More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]

[Mitch.Conner]

Who has a rectilinear FF lens that is even f/4 when wider than 14mm? Who has a rectilinear FF lens wider than 12mm?

Yes, we get it. This one literally goes to 11. That alone isn't necessarily going to cut it for everybody... especially at $3k.

Your point being what? That some people could continue whining about "there's no lens that cuts it for us today, amd that one wouldn't cut it for us either if & when released"? Really?

Huh? I wasn't saying anything even close to that.

Where did I accuse anybody of "whining"? Where did I say anything close to your interpretation?

All I was saying was that the fact that it is wider than Nikon's 14-24 full frame f/2.8, and the fact that Nikon's 12-24 crop isn't full frame as this lens is, on its own, isn't going to be enough of a justification for some to pay $3k for an f/4 zoom... myself included.

(Also, I had been dying to get the This Is Spinal Tap reference in the thread because how often do you get an opportunity like that?)

I really don't see where your interpretation came from.

 

[ramonjsantiago]

Please let it not be another stupid fisheye zoom. It would be a really unique lens and worth $3k if it weren't.

 

[Woody]

Where is the 50 f/1.4 replacement?

 

[erjlphoto]

Wonder if the delay in the 100-400 is that Canon is having a hard time making a better one?

 

[Random Orbits]

I wouldn't give it a second glance at f/4. At f/2.8, it would work great at low light events wide open, as I'd be able to zoom to 24mm for small groups, creative portraits, details...And it would work great wide for small to medium tents to bring in lots of environment, energy.

But I would want the f/2.8 ability to reduce ISO a stop and get faster shutter speeds.

It would be a shame if Canon couldn't come up with a great fast UWA, suggesting that the company's innovative days are tapped out, or they're having internal battles about shrugging of the professional dSLR market.

And who has a FF lens that is 11 or 12mm at f/2.8?

Yes, we get it. This one literally goes to 11. That alone isn't necessarily going to cut it for everybody... especially at $3k.

Nope, it isn't going to be for everyone, but what other comparable choices are there?

 

[Mitch.Conner]

I wouldn't give it a second glance at f/4. At f/2.8, it would work great at low light events wide open, as I'd be able to zoom to 24mm for small groups, creative portraits, details...And it would work great wide for small to medium tents to bring in lots of environment, energy.

But I would want the f/2.8 ability to reduce ISO a stop and get faster shutter speeds.

It would be a shame if Canon couldn't come up with a great fast UWA, suggesting that the company's innovative days are tapped out, or they're having internal battles about shrugging of the professional dSLR market.

And who has a FF lens that is 11 or 12mm at f/2.8?

Yes, we get it. This one literally goes to 11. That alone isn't necessarily going to cut it for everybody... especially at $3k.

Nope, it isn't going to be for everyone, but what other comparable choices are there?

Well, I guess we'll have to wait to see what the image quality is to really know. However, if you really need 11-13mm on FF, then I guess none. :-\

My plan is to just wait and 1) See what this lens turns out to be... and 2) Wait and see if that rumor for an f/2.8 UWA Zoom will pan out. It was CR2 too.

 

[deleteme]

$3000 is fine IMO.
My 17TS-E was ~$2500 and I feel it was worth every penny.

For me it is a business decision. I can make good money with this lens.
I presume it will be an excellent performer given the recent track record of Canon's lenses. As for distortion LR will have a profile.
F4 is no problem at all. Most of my work is on a tripod and even if it is handheld the WA will mask a LOT of motion.

And seriously, how many people here regularly use lenses wider than 16mm? If you do you know that the AOVs we are discussing with this lens go way beyond the experience of most. For many the AOV will be the main attraction. Sharpness and distortion will be ignored by the average viewer.

 

[terminatahx]

an 11-24 f4L would be a huge hit, but not at 3 grand. I just can't see them pricing that higher than the current 14mm 2.8L II. If the 11-24 was 2.8, I could see an original price north of 2k, but not f4.

 

[infared]

Well...let's see...Nikon has a WELL REVIEWED 14-24mm f/2.8 @ ~$2000...I would consider that if Canon could offer the same...Even if it was somewhat more expensive and had the same quality. ...This rumored lens is just "out of the box" for me ..both the extreme wide angle (which becomes stupid) and the cost......but hey..like I said I am happy with the new 16-35mm f/4 IS is a nice sweet spot for me...
I bet a LOT of people feel this way...but lets see if this rumored lens materializes, no?

 

[Dylan777]

Well...let's see...Nikon has a WELL REVIEWED 14-24mm f/2.8 @ ~$2000...I would consider that if Canon could offer the same...Even if it was somewhat more expensive and had the same quality. ...This rumored lens is just "out of the box" for me ..both the extreme wide angle (which becomes stupid) and the cost......but hey..like I said I am happy with the new 16-35mm f/4 IS is a nice sweet spot for me...
I bet a LOT of people feel this way...but lets see if this rumored lens materializes, no?

I really like the IS on new 16-35. Night time landscape gets little more interesting for me. I was able to shoot @ 1/10 handheld.

 

[davidcl0nel]

I don't know if lee could create a specialized filter holder for a Canon 11-24mm...

A don't think so. The lens seems to be a similar front element than the 17 TS-E (this also has about ~11mm range, but you can select it by shifting of course). With the Lee filter holder you can shift for about the half range, about 6mm. If you shift more, the corners get black. If you would see the whole circle, it should be a black ring of course.
So maybe you can use a similar filter holder from ~14mm to 24mm, but not for 11.

 

[Bernd Stuht]

Focal´s below 16mm are hefty, i would have to ask myself do i need an 11-24 ?

f4 is fast enought for me, the assumed Size of an 2.8 @ 11mm would be big&heavy

hmmm... no Standard Filter, still have an 17-40 f4 L - 16-35 f4 L IS is really great .

The Future will show us what was the right Choice.

Bernd

 

[dufflover]

In the end Canon (like anyone else) will charge what they think people will pay and sadly I think it will still sell "enough" at that price. It'll be a good lens (anything has to be at that price) and I think the usual reasons of demand, rich folks and system locking will make enough people shell out for one.

 

[Eldar]

The super-UWA would have been on top of my list a few months back. Before that I would also have a 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 high on that list. But since I got the Zeiss 15mm f2.8, with the benefit of a flat front lens and phenomenal IQ, it is less interesting. My interest in a 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 dropped due to the two Otus lenses. If I add the 17mm TS-E and the Zeiss 21mm, the UWA becomes even less interesting. But I´m sure the temptation to get one if/when it´s released will be too great.

The only lenses I would really like to see from Canon now is a new 35/1.4L IS and maybe also a 100-400mm (my wife wants one). Apart from that I think I am pretty well covered.

 

[ewg963]

:

Auch, that is a steep price. I allready thought my 8-15mm was expensive.

+1000000000000000000 Ditto

 

[ewg963]

$3000?!?!?!?!? That's triple what overpriced Nikon charges for its popular 12-24 f/4!!!!!!!!!!

+10000000000000000000000000000

 

[bardamu]

Apart from that I think I am pretty well covered.

You have about $65k of gear listed under your post. I should hope you would be well covered ...

But, what the heck, why not aim for 100k ... ?

 

[Sabaki]

Even though this is an UWA, I'm going to make the assumption that it will be a rather unique beast. And if Canon's latest WA forays are anything to go by, I'm assuming it may just be a phenomenal performer too.

If I was responsible for putting an ultra wide together, priorities 1 & 2 would be creating a manageable front element shape and mitigating at least some of the distortion.

If this is just another WA, $3000 is so expensive.

If this turns out to be the best UWA of any DSLR brand...well

 

[Khalai]

Even though this is an UWA, I'm going to make the assumption that it will be a rather unique beast. And if Canon's latest WA forays are anything to go by, I'm assuming it may just be a phenomenal performer too.

If I was responsible for putting an ultra wide together, priorities 1 & 2 would be creating a manageable front element shape and mitigating at least some of the distortion.

If this is just another WA, $3000 is so expensive.

If this turns out to be the best UWA of any DSLR brand...well

If its performance is on par with 16-35/4L IS or better yet TS-E 17, then it's going to sell like hotcakes (for those, who need such LUWA (ludicrous ultra wide angle) lens. There is only Sigma 12-24 comparable and even here the 1mm can mean a lot. 11mm with rectilinear correction seems almost ridiculous to be honest

 

[Jon_D]

Well, this is typical. People complained that Canon does not have an ultra-super-wide to match or exceed Nikon's. Some even bought Nikon's and mounted it on their Canon cameras. Now a Canon version appears, and people complain about the price. And they complain that it's "only" f/4. Gotta complain about something. If it were f/2.8, they'd complain about the increased size and the weight. And they'd complain about the price even more. And they'd complain that the IQ would have been better if it had been f/4. Quality costs. Unless you *know* what goes into designing and building the lens, you *don't* know what it should cost. Besides, Canon offers a full range of wide angle options, starting with the EF-S 10-18mm for just $300 — there's something for nearly every budget. I rarely need anything wider than 24mm, so this lens has little interest for me. But if I ever needed something like this with really great IQ, it's nice to know it will be available.

Who asked for a f4 lens?
People asked for a 14-24mm f2.8 that matches Nikons.

Now we get a f4 that cost more then Nikons 14-24mm.

Maybe you don´t see the difference.. i see it.