Re: Ultrawide Canon?
What about Canon's EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM? Not wide enough, or not fast enough?
Canonicon said:
What about Canon's EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM? Not wide enough, or not fast enough?
Upvote
0
Re: Ultrawide Canon?
Always a chance, but I am not sure the time is right yet. The 16-35 f/4 IS still is new and they may want to "double dip" people who buy that lens on a 16-35 f/2.8 III a year from now for more profit. A wider option is also a possibility, but recall that the 14mm f/2.8 prime already exists.
Finally, while the 16-35 f/2.8 II shows weakness at the borders, it is still optically superior to the still-in-production Nikon 17-35 f/2.8. The 14-24 f/2.8 is great, however it has a bulbous element and cannot do 35mm obviously; so it is also possible that the 16-35 f/2.8 II will remain in the lineup for some time and be complemented by an 11-24/12-24/14-24.
Most people who are truly worried about sharp corners do not need f/2.8 (i.e., landscape and probably would prefer the ability to use a front filter). Most people who are worried about f/2.8 do not need sharp corners (i.e. event photographers, photojournalism - human subject near center of frame to avoid perspective distortion at this focal length, corners mainly out of focus background). Because of this, it makes this a less pressing lens for Canon IMO. It would be nice to have a non-bulbous 16-35 f/2.8L III that did it all, though - sharper corners for landscape (or at least less CA) but also f/2.8 for people.
Canonicon said:
Always a chance, but I am not sure the time is right yet. The 16-35 f/4 IS still is new and they may want to "double dip" people who buy that lens on a 16-35 f/2.8 III a year from now for more profit. A wider option is also a possibility, but recall that the 14mm f/2.8 prime already exists.
Finally, while the 16-35 f/2.8 II shows weakness at the borders, it is still optically superior to the still-in-production Nikon 17-35 f/2.8. The 14-24 f/2.8 is great, however it has a bulbous element and cannot do 35mm obviously; so it is also possible that the 16-35 f/2.8 II will remain in the lineup for some time and be complemented by an 11-24/12-24/14-24.
Most people who are truly worried about sharp corners do not need f/2.8 (i.e., landscape and probably would prefer the ability to use a front filter). Most people who are worried about f/2.8 do not need sharp corners (i.e. event photographers, photojournalism - human subject near center of frame to avoid perspective distortion at this focal length, corners mainly out of focus background). Because of this, it makes this a less pressing lens for Canon IMO. It would be nice to have a non-bulbous 16-35 f/2.8L III that did it all, though - sharper corners for landscape (or at least less CA) but also f/2.8 for people.
Upvote
0
C
Canonicon
Guest
Re: Ultrawide Canon?
I thought about it. But i want AF.
An i really would love to have the 24mm end on such a lens too.
A Zoom is simply more versatile.
Most people use lenses for more than one purpose.
For one purpose you want maximum sharpness, you can simply stop down with a fast lens.
For another purpose you want to gather as much light as possible.
climber said:
I thought about it. But i want AF.
An i really would love to have the 24mm end on such a lens too.
A Zoom is simply more versatile.
Most people use lenses for more than one purpose.
For one purpose you want maximum sharpness, you can simply stop down with a fast lens.
For another purpose you want to gather as much light as possible.
Upvote
0
Re: Ultrawide Canon?
Landscapers already have their 16-35/4L IS, which is at last sharp from corner to corner. So there would be a lesser appeal for them, if Canon released 11-24/14-24/16-35 with f/2.8. Major deterrent would be price and weight over the 16-35/4L IS. And to be honest, even 16mm is plenty wide and there are very rare occasions you need to go wider IMHO.
Ruined said:
Landscapers already have their 16-35/4L IS, which is at last sharp from corner to corner. So there would be a lesser appeal for them, if Canon released 11-24/14-24/16-35 with f/2.8. Major deterrent would be price and weight over the 16-35/4L IS. And to be honest, even 16mm is plenty wide and there are very rare occasions you need to go wider IMHO.
Upvote
0
Re: Ultrawide Canon?
I don't even have to, I'm not a marketing director of Canon. But this makes an impression like you claim you do, what people need
On a more serious note, how many of total top-notch wide angle shots used wider than 16mm? I'm just asking, because even under 24mm, the perspective distortion takes its toll and even shooting events with people is difficult, not to make a disproportionate person in the frame. 16mm is quite a challenge for either events and landscapes. Sure I've seen amazing ultrawide images with either 14mm or even 12mm (Sigma), but they are far from majority of all the wide-angle shots. If someone really needs wider than 16mm, it's rather specialty or niche, not a majority.
And apart from 15mm Zeiss (with huge filter thread), I've yet to see filterable lens wider than 14mm (for FF that is), which can be a no-go for quite a number of landscapers
Canonicon said:But honestly you obviously don´t know what people need.
I don't even have to, I'm not a marketing director of Canon. But this makes an impression like you claim you do, what people need
On a more serious note, how many of total top-notch wide angle shots used wider than 16mm? I'm just asking, because even under 24mm, the perspective distortion takes its toll and even shooting events with people is difficult, not to make a disproportionate person in the frame. 16mm is quite a challenge for either events and landscapes. Sure I've seen amazing ultrawide images with either 14mm or even 12mm (Sigma), but they are far from majority of all the wide-angle shots. If someone really needs wider than 16mm, it's rather specialty or niche, not a majority.
And apart from 15mm Zeiss (with huge filter thread), I've yet to see filterable lens wider than 14mm (for FF that is), which can be a no-go for quite a number of landscapers
Upvote
0
C
Canonicon
Guest
Re: Ultrawide Canon?
Well look at this forum, look at other forums.
People obviously want such a 12-24mm or 14-24mm f2.8 zoom.
Nikonias love the 14-24mm f2.8.
What more proof do you need?
Khalai said:Canonicon said:But honestly you obviously don´t know what people need.
I don't even have to, I'm not a marketing director of Canon. But this makes an impression like you claim you do, what people need
Well look at this forum, look at other forums.
People obviously want such a 12-24mm or 14-24mm f2.8 zoom.
Nikonias love the 14-24mm f2.8.
What more proof do you need?
Upvote
0
Re: Ultrawide Canon?
Many people don't even know what they want.
For example, which Canon ultra-wides have you owned and used? Have you used the 16-35/2.8? Have the corners degraded the images? Care to share some examples?
What do you primarily shoot? In which situations do you use a UWA zoom where the edge IQ AND fast aperture was necessary?
Would you be willing to pay for a $2k lens? What other similarly priced lens do you own? What is your budget on photographic equipment?
Without that background, this post reads like trolling to me.
There is definitely a demand for a sharp ultra-wide zoom, but it is not as big as one would think. For one, I'm hoping for a 12-24/2.8, but neither can I claim that the lack of that lens is affecting my photography seriously, nor can I claim I'd be able to afford it when it arrives. So I'm not a demographic Canon would like to rely on making such a large investment. Are you?
Canonicon said:Khalai said:Canonicon said:But honestly you obviously don´t know what people need.
I don't even have to, I'm not a marketing director of Canon. But this makes an impression like you claim you do, what people need
Well look at this forum, look at other forums.
People obviously want such a 12-24mm or 14-24mm f2.8 zoom.
Nikonias love the 14-24mm f2.8.
What more proof do you need?
Many people don't even know what they want.
For example, which Canon ultra-wides have you owned and used? Have you used the 16-35/2.8? Have the corners degraded the images? Care to share some examples?
What do you primarily shoot? In which situations do you use a UWA zoom where the edge IQ AND fast aperture was necessary?
Would you be willing to pay for a $2k lens? What other similarly priced lens do you own? What is your budget on photographic equipment?
Without that background, this post reads like trolling to me.
There is definitely a demand for a sharp ultra-wide zoom, but it is not as big as one would think. For one, I'm hoping for a 12-24/2.8, but neither can I claim that the lack of that lens is affecting my photography seriously, nor can I claim I'd be able to afford it when it arrives. So I'm not a demographic Canon would like to rely on making such a large investment. Are you?
Upvote
0
Re: Ultrawide Canon?
Wanting something and needing something are two different things Sure, there is a place for such zoom. I'd love to see one and try one as I consider myself a gearhead and loving such optical stunts as this. But as soon as you launch this lens, there will be a horde of complainers, spitting fire over price/weight/no filter thread/badly designed lens cap/incorrect colour of the red ring - just take a pick
And you forgot the silent and satisfied majority of users, who don't post on the forums. Besides, people will always b**ch about the things they think they need. Give them 12-24/2.8L lens and soon, they'll want 8-16/4L for fullframe, rectilinear with filter thread. And after that, we are just a small step for a mythical unicorn called 8-1200mm f/1.4L IS USM Macro Pancake for a mere 1000 USD
Forum folk is never satisfied
Canonicon said:Khalai said:Canonicon said:But honestly you obviously don´t know what people need.
I don't even have to, I'm not a marketing director of Canon. But this makes an impression like you claim you do, what people need
Well look at this forum, look at other forums.
People obviously want such a 12-24mm or 14-24mm f2.8 zoom.
Nikonias love the 14-24mm f2.8.
What more proof do you need?
Wanting something and needing something are two different things
Sure, there is a place for such zoom. I'd love to see one and try one as I consider myself a gearhead and loving such optical stunts as this. But as soon as you launch this lens, there will be a horde of complainers, spitting fire over price/weight/no filter thread/badly designed lens cap/incorrect colour of the red ring - just take a pick And you forgot the silent and satisfied majority of users, who don't post on the forums. Besides, people will always b**ch about the things they think they need. Give them 12-24/2.8L lens and soon, they'll want 8-16/4L for fullframe, rectilinear with filter thread. And after that, we are just a small step for a mythical unicorn called 8-1200mm f/1.4L IS USM Macro Pancake for a mere 1000 USD
Forum folk is never satisfied
Upvote
0
C
Canonicon
Guest
Re: Ultrawide Canon?
Good that you know so much about what other people know.
Can you rent me you crystalball?
I have the Sigma 12-24mm and the EF 17-40mm.
I am waiting to replace both with a sharp and fast canon 12/14-24mm ultrawide zoom.
I wait for some time.
When it offers the quality.. in an instant yes.
The 24-70mm f2.8 was not cheap either but it offers outstanding quality.
I am well aware that quality does not come cheap.
The 16-35mm lacks on the corners especially wide open. Every review says that.
But of course they are all wrong. :
As long as Canon does not offer a lens people don´t need it.
Sorrry but how could i not expect the typical fanboy reply.
Who cares that even this forum proofs the opposit.
On the other side a 200-400mm, that only a minority can afford, is the biggest achievment ever. But who needs a ultrawide zoom?
A zoom that is even wide on APS-C without being limited to APS-C.
Who could possibly need such a lens? :
sagittariansrock said:Canonicon said:Khalai said:Canonicon said:But honestly you obviously don´t know what people need.
I don't even have to, I'm not a marketing director of Canon. But this makes an impression like you claim you do, what people need
Well look at this forum, look at other forums.
People obviously want such a 12-24mm or 14-24mm f2.8 zoom.
Nikonias love the 14-24mm f2.8.
What more proof do you need?
Many people don't even know what they want.
Good that you know so much about what other people know.
Can you rent me you crystalball?
I have the Sigma 12-24mm and the EF 17-40mm.
I am waiting to replace both with a sharp and fast canon 12/14-24mm ultrawide zoom.
I wait for some time.
When it offers the quality.. in an instant yes.
The 24-70mm f2.8 was not cheap either but it offers outstanding quality.
I am well aware that quality does not come cheap.
The 16-35mm lacks on the corners especially wide open. Every review says that.
But of course they are all wrong. :
As long as Canon does not offer a lens people don´t need it.
Sorrry but how could i not expect the typical fanboy reply.
Who cares that even this forum proofs the opposit.
On the other side a 200-400mm, that only a minority can afford, is the biggest achievment ever. But who needs a ultrawide zoom?
A zoom that is even wide on APS-C without being limited to APS-C.
Who could possibly need such a lens? :
Upvote
0
C
Canonicon
Guest
pwp said:
Is it a zoom?
I agree it´s a great lens. But it´s another (one more) lens i have to carry around.
Another point:
On my 7D i don´t use a EF-S 18-55mm or EF-S 10-22mm, i use the 17-40mm and the Sigma 12-24mm.
For me a really good 12/14-24mm f2.8 ultrawide zoom from Canon would be usefull on both my APS-C and FF bodys. I don´t like buying EF-S lense when i don´t have too.
Upvote
0
Re: Ultrawide Canon?
16-35/2.8L II has bad corners, there is no doubt about that. I'd just like to know the scenario, when you need sharp corners and shoot wide open at the same time. Astrophotography perhaps? But then, you are far better off with Samyang 14/2.8 anyway for astro
Who the hell would like to spend over 2K USD over rather specialty UWA lens and then totally lose the purpose of mounting it to APS-C body? I mean, why? You could use cheaper, lighter and more APS-C tailored lens anyway. There may be sometimes need for that, but I'd never consider that as a common scenario anyway.
Canonicon said:The 16-35mm lacks on the corners especially wide open. Every review says that.
But of course they are all wrong. :
16-35/2.8L II has bad corners, there is no doubt about that. I'd just like to know the scenario, when you need sharp corners and shoot wide open at the same time. Astrophotography perhaps? But then, you are far better off with Samyang 14/2.8 anyway for astro
Canonicon said:A zoom that is even wide on APS-C without being limited to APS-C.
Who could possibly need such a lens? :
Who the hell would like to spend over 2K USD over rather specialty UWA lens and then totally lose the purpose of mounting it to APS-C body? I mean, why? You could use cheaper, lighter and more APS-C tailored lens anyway. There may be sometimes need for that, but I'd never consider that as a common scenario anyway.
Upvote
0
C
Canonicon
Guest
Re: Ultrawide Canon?
You don´t get the point. Because you don´t look beyond your own horizon.
Do you travel with your gear? Mountaineering by any chance?
I don´t buy it to use it solely on APS-C. :
But when it´s in my backback i can use it on my APS-C camera TOO.
And a 12mm on APS-C is still much wider than a 16mm.
I carry two bodys but i don´t want to carry more lenses than i have too.
Of course i could buy a slower EF-S 10-22mm any carry that around .... but i prefer not too.
Khalai said:
You don´t get the point. Because you don´t look beyond your own horizon.
Do you travel with your gear? Mountaineering by any chance?
I don´t buy it to use it solely on APS-C. :
But when it´s in my backback i can use it on my APS-C camera TOO.
And a 12mm on APS-C is still much wider than a 16mm.
I carry two bodys but i don´t want to carry more lenses than i have too.
Of course i could buy a slower EF-S 10-22mm any carry that around .... but i prefer not too.
Upvote
0
Re: Ultrawide Canon?
When I do, I use to travel light, hence single body and 2-3 lenses only
12mm on Canon crop bodies is merely 19ish mm equiv. If you carry two bodies, I assume one of them is FF. Why would you put an UWA on the APS-C one, when you have FF (thus much wider angle) in your backpack too?
Canonicon said:
When I do, I use to travel light, hence single body and 2-3 lenses only
Canonicon said:But when it´s in my backback i can use it on my APS-C camera TOO.
And a 12mm on APS-C is still much wider than a 16mm.
12mm on Canon crop bodies is merely 19ish mm equiv. If you carry two bodies, I assume one of them is FF. Why would you put an UWA on the APS-C one, when you have FF (thus much wider angle) in your backpack too?
Upvote
0
C
Canonicon
Guest
Re: Ultrawide Canon?
And 16mm is 25ish mm equiv.
So?
Is 19mm useless or what do you want to say?
Im well aware that i don´t get so wide on APS-C.
I still get wider than with a 16-35mm.
In case my FF dies and there is no Canon shop on the Mountain.
In case i need/want a different lens on my FF and i don´t want or can switch lenses in a situation.
Yes, i was in both situations before.
Again i don´t buy such a lens FOR my APS-C camera... but the use is greater for me than a 16-35mm would be.
What is the alternative?
Another lens like the EF-S 10-22mm. And i don´t want to carry that.
It´s about versatility for me. But it´s only one point why i want this lens.
Khalai said:
And 16mm is 25ish mm equiv.
So?
Is 19mm useless or what do you want to say?
Im well aware that i don´t get so wide on APS-C.
I still get wider than with a 16-35mm.
In case my FF dies and there is no Canon shop on the Mountain.
In case i need/want a different lens on my FF and i don´t want or can switch lenses in a situation.
Yes, i was in both situations before.
Again i don´t buy such a lens FOR my APS-C camera... but the use is greater for me than a 16-35mm would be.
What is the alternative?
Another lens like the EF-S 10-22mm. And i don´t want to carry that.
It´s about versatility for me. But it´s only one point why i want this lens.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
