New EF-S Ultrawide Coming? [CR1]

[tron]

I was told not long ago to wait a month before buying a wide-angle Canon zoom, and that I would regret not waiting. Why would someone who could benefit from selling lenses tell me to wait?

Did you want to buy an APS-C or a FF UWA zoom lens?

 

[gamin]

I was told not long ago to wait a month before buying a wide-angle Canon zoom, and that I would regret not waiting. Why would someone who could benefit from selling lenses tell me to wait?

Did you want to buy an APS-C or a FF UWA zoom lens?

APS-C. I told him I was looking for something in the 10-24mm range, but not necessarily exactly that.

 

[tron]

I was told not long ago to wait a month before buying a wide-angle Canon zoom, and that I would regret not waiting. Why would someone who could benefit from selling lenses tell me to wait?

Did you want to buy an APS-C or a FF UWA zoom lens?

APS-C. I told him I was looking for something in the 10-24mm range, but not necessarily exactly that.

OK, everything depends on whether you need that zoom. If you need it get it. Canon lenses retain their value. If you want to use it in Summer you can wait I guess. But even if a new one is announced it will not be available immediately.

 

[SoullessPolack]

How about new EF wide or ultrawide zoom that doesn't suck?
Or is that too hard for Canon?

I, and many other professionals, use the 16-35 or 17-40 (I use the 17-40) with great results. I'm not sure what you're implying by stating it sucks. How exactly does it suck?

What precisely are you expecting from it? I can tell you that us professionals know the disadvantages of these lenses, but it is easy to adapt to and overcome the difficulties, and in the end, we're still making money from these lenses that you state "suck".

The funny thing is, I can totally see it that the extent of your photography's exposure is primarily on the internet, which would make this all the more hilarious ;D

 

[verysimplejason]

10mm IS STM, pancake size. 8)

 

[e17paul]

Where the Canon range falls really short is wide angle primes for EF-S. That was part of my justification for spending out on a 6D. If I could not have afforded that, I would have gone for Nikon or Pentax.

There is the 14L, but it's daft to invest that money and carry that weight just to get 22mm equivalent. That's how I told myself that the more costly 6D was a bargain. If I had gone to another brand, Pentax have some interesting prime choices, where Nikon have gone overboard on zooms. Incidentally, Pentax is unfairly ignored and underrated, I'm loving my father's K-30.

I'm sure another zoom would be good, but isn't the 10-22 already highly respected above third party options and lenses for other camera brands.

I haven't even mentioned mirror less options.

 

[simonxu11]

Year of CR1

 

[Hannes]

Incidentally, Pentax is unfairly ignored and underrated, I'm loving my father's K-30.

There was something in a sigma interview a while back saying that pentax uses a mechanical coupling to actuate the iris for the aperture which meant it was a lot more expensive designing third party lenses for what is arguably a niche camera as it is.

As for an ultrawide aps-c lens with constant f4 it would be brilliant, f2.8 even more so but I suspect that would mean a monster of a lens.

 

[pedro]

What about an ultrawide for FF with IS. Come on, now!

+1

About 16-35 f2.8 IS or 16-35 f4 IS...same IQ as Nik 14-24 or better :

A 14-24 or 12-24 for FF would be very welcome! An F/3.5 F/4.0 would do for nightscapes at high ISOs.

 

[trstromme]

Personally, and I don't know if this is possible; after taking a look at what I've used for landscape shots for the last few years I'd want this:
*throw any ideas of f/2.8 overboard, make this a no compromises slow-shooting style landscape lens, tripod almost required, skimping on speed would probably bring the price down..
*zoom range, nice to have, but not a priority, being able to slightly change framing is ok.
*14 or 16 mm FF equivalent..

mind you I've been shooting landscapes primarily with a Tokina 12-24 f/4

I'd love something that is tuned especially towards being sharp from f/8 and as low as possible.. f/16 yes please... (and yes I suppose diffraction comes into play here with the design of the aperture and which sensor is behind it etc..)
Must take filters well, preferably stacked ones, like a polarizer and an ND filter combined or PL + square grads.., oversized front element/filter threads to avoid killing the corners. non-bulbous front element is a given then I suppose.
Big fat focus ring with lots of throw, AF? not required..
Or going one beyond; what about integrated ND filters; swing into place or drop ins?

My shots on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/trondstromme/

just my two cents..

 

[Loswr]

Where the Canon range falls really short is wide angle primes for EF-S. That was part of my justification for spending out on a 6D. If I could not have afforded that, I would have gone for Nikon or Pentax.

There is the 14L, but it's daft to invest that money and carry that weight just to get 22mm equivalent. That's how I told myself that the more costly 6D was a bargain.

Depending on your goals/needs, FF can be cheaper. Consider that 85mm f/1.2 on APS-C is equivalent to 135mm f/2 on FF, and compare the cost of the lenses.

 

[greger]

I would like to see a new 17-85 f4 IS STM come out. If it still had 67mm filter thread, all the better. If they fixed the
Chroma aberation problem and the tape that wears out then Canon would be on to something. 17-85 is a nice zoom range on APS-C.

 

[trstromme]

I would like to see a new 17-85 f4 IS STM come out. If it still had 67mm filter thread, all the better. If they fixed the
Chroma aberation problem and the tape that wears out then Canon would be on to something. 17-85 is a nice zoom range on APS-C.

except for the STM and filter thread parts; I thought this was the 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 USM IS ?
that said, the 17-85 is ok, build quality is not quite up there, but nice as a travel lens and can be had very cheaply now..

 

[e17paul]

Depending on your goals/needs, FF can be cheaper. Consider that 85mm f/1.2 on APS-C is equivalent to 135mm f/2 on FF, and compare the cost of the lenses.

I thought I would be the only one to see that, although I hadn't thought of portrait lenses.

Of course it doesn't apply to every scenario.