Need advice: Rumored 14-24 f/2.8L vs existing 16-35 f/2.8 L Advantages?

[pedro]

Hi, although my bank account is set up for saving, just a question towards the professional and more advanced photographers out there: As how important do you consider the additional 2mm on the wide end which will be offered by a rumored 14-24 f/2.8 L. Does it make a big difference or what would you do? What are the probable advanteges on the wide end?

As an enthusiast amateur I am on a budget and first considered the Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6. But it is a tad too slow for my nightphotography preferencies: nightscapes and milky way preferably during moonless nights.

So, maybe I'd go for a 16-35 instead which as equivalent to the Canon EF-S 10-22 on my former 30D expect the difference in speed (about one stop, but permanently). The price tag surely will be another argument, as it will be considerably higher than the one of the 16-35 f/2.8 L (CHF 1361.00 online over here).

Thanks for your advice. Cheers, Pedro.

 

[crasher8]

For most, imho the biggest difference would be corner sharpness to rival the Nikon 14-24. I think the extra 2mm is a +1 but the real issue with Canon UWA zooms has always been corner sharpness. The 14 prime and the 17 TS-E are nearly flawless but not as versatile. I too am looking for a UWA compliment to my 24-105 and have bought and sold two copies of the 17-40, one having horrible contrast and the other too mushy on anything but the center, stopped down or not. I have tried Tamron, Tokina and Sigma. If it wasn't for the rumor I might consider a Nikon and an adapter and just shoot manual focus.

 

[pedro]

Thx crasher8 for your response. I was pondering about the 17-40 as well...But ducked away from it due to the speed. Soon we'll see if it is more than foam from a dreamers brain ;-)

 

[robbymack]

Since af doesn't sound like a deal breaker you could always try the Samyang 14mm 2.8 If a 14-24 does indeed get released it will be probably close to $3000. That certainly gives me pause and would likely need a stead income stream from that lens alone to justify its purpose. I'm looking for a good quality used sigma 12-24 or canon 17-40 myself as neither the 16-35 or a rumored 14-24 make my bank account happy.

 

[crasher8]

it will certainly not be 3k. I would suspect 1799.A few hundred more than the 16-35 yet still priced under the 14 and 17 TS.

 

[pedro]

@robbymack: 3k for me is out of range as well. Bought my 5D3 paying the 500+ premium this late summer, but I don't regret one cent of it. Crasher 8: 1799 would be great. Corner sharpnes s aside...That's a lot of money for additional 2 mm on the wide end 8) But it would suit my 500/600 rule nightsky photography.

 

[Haydn1971]

I'm expecting a 14-24mm to be at least 25% more than the current 14mm f2.8 prime / 24-70mm f2.8

Firstly, that extra 2mm makes a big difference on focal lengths that wide - I went from a 18 to a 15mm and thought it was a big deal, going to a 10mm on crop just blew me away, so going from 16 to 14mm will be a big deal, plus the corner sharpness on a new 14-24mm must exceed that of the 16-35mm to justify actually releasing such a beast

Best thing to do is google "Canon 14 Flickr" and "Canon 16-35 Flickr" and get a feel for what others are shooting.

 

[paul13walnut5]

Hi Pedro, the 14-24 hasn't even been announced, released or tested yet.

If you want to wait then generally better things come along, but how long do you wait for.

If you were buying tommorrow you'd have the choice of the 16-35, 16-35 of 16-35, given your other requirements.

The real question is not whether a hypothetical lens is better than an actual lens that exsists, but how long you want to wait.

Remember, the 16-35 is on the mk2. If you get the 14-24 when it comes out would you not be kicking yourself when the 14-24 IS or 14-14 mk2 comes out.

Best wait 10 years to be sure.

Or buy what you want / need to take photos with just now.

 

[crasher8]

I would not expect there to be a correlation between prime and zoom pricing. I would however expect a new uwa zoom price point 500-700 more than the current most expensive wide zoom (1399)

 

[pedro]

Thanks everyone for your insigthful replies! @paul13walnut5: The 16-35 is a classic. And a good alternative. Thanks for the suggestion. This will yield 15 sec of exposure applying 600 rule for nightphotography to keep the stars from trailing. At ISO 8k wide open it will work pretty well. As sensors improve, 6 years from now 8k ISO might be like 3k today IQ wise. I feel very privileged to be part of a forum and receive your feedback.

 

[Jesse]

The question is, is the 14-24 gonna be good enough to make the 14mm prime obsolete? Or will Canon purposely make it lesser to prevent this?

 

[Jesse]

Does anyone buy the $1500 Nikon 14mm prime?

 

[crasher8]

So you expect the rumored lens to be as good at 14 as a prime?

 

[messus]

The question is, is the 14-24 gonna be good enough to make the 14mm prime obsolete? Or will Canon purposely make it lesser to prevent this?

Well, the Nikon 14-24, @14mm, with a Canon EF adapter, has already made the Canon EF 14mm 2.8 L II obsolete.

Canon has got only one thing to do, really, and that is not what you are suggesting. But I am not even sure Canon is capable of making a new EF 14mm 2.8 III prime which is better than the Nikon 14-24 @14mm.

Canon sure is taking their time though, so let's hope they prove me deadly wrong!

Well, I'll just keep posting pictures taken with my flagship Canon cameras 1DX and 5D3, paired with a 14-24mm lens from their main competitor!

My corner soft, CA, vignetting EF 16-35 2.8 II lens was sold years ago. Only comfort is, this lens is not worse than the newer Nikon 16-35 f/4 optically.

 

[RS2021]

"Always choose rumor over reality"... some should have it printed on their foreheads.

 

[bdunbar79]

I like the 16-35 f/2.8L II lens. It snowed here heavily the last few days, and I plan on heading out tomorrow with it to shoot some scenery. Yes it has its negatives just like any other wide-angle zoom lens, but is very good from my experiences. One negative is the price.

 

[RS2021]

I like the 16-35 f/2.8L II lens. It snowed here heavily the last few days, and I plan on heading out tomorrow with it to shoot some scenery. Yes it has its negatives just like any other wide-angle zoom lens, but is very good from my experiences. One negative is the price.

Just took it out myself with snow still swirling... realized I may have to grudgingly get one of those damn filters I so hate. Neuro's graphs suggest there is no major vignetting with XS-pro with this lens, not that I ever much worried about corner light loss...I have just always as an article of faith believed buy no filters UV filters!

But this effort with the 16-35 II got me thinking I need something on the front...I had fluffy snow on the front black plastic part adjacent to the front glass that moves back and forth in the 16-35II. Crow for dinner?

 

[Radiating]

Based on the likely optical design they will choose, the 12-24mm will simply have better image quality

 

[robbymack]

it will certainly not be 3k. I would suspect 1799.A few hundred more than the 16-35 yet still priced under the 14 and 17 TS.

You're dreaming...

 

[RS2021]

it will certainly not be 3k. I would suspect 1799.A few hundred more than the 16-35 yet still priced under the 14 and 17 TS.

$1799 Bwahahahaha I've been trying to sell this bridge...you are just the man!

But yes, 3K is a tad too high and I won't be surprised if the "I got it first" folks will pay that...but canon likes to not overprice products so high that “aspiration” (a highly valuable commodity in its own right) is not killed among its customers...

In other words, it makes less economic sense to sell 100 units at $5000 (to fools who will buy anything to own something new) than to sell 100,000 units at $2500 (to an average customer). Do the math and you will see that if the number of customers who can afford the product drops off radically, they will gain no major revenue by introducing such a lens.

However, as a temporary measure, sky-high prices do help during the first few months as production may be slow to meet demand and high prices will buy Canon time as they ramp up production....all along gaining revenue from the feeble minded...er I mean early adoptoers...

In the long run Canon will want to move units.

So they will probably price it initially around what they charged the recent 24-70L II ...~$2500 to $2700 for “real” market value not what you see in mark-ups. Within months it may slide a couple of hundreds to get to where other high volume zooms now are closer to the 2.2K mark.