Ultrawide Zoom from Canon?

[Mitch.Conner]

When will Canon announce a fast ultrawide zoom?

Nikon has the great 14-24mm f2.8.
Canon only a 16-35mm f2.8 that shows weakness at the borders and a slow f4 version.

Any chance for a Photokina announcement?

I doubt it since the rumor died almost as quickly as it appeared.... BUT, as far as people hoping it's soon, and indeed at Photokina - I'm with you because I'm feeling trapped in regards to my next lens purchase. All I have is 1 lens bought beyond my kit lens, which is at least one to two lenses behind where I expected to be by now.

My most recent lens acquisition was a 70-200 f/2.8, which to be perfectly honest, I bought it because it was the ONLY lens right now that had everything I wanted (fast, IS, sharp, etc.) With the new 16-35, I have to choose between those features? Similar deal with the 24-70.

We keep hearing Canon has been investing its time and resources in Cinema lenses... ok... but could they at least then give us development announcements so we're not left in the dark?

One of the biggest reasons, to me at least, for being loyal to Canon, is their glass. I'd really like to see a few years of releasing new USEFUL products.

I emphasize "USEFUL" because I understand that the new 24-105 might display that future FF bodies might have Dual Pixel tech (that would be great), and that it might be the kit lens for a less expensive FF kit (ok, if people say so) - but neither Dual Pixel tech on FF, nor that less-expensive kit currently exist - so why is this lens amongst those that what they've been working on for release at Photokina?

What happened to lenses that would sell lot hotcakes (ie: 100-400 refresh)? They have to know that a crisp, fast UWA zoom would sell like hotcakes. ???

So, long story (above) short - I'm with you. Hoping. Just hoping.

 

[Canonicon]

I emphasize "USEFUL" because I understand that the new 24-105 might display that future FF bodies might have Dual Pixel tech (that would be great), and that it might be the kit lens for a less expensive FF kit (ok, if people say so) - but neither that Dual Pixel tech on FF, nor that kit currently exist - so why is this lens amont those that what they've been working on for release at Photokina?

if they had made it a constant f4 lens... but not even that.

 

[Sabaki]

Not every lens Canon produces, will end up in every kit bag out there.

There may be a need, like a WA, that is filled by different variants (give a mm or 2 here, some aperture there) and Canon knows this. So they will build a 10-22, 17-40, 16-35f/2.8, 16-35 F/4, 14mm, TS-Es etc

A 12/14-24mm f/2.8 will not be an irrelevant product. Top notch performance will make it's position in the market irrepressible. Heck, we may even find some Nikonites with it strapped to their D810s

 

[StudentOfLight]

Not every lens Canon produces, will end up in every kit bag out there.

There may be a need, like a WA, that is filled by different variants (give a mm or 2 here, some aperture there) and Canon knows this. So they will build a 10-22, 17-40, 16-35f/2.8, 16-35 F/4, 14mm, TS-Es etc

A 12/14-24mm f/2.8 will not be an irrelevant product. Top notch performance will make it's position in the market irrepressible. Heck, we may even find some Nikonites with it strapped to their D810s

I don't think Canon EF lenses work on Nikon bodies. as the lens will focus in front of the sensor.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Re: Ultrawide Canon?

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.

Would you be willing to pay for a $2k lens?

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? :

Neither do I have a crystal ball, nor am I a fanboy.
I would definitely want a 12-24/2.8 to come out, although I don't know if I will be able to afford it for a while. I will need to wait for a year or so until the prices go down a bit, or the lens is available refurbished. So you see, people like me will not fulfill Canon's market requirements. They need early adopters to make up the investment costs. Lenses like the 200-400 sell like hotcakes and are sold out by pre-ordering.
If Canon brings something out though, be sure it will rock everyone's socks off. I don't think Canon has produced anything second rate in terms of lenses for a while now. Even the strongest critics will agree to that.
Photokina? I don't know- wouldn't we have heard something then? Plus, a lens like this might demand its own announcement.

 

[Canonicon]

Re: Ultrawide Canon?

They need early adopters to make up the investment costs. Lenses like the 200-400 sell like hotcakes and are sold out by pre-ordering.

Ok numbers?

How many 200-400mm f4 has Canon sold, how many produced?

How many 14-24mm f2.8 has Nikon sold?

Without hard numbers this is all a guessing game.

That the 200-400mm is sold out is fine... but how many have they produced?
500, 5000, 50000?

 

[DominoDude]

I emphasize "USEFUL" because I understand that the new 24-105 might display that future FF bodies might have Dual Pixel tech (that would be great), and that it might be the kit lens for a less expensive FF kit (ok, if people say so) - but neither that Dual Pixel tech on FF, nor that kit currently exist - so why is this lens amont those that what they've been working on for release at Photokina?

if they had made it a constant f4 lens... but not even that.

Ok, since you changed the original topic, and wasn't too happy with the prime I suggested there: How about the Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM then? Now you have your UWA, the zoom, and a constant f/4.

 

[Canonicon]

I emphasize "USEFUL" because I understand that the new 24-105 might display that future FF bodies might have Dual Pixel tech (that would be great), and that it might be the kit lens for a less expensive FF kit (ok, if people say so) - but neither that Dual Pixel tech on FF, nor that kit currently exist - so why is this lens amont those that what they've been working on for release at Photokina?

if they had made it a constant f4 lens... but not even that.

Ok, since you changed the original topic, and wasn't too happy with the prime I suggested there: How about the Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM then? Now you have your UWA, the zoom, and a constant f/4.

I don´t want a fisheye and i want something fast.

 

[Mitch.Conner]

• Not every lens Canon produces, will end up in every kit bag out there.

  
  Agreed, but wouldn't you agree that there are certain offerings that will end up in considerably more bags/studios/etc. than others? Some lenses just have mass appeal.
  
  

  There may be a need, like a WA, that is filled by different variants (give a mm or 2 here, some aperture there) and Canon knows this. So they will build a 10-22, 17-40, 16-35f/2.8, 16-35 F/4, 14mm, TS-Es etc

  I understand your point, but let's look at the offerings you mentioned.
  • The 10-22 is EF-S, to which I say - great, that makes perfect sense to give crop users a dedicated Wide Angle lens given the difficulties they might have trying to use a FF/film Ultra Wide Angle lens. This is the 16-35 for EF-S lenses in effect. No argument there. I don't have a use for it, but I'm sure tons of people do.
  • The 17-40 now occupies an odd position, especially since it didn't drop in price last weekend (to my knowledge). The new 16-35 f/4L IS has almost the same range, the same max aperture, better optics froom what I've read, and Image Stablization, for less than $400 more. Don't get me wrong, $400, isn't pocket change by any stretch, but I imagine many will opt for the new 16-35 f/4 unless Canon drops the price of the 17-40 somewhat more.
  • The two 16-35's for me are a tease. Do you want more light, or more sharpness and IS? While many I suspect will choose the latter, especially considering that it's less expensive than the 2.8 non IS version, I want as much light as I can get. Maybe it's an obsession of mine, but I'm just not a fan of f/4 being ok for new lenses. I'm ok with not getting more than f/2.8, as I don't think I've seen a zoom offered with more than that, so I assume there's a current tech limitation there for the moment, but 2.8 seems possible. Admittedly, I'm not a Canon optics engineer. Sadly, I also want IS. Ff I can avoid carrying a tripod, it stays at home or in the car.
  • Tilt-Shift?
  Don't get me wrong, as I'm very interested in learning more about what these lenses can do, as well as tilt shift photography in general, but I thought we were talking about Wide/Ultra-Wide zooms? Speaking of which, that would be very cool if Canon came out with one. I'm unaware of a reason why it couldn't be done, but again - I freely admit I'm not an optics engineer (or any kind of engineer). I'm a law student in my final year with strong interest in intellectual property (notably patents and patent law). So, I could be wrong about any part of what I've posted.

A 12/14-24mm f/2.8 will not be an irrelevant product. Top notch performance will make it's position in the market irrepressible. Heck, we may even find some Nikonites with it strapped to their D810s [/b]

It's not an irrelevant product now. For $2k for the lens and $3,300 for the camera, Nikon users can already put a 14-24 f/2.8 on a D810. It doesn't have VR, but nobody's perfect. It's a good start though.

NOTE: I've not slept in a day, so please forgive any horrendous typos, grammar and punctuation mistakes, and the like.

 

[Loswr]

Re: Ultrawide Canon?

Nikonias love the 14-24mm f2.8.

What more proof do you need?

Nikon doesn't have an ultrawide PC-E lens. Canon shooters love their TS-E 17mm.

What more proof do you need? :

 

[sagittariansrock]

• Not every lens Canon produces, will end up in every kit bag out there.

  
  Agreed, but wouldn't you agree that there are certain offerings that will end up in considerably more bags/studios/etc. than others? Some lenses just have mass appeal.
  
  

  There may be a need, like a WA, that is filled by different variants (give a mm or 2 here, some aperture there) and Canon knows this. So they will build a 10-22, 17-40, 16-35f/2.8, 16-35 F/4, 14mm, TS-Es etc

  I understand your point, but let's look at the offerings you mentioned.
  • The 10-22 is EF-S, to which I say - great, that makes perfect sense to give crop users a dedicated Wide Angle lens given the difficulties they might have trying to use a FF/film Ultra Wide Angle lens. This is the 16-35 for EF-S lenses in effect. No argument there. I don't have a use for it, but I'm sure tons of people do.
  • The 17-40 now occupies an odd position, especially since it didn't drop in price last weekend (to my knowledge). The new 16-35 f/4L IS has almost the same range, the same max aperture, better optics froom what I've read, and Image Stablization, for less than $400 more. Don't get me wrong, $400, isn't pocket change by any stretch, but I imagine many will opt for the new 16-35 f/4 unless Canon drops the price of the 17-40 somewhat more.
  • The two 16-35's for me are a tease. Do you want more light, or more sharpness and IS? While many I suspect will choose the latter, especially considering that it's less expensive than the 2.8 non IS version, I want as much light as I can get. Maybe it's an obsession of mine, but I'm just not a fan of f/4 being ok for new lenses. I'm ok with not getting more than f/2.8, as I don't think I've seen a zoom offered with more than that, so I assume there's a current tech limitation there for the moment, but 2.8 seems possible. Admittedly, I'm not a Canon optics engineer. Sadly, I also want IS. Ff I can avoid carrying a tripod, it stays at home or in the car.
  • Tilt-Shift?
  Don't get me wrong, as I'm very interested in learning more about what these lenses can do, as well as tilt shift photography in general, but I thought we were talking about Wide/Ultra-Wide zooms? Speaking of which, that would be very cool if Canon came out with one. I'm unaware of a reason why it couldn't be done, but again - I freely admit I'm not an optics engineer (or any kind of engineer). I'm a law student in my final year with strong interest in intellectual property (notably patents and patent law). So, I could be wrong about any part of what I've posted.

A 12/14-24mm f/2.8 will not be an irrelevant product. Top notch performance will make it's position in the market irrepressible. Heck, we may even find some Nikonites with it strapped to their D810s [/b]

It's not an irrelevant product now. For $2k for the lens and $3,300 for the camera, Nikon users can already put a 14-24 f/2.8 on a D810. It doesn't have VR, but nobody's perfect. It's a good start though.

NOTE: I've not slept in a day, so please forgive any horrendous typos, grammar and punctuation mistakes, and the like.

If you're keeping your tripod at home, you might be missing a lot.
Get a light travel tripod and carry it at all times.
Opens up so many possibilities.

 

[RLPhoto]

I dont know what your smoking because even Roger Cicala agrees the 16-35 f/4L is so good the difference is negligible to the 14-24 in sharpness.

 

[Canonicon]

I dont know what your smoking because even Roger Cicala agrees the 16-35 f/4L is so good the difference is negligible to the 14-24 in sharpness.

Wow!

Too bad not in light gathering or wide angle.
But one out of three are not bad.

 

[Loswr]

The two 16-35's for me are a tease. Do you want more light, or more sharpness and IS? While many I suspect will choose the latter, especially considering that it's less expensive than the 2.8 non IS version, I want as much light as I can get. Maybe it's an obsession of mine, but I'm just not a fan of f/4 being ok for new lenses. I'm ok with not getting more than f/2.8, as I don't think I've seen a zoom offered with more than that, so I assume there's a current tech limitation there for the moment, but 2.8 seems possible. Admittedly, I'm not a Canon optics engineer. Sadly, I also want IS. Ff I can avoid carrying a tripod, it stays at home or in the car.

There are always compromises. More light means more weight and higher cost. I agree that fast lenses and lenses with IS are preferable. They'll cost a premium and I'm willing (and able) to pay it. But that's not true for everyone, and if Canon's market research shows that it's not true for enough people for a given lens design, the lens won't get made.

 

[RLPhoto]

I dont know what your smoking because even Roger Cicala agrees the 16-35 f/4L is so good the difference is negligible to the 14-24 in sharpness.

Wow!

Too bad not in light gathering or wide angle.
But one out of three are not bad.

I didn't say about the other two, but the sharpness is no longer a factor against canons UW.

 

[NancyP]

Astrophotographers want fast lenses and are likely to choose primes for that reason, but would also consider f/2.8 zooms that do not have significant coma at f/2.8. Samyang has become the cheap astro lens provider due tp its low-coma designs, with Sigma potentially stepping up to the plate as well, what with the mid-price to full-price Art lenses. My astro kit, and landscape kit, is the Samyang 14 f/2.8, Zeiss 21 f/2.8, and the Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art.

The Canon 16-35 f/4L IS seems like a perfect landscape lens for 99% of uses. The light weight (compared with three primes) and desirable range make this lens highly attractive to me for longer or steeper backcountry trips where one is trying to trim every ounce possible from your pack weight. The 3 pound tripod/head (Feisol CT3442 without center column; Arca p0 head) will get carried and used regardless of lens IS. I would far rather carry the Canon 16-35 f/4 than the twice as heavy Nikon 14-24 f/2.8.

 

[Mitch.Conner]

I dont know what your smoking because even Roger Cicala agrees the 16-35 f/4L is so good the difference is negligible to the 14-24 in sharpness.

Why are we assuming that Canon couldn't make a better UWA than Nikon's?

The two 16-35's for me are a tease. Do you want more light, or more sharpness and IS? While many I suspect will choose the latter, especially considering that it's less expensive than the 2.8 non IS version, I want as much light as I can get. Maybe it's an obsession of mine, but I'm just not a fan of f/4 being ok for new lenses. I'm ok with not getting more than f/2.8, as I don't think I've seen a zoom offered with more than that, so I assume there's a current tech limitation there for the moment, but 2.8 seems possible. Admittedly, I'm not a Canon optics engineer. Sadly, I also want IS. Ff I can avoid carrying a tripod, it stays at home or in the car.

There are always compromises. More light means more weight and higher cost. I agree that fast lenses and lenses with IS are preferable. They'll cost a premium and I'm willing (and able) to pay it. But that's not true for everyone, and if Canon's market research shows that it's not true for enough people for a given lens design, the lens won't get made.

Well, I'm with you in the category of willing to pay. Judging from this site alone, one would think there are many who are... but I realize this site is not representative of the average Canon customer.

 

[RLPhoto]

I dont know what your smoking because even Roger Cicala agrees the 16-35 f/4L is so good the difference is negligible to the 14-24 in sharpness.

Why are we assuming that Canon couldn't make a better UWA than Nikon's?

The two 16-35's for me are a tease. Do you want more light, or more sharpness and IS? While many I suspect will choose the latter, especially considering that it's less expensive than the 2.8 non IS version, I want as much light as I can get. Maybe it's an obsession of mine, but I'm just not a fan of f/4 being ok for new lenses. I'm ok with not getting more than f/2.8, as I don't think I've seen a zoom offered with more than that, so I assume there's a current tech limitation there for the moment, but 2.8 seems possible. Admittedly, I'm not a Canon optics engineer. Sadly, I also want IS. Ff I can avoid carrying a tripod, it stays at home or in the car.

There are always compromises. More light means more weight and higher cost. I agree that fast lenses and lenses with IS are preferable. They'll cost a premium and I'm willing (and able) to pay it. But that's not true for everyone, and if Canon's market research shows that it's not true for enough people for a given lens design, the lens won't get made.

Well, I'm with you in the category of willing to pay. Judging from this site alone, one would think there are many who are... but I realize this site is not representative of the average Canon customer.

Canon can make 120MP sensors but we don't see them in our cameras? Likewise, canon could make the sharpest UW in the world but in the past 7 years they didn't improve the designs. Kinda irrelevant.

 

[YuengLinger]

Re: Ultrawide Canon?

When will Canon announce a fast ultrawide?

Nikon has the great 14-24mm f2.8.
Canon only a 16-35mm f2.8 that shows weakness at the borders and a slow f4 version.

Any chance for a Photokina announcement?

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.

Perfectly stated early on, and then kind of repeated throughout the thread!

Yeah, the bulbous front end is definitely a deal breaker for me, as I'd be just too worried about it.

The new 16-35mm f/4 is attractive, but as I do so much low light portraiture/event photography, I am holding out for the imaginary 16-35mm f/2.8 III... (I still occasionally use my old version one of the 16-35mm, but I'm so in love with my 24-70mm 2.8 II that I do my best to make it do in tight, dim rooms.

 

[Ruined]

I ended up selling my 16-35mm f/2.8L II because for low light events my recently acquired 24mm f/1.4L + 50mm f/1.2L on each camera delivered superior results. More light, lower iso, less post needed. I generally only used 16-35 on landscape stuff recently but even there I do 24mm more than 16mm.

However, if Canon delivered an optically revamped 16-35mm f/2.8L III I'd certainly take a look at it.