More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/05/more-wide-angle-lens-speculation-cr1/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/05/more-wide-angle-lens-speculation-cr1/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>We’re told that there are two wide angle zoom lenses coming from Canon. One we’re told would be an 11-24 f/4, though it wasn’t mentioned whether or not this would be a full frame or APS-C only lens. Though the source did say the lens would be expensive, which leads me to believe it would be full frame compatible. The same source also says a new 16-35 f/4 wide angle with IS is also on tap and would be quite pricey. However, if they perform in the corners, people will pay nearly anything for a great wide angle Canon offering. I do find it a  bit odd that neither of the mentioned lenses are f/2.8, but perhaps that’s coming down the road.</p>
<p>There was another mention of a new Canon 100-400 being priced in the $3000 range also coming.</p>
<p>This info is not coming from known sources, so treat it accordingly. More to come…</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[Loswr]

There was another mention of a new Canon 100-400 being priced in the $3000 range also coming.

The high price bit was tacked on to lend legitimacy to this rumor of the unicorn lens.

 

[TrabimanUK]

11-24? Well there was a rumour of "the widest ever full frame lens" a few months ago. 11mm is wider than Sigma's 12mm, so possibly real, but at fixed f4, out of my price range. I'll stick with my 12-24 Sigma and tweak the pictures in Lightroom.

 

[Antono Refa]

Between the EF-S 10-24mm f/3.5-5.6 and the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6, I don't see where an EF-S 11-24mm f/4 would come in. Maybe if it had IS, STM, or amazing IQ.

An EF 11-24mm f/4, on the other hand, I would buy.

 

[lycan]

I think I'm starting to believe more on this "unknown sources"

 

[tron]

Not even a 16-35mm f/2.8L III lens ?

 

[tron]

There was another mention of a new Canon 100-400 being priced in the $3000 range also coming.

The high price bit was tacked on to lend legitimacy to this rumor of the unicorn lens.

Do you know how expensive are unicorns these days? ;D ;D ;D

 

[Dylan777]

Performs as good as Nik 14-24 or better + IS + screw on filter = I'm in

 

[unfocused]

...the source did say the lens would be expensive...a new 16-35 f/4 wide angle with IS is also on tap and would be quite pricey...a new Canon 100-400 being priced in the $3000 range also coming.

Okay, I've lost interest.

 

[tron]

I believe Canon should introduce a 16-35 f/2.8L III, a 16-35 f/4L IS and a 14-24 f/2.8L. Then we would be OK as far as UWA FF zooms are concerned (before asking for an IS version of 16-35 2.8L with IS that is) ;D ;D ;D

Is that too much to ask ? 8) 8)

P.S OK feel free to add other variations, price ranges, APS-C UWA zoom ranges, etc... After all it is a rumor site

 

[candyman]

I believe Canon should introduce a 16-35 f/2.8L III, a 16-35 f/4L IS and a 14-24 f/2.8L. Then we would be OK as far as UWA FF zooms are concerned (before asking for an IS version of 16-35 2.8L with IS that is) ;D ;D ;D

Is that too much to ask ? 8) 8)

P.S OK feel free to add other variations, price ranges, APS-C UWA zoom ranges, etc... After all it is a rumor site

yes!


And what would be the speculated prices for:
- 16-35 f/2.8 MKIII = ?
- 16-35 f/4 IS = ?
- 14-24 f/2.8 = ?


Who give up the 16-35 f/2.8 MKII for a 16-35 f/4 IS?

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Ultra wide-angle zoom lens, is the only type of lens that I did not like constant aperture. After all, I use my 10-20mm in 10mm only, 99% of the time. :

 

[tron]

I believe Canon should introduce a 16-35 f/2.8L III, a 16-35 f/4L IS and a 14-24 f/2.8L. Then we would be OK as far as UWA FF zooms are concerned (before asking for an IS version of 16-35 2.8L with IS that is) ;D ;D ;D

Is that too much to ask ? 8) 8)

P.S OK feel free to add other variations, price ranges, APS-C UWA zoom ranges, etc... After all it is a rumor site

yes!


And what would be the speculated prices for:
- 16-35 f/2.8 MKIII = ?
- 16-35 f/4 IS = ?
- 14-24 f/2.8 = ?


Who give up the 16-35 f/2.8 MKII for a 16-35 f/4 IS?

- 16-35 f/2.8 MKIII = 2300
- 16-35 f/4 IS = 1500
- 14-24 f/2.8 = 2300

Prices randomly speculated of course. I based them somehow on 24-70 2.8 II to 24-70 4L IS price comparisons and I wanted to create confusion between the 16-35 f/2.8 MKIII and 14-24 f/2.8 models ;D ;D ;D

P.S I do not say I would like these prices, it is just a speculation which is different...

 

[candyman]

I believe Canon should introduce a 16-35 f/2.8L III, a 16-35 f/4L IS and a 14-24 f/2.8L. Then we would be OK as far as UWA FF zooms are concerned (before asking for an IS version of 16-35 2.8L with IS that is) ;D ;D ;D

Is that too much to ask ? 8) 8)

P.S OK feel free to add other variations, price ranges, APS-C UWA zoom ranges, etc... After all it is a rumor site

yes!


And what would be the speculated prices for:
- 16-35 f/2.8 MKIII = ?
- 16-35 f/4 IS = ?
- 14-24 f/2.8 = ?


Who give up the 16-35 f/2.8 MKII for a 16-35 f/4 IS?

- 16-35 f/2.8 MKIII = 2300
- 16-35 f/4 IS = 1500
- 14-24 f/2.8 = 2300

Prices randomly speculated of course. I based them somehow on 24-70 2.8 II to 24-70 4L IS price comparisons and I wanted to create confusion between the 16-35 f/2.8 MKIII and 14-24 f/2.8 models ;D ;D ;D

P.S I do not say I would like these prices, it is just a speculation which is different...

ouch, ouch, ouch....my 16-35 f/2.8 MKII currently costs 1250 euro
Luckely this rumorpost is a CR1 so I have time to save up more money. Tomorrow I will first spent 850 euro on the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART ;D

 

[ewg963]

Performs as good as Nik 14-24 or better + IS + screw on filter = I'm in

+1

 

[Deleted member 20471]

The same source also says a new 16-35 f/4 wide angle with IS is also on tap and would be quite pricey.

This lens is what I have been waiting for, if it is sharp all over... My guess for a price, if it is rumoured to be pricey is around $1500-2000... :'(

 

[ahsanford]

If "quite pricey" is more than ~$1000 then it is too expensive. $1000 is the cost of a 17-40/f4 plus add a bit for IS. If it is getting towards $1300 or more then Canon can shove it where the Sun don't shine.

The 17-40 F/4L, 24-105 F/4L IS, 70-200 F/4L, etc. are in that 'entry level L lens' bucket where you get big upgrades over non-L glass, like better build quality, weather sealing, sharper, quicker focusing, etc. but you don't get best-in-class IQ or the fastest apertures.

For more money, the 16-35 F/2.8L II, 24-70 F/2.8L II, 70-200 F/2.8L IS II, etc. represent the high end of Canon zooms and you generally net better IQ or can pull off more shots (i.e. speed) with those lenses.

So Dilbert, before I set a price limit on it, I think it all depends on what 'bucket' they put a new wide lens in:

[list type=decimal]
[*]If it's a spiritual successor to the 17-40 f/4L -- possibly Canon's highest selling non-kit L lens -- even with IS the price should be around $1,000-1,200 at first offering. That lens is a 7 out of 10 lens and should not be priced like top-end pro gear. Even if they (likely) add IS and (undoubtedly) improve the corners over the current 17-40, an F/4 wide zoom shouldn't command a very high price.


[*]If it's a spiritual successor to the 16-35 f/2.8L II, you are talking $2,000-2,500 as that would be a best-in-focal-length offering from Canon, aimed at pros and not enthusiasts. (Keep in mind, the current II version is still going for something like $1,600-1,700 before rebate.)


[*]If it's altogether something new and desired by pros and enthusiasts alike, say a 14-24L f/2.8 -- look out. They could ask for the earth, moon and stars and people would pay it. I'd see that lens offered at a very high starting price for the long-time wantees, perhaps $3k, and then walked down over time to where the Nikon offering is ($2k I believe). And if that 14-24L F/2.8 is either front-filterable or (more likely) compatible with Lee's oversized filter apparatus on day one, some folks would give vital organs for it. Such a lens would be priceless for some folks.


[/list]
- A

 

[rbr]

The current Canon 14mm f2.8II is already over $2300 and not very sharp in the extreme corners on full frame cameras. A new zoom that is sharper in the corners is definitely not going to be less expensive. Any sort of 14-24 zoom that matches or surpasses Nikon's is going to be well over $3000 I would expect.

In reality, 14mm is pretty extreme for most people in most circumstances. If Canon could come out with ANY lens (zoom or single focal length) in the 16-18mm range that was razor sharp in the corners when stopped down only a little and took screw on filters, a lot of people would be very happy.

 

[unfocused]

If "quite pricey" is more than ~$1000 then it is too expensive. $1000 is the cost of a 17-40/f4 plus add a bit for IS. If it is getting towards $1300 or more then Canon can shove it where the Sun don't shine.

The 17-40 F/4L, 24-105 F/4L IS, 70-200 F/4L, etc. are in that 'entry level L lens' bucket where you get big upgrades over non-L glass, like better build quality, weather sealing, sharper, quicker focusing, etc. but you don't get best-in-class IQ or the fastest apertures.

For more money, the 16-35 F/2.8L II, 24-70 F/2.8L II, 70-200 F/2.8L IS II, etc. represent the high end of Canon zooms and you generally net better IQ or can pull off more shots (i.e. speed) with those lenses.

So Dilbert, before I set a price limit on it, I think it all depends on what 'bucket' they put a new wide lens in:

[list type=decimal]
[*]If it's a spiritual successor to the 17-40 f/4L -- possibly Canon's highest selling non-kit L lens -- even with IS the price should be around $1,000-1,200 at first offering. That lens is a 7 out of 10 lens and should not be priced like top-end pro gear. Even if they (likely) add IS and (undoubtedly) improve the corners over the current 17-40, an F/4 wide zoom shouldn't command a very high price.


[*]If it's a spiritual successor to the 16-35 f/2.8L II, you are talking $2,000-2,500 as that would be a best-in-focal-length offering from Canon, aimed at pros and not enthusiasts. (Keep in mind, the current II version is still going for something like $1,600-1,700 before rebate.)


[*]If it's altogether something new and desired by pros and enthusiasts alike, say a 14-24L f/2.8 -- look out. They could ask for the earth, moon and stars and people would pay it. I'd see that lens offered at a very high starting price for the long-time wantees, perhaps $3k, and then walked down over time to where the Nikon offering is ($2k I believe). And if that 14-24L F/2.8 is either front-filterable or (more likely) compatible with Lee's oversized filter apparatus on day one, some folks would give vital organs for it. Such a lens would be priceless for some folks.[/list]

- A

As much as it pains me, I have to say I'm probably leaning a bit more to Dilbert's side on this one.

For one thing, neither the categories nor the assessments are quite as clear as ahsanford states.

I don't know where the 24-70 f4 IS would fit into his categories. But, it is selling at $1,200 including rebate, although I don't know whether or not anyone is actually buying that lens.

I don't know why someone would call the 17-40 F4 a "7" out of 10. Virtually every test and review shows it performs every bit as well as the 16-35 f2.8. I suppose you can "score" it slightly lower because it is an f4 lens, but only if one needs f2.8.

I'm always amused at those who make price distinctions between "pros" and "enthusiasts" assuming that pros pay more than enthusiasts, when in reality, it is usually just the opposite. Enthusiasts are more likely to pay top dollar because they have the discretionary dollars to spend. Pros need to worry about mundane things like return on investment.

Finally, I suspect that someone may be spending too much time on internet forums if they really believe there is such a huge pent-up demand for a $3,000 ultra-wide 14-24 f2.8.

 

[iMagic]

haha. My 14MM II is just fine in the corners from 5.6 onwards. In fact, I prefer it to the Rokinon 14mm which has such stretched corners that I find it unusable. Yes the Canon at 2.8 is soft, but really 5.6 is just peachy keeno. Albeit expensive.............