New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]

[Jay Khaos]

About 18 months ago, when I really started investing time reading lens reviews, it was pretty much unanimously stated the the 70-200 f/2.8 II was the world's sharpest zoom lens.

6 months or so ago, the 24-70 II f/2.8 was considered a contender to that crown with some reviewers stating it IS the world's sharpest zoom.

Last month, the 200-400 f/4.0 became the latest to be spoken of in such terms.

Imagine the new 14-24 f/2.8 rouses similar reviews.

So with 4 lenses, you could realistically cover the 14-560 range with potentially the 4 best zoom lenses in the world.

The whole set would probably cost ~$20,000 - can the average participant on this forum fork that much cash for lenses?

I'm sure there are a few photographers on this forum can spend that much cash on lenses, and justify it as well, personally I'll be very happy to be able to add the 24-70mm f/2.8 II & 14-24mm f/2.8 to my collection.

I think Sabaki was just theorizing that the next zoom should be significant considering that latest zoom releases have all be building around each other and also happen to be the best in their class. Not necessarily saying everyone should go and buy all of them...

I would love a 14-24 2.8...

 

[Etienne]

About 18 months ago, when I really started investing time reading lens reviews, it was pretty much unanimously stated the the 70-200 f/2.8 II was the world's sharpest zoom lens.

6 months or so ago, the 24-70 II f/2.8 was considered a contender to that crown with some reviewers stating it IS the world's sharpest zoom.

Last month, the 200-400 f/4.0 became the latest to be spoken of in such terms.

Imagine the new 14-24 f/2.8 rouses similar reviews.

So with 4 lenses, you could realistically cover the 14-560 range with potentially the 4 best zoom lenses in the world.

The whole set would probably cost ~$20,000 - can the average participant on this forum fork that much cash for lenses?

I'm sure there are a few photographers on this forum can spend that much cash on lenses, and justify it as well, personally I'll be very happy to be able to add the 24-70mm f/2.8 II & 14-24mm f/2.8 to my collection.

Drop the 200-400 out of that, and you've still got 14-200 covered, which is probably all the average participant on this forum really needs... are there people who need more than 200? Absolutely. But if we're talking averages... Not to mention I don't think there are enough 200-400s in existence to give one to everyone on this forum... :

The new 100-400 IS may also be super-sharp. I'd add that in place of the 200-400.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

About 18 months ago, when I really started investing time reading lens reviews, it was pretty much unanimously stated the the 70-200 f/2.8 II was the world's sharpest zoom lens.

6 months or so ago, the 24-70 II f/2.8 was considered a contender to that crown with some reviewers stating it IS the world's sharpest zoom.

Last month, the 200-400 f/4.0 became the latest to be spoken of in such terms.

Imagine the new 14-24 f/2.8 rouses similar reviews.

So with 4 lenses, you could realistically cover the 14-560 range with potentially the 4 best zoom lenses in the world.

The whole set would probably cost ~$20,000 - can the average participant on this forum fork that much cash for lenses?

I'm sure there are a few photographers on this forum can spend that much cash on lenses, and justify it as well, personally I'll be very happy to be able to add the 24-70mm f/2.8 II & 14-24mm f/2.8 to my collection.

Drop the 200-400 out of that, and you've still got 14-200 covered, which is probably all the average participant on this forum really needs... are there people who need more than 200? Absolutely. But if we're talking averages... Not to mention I don't think there are enough 200-400s in existence to give one to everyone on this forum... :

The new 100-400 IS may also be super-sharp. I'd add that in place of the 200-400.

I bought the 70-200mm f/2.8 II and the mk3 extenders. It has it's price in IQ, but considering the frequency I need a focal length greater than 200mm, I'd rather save on price & weight.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

for 14-24mm f/2.8
I would buy, if this lens accept regular (100mm) filters, I already have a filter collections, that's already very expensive. I wouldn't buy larger filters (>150mm) cuz they're insanely expensive.

I think it's very unlikely the 14-24mm will be able to use 100mm filters.
When I designed a filter holder for my Samyang 14mm, I found that anything narrower than 125mm would show up at the sides of the frame.
The LEE holder for Nikon's 14-24mm is for 150mm filters.

Yes, and the Wondapanna filters for the Nikon 14-24mm, Sigma 12-24mm and TS-e 17L are even bigger...165mm I belive!

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The 16-50 F4L IS sounds REALLY intriguing, lets hope it's around 1k and I'll buy it.

It does, lets hope it is very sharp to the edges.
Could be the ideal complement to the 24-70 II. Sometimes you need IS and this gives you that 24-50 which is perfect, plus, unlike the others with IS it also gives you some nice wide 16-23mm extension.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I guess I'm the odd guy out here, because I don't get the interest in 16-50 at f/4 over 16-35 f/2.8 even with the IS.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE image stabilization, and I like it on the new 28 2.8 IS. But f/4 does nothing for me, especially in the longer focal length; f/2.8 give me a lot of extra light when I need it.

The 14-24 could be interesting if it doesn't flare like the 4th of July as it does in Nikon-land. Otherwise I am only interested in replacing my 16-35 2.8 II ... IF version III is significantly better, and the upgrade doesn't kill my bank account.

IS is so much better than f/2.8 for landscape stuff, f/2.8 isn't much DOF. f/4.5-5.6 and IS does soooo much more. It's a great thing when you don't have time or want to bother with tripods for each shot (with other people or maybe want to see everything and yet still get as solid photos as you can and don't have time to tripod up all shots).

 

[insanitybeard]

IS is so much better than f/2.8 for landscape stuff, f/2.8 isn't much DOF. f/4.5-5.6 and IS does soooo much more. It's a great thing when you don't have time or want to bother with tripods for each shot (with other people or maybe want to see everything and yet still get as solid photos as you can and don't have time to tripod up all shots).

Agreed on that, I think a 16-50 f4 with IS would be an ideal outdoor lens for hiking for example, especially if they can keep the size and weight similar to the 17-40. If it comes into being it will be on my list to replace the 17-40, assuming it's an improvement optically.

 

[RLPhoto]

I just bought a 17-40L. Whoops. Looks like ill be using it for along time.

 

[insanitybeard]

I just bought a 17-40L. Whoops. Looks like ill be using it for along time.

Well, this is all conjecture anyway. Even IF Canon announces the lens this autumn it's a fairly safe bet to say you won't be able to get your hands on it for 12 months at least! Gives me longer to save up :

 

[Marsu42]

IS is so much better than f/2.8 for landscape stuff, f/2.8 isn't much DOF. f/4.5-5.6 and IS does soooo much more.

When I started shooting macro, I had to realize how many things in the natural world actually move a tiny bit, I never realized until I tried longer exposure times. Often the same applies to landscape, IS doesn't freeze leaves from jiggling or water from waving. In this case, neither shallow dof *or* IS will help, what's really required is a high iso high dr camera which Canon doesn't have yet.

 

[insanitybeard]

IS is so much better than f/2.8 for landscape stuff, f/2.8 isn't much DOF. f/4.5-5.6 and IS does soooo much more.

When I started shooting macro, I had to realize how many things in the natural world actually move a tiny bit, I never realized until I tried longer exposure times. Often the same applies to landscape, IS doesn't freeze leaves from jiggling or water from waving. In this case, neither shallow dof *or* IS will help, what's really required is a high iso high dr camera which Canon doesn't have yet.

But the IS will certainly have some benefits for a handheld video, or lowlight photography when you don't have/ can't use a tripod. Of course it can't help freeze subject movement, but equally, f2.8 isn't the best aperture for a typical landscape shot anyway, so it's always going to be a compromise. I'd rather have the IS available than not- of course, how implementing it affects pricing is another matter!

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

Please Canon, just give us a sharp prime in the teens at a reasonable cost? I love the IQ on my 14mm SamRokinBow, but the build quality makes it almost a throwaway. We've got the choice of that for $350, or the 14mm L v2 for $2,200!!! There must be a happy medium in there, maybe an F3.5, or F4 17mm for $1,000? Please?

+1. All I want is a sharp (across the entire frame) 17mm that can take filters. Preferably f/2.8, but I'd take f/3.5. WHY DOESN'T THIS LENS EXIST?

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

Please Canon, just give us a sharp prime in the teens at a reasonable cost? I love the IQ on my 14mm SamRokinBow, but the build quality makes it almost a throwaway. We've got the choice of that for $350, or the 14mm L v2 for $2,200!!! There must be a happy medium in there, maybe an F3.5, or F4 17mm for $1,000? Please?

+1. All I want is a sharp (across the entire frame) 17mm that can take filters. Preferably f/2.8, but I'd take f/3.5. WHY DOESN'T THIS LENS EXIST?

Soo.....I just remembered about the Zeiss 18mm f/3.5. Problem is, it doesn't really excite me. I feel as if it needs just a little something extra. If Canon or another manufacturer can replicate the Zeiss performance (or rather come within reason) and simply give it autofocus I'd pull the trigger for what the Zeiss sells for now ($1400). ESPECIALLY if they could make it a 2.8.

 

[TeenTog]

One of the lenses will be the 14-24 f/2.8L,

Please

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

IS is so much better than f/2.8 for landscape stuff, f/2.8 isn't much DOF. f/4.5-5.6 and IS does soooo much more.

When I started shooting macro, I had to realize how many things in the natural world actually move a tiny bit, I never realized until I tried longer exposure times. Often the same applies to landscape, IS doesn't freeze leaves from jiggling or water from waving. In this case, neither shallow dof *or* IS will help, what's really required is a high iso high dr camera which Canon doesn't have yet.

True, but a little water blur and even some leaf blur from a single shot isn't always so bad and it's not like IS gives you 10 stops to where you are holding really long exposures.

There are lots of times where you don't want to bother with a tripod or can't.

I nabbed an f/9, 50mm at 1/20th the other day with IS in a deep forest and only had to go to ISO400 (i.e. right before the table starts falling out for Canon DR (of course with Nikon I'd had already traded away two stops, maybe Canon is better, I didn't lose two stops going ISO100 to ISO400 ).

 

[Rocker]

One of the lenses will be the 14-24 f/2.8L,

Please

I am saving for it since the first rumor. I am shure it will be an optical masterpiece, conserning canon recent lenses.

 

[SwnSng]

Bring on the 14-24 2.8L please...I envy my friends Nikon 800/14-25 setup, amazing lens body combo. It's about time Canon at least puts up some what of a fight at this focal point.

 

[lomenak]

The 16-50L f4 IS would be great! I would love one for sure. I know its a lot to ask but f2.8 in it would be even better - it could be used for star shots too.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Bring on the 14-24 2.8L please...I envy my friends Nikon 800/14-25 setup, amazing lens body combo. It's about time Canon at least puts up some what of a fight at this focal point.

Interestingly, with your friends setup, it's the lens which is the limiting factor there, not the camera. Very few lenses can match the IQ demands of a 35+ mp sensor.
A TS-e 17 will out resolve nearly every other wide lens and with its movements, one can cover an effective 12.5mm focal length if you are prepared to tripod, shift and stitch. It's certainly a nice technique for great panos.
The Nikkor 14-24 is good at shooting lens charts but not so useful shooting landscapes imho compared to a 16-35IIL. The bulbous front element makes filter use difficult (like the TS-e 17L) and costly. The resolution wide open on the 14-24 is extraordinary...but stopped down (for DOF) there is little real world difference between it and the 16-35IIL. The extra 2mm at the wide end can usually be nixed by moving a little further back and it's a small benefit vs the problems fitting a polariser and ND filters are compared to the ease of a 16-35IIL.
In my opinion both the TS-e 17L and 16-35IIL are better landscape optics than the Nikkor 14-24....unless you liek to shoot brick walls or lens charts that is ;-D

 

[Tabor Warren Photography]

I just reviewed this potential lens thread after heading to Best Buy a couple of days ago inquiring about the 16-35L. They said that though they could order it for me at their price, $1,499 prior to fixing a misquote in their system, however, the guy also said that the 16-35 had been deleted from their inventory. Being a fellow Canon photographer himself, he mentioned that they will often do this when they have intentions of a replacement product in the coming months.

Can anyone account for the validity to this idea?

-Tabor