New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]

dlleno

EOS RP
Mar 23, 2012
605
0
Sanaraken said:
Im just waiting for Canon to come out with a 16-35mm f4 IS. I dont need to shoot at f2.8, but would love to have the IS.
I don't see that happening, but what do I know... If they produce an UWA F4 IS, I would say it would be the rumored EF 16-50 f/4 IS, which I agree would be wonderful for landscapes, especially if it is an L.
 

Ricku

EOS RP
May 20, 2011
493
0
Whatever the FL is, I think its strange that these lenses were "CR2-rumored" for 2013, never showed up, and now the rumor mill is all quiet.

If 2014 is "the year of the lens", I think we should have some solid info floating around by now. But then again, Canon has always been boringly good at keeping their stuff from leaking out.
 

Zv

EOS 5D Mark IV
Sep 23, 2012
1,766
0
www.flickr.com
mackguyver said:
Zv said:
A 16-50 f/4 IS would be just the ticket.
I like the idea of that, but would still love something really wide like the Sigma 12-24 II I used to own. I fear that Canon considers our dreams of a super wide covered by the 8-15 f/4. A lot of their articles have pitched it as a wide angle lens, but at least to me, I don't care for the fisheye distortion even if it can be minimized with a perfectly level shot.
Oh totally! They need something in that ultra wide range other than the costly 14L. Their foolin no one with the 8-15 fisheye! I opted for the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 instead as I got fed up waiting. It's a pity I can't use filters with it though. Blasted bulbous ends! Haha!

What is the widest you can get without going bulbous end? Is it 16mm? I imagine a 12-24 or 14-24 would be quite expensive anyway and wouldn't take filters.
 

dlleno

EOS RP
Mar 23, 2012
605
0
Zv said:
What is the widest you can get without going bulbous end? Is it 16mm? I imagine a 12-24 or 14-24 would be quite expensive anyway and wouldn't take filters.
exactly. imho this is why the 82mm 16-35 f/2.8 II isn't going away, and why a 77mm 16-something f/4 IS would go over well.
 

Random Orbits

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 14, 2012
2,383
260
Zv said:
Oh totally! They need something in that ultra wide range other than the costly 14L. Their foolin no one with the 8-15 fisheye! I opted for the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 instead as I got fed up waiting. It's a pity I can't use filters with it though. Blasted bulbous ends! Haha!

What is the widest you can get without going bulbous end? Is it 16mm? I imagine a 12-24 or 14-24 would be quite expensive anyway and wouldn't take filters.
Zeiss' 15mm takes filters -- 95mm filters. :eek:
 

privatebydesign

I don't preorder, I'm not a paid beta tester!
Jan 29, 2011
8,815
2,743
120
Random Orbits said:
Zv said:
Oh totally! They need something in that ultra wide range other than the costly 14L. Their foolin no one with the 8-15 fisheye! I opted for the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 instead as I got fed up waiting. It's a pity I can't use filters with it though. Blasted bulbous ends! Haha!

What is the widest you can get without going bulbous end? Is it 16mm? I imagine a 12-24 or 14-24 would be quite expensive anyway and wouldn't take filters.
Zeiss' 15mm takes filters -- 95mm filters. :eek:
The TS-E 17 takes filters, 145mm filters.
 

Zv

EOS 5D Mark IV
Sep 23, 2012
1,766
0
www.flickr.com
privatebydesign said:
Random Orbits said:
Zv said:
Oh totally! They need something in that ultra wide range other than the costly 14L. Their foolin no one with the 8-15 fisheye! I opted for the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 instead as I got fed up waiting. It's a pity I can't use filters with it though. Blasted bulbous ends! Haha!

What is the widest you can get without going bulbous end? Is it 16mm? I imagine a 12-24 or 14-24 would be quite expensive anyway and wouldn't take filters.
Zeiss' 15mm takes filters -- 95mm filters. :eek:
The TS-E 17 takes filters, 145mm filters.
You say that like you can just buy those at the dollar store! I mean sure I bet the Hubble space telescope takes filters too! ;D

(I meant what regular folk consider a filter - 77mm / 82mm max.)
 

Cali_PH

EOS 90D
Mar 7, 2012
174
1
Zv said:
I opted for the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 instead as I got fed up waiting. It's a pity I can't use filters with it though. Blasted bulbous ends! Haha!
Actually, there is a (very expensive) Hitech Lucroit Filter Holder. It was originally designed for the Nikon 14-24, but they made adapter rings for other lenses, including the Samyang. It can be found on their site and places like B&H, Adorama, & Amazon. You'll also probably need to buy new large, expensive filters to go with it of course.

http://lucroit.com/SHOP/category.php?id_category=5

Also I believe Samyang posted something on their FB page about working on their own filter holder for it. As I recall they were hoping to release it around now.

There are also a number of home-made filter holders I've seen, you can google them and see if they look like something you'd like to try to duplicate.
 

Zv

EOS 5D Mark IV
Sep 23, 2012
1,766
0
www.flickr.com
Cali_PH said:
Zv said:
I opted for the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 instead as I got fed up waiting. It's a pity I can't use filters with it though. Blasted bulbous ends! Haha!
Actually, there is a (very expensive) Hitech Lucroit Filter Holder. It was originally designed for the Nikon 14-24, but they made adapter rings for other lenses, including the Samyang. It can be found on their site and places like B&H, Adorama, & Amazon. You'll also probably need to buy new large, expensive filters to go with it of course.

http://lucroit.com/SHOP/category.php?id_category=5

Also I believe Samyang posted something on their FB page about working on their own filter holder for it. As I recall they were hoping to release it around now.

There are also a number of home-made filter holders I've seen, you can google them and see if they look like something you'd like to try to duplicate.
Cool thanks!

I'll look out for the Samyang ones. They'll likely be cheap!
 

Lee Jay

EOS 7D Mark II
Sep 22, 2011
2,206
143
Zv said:
mackguyver said:
Zv said:
A 16-50 f/4 IS would be just the ticket.
I like the idea of that, but would still love something really wide like the Sigma 12-24 II I used to own. I fear that Canon considers our dreams of a super wide covered by the 8-15 f/4. A lot of their articles have pitched it as a wide angle lens, but at least to me, I don't care for the fisheye distortion even if it can be minimized with a perfectly level shot.
Oh totally! They need something in that ultra wide range other than the costly 14L. Their foolin no one with the 8-15 fisheye! I opted for the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 instead as I got fed up waiting. It's a pity I can't use filters with it though. Blasted bulbous ends! Haha!

What is the widest you can get without going bulbous end? Is it 16mm? I imagine a 12-24 or 14-24 would be quite expensive anyway and wouldn't take filters.
I may get rid of my 17-40l because I use my Sigma 15mm fisheye instead. To me, it's a better solution in almost all circumstances.
 
Lee Jay said:
Zv said:
mackguyver said:
Zv said:
A 16-50 f/4 IS would be just the ticket.
I like the idea of that, but would still love something really wide like the Sigma 12-24 II I used to own. I fear that Canon considers our dreams of a super wide covered by the 8-15 f/4. A lot of their articles have pitched it as a wide angle lens, but at least to me, I don't care for the fisheye distortion even if it can be minimized with a perfectly level shot.
Oh totally! They need something in that ultra wide range other than the costly 14L. Their foolin no one with the 8-15 fisheye! I opted for the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 instead as I got fed up waiting. It's a pity I can't use filters with it though. Blasted bulbous ends! Haha!

What is the widest you can get without going bulbous end? Is it 16mm? I imagine a 12-24 or 14-24 would be quite expensive anyway and wouldn't take filters.
I may get rid of my 17-40l because I use my Sigma 15mm fisheye instead. To me, it's a better solution in almost all circumstances.
I can understand, but I'm not just not a fan of the fisheye look. I borrowed the 14 2.8II from Canon and I found it to be kind of blah. The IQ is very good, but it just didn't excite me to shoot with it. I think a zoom is much more useful at these wide focal lengths and I really loved the range of the Sigma 12-24II, but it just wasn't terribly sharp, even when used at optimal settings.
 

GMCPhotographics

EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 22, 2010
1,640
336
49
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
mackguyver said:
Lee Jay said:
Zv said:
mackguyver said:
Zv said:
A 16-50 f/4 IS would be just the ticket.
I like the idea of that, but would still love something really wide like the Sigma 12-24 II I used to own. I fear that Canon considers our dreams of a super wide covered by the 8-15 f/4. A lot of their articles have pitched it as a wide angle lens, but at least to me, I don't care for the fisheye distortion even if it can be minimized with a perfectly level shot.
Oh totally! They need something in that ultra wide range other than the costly 14L. Their foolin no one with the 8-15 fisheye! I opted for the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 instead as I got fed up waiting. It's a pity I can't use filters with it though. Blasted bulbous ends! Haha!

What is the widest you can get without going bulbous end? Is it 16mm? I imagine a 12-24 or 14-24 would be quite expensive anyway and wouldn't take filters.
I may get rid of my 17-40l because I use my Sigma 15mm fisheye instead. To me, it's a better solution in almost all circumstances.
I can understand, but I'm not just not a fan of the fisheye look. I borrowed the 14 2.8II from Canon and I found it to be kind of blah. The IQ is very good, but it just didn't excite me to shoot with it. I think a zoom is much more useful at these wide focal lengths and I really loved the range of the Sigma 12-24II, but it just wasn't terribly sharp, even when used at optimal settings.
I still have a Sigma 12-24mm mkI and it's really a f11-16 lens. There's still nothing which can challenge it's angle view on full frame. Sure it's not very sharp but it's angle of view is unique. I just kind of wish that Canon would take their new hyper wide lens to the same spec but make it sharp...ie 12-24mm f4, fully rectilinear corrected (like the Sigma) and as such sits as a companion to the 16-35IIL.
 

Zv

EOS 5D Mark IV
Sep 23, 2012
1,766
0
www.flickr.com
Lee Jay said:
Zv said:
mackguyver said:
Zv said:
A 16-50 f/4 IS would be just the ticket.
I like the idea of that, but would still love something really wide like the Sigma 12-24 II I used to own. I fear that Canon considers our dreams of a super wide covered by the 8-15 f/4. A lot of their articles have pitched it as a wide angle lens, but at least to me, I don't care for the fisheye distortion even if it can be minimized with a perfectly level shot.
Oh totally! They need something in that ultra wide range other than the costly 14L. Their foolin no one with the 8-15 fisheye! I opted for the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 instead as I got fed up waiting. It's a pity I can't use filters with it though. Blasted bulbous ends! Haha!

What is the widest you can get without going bulbous end? Is it 16mm? I imagine a 12-24 or 14-24 would be quite expensive anyway and wouldn't take filters.
I may get rid of my 17-40l because I use my Sigma 15mm fisheye instead. To me, it's a better solution in almost all circumstances.
I've also considered selling my 17-40L but it has some things that I like - my copy is fairly sharp from 17-24mm f/5.6 + and that's where I use it most. Fast AF. It takes 77mm filters so I can CP-L it and ND it for waterfalls and long exposure stuff.

For just sheer wide angle fun I use the Sammy 14mm f/2.8.
 
Lee Jay said:
mackguyver said:
I can understand, but I'm not just not a fan of the fisheye look.
This is the problem with fisheye lenses in general - people don't understand what they do or how to use them.

Tell me which of these was taken with a fisheye:

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/huge/IMG_3334.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/huge/5D_24461-5D_24461.jpg
I agree, there are a ton of bad fisheye photos out there, and these are good examples of proper use. Even still, I don't like being limited to keeping the lens perfectly level. If they made a tilt-shift fisheye, I could probably get on board with that :)
 

Lee Jay

EOS 7D Mark II
Sep 22, 2011
2,206
143
mackguyver said:
Lee Jay said:
mackguyver said:
I can understand, but I'm not just not a fan of the fisheye look.
This is the problem with fisheye lenses in general - people don't understand what they do or how to use them.

Tell me which of these was taken with a fisheye:

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/huge/IMG_3334.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/huge/5D_24461-5D_24461.jpg
I agree, there are a ton of bad fisheye photos out there, and these are good examples of proper use. Even still, I don't like being limited to keeping the lens perfectly level. If they made a tilt-shift fisheye, I could probably get on board with that :)
The second one wasn't perfectly level, it was corrected (not defished) later. Software is good for that now, and a fisheye provides for more options, including cropping and defishing.
 

GMCPhotographics

EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 22, 2010
1,640
336
49
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
mackguyver said:
Lee Jay said:
mackguyver said:
I can understand, but I'm not just not a fan of the fisheye look.
This is the problem with fisheye lenses in general - people don't understand what they do or how to use them.

Tell me which of these was taken with a fisheye:

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/huge/IMG_3334.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/huge/5D_24461-5D_24461.jpg
I agree, there are a ton of bad fisheye photos out there, and these are good examples of proper use. Even still, I don't like being limited to keeping the lens perfectly level. If they made a tilt-shift fisheye, I could probably get on board with that :)
Lol...an uber specialist niche lens! A shift function would be cool, although I'm not sure a tile would be beneficial.
I've bought and sold fisheyes so many times over the years. I've had the Canon 15mm, the Sigma 15mm and 8mm several times...and I tended to get bored with them very quickly. Since I bought the 8-15L fisheye...I figured that It combines both types into one small and light lens body and makes it more of a two trick horse...and I'm using it sparingly but more often. It's a lens I've grown to like, although i can't imagine anyone ever buying a fisheye photo from me! So from a commercial point of view...it's a bit of a dud.
 
I got fed up waiting and picked up a 17-40 in December... I'm liking it a lot, but not loving it. I will wait for these putative lenses to be released, do the rounds, and maybe pick one up after a year or so (once the price is stabilised, and they become available here in India).

I am more interested in the 16-50 IS than the 14-24, but lets see what they are like once they are released! This year perhaps???