More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]

[ahsanford]

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.]

Good insights. Makes sense. IS would be cherished by handheld low-light guys and videographers.

Keep in mind the Nikon 14-24 is loved for more than it's unique focal length. That lens is absurdly sharp for a zoom. Canon guys get adapters just to shoot this lens. Lee makes a comically large outrigger setup just for this lens. Qualitatively and quantitatively Every review or test I've seen with it is off the charts -- other than susceptibility to flare and the lack of a thread-able front filter, I don't think I've heard a bad word about it.

I'm not a landscape pro, but as I understand, the 14-24 plus the D800's resolving power and low ISO dynamic range are a killer combination for landscape guys, right?

- A

 

[adhocphotographer]

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

+1 but 17-40!

 

[AvTvM]

Looking at the 2 recent UWA rumours i only expect the following:
• EF-S 10-24/4.0-5.6 IS STM ... Update to current 10-22 and using some design elements from the slightly better ef-m 11-22 IS STM ... Will be compact and have decent, but not stellar iq ... Price? USD 999
• EF 16-40/4.0 IS ... Successor to 17-40, with 1mm more wa and much bettet corners, plus IS. Priced much higher, similar to 24-70/4 l is

My gut feeling is, canon still has no design ready to really match nik 14-24/2.8. especially not at the nikon's really great pricepoint. hopefully they do not bring another slightly improved but still disappointing 16-35 Iii is but keep working until they are ready to bring a f/2.8 UWA with IS that truly matches 70-200 ii and 24-70 ii iq and maked for a worthy 2.8 zoom holy trinity. If they are able to pull off a 14-24 2.8 IS, they can go and charge 2500 for it, which is still plenty more than the nikon.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Keep in mind the Nikon 14-24 is loved for more than it's unique focal length. That lens is absurdly sharp for a zoom. Canon guys get adapters just to shoot this lens. Lee makes a comically large outrigger setup just for this lens. Qualitatively and quantitatively Every review or test I've seen with it is off the charts -- other than susceptibility to flare and the lack of a thread-able front filter, I don't think I've heard a bad word about it.

Of course, I was talking about the sharpness, not the FL (sharp, fast, UWA).
You are probably right about the popularity of the 14-24.
But without concrete data about the demand, it is just a speculation, a rumor.

 

[sanj]

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.

I laughed long and hard.

 

[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).

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

It's not just 70-200 lenses in that segment, telephoto zoom also encompasses cheap and L 70-300s, the 100-400, and an all in one lens compromise 28-300 L - just like the various options in the ultra wide angle segment. There is no same amount spread across each different segment - in specific to the ultra wide angle ZOOM, there is definitely a void that hasn't been filled for ultra wide Canon users since freaking 2007 when the 14-24 was released.

 

[The Bad Duck]

I'd love to replace my samyang 14/2.8 with something like 10-20 give or take 4mm on each side. F/4 seems fine, I would not mind f/5.6 either. But please make it a screw on filter on the front lens, I find that I stick my vurrent 14mm lens really close to dusty mashines and cows that actually lick it out of curiosity.

 

[pablo]

At wide angles, f2.8 is less relevant in terms of depth of field.

Current cameras and future cameras can go up to silly silly iso's, so that lost stop (f4 rather than f2.8) probably doesn't mean much to most folk these days. One stop of iso is no longer life or death in terms of noise.

AF performance, sure it would be great to have an IS UWA that works with the cameras AF at it's best, but even at f4 modern AF systems are all pretty good, and going forward with live view dual pixel focus, the extra light is less relevant that with the phase detection systems we will come to see as old fashioned soon enough.

This is not a lens for your 6 year old 5D2. This is a lens for your 5D4, your 80D, your 7Dmk2.

 

[climber]

And what about 14mm f/2.8, which is already there?

I also wanted that Canon make 14-24 f/2.8, but then I thought, would I really miss that range between 15 - 23 mm, if I buy 14mm f/2.8. Actually now I don't have money to buy it, but if they won't make 14-24 f/2.8, I will probably buy 14mm which already exist. I also didn't read any tests about that lens yet, so I don't know if it has any weak points.

I'd rather have f/2.8 than f/4 on a UWA lens, because of shooting night skies.

 

[Deleted member 20471]

More information on the two rumored lenses;

• Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
• Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM

http://photorumors.com/2014/05/06/canon-rumored-to-announce-two-new-wide-angle-lenses

 

[Maximilian]

*yawn*
I feel somehow sympathy with CR if this and the other lens rumors are the only information they can get there.
But these rumors of rumors about rumors are so vacuous, that I now stop reading them until more detailed specs and dates appear and prefer to go out shooting with the lenses I already have.

 

[ahsanford]

More information on the two rumored lenses;

• Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
• Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM

http://photorumors.com/2014/05/06/canon-rumored-to-announce-two-new-wide-angle-lenses

Digicame / Photo Rumors scoops CR again?

'Will' and 'next few days' is roughly CR2 material for PR. When it's a done deal (usually 24-48 hours prior), they will simply say 'This is the new [product]'.

- A

 

[pablo]

And what about 14mm f/2.8, which is already there?

I also wanted that Canon make 14-24 f/2.8, but then I thought, would I really miss that range between 15 - 23 mm, if I buy 14mm f/2.8. Actually now I don't have money to buy it, but if they won't make 14-24 f/2.8, I will probably buy 14mm which already exist. I also didn't read any tests about that lens yet, so I don't know if it has any weak points.

I'd rather have f/2.8 than f/4 on a UWA lens, because of shooting night skies.

Yeah, what about it? What about the 17mm f3.5 TS-E, what about this? what about that?

All these folk bemoaning the fact that it's not rumoured to be an f2.8... my point was, that is less and less relevant these days. With more capable AF systems, with new AF types that no longer excel with only the fastest lenses, with new digic engines that perform well up to 10's of thousands of ISO....

Perhaps Canon have figured that f4 is workable for more people, or that they can make the lens cheaper and therfore sell more...

Who knows. It's all a rumour. But the fact is Canon make a 14mm f2.8. So we can't speculate. What exactly was your point?

 

[sagittariansrock]

And what about 14mm f/2.8, which is already there?

I also wanted that Canon make 14-24 f/2.8, but then I thought, would I really miss that range between 15 - 23 mm, if I buy 14mm f/2.8. Actually now I don't have money to buy it, but if they won't make 14-24 f/2.8, I will probably buy 14mm which already exist. I also didn't read any tests about that lens yet, so I don't know if it has any weak points.

I'd rather have f/2.8 than f/4 on a UWA lens, because of shooting night skies.

Yeah, what about it? What about the 17mm f3.5 TS-E, what about this? what about that?

All these folk bemoaning the fact that it's not rumoured to be an f2.8... my point was, that is less and less relevant these days. With more capable AF systems, with new AF types that no longer excel with only the fastest lenses, with new digic engines that perform well up to 10's of thousands of ISO....

Perhaps Canon have figured that f4 is workable for more people, or that they can make the lens cheaper and therfore sell more...

Who knows. It's all a rumour. But the fact is Canon make a 14mm f2.8. So we can't speculate. What exactly was your point?

I think he just wanted some information on the 14 II.

 

[ahsanford]

This thread has moved -- CR2, specs, etc. Looks like new wide glass is finally coming...

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20839.0

FYI

 

[Pixel]

I'm having a hard time mustering up any excitement for a 16-35mm f4. I was hoping for the rumored 14-24mm. :-[

 

[tron]

I'm having a hard time mustering up any excitement for a 16-35mm f4. I was hoping for the rumored 14-24mm. :-[

No excitement at all either. I was hoping for a 16-35 2.8 L III

 

[pedro]

An 11-24 F/4.0 would be nice. Bulb lens? And I wonder, what third party brands would do with that. A Sigma 11-24, about the same quality at less $$$? I'm almost in ;-)