-
UPDATE
The forum will be moving to a new domain in the near future (canonrumorsforum.com). I have turned off "read-only", but I will only leave the two forum nodes you see active for the time being. I don't know at this time how quickly the change will happen, but that will move at a good pace I am sure. ------------------------------------------------------------
More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Jon_D said:
Right... because the 12-24 is lens for APS-C cameras. Nikon's 14-24 f/2.8 for full frame is 2K. Canon is going to charge a premium for those first adopters, and 11mm is a lot wider than 14. Sigma has a 12-24 zoom, but it's performance is poor in the corners. What other choice do you have for 11-13mm on FF?
Upvote
0
12-24mm was a typo.. fixed that.
2000$ are less then 3000$ that´s what i meant.
11mm is crayz wide yes.
But as you can see in the comments here most would prefer faster glass and a less wide lens. Some even say that most people don´t get wider than 16mm. So imo the 3mm are less important than f2.8. The usefulness for the majority is smaller.
For me 14mm f2.8 would be great at the wide end... when the image quality is right.
Right now im using a EF 14mm f2.8 for night/stars.
2000$ are less then 3000$ that´s what i meant.
11mm is crayz wide yes.
But as you can see in the comments here most would prefer faster glass and a less wide lens. Some even say that most people don´t get wider than 16mm. So imo the 3mm are less important than f2.8. The usefulness for the majority is smaller.
For me 14mm f2.8 would be great at the wide end... when the image quality is right.
Right now im using a EF 14mm f2.8 for night/stars.
Upvote
0
Jon_D said:
In that case, most people will find supplementing a 16-35 with a Samyang 14 to be a much more affordable option, no matter what Canon produces in the range. No matter what Canon produces (14-24 f/2.8 or this 11-24 f/4), it will be expensive than the Samyang option. The 24-70 II started around 2300 and now can be had for less than 1800. This lens won't remain near 3K for long (less than a year), but I doubt it'd fall below 2K if it's IQ is comparable to the 16-34 f/4 IS and 24-70 f/2.8 II. I find a 16-35 to be more useful than a 14-24. It accepts filters easily. If I want wider, then I use the 14 prime, which isn't really that large...
Upvote
0
just out of curiosity, who would want this lens? 11mm on FF is super wide, probably way too wide for many people to ever really find that useful. i guess it would be cool sometimes for events, but even then I don't think people would be using it at the 11mm end all that much. and with the bulb design you can't use filters, so are there many landscape people that would want this?
i'm not shocked by the price, seeing as this is the new Canon trend that's here to stay. also, it's a lens that no one else has or probably will have for a long time. i just think that it's more of a "fun" lens than a useful one, and for $3,000 I don't see too many people jumping for it. however, there always seem to be enough people out there who end up buying this stuff.
i'm not shocked by the price, seeing as this is the new Canon trend that's here to stay. also, it's a lens that no one else has or probably will have for a long time. i just think that it's more of a "fun" lens than a useful one, and for $3,000 I don't see too many people jumping for it. however, there always seem to be enough people out there who end up buying this stuff.
Upvote
0
Jon_D said:
Personally, I'd rather buy 11-24mm f/4 over 14-24mm f/2.8
Now, $3,000 is a *lot* of money for me, and I'm willing to wait a year for it to drop at least $400.
Upvote
0
!
Sweet!
But for economic's sake my Samyang 14mm will probably remain my ultra-wide solution for the foreseeable future.
But for economic's sake my Samyang 14mm will probably remain my ultra-wide solution for the foreseeable future.
Upvote
0
tiger82 said:
I got the impression from the rumor I linked to (page 1) that a fast lens that was slightly wider than the 16-35 was coming. Now I guess that's not going to happen if this lens materializes.
Upvote
0
Best rumour i've read in a while!
I'm in the market for both. Except for the pricetags they'll come with. My 17-40 is mounted appx 80% of the time, with the 24ts for the remainder, except during vacations where the 24 is substituted with a 24-105, or the 70-200. I've always felt the 17-40 is not wide enough. I almost jumped ship when the D800 came out because the dark side also has the 14-24. But i've never got the hang of the Nikon way of things. Up til recently, my only choices with AF was the siggy and the 14mm. I do a lot of walking, so yet another lens to carry isn't something i want, and the siggy is mushy. 11-24 is maybe a little wider than i need, and i can forget filters-huge downer for landscapes, but i'll have a ball when it comes to sports.
So far my longest reach has been the 70-200. I don't use it that much. I'll probably sell it for the new 100-400 for sports, and the little wildlife i want to do.
11-24 + 24-105 + 100-400 has to be a perfect holiday trio. For me. Maybe.
I'm in the market for both. Except for the pricetags they'll come with. My 17-40 is mounted appx 80% of the time, with the 24ts for the remainder, except during vacations where the 24 is substituted with a 24-105, or the 70-200. I've always felt the 17-40 is not wide enough. I almost jumped ship when the D800 came out because the dark side also has the 14-24. But i've never got the hang of the Nikon way of things. Up til recently, my only choices with AF was the siggy and the 14mm. I do a lot of walking, so yet another lens to carry isn't something i want, and the siggy is mushy. 11-24 is maybe a little wider than i need, and i can forget filters-huge downer for landscapes, but i'll have a ball when it comes to sports.
So far my longest reach has been the 70-200. I don't use it that much. I'll probably sell it for the new 100-400 for sports, and the little wildlife i want to do.
11-24 + 24-105 + 100-400 has to be a perfect holiday trio. For me. Maybe.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
jrista said:
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
EDIT: also, the Nikon 14-24 has more distortion at the wide end than the Canon 16-35/2.8 II, and you mentioned the Canon 10-22mm earlier, that lens has less distortion at the wide end than most other UWAs, far less than the 14-24 or 16-35 II.
Upvote
0
I just can't get interested in "zooms" with such a small zoom range (24 / 11 = ~ 2.2). To me, 3x zoom range is the "sweet spot" for sharpness and usability. Significantly less than 3x zoom range becomes a "who cares". YMMV.
With the well-reviewed and apparently popular EF-S 10-18, that is even more the case ... a "zoom" range of only 1.8. Why bother?
My inclination is to use a faster, sharper, FAR LESS EXPENSIVE uwa prime like the Samyang 14mm f2.8 on f.f., and "zoom with my feet" if possible,
Or, use cropping to get the equivalent of 11mm.
Or with static subjects, use the 14mm in portrait mode and stitch together 3+ images to get medium format IQ. I haven't done the math, but my speculation is that such a pano would be pretty close to the FOV of an 11mm FL on f.f. Or not?
With the well-reviewed and apparently popular EF-S 10-18, that is even more the case ... a "zoom" range of only 1.8. Why bother?
My inclination is to use a faster, sharper, FAR LESS EXPENSIVE uwa prime like the Samyang 14mm f2.8 on f.f., and "zoom with my feet" if possible,
Or, use cropping to get the equivalent of 11mm.
Or with static subjects, use the 14mm in portrait mode and stitch together 3+ images to get medium format IQ. I haven't done the math, but my speculation is that such a pano would be pretty close to the FOV of an 11mm FL on f.f. Or not?
Upvote
0
jrista said:
From TDP:
"To cut the chase, I must say that I am very impressed by the lack of strong barrel and pincushion distortion in the 10-22. It is not perfect, but very good for this extreme wide angle focal length range. There is some barrel distortion at 10mm moving gradually to a slight pincushion at 22m. Slight enough distortion for me to be happy with the results."
Upvote
0
jrista said:
jrista said:
There is absolutely no connection between focal length and pincushion, or barrel, distortion.
There is absolutely zero reason to suspect a rumoured lens will display either type any more than it might have excessive CA, >3 stops of vignetting in the corners at f8 or any other types of aberrations.
The 17TS-E when shift stitched has an approximate fov of an 11mm lens yet is pincushion and barrel distortion free, it isn't free of distortion or aberrations, but it certainly doesn't display pincushion distortion.
Upvote
0
Pincushion distortion is the image distortion created by jumping while trying to take a photo because somebody shoved a pin in your butt - making you a pincushion.
You all were wrong. Geez.
You all were wrong. Geez.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
jrista said:
Okay, you know what it means. The pincushion distortion is evident from Photozone's review of the 10-22mm, just look:
Hmmmm. Maybe not. Let's check Cameralabs' test of the 10-22mm @ 10mm. Maybe it's more obvious there.
Nope, I'm not seeing pincushion distortion, wicked or otherwise.
Perhaps DxOMark found something different with the 10-22mm?
I'm sensing a theme here. Which one of the labeled images below most closely approximates the distortion seen by three independent testing sites shown above?
Looking over my images with the 10-22mm at the wide end, I can easily see the barrel distortion shown above (and it's noticeably worse with the 16-35 II at the wide end). I don't see any pincushioning.
Would you care to share an example of your wicked pincushion distortion? Pincushion distortion is inherent to the lens – you know that, of course, because you know what it means (good grief!). I suspect you're not seeing pincushion distortion at all, but rather a different type of distortion not inherent to the lens, but resulting from the way you're using the lens.
Upvote
0
jrista said:
Oh my. Face palm. Another categorical declaration from jrista that turns out to be completely fallacious.
It is called perspective, you have had problems with that before. It isn't just Neuro that doesn't want to call it distortion, it is everybody that has a basic understanding of perspective.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
