Patent: Canon RF 12mm f/2.8, RF 14mm f/2.8 and RF 20mm f/2.8

[Rivermist]

My experience with W.A. zooms is that they sometimes (depending on aperture ,distance, focus settings) exhibit a strange behaviour.
Some parts of the pictures that should be in focus aren't, while other equidistant ones, are.
Primes are far more reliable.
But maybe this is a purely personnel experience?
Additionally: just try to compare the 11-24 or 16-35 set at 24mm with results obtained with the EF 1,4/24 or TSE 24 II ...
Or have a look at the Nikon Z 24mm.
Primes are in my subjective pixel-peeping opinion sharper.
I just hope the new Canon primes will not be comatose wide open.

I do admit to not having checked down to such detail, I use UWA almost exclusively for landscape / travel photography, and yes I have owned at different times the EF 24mm 1.4L (amazing) and the TS-E 24mm (exceptional), but the 11-24 is very close and shines where I need it most (11-20), since I have the RF 24-105L for 24mm and above (OK, some distortion at 24 as well, but again not something that is so far off the "perfect" rating for my specific usage). More important for me when looking at a trade-off "quality versus versatility" is having access to the whole range on UWA with a single lens. When bulk is an issue I have the EF 16-35 F4 IS which is quite amazing across the whole spread of focal lengths, and slightly better than the 24-105 in the 24-35 range.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

...RF 14 would be dangerously close to the divorce line for most buyers.

At the moment, my divorce line is set at around 2.000 € max. I thought about picking up the 15-35mm F2.8 (2.500 € in Germany) for landscape and astro but I wound up sleeping on the couch...metaphorically speaking,

 

[Rivermist]

Someone already made the comment that there is an RF markup of sorts, and it is true that so far the RF L lenses have been a solid increase on their EF equivalents. With the EF 11-24 already priced at $3,000, the RF L 10-24 will probably hit well above $3,500 if not $4,000. The $2,100 EF 14mm 2.8 will translate to just short of $3,000 in RF, and the RF 14mm TS will definitely be in the lower to mid- $3,000 compared to the TS-E 17mm.

 

[Del Paso]

I'm afraid the 14mm TSE will even cost a (huge) bit more...

 

[Antono Refa]

My experience with W.A. zooms is that they sometimes (depending on aperture ,distance, focus settings) exhibit a strange behaviour.
Some parts of the pictures that should be in focus aren't, while other equidistant ones, are.
Primes are far more reliable.
But maybe this is a purely personnel experience?

No, its field curvature. As Roger Cicala wrote, "wide-angle lenses tend to have more curvature, or more irregular curvature". Generally, zooms are less corrected than primes, so your personal experience makes sense.

 

[Ozarker]

These are the lenses I've been waiting for, especially the 2,8/20.
At last some wide-angle primes!

I agree. In my current lens poverty situation, I get excited at any announcements. My only wish is that these could at least be f/1.4 or f/1.2. Champagne taste on a water budget.

 

[Del Paso]

No, its field curvature. As Roger Cicala wrote, "wide-angle lenses tend to have more curvature, or more irregular curvature". Generally, zooms are less corrected than primes, so your personal experience makes sense.

The interesting element in your answer is the "irregular" field curvature.
I had myself thought of field curvature, but rejected that solution, since only one side of the picture was affected.
But the fact that field curvature can be irregular is indeed an interesting suggestion. It could also be decentering...
I have the afore-mentionned issue only around 30-35mm with the EF 16-35 f4 at infinity setting.