POLL: Why everyone reeeeeally wants a 14-24 F/2.8L lens

[ahsanford]

Just curious what the true need is for those clamoring for a 14-24. Is it to have a wide zoom as sharp as Nikon's legendary lens, or is it there something very important about that specific 14-24 FL?

In this poll, you can't have both. If you had to choose one over the other, which would you take?

- A

 

[Eldar]

I find it hard to believe that Canon would release a 12/14-24 lens that would not match the Nikon. If it does not, I´ll stick to my Zeiss 15 f2.8 and TS-E 17 f3.5L

 

[wickidwombat]

i voted the 16-35 but i'd rather it be a 16-35 f2.8 IS than a mk3
i find 16-35 more usefull than i would a 14-24

 

[Grumbaki]

voted 16-35 III but i'm biaised toward photojournalisme more than landscapes.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Reducing the focal range with the existing 16-35/2.8 IQ will be adding insult to injury...

 

[Sporgon]

That's everyone except Sporgon

 

[abcde12345]

Can't I have something as wide and sharp too? I want to have my cake and eat it! ;D Jokes aside I think that's the real deal: we want it wide and we want it sharp.

 

[cid]

Ineteresting question

For me the 14-24 option would be probably more interesting, since I have 24-35mm covered by 24-70mkII, but I'm kinda sharpnes junkie so I'll pass if it would not be sharp enough.

Right now the 16-35 f/4 IS seems like very tempting option to choose from, but of course there are no reviews yet

 

[RLPhoto]

I got used to my LEE filter set and using it on a 14-24 is more difficult than with a 16-35. I could work with 2mm less but it be hard to work without my filters.

 

[heymatthew]

I'd love a 14-24 as I've got the 17-40, 24-105 and 70-300L, which are all fine for me. I've also got a 35L and 135L. The 14-24 would provide a really nice landscape/architecture lens that would also fill a bit of a gap for me that the 14L would be too specialized for.

 

[climber]

I'd like to see that option in the poll: 14-24, 2.8 as sharp as Nikon's 14-24

 

[Dylan777]

16-35 f2.8 IS is my vote. IQ must be good as Nik 14-24 or better. 82mm filter thread mount helps

Looking at 16-35 f4 IS MTF chart, Canon is more than capable making high quality UWA zoom lenses.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I see little use for a lens that is flare prone as the Nikon 14-24. The sharp images you see in tests are taken in a lab environment, in field, flare usually washes out the contrast. That's why the price has dropped so much on them.

I'd say just get the Nikon lens. At really wide angles, AF is not needed, and certainly, f/2.8 is not useful for landscapes, so it is a very limited application.

 

[privatebydesign]

Neither.

I have a 17TS-E that is "better" than a Nikon 14-24 equaling 16-35.

If a Canon 14-24 is no better than the current 16-35 I'll continue stitching the 17 for highest end work and use the 15mm fisheye and defish for everything else.

 

[Razor2012]

I'm for a 14-24 2.8, this would fit in perfect with my 24-70 2.8 II and the 70-200 2.8 II. I'd use that speed indoors also. But like previously stated, it has to be tack sharp and I have no doubt it would.

 

[dgatwood]

16-35 f2.8 IS is my vote. IQ must be good as Nik 14-24 or better. 82mm filter thread mount helps

Likewise. Adding IS to the f/2.8 lens would be enough to make me upgrade my 16–35 L II. Sharpness increases alone probably wouldn't be.

With that said, I'd still choose the 16–35 range over the 14–24 range, even though I'd love to have the extra width on the wide end, because I'm a big believer in having lens focal ranges that overlap, to reduce the number of lens changes. All the Canon zooms on FF start at 24mm, so a lens that ends at 24mm is a non-starter for me. Just my personal preference.

Ideally, though? A 14–35 f/2.8L IS with at least the same center sharpness as the current 16–35 L II, with full-frame corner sharpness that at least matches the crop-body corner sharpness of the EF-S 10–22 (which the 16–35 L II sadly falls short of, even though it costs twice as much).

 

[Ruined]

Just curious what the true need is for those clamoring for a 14-24. Is it to have a wide zoom as sharp as Nikon's legendary lens, or is it there something very important about that specific 14-24 FL?

In this poll, you can't have both. If you had to choose one over the other, which would you take?

- A

If actually possible, I'd take a 16-35 III f/2.8 that accepts filters. But I am not sure that is possible as every f/2.8 lens I've seen that is as sharp as the 14-24 (including the 14-24 itself) has a bulbous element, and the last 16-35 upgrade was not massive in terms of sharpness despite upping the front element size considerably. Thus bulbous may be necessary for the next level of sharpness, but I would not like that in crowded events where I use the 16-35 II f/2.8.

Also, I don't find 14-24 that useful of a zoom range. I would rather just have a 14mm prime and a 24-70/24L if the top end stopped at 24mm.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Neither.

I have a 17TS-E that is "better" than a Nikon 14-24 equaling 16-35.

If a Canon 14-24 is no better than the current 16-35 I'll continue stitching the 17 for highest end work and use the 15mm fisheye and defish for everything else.

+1. With the 17mm TS-E in landscape orientation, if you shift in the X-direction and stitch then you get 11mm of coverage and if you shift in the Y-direction and stitch you get 13mm of coverage. And that's with way better flare resistance and virtually no distortion. So while the 17mm TS-E is not quite as blindingly sharp as the Nikkor 14-24, I certainly do agree that it is a better tool especially with regards to Architecture/Landscape. If money were no object it would be the 1st lens I would go out and buy.

 

[AshtonNekolah]

Canon got a 14 f2.8 and a 24 f1.4 they are primes so we have it, just cant zoom it in between, sooner or latter canon would bring that lens out either way, canon rules when it comes to lenses. Period.