More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

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.............

Bingo. The Rokinon is actually bit sharper, but the extreme distortion in the corners can kill that (depending on the tilt of the sensor).

P.S. If the rumor regarding the price of the new 100-400L is true, it had better be VERY, VERY good. As in twice as good as the 70-300L or 3x as good as the new Tamron 150-600 VC.

 

[rbr]

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.............

You're lucky. I had one for several years and loved it when I only used 1D APS-H cameras with the outer third cropped out. When I bought my first full-frame camera it was the first lens to go. Every photo taken with it looked like someone smeared vaseline on the corners of the camera's sensor. I traded it for a Zeiss 18mm,which isn't perfect, but fine at f8 and f11 where I need it most, and better than anything by Canon in that range that I've tried.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]

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.

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 Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR is $ 1250. I am guessing if the IQ is amazing (the Nikon's is not) then Canon will happily charge lot more than that, and get away with it. I would guess $ 1500 at least, probably as high as $ 1800. Remember, the 24-70 f/4 is still $ 1200 new, and a sharp ultrawide will be much more in demand.

 

[Canon 14-24]

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

Performs as good as Nik 14-24 or better + screw on hood (not like the cheap plastic slide on hood on the nik14-24)= I'm in

Doubt there would be flat front glass for anything wider than 15mm, don't care so much for IS, just give me a good sharp ultra wide in the corners + a not cheaply constructed hood (that falls off on the Nikon) to protect the front protruding glass in my bag/transit (construct it like the 17mm ts-e please).

 

[thedman]

I would buy two of these three. Which of course means this is a bogus rumor.

 

[Etienne]

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?

If it's really sharp at f/4, and a little smaller and lighter, I'll probably switch.

 

[ahsanford]

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.

I think it is a pretty clear price strategy on the zooms. See chart below. I'm not picking a fight on the 24-105 vs. 24-70 F/4 -- Canon simply thinks that 24-70 F/4 lens is worth more money.

But as you can see, there are 'budget' L zooms on the left, high end ones on the right, and in a few lengths, there is a middle quality/performance option. The price points are pretty clear to me.

As for the not-really-disparaging remarks on the 17-40, I use it as a great example of an 'if you have plenty of light and your subject isn't moving' great lens. Stopping it down for landscape work is fine. But there are times you need F/2.8 or you need sharp results at an aperture wider than F/5.6, and the 16-35 II is the better call. In general, though, both lenses are good but not great. Many on this forum might argue that the 16-35 II should be in the 'better' column and not the 'best' column of ultrawide.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

As for the not-really-disparaging remarks on the 17-40, I use it as a great example of an 'if you have plenty of light and your subject isn't moving' great lens. Stopping it down for landscape work is fine. But there are times you need F/2.8 or you need sharp results at an aperture wider than F/5.6, and the 16-35 II is the better call. In general, though, both lenses are good but not great. Many on this forum might argue that the 16-35 II should be in the 'better' column and not the 'best' column of ultrawide.

...

All of which is me saying that I kind of don't agree that the products fit into that table you had quite so easily.

Fair. We all peg this stuff differently.

Some folks would peg good/better/best based solely on IQ and disregard handling, weather-sealing, IS, build quality, etc. A lot of folks peg value in this forum on an odd trinity of sharpness + max aperture + if IS is offered. There is no right/wrong way to look at it.

If we consider the 24-70 f/4L IS USM to set the benchmark for what all new f/4 L series lenses will be like then the new wide angle L zoom should be both priced and perform similarly. If a new wide angle f/4L zoom were to be priced above the 24-70 f/4L equivalent then questions need to be asked and to look at what Sigma and Tamron can do in that space as they've shown themselves to be quite decent of late.

+1

I own the 24-70 F/4 IS and it's a splendid lens. Sharper than the 24-70 F/2.8 I and 24-105, but not as sharp as the $2300 King of the Hill F/2.8 II. Shorter and lighter than all of them and the 0.7x macro is the cherry on top. It is the perfect 'better but not best' zoom.

What remains to be seen is if Canon will create 'better but not best' lenses by just slapping IS on older designs or if truly new lens designs will come forward. But I think we should be optimistic: the 24-70 F/4L, the trio of non-L IS refreshes (which turned out to be far better lenses than they seemed at first announcement) are all new lenses. Here's hoping we get new designs for the ultrawide segment as well.

- A

 

[IsaacImage]

Eagerly waiting to buy 11-24 or 14-24.
Preferably 2.8 plsplsplsplspls and before Wedding season is heating us

 

[SwnSng]

I'm no longer anxious about this...I purchased a Rokinon 14mm 2.8 to hold me over.

 

[sagittariansrock]

I'm no longer anxious about this...I purchased a Rokinon 14mm 2.8 to hold me over.

+1.

 

[sdfreeland]

A 100-400 for $3000? That's just crazy. Considering the current 100-400mm is pretty good already and the Tamron 150-600mm is similar but cheaper, they would have to be nuts to make it $3000. How much better could it be besides the actual design?

 

[Don Haines]

A 100-400 for $3000? Sounds reasonable,

28-300 F3.5-F5.6L IS for $2689..... A 100-400 F5.6 L IS of modern design and materials and greatly improved IQ over the series 1 lens could go for $3000...

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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

very these days

in the Middle Ages, they were pricey, but a well to do knight could afford one, a dinosaur was a bit more a reach back then however, but a few kings were said to own them as beasts of terror and in the Stone Age, well I mean they were both commonplace, in fact, dinosaurs were the typical beast of burden and mode of transport for man (I saw that last bit in some museum somewhere in the Midwest, so I'm pretty sure I'm correct in what I'm saying here about Stone Age man and dinosaurs. I don't see how I could be going wrong.).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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

no, it's not too much to ask, it's too little! We also need one with just a bit more range, some sort of 16-50 or at least 16-40 with great FF corners

so tack that one on too

 

[Don Haines]

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

very these days

in the Middle Ages, they were pricey, but a well to do knight could afford one, a dinosaur was a bit more a reach back then however, but a few kings were said to own them as beasts of terror and in the Stone Age, well I mean they were both commonplace, in fact, dinosaurs were the typical beast of burden and mode of transport for man (I saw that last bit in some museum somewhere in the Midwest, so I'm pretty sure I'm correct in what I'm saying here about Stone Age man and dinosaurs. I don't see how I could be going wrong.).

Of course dinosaurs and man co-existed.... haven't you ever seen the Flintstones on TV?

 

[Canon 14-24]

I think it is a pretty clear price strategy on the zooms. See chart below. I'm not picking a fight on the 24-105 vs. 24-70 F/4 -- Canon simply thinks that 24-70 F/4 lens is worth more money.

But as you can see, there are 'budget' L zooms on the left, high end ones on the right, and in a few lengths, there is a middle quality/performance option. The price points are pretty clear to me.

As for the not-really-disparaging remarks on the 17-40, I use it as a great example of an 'if you have plenty of light and your subject isn't moving' great lens. Stopping it down for landscape work is fine. But there are times you need F/2.8 or you need sharp results at an aperture wider than F/5.6, and the 16-35 II is the better call. In general, though, both lenses are good but not great. Many on this forum might argue that the 16-35 II should be in the 'better' column and not the 'best' column of ultrawide.
- A

I find that chart doesn't represent the ultra wide angle zoom segments that are currently out there. Can't really compare the standard zoom segments that are available with the ultra zooms as with super telephoto primes as well.

This chart attached below I think better represents the void Canon hasn't fulfilled in the FF ultra wide angle zoom segments:

Given the current offerings, I would fantasize Canon would release an EF 15-35mm f/4 USM IS (flat front element) and EF 12 or 13-14mm f/2.8 USM lens (as Canon offerings tend to be 1mm wider in each of the current segments).

 

[Khufu]

Waffle, waffle, blah...

In real world shooting, people seem to love the kind of results I've had from the sadly discontinued Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 (shot on either the 60D and 5D3) which I got from eBay for a little over £200 - I couldn't tell you about corner sharpness but I can tell you it's pretty sweet for a UWA/hella-niche supplement to my kit... as is the "old" Sigma 24mm f/1.8 for WA WITH BOKEH!!

Just throwing some alt-perspective curveball spanner herring bombs in the works there. I dig Samsung's 16mm f/2.4 APS-C pancake, too. Not entirely sure why I'm still talking. Perhaps because I don't have a disposable $3500 right now but want to feel awesome regardless. Na-night!

 

[ahsanford]

I think it is a pretty clear price strategy on the zooms. See chart below. I'm not picking a fight on the 24-105 vs. 24-70 F/4 -- Canon simply thinks that 24-70 F/4 lens is worth more money.

But as you can see, there are 'budget' L zooms on the left, high end ones on the right, and in a few lengths, there is a middle quality/performance option. The price points are pretty clear to me.

As for the not-really-disparaging remarks on the 17-40, I use it as a great example of an 'if you have plenty of light and your subject isn't moving' great lens. Stopping it down for landscape work is fine. But there are times you need F/2.8 or you need sharp results at an aperture wider than F/5.6, and the 16-35 II is the better call. In general, though, both lenses are good but not great. Many on this forum might argue that the 16-35 II should be in the 'better' column and not the 'best' column of ultrawide.
- A

I find that chart doesn't represent the ultra wide angle zoom segments that are currently out there. Can't really compare the standard zoom segments that are available with the ultra zooms as with super telephoto primes as well.

This chart attached below I think better represents the void Canon hasn't fulfilled in the FF ultra wide angle zoom segments:

Given the current offerings, I would fantasize Canon would release an EF 15-35mm f/4 USM IS (flat front element) and EF 12 or 13-14mm f/2.8 USM lens (as Canon offerings tend to be 1mm wider in each of the current segments).

That presumes that Canon is going to have the 4 lenses for one zoom range like the 70-200s: two F/4 and two F/2.8 lenses, with and without IS.

They don't even do that in the standard range right now (cough no 24-70 F/2.8 IS cough)...

And Canon seems to be getting out of that business. Aren't they discontinuing one of the 70-200s?

- A

 

[sagittariansrock]

Let's look at the market-
A. Is there a room for UWA with IS?- yes- videography, high resolution of modern sensors (see wide angle IS primes). Also, corner resolution of the 17-40 could be improved and that will attract a lot of new customers.
B. Is there a room for a sharp, fast, ultrawide? - look at Nikon 14-24 sales. I don't have the numbers- but if it sells in large numbers, then that is an indication for Canon to approach that segment.

Let's look at competitors-
A. What other UWA with IS is available for canon- none.
B. Assuming, there is a market for a sharp, fast, ultrawide- is there any competition- only from some prime lenses, which are:
a) own product- 14mm II- not particularly sharp
b) Zeiss 15mm, 18mm (?) and 21mm- expensive, manual focus
c) own product- 17mm TS-E- manual focus, expensive

Take home:
A. For an ultrawide with IS- there is definitely an unmet demand. Historically, Nikon has high sales numbers for its 16-35 f/4 VR. So I think Canon can expect a large number of 16-35 II users to move to an IS lens for a low adoption cost. There will also be a small number of people upgrading from the 17-40 due to the IS and better IQ. This will include both people using it exclusively on FF, and people buying it for APS-C with an eye on potential upgrade path.
B. For a sharp, fast ultrawide- this one is less clear. Canon needs to look at the sales figures for the 14-24 and the 16-35 2.8. If there is a bigger number for the 14-24, that means lots of people are willing to pay the premium price and trade off the filter usability and range. OTOH, if the 17-35 2.8 sells better, Canon will be better off bringing out a version III of the lens, or more likely, just keep the 16-35 II around.

(by the way, the prices are off- the 17-35 2.8 costs around $1750, not $ 1950)
[p.s. I tried not to make any assumptions, including: those hankering on the CR forums for a sharp, fast UWA necessarily make up the majority of Canon's customers.]