Why no L primes from 14 to 24mm

[AE5+]

I have recently added the 24-70mm f2.8L II, and I am considering droping my 16-35mm f2.8L II for a prime of around 18-21mm to save a bit of weight and space.

The Canon 20mm f2.8 is awful, but there is nothing else, why such a big gap in Canon's range.

I think my options are the Zeiss 18mm f3.5 or the Canon TSE 17mm. Of the two the Zeiss would be smaller and lighter. But looking at 'The Digital Picture' site the Zeiss appears to be slightly worse than my 16-35mm. If I change I want at least equal optical quality, preferably better.
Are there any other suggestions?

 

[Jesse]

Zeiss 21mm

 

[florianbieler.de]

If you are not scared of a manual lens, you should consider the Samyang 14mm 2.8, it offers exceptional image and build quality and is dirt cheap compared to the few competitors. Mind that it has strange contortions so you probably want to use Photoshop or Lightroom with the lens correction profiles available through Adobes Profile Downloader. Just an idea even if you were looking for some mm more.

 

[sandymandy]

There is 24mm 1.4L prime and 8-15mm L fisheye.

 

[Viggo]

TS 17mm, best there is!

 

[8TMacro]

Per your title, theres the EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM.

My next prime will be the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II.

Both are L primes between 14 and 24mm and are as great as any.

 

[RS2021]

Canon does have a fair contender with EF 14mm II with which you get to retain autofocus, albeit the price bites. 17 TS-E is another option from canon, although price again doesn't compete with samyang which can be had for about ~$375...But IQ is far superior with the TS-E. The mustache distortion in samyang can be corrected apparently with lens profile feature in LR4. Both 17 TS-E and samyang let's keep in mind are manual only.

Zeiss is another option but you go manual again at a fairly high price here as well. And I wouldn't call any of these primes (barring the samyang) as truly a small, lightweight prime option against the 16-35 II. Some are like little tanks, especially the CZ makes.

Life is full of compromises in the EF land, that's what makes it exiting .

Edit: exciting I meant

 

[Jesse]

14 and 24 are not in between 14 and 24....

 

[RS2021]

14 and 24 are not in between 14 and 24....

Yes, but The 17 TS-E from canon and the two from Zeiss (18mm and 21mm) fit the pedantic bracket focal lengths. I am sure others may exist in sigma land of which I know too little.

 

[symmar22]

Agreed, the 17mm TS-E is too heavy, bulky and expensive, the front lens is very exposed, you cannot filter it and most people don't care about TS functions.

I have one, love it, but cannot recommend it for general photography, it's too much of a specialized tool.

It's time Canon's refreshes the old 20mm f2.8 and adds a 17mm f2.8 USM for half the price of the 17 TS-E.

 

[lintoni]

Canon does have a fair contender with EF 14mm II with which you get to retain autofocus, albeit the price bites. 17 TS-E is another option from canon, although price again doesn't compete with samyang which can be had for about ~$375...But IQ is far superior with the TS-E. The mustache distortion in samyang can be corrected apparently with lens profile feature in LR4. Both 17 TS-E and samyang let's keep in mind are manual only.

Zeiss is another option but you go manual again at a fairly high price here as well. And I wouldn't call any of these primes (barring the samyang) as truly a small, lightweight prime option against the 16-35 II. Some are like little tanks, especially the CZ makes.

Life is full of compromises in the EF land, that's what makes it exiting .

I trust that that was meant to read exciting and that you're not looking to acquire some Nikon glass.

 

[Viggo]

14 and 24 are not in between 14 and 24....

Yes, but The 17 TS-E from canon and the two from Zeiss (18mm and 21mm) fit the pedantic bracket focal lengths. I am sure others may exist in sigma land of which I know too little.

Also the 15mm Zeiss..

 

[RS2021]

Life is full of compromises in the EF land, that's what makes it exiting .

I trust that that was meant to read exciting and that you're not looking to acquire some Nikon glass.

Indeed! Autocorrect feature is a mixed blessing on mobile devices
As for going Nikon... *gag*

 

[Random Orbits]

It's time Canon's refreshes the old 20mm f2.8 and adds a 17mm f2.8 USM for half the price of the 17 TS-E.

If Canon made a 17mm f/2.8, it'd be more than half the price.

 

[sandymandy]

14 and 24 are not in between 14 and 24....

Thread says from 14 to 24 not "between".

 

[RS2021]

14 and 24 are not in between 14 and 24....

Thread says from 14 to 24 not "between".

+1
Agreed. Plus the original poster may not have meant to be that pedantic.

 

[Artifex]

If you are not scared of a manual lens, you should consider the Samyang 14mm 2.8, it offers exceptional image and build quality and is dirt cheap compared to the few competitors. Mind that it has strange contortions so you probably want to use Photoshop or Lightroom with the lens correction profiles available through Adobes Profile Downloader. Just an idea even if you were looking for some mm more.

+1

The Samyang 14mm is great lens at a ridiculous price; great built quality, very good IQ (espicially at f/5.6), low and easily correctable CA. The biggest downfall is the distortion, but it is not than bad for landscape, though it can be a problem if you are more into architecture (or shooting brick walls ).
I personally don't see a problem in the fact that it is a manual focus lens; using the hyperfocal, you can nail perfect focus every time with such a wide lens.
IMO, this lens is a fabulous lens, especially rather put the 2000$ price difference with the Canon alternative on something else (lens, body, food, car, etc ).

 

[And-Rew]

or you could just buy a Nikon to Canon adapter and purchase the astounding Nikon 14-24

Probably the most in demand lens on the Canon bois wanted list that Nikon have. It is an amazing lens in every respect, unless you want to attach a filter

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I have recently added the 24-70mm f2.8L II, and I am considering droping my 16-35mm f2.8L II for a prime of around 18-21mm to save a bit of weight and space.

The Canon 20mm f2.8 is awful, but there is nothing else, why such a big gap in Canon's range.

I think my options are the Zeiss 18mm f3.5 or the Canon TSE 17mm. Of the two the Zeiss would be smaller and lighter. But looking at 'The Digital Picture' site the Zeiss appears to be slightly worse than my 16-35mm. If I change I want at least equal optical quality, preferably better.
Are there any other suggestions?

umm the Canon 17TSE IS an L prime

(and 14mm and 24mm L primes too)

(samyang 14mm is $300 and super sharp edge to edge on FF)

 

[bdunbar79]

Despite the lack of real thinking going on in this thread, I'll add in. It doesn't take too much brain power to know what the OP meant. From his statement I got right away that he was not including 14 and 24mm. To actually offer a helpful response, I don't know exactly why there isn't a real good prime between those focal lengths but I suppose I have an opinion. The 8-15L doesn't count considering it's not a prime, as one suggested. My guess is that users of this short focal length are doing some type of landscape photography or something like architecture, and the tilt-shift at 17mm is better suited for that. I really doubt having a good L prime at say, 20mm would offer any benefit over the L zooms in that range. It's probably not worth it and they are not common focal lengths used by the majority of people in photography.