect and prioritize the DSLR customers which have put Canon where they are.

Have you even tried these lenses or are you chart watching? Your comments are extream and very irritating to those of us who actually use these items in a professional guise....which the L lenses were created. They weren't designed for web trolls who claim knowledge, but their experiance seems to come from looking at web reviews. I use a 35mm f1.4 L, 24mm f1.4 II L and 16-35IIL day in day out professionally and have for many years. If you think those lenses are junk because of a few minor aberations...then you really need to get a grip. No lens is perfect, end of subject. All of the lenses above, I use wide open and I have produced great photos which sell and sell. A fast prime shot a f1.2 or f1.4 is a remarkable thing and a lens which is delivered to the customer with pro build, AF and great optics for around £1200 is quite remarkable. These lenses are astonishing and can produce amazing photographs in the right hands. If you pass over these gems because of some crazy elitest attitude...it really is your loss....but please don't come on here and spout your views as verbatim...as you will be challenged!
Consider this, most of the best photographs ever taken were taken on quite lowly kit...Steve McCurry, Cartier Bresson...to name a few. Perhapse we should be more critical of our photographs than our lenses? I suspaect that 99% of modern lenses and cameras out perform their users.

Can you read?? I wrote that I have or have had all the mentioned lenses.

Frankly I find your comment quite rude!

I have spent the last 10 years as a professional nature/landscape/astro-photographer, and I have countless hours out in the dark in the cold, waiting for the right moment light and moment. I produce HQ quality photos for print/sale and 4K+ timelapse and film footage for professional productions. I spent thousands-of-thousand-of-thousands of dollars on Canon. Currently I have the 1DX, the 5D3 and 2 x 5D2, 4 x T3. - And I find it totally unacceptable to come home after a long and tiresome trip out in the cold, to find out that the corners of those photos are soft and suffering from CA/Coma, or that the stars in a dark nightsky looks like bananas, which are impossible to recover! - TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!!

It is disrespectful of Canon to their DSLR customers, to produce the 1DX and the 5D3 and not provide any decent wide angle lens to go along with it! Currently I shoot with the Nikon 14-24 (with adapter) and the Samyang 14, since they are WAY WAY better than anything Canon has to offer. Not to mention that I can get almost 2 x Nikon 14-24 for the price of 1 x Canon EF 14mm 2.8 L II. Canon are sucking the blood out of you!

I am sorry if I hurt your Canon-feelings, but what I say is true! And Canon knows it! (If not Canon need to start check out the pictures online, user experiences, reviews, and the growing number of people using the Nikon 14-24 on their Canon bodies)

And yes I read reviews, and yes I do pixel-peep. I am a CPS platinum memeber, and after having committed the way I have to Canon, I expect nothing but respect and top- notch quality back in return. The least Canon could do is to MATCH the competition.

You should never, NEVER, let brand loyalty blind you, or prevent you from critizizing. I mostly love my Canon bodies, and my Canon Tele-lenses are superb (EF 600 2.8 L IS, EF 300 2.8 L IS USM II, EF 70-200 2.8 L IS USM II), but Canon are seriously lagging behind the competition in the wide angle department!

If you have been payin attention you know that Canon have prioritized the Cinema production line, with lenses, neglecting us DSLR users who have been buying their new full frame bodies (wide angle lenses).

It seems you really need to find a different supplier, at least for wide angel!

 

[J.R.]

Now there are other lenses, but these are the most crucial IMO: (I have / or have had, all these lenses)

Canon EF 14 2.8 L II (2007) has bad IQ, lot's of CA/coma in the corners, beaten well by the Zoom lens 14-24 2.8 Nikon, as well as the Samyang 14mm.
Canon EF 16-35 2.8 L II (2007) has bad IQ,, lot's of CA/coma and soft in the corners. It has it's strengths in weight and portability but need an IQ upgrade.
Canon EF 24 1.4 L II (2008) has REALLY BAD IQ!! CA and so much coma in the corners that it basically useless in low lit sutations wide open. Beaten well by Samyang 24 1.4! Wake up Canon!!
Canon EF 35 1.4 L II (1998) has bad IQ, lot's of CA/coma/soft in the corners. An old lens well beaten by Samyang 35 1.4 and Sigma 35 1.4, needs an upgrade, but IMO 24 1.4 is more important to prioritize!
Canon EF 50 1.8 II, (1990), the oldest 50mm is the best 50mm Canon has. Corner sharpness is bad, but still beets all other 50mm from Canon, still this lens suffers from CA and is beaten well by the Nikon 50 1.8 and Sigma 50 1.4.
Canon EF 50 1.4 (1993) is suffering from severe CA wide open, well beaten by the Nikon 50 1.8 / Sigma 50 1.4.

Canon need to pull their finger out of wherever they are currently (the Cinema division) and respect and prioritize the DSLR customers which have put Canon where they are.

Have you even tried these lenses or are you chart watching? Your comments are extream and very irritating to those of us who actually use these items in a professional guise....which the L lenses were created. They weren't designed for web trolls who claim knowledge, but their experiance seems to come from looking at web reviews. I use a 35mm f1.4 L, 24mm f1.4 II L and 16-35IIL day in day out professionally and have for many years. If you think those lenses are junk because of a few minor aberations...then you really need to get a grip. No lens is perfect, end of subject. All of the lenses above, I use wide open and I have produced great photos which sell and sell. A fast prime shot a f1.2 or f1.4 is a remarkable thing and a lens which is delivered to the customer with pro build, AF and great optics for around £1200 is quite remarkable. These lenses are astonishing and can produce amazing photographs in the right hands. If you pass over these gems because of some crazy elitest attitude...it really is your loss....but please don't come on here and spout your views as verbatim...as you will be challenged!
Consider this, most of the best photographs ever taken were taken on quite lowly kit...Steve McCurry, Cartier Bresson...to name a few. Perhapse we should be more critical of our photographs than our lenses? I suspaect that 99% of modern lenses and cameras out perform their users.

Can you read?? I wrote that I have or have had all the mentioned lenses.

Frankly I find your comment quite rude!

I have spent the last 10 years as a professional nature/landscape/astro-photographer, and I have countless hours out in the dark in the cold, waiting for the right moment light and moment. I produce HQ quality photos for print/sale and 4K+ timelapse and film footage for professional productions. I spent thousands-of-thousand-of-thousands of dollars on Canon. Currently I have the 1DX, the 5D3 and 2 x 5D2, 4 x T3. - And I find it totally unacceptable to come home after a long and tiresome trip out in the cold, to find out that the corners of those photos are soft and suffering from CA/Coma, or that the stars in a dark nightsky looks like bananas, which are impossible to recover! - TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!!

It is disrespectful of Canon to their DSLR customers, to produce the 1DX and the 5D3 and not provide any decent wide angle lens to go along with it! Currently I shoot with the Nikon 14-24 (with adapter) and the Samyang 14, since they are WAY WAY better than anything Canon has to offer. Not to mention that I can get almost 2 x Nikon 14-24 for the price of 1 x Canon EF 14mm 2.8 L II. Canon are sucking the blood out of you!

I am sorry if I hurt your Canon-feelings, but what I say is true! And Canon knows it! (If not Canon need to start check out the pictures online, user experiences, reviews, and the growing number of people using the Nikon 14-24 on their Canon bodies)

And yes I read reviews, and yes I do pixel-peep. I am a CPS platinum memeber, and after having committed the way I have to Canon, I expect nothing but respect and top- notch quality back in return. The least Canon could do is to MATCH the competition.

You should never, NEVER, let brand loyalty blind you, or prevent you from critizizing. I mostly love my Canon bodies, and my Canon Tele-lenses are superb (EF 600 2.8 L IS, EF 300 2.8 L IS USM II, EF 70-200 2.8 L IS USM II), but Canon are seriously lagging behind the competition in the wide angle department!

If you have been payin attention you know that Canon have prioritized the Cinema production line, with lenses, neglecting us DSLR users who have been buying their new full frame bodies (wide angle lenses).

It seems you really need to find a different supplier, at least for wide angel!

Exactly ... why not take up the D800 and the 14-24 from Nikon for your WA work? Why suffer if you feel so strongly about it?

 

[RLPhoto]

Now there are other lenses, but these are the most crucial IMO: (I have / or have had, all these lenses)

Canon EF 14 2.8 L II (2007) has bad IQ, lot's of CA/coma in the corners, beaten well by the Zoom lens 14-24 2.8 Nikon, as well as the Samyang 14mm.
Canon EF 16-35 2.8 L II (2007) has bad IQ,, lot's of CA/coma and soft in the corners. It has it's strengths in weight and portability but need an IQ upgrade.
Canon EF 24 1.4 L II (2008) has REALLY BAD IQ!! CA and so much coma in the corners that it basically useless in low lit sutations wide open. Beaten well by Samyang 24 1.4! Wake up Canon!!
Canon EF 35 1.4 L II (1998) has bad IQ, lot's of CA/coma/soft in the corners. An old lens well beaten by Samyang 35 1.4 and Sigma 35 1.4, needs an upgrade, but IMO 24 1.4 is more important to prioritize!
Canon EF 50 1.8 II, (1990), the oldest 50mm is the best 50mm Canon has. Corner sharpness is bad, but still beets all other 50mm from Canon, still this lens suffers from CA and is beaten well by the Nikon 50 1.8 and Sigma 50 1.4.
Canon EF 50 1.4 (1993) is suffering from severe CA wide open, well beaten by the Nikon 50 1.8 / Sigma 50 1.4.

Canon need to pull their finger out of wherever they are currently (the Cinema division) and respect and prioritize the DSLR customers which have put Canon where they are.

Have you even tried these lenses or are you chart watching? Your comments are extream and very irritating to those of us who actually use these items in a professional guise....which the L lenses were created. They weren't designed for web trolls who claim knowledge, but their experiance seems to come from looking at web reviews. I use a 35mm f1.4 L, 24mm f1.4 II L and 16-35IIL day in day out professionally and have for many years. If you think those lenses are junk because of a few minor aberations...then you really need to get a grip. No lens is perfect, end of subject. All of the lenses above, I use wide open and I have produced great photos which sell and sell. A fast prime shot a f1.2 or f1.4 is a remarkable thing and a lens which is delivered to the customer with pro build, AF and great optics for around £1200 is quite remarkable. These lenses are astonishing and can produce amazing photographs in the right hands. If you pass over these gems because of some crazy elitest attitude...it really is your loss....but please don't come on here and spout your views as verbatim...as you will be challenged!
Consider this, most of the best photographs ever taken were taken on quite lowly kit...Steve McCurry, Cartier Bresson...to name a few. Perhapse we should be more critical of our photographs than our lenses? I suspaect that 99% of modern lenses and cameras out perform their users.

Can you read?? I wrote that I have or have had all the mentioned lenses.

Frankly I find your comment quite rude!

I have spent the last 10 years as a professional nature/landscape/astro-photographer, and I have countless hours out in the dark in the cold, waiting for the right moment light and moment. I produce HQ quality photos for print/sale and 4K+ timelapse and film footage for professional productions. I spent thousands-of-thousand-of-thousands of dollars on Canon. Currently I have the 1DX, the 5D3 and 2 x 5D2, 4 x T3. - And I find it totally unacceptable to come home after a long and tiresome trip out in the cold, to find out that the corners of those photos are soft and suffering from CA/Coma, or that the stars in a dark nightsky looks like bananas, which are impossible to recover! - TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!!

It is disrespectful of Canon to their DSLR customers, to produce the 1DX and the 5D3 and not provide any decent wide angle lens to go along with it! Currently I shoot with the Nikon 14-24 (with adapter) and the Samyang 14, since they are WAY WAY better than anything Canon has to offer. Not to mention that I can get almost 2 x Nikon 14-24 for the price of 1 x Canon EF 14mm 2.8 L II. Canon are sucking the blood out of you!

I am sorry if I hurt your Canon-feelings, but what I say is true! And Canon knows it! (If not Canon need to start check out the pictures online, user experiences, reviews, and the growing number of people using the Nikon 14-24 on their Canon bodies)

And yes I read reviews, and yes I do pixel-peep. I am a CPS platinum memeber, and after having committed the way I have to Canon, I expect nothing but respect and top- notch quality back in return. The least Canon could do is to MATCH the competition.

You should never, NEVER, let brand loyalty blind you, or prevent you from critizizing. I mostly love my Canon bodies, and my Canon Tele-lenses are superb (EF 600 2.8 L IS, EF 300 2.8 L IS USM II, EF 70-200 2.8 L IS USM II), but Canon are seriously lagging behind the competition in the wide angle department!

If you have been payin attention you know that Canon have prioritized the Cinema production line, with lenses, neglecting us DSLR users who have been buying their new full frame bodies (wide angle lenses).

It seems you really need to find a different supplier, at least for wide angel!

Exactly ... why not take up the D800 and the 14-24 from Nikon for your WA work? Why suffer if you feel so strongly about it?

Yeah. What lunatic continues to buy gear they hate?

 

[Woody]

Yeah. What lunatic continues to buy gear they hate?

A lying troll?

 

[verysimplejason]

Pancakes please!!!!

 

[AvTvM]

Yeah. What lunatic continues to buy gear they hate?

you have not read, what he wrote. He is using multiple Canon bodies for stills and video. Out in the wild.
The last thing I'd want out there is a body from another manufaturer, with different user interface, different sensor characteristics, different batteries, etc. ... how about you?

 

[J.R.]

Yeah. What lunatic continues to buy gear they hate?

you have not read, what he wrote. He is using multiple Canon bodies for stills and video. Out in the wild.
The last thing I'd want out there is a body from another manufaturer, with different user interface, different sensor characteristics, different batteries, etc. ... how about you?

If my livelihood depended on it, I would.

I might still do that in part (even though I do this for a hobby). I did not like the WA lenses of Canon so I might just pick up a used D800 (sell quite cheap these days) and the 14-24.

 

[tron]

Yeah. What lunatic continues to buy gear they hate?

you have not read, what he wrote. He is using multiple Canon bodies for stills and video. Out in the wild.
The last thing I'd want out there is a body from another manufaturer, with different user interface, different sensor characteristics, different batteries, etc. ... how about you?

If my livelihood depended on it, I would.

I might still do that in part (even though I do this for a hobby). I did not like the WA lenses of Canon so I might just pick up a used D800 (sell quite cheap these days) and the 14-24.

There is some truth in the WA part (I am thinking mainly FF corner IQ and coma)

But for landscapes and architecture my TS-E 17mm and for landscapes and astrophotography my Zeiss 21mm 2.8 cover these limitations.