Will it be a EF 14-24 2,8 L is from Canon

[wockawocka]

Exactly. For UWA the f2.8 is important for the light, I'm less concerned about subject isolation.

At 16mm f/2.8 on FF, with the focus distance set to 10 feet, everything from 5 feet to infinity is in focus. Thus, f/2.8 delivers the ability to shoot handheld in very low light.

Neuro, how does that work? Not dubting you but I was out back shooting the stars in the sky with mine and was setting the focus to infinity. Should I be setting it to 10ft instead?

 

[moreorless]

I wouldnt say that 2.8 has no use in UWA just that its use seems much diminished to me compaired to a normal or tele zoom. Tha Muesum shot for example while useful to be able to take on the fly would IMHO have been better with a tripod and a long exposure.

As Jettatore says the relatively recently released 14mm 2.8 is there aswell and I could see Canon taking the view that those who really need the large appature will pay for it with that and the 16-35mm.

A smaller, cheaper(£800-900ish?) and wider 12-24 f/4 zoom just seems like it would have a much larger appeal without making anything in the current linup obsolete.

 

[Loswr]

Neuro, how does that work? Not dubting you but I was out back shooting the stars in the sky with mine and was setting the focus to infinity. Should I be setting it to 10ft instead?

For 16mm f/2.8 on FF, 10 ft is the hyperfocal distance, i.e. the focus distance which gives the maximum DoF (it's 15.7 ft for APS-C). So, when focused at 10 ft, the DoF extends from 5 ft to infinity, while when focused at infinity, the DoF extends from 10 ft to infinity. For your star shots, infinity is just fine. Many DoF calculators, such as DoFMaster, show the hyperfocal distance.

I wouldnt say that 2.8 has no use in UWA just that its use seems much diminished to me compaired to a normal or tele zoom. Tha Muesum shot for example while useful to be able to take on the fly would IMHO have been better with a tripod and a long exposure.

Agreed. With a normal or tele zoom lens, f/2.8 is useful both for the additional light (compared to other zooms), and for the additional OOF blur for subject isolation. With a UWA zoom, f/2.8 is really only useful for the additional light. You're right about the museum shot, and if I'd had my tripod along for the walk, I'd have used it (and an ISO lower than 3200!). But also for indoor shots with people, the extra stop compared to f/4 helps for subject motion, a problem that a tripod and a long exposure would not solve. One other minor point is that all lenses benefit in IQ to some degree by stopping down, and the 'sweet spot' isn't usually a fixed aperture, but rather a given number of stops down from wide open. So, a wider starting point means more light and possibly less diffraction effect when you hit the sweet spot. For example, the 16-35/2.8 II hits its sweet spot at f/4-f/5.6, while the 17-40/4 hits its sweet spot (such as it is) at f/5.6-f/8 (and f/8 on 18 MP APS-C is pushing into diffraction territory.

 

[John Thomas]

Hey everyone, speaking of ultra wide angle, has anyone used the Samyan 14mm f2.8? It looks really nice, cheap, wide, and fast. Is there a catch? I'm a prime lens kind of hero, so I don't mind manual focus, aperature, or foot zoom. Thanks

Yes, there's a catch, as you guessed. The lens is fully manual. I mean no AF and no focus confirmation by the camera. Perhaps, you know that some lenses even if you must manually focus, have a comunication with the camera which beeps when the chosen focus point is in focus.

If you think that you can focus manually at f/2.8 and, perhaps more difficult, depending on your situation, to "convince" your subjects to stay till you focus, then perhaps you can consider it.

Another thing is that you'll find a whopping 5.3% barrel distortion with a mustache-style sub-frequency which for architecture is a no-go. Ok, for landscape it would be (more or less) ok. Another problem is vignetting which is present in a noticeable amount.

OTOH, it seems that it has stunning resolution and the CAs are very well controlled.

HTH

 

[moreorless]

Agreed. With a normal or tele zoom lens, f/2.8 is useful both for the additional light (compared to other zooms), and for the additional OOF blur for subject isolation. With a UWA zoom, f/2.8 is really only useful for the additional light. You're right about the museum shot, and if I'd had my tripod along for the walk, I'd have used it (and an ISO lower than 3200!). But also for indoor shots with people, the extra stop compared to f/4 helps for subject motion, a problem that a tripod and a long exposure would not solve. One other minor point is that all lenses benefit in IQ to some degree by stopping down, and the 'sweet spot' isn't usually a fixed aperture, but rather a given number of stops down from wide open. So, a wider starting point means more light and possibly less diffraction effect when you hit the sweet spot. For example, the 16-35/2.8 II hits its sweet spot at f/4-f/5.6, while the 17-40/4 hits its sweet spot (such as it is) at f/5.6-f/8 (and f/8 on 18 MP APS-C is pushing into diffraction territory.

The bulb UWA's don't seem to need to be stopped down as much as the regular ones though so I wouldnt say its pushing it to beleive Canon could produce good results wide open at F/4.

As I said the market as it stands just seems better suited to the 12-24 f/4 to me. f/2.8 is already catered for by two relatively recent lenses where as f/4 is only catered to by the cheaper and not as wide 17-40 which overlaps alot with the 24-105.

 

[AprilForever]

Why does the 16-35 get so dogged on? I've oft been intrigued by it, but, as I use a 7D, I'm a little hesitant about the resultant focal length.

Therefore, I covet the Tokina 11-16. Any comparisons between the two?

(Moreover, for those who hate the 16-35, just mail that miserable lens to me! I will be glad to help alleviate your suffering! 8))

 

[shoutout33]

I would love Canon to match Nikon with a 14-24 2.8, but would it be possible to design one, that can use normal filters? There's a company that has created a filter for Nikon's 14-24, but it's bulky and not very practicle to me. It's not like you can leave it on to put it back in your back or if you have a double strap set up to have it hanging by your side at a wedding or event. Yes, I know that it has a big buldge and that's why you can't use normal filters, but it'd be really cool if Canon found a way around this though.

 

[Tastino0]

Is there any news on this lens?

 

[J. McCabe]

Is there any news on this lens?

Canon is having problems delivering it's super teles, has a cine lenses line to develop, probably has a couple of other lenses in queue (e.g. TS-45mm & 90mm mk2), and it would compete with recently released ultra-wides lenses (24mm mk II in '08, 16-35mm mk II & 14mm mk II in '07, and a bit further - 10-22mm in '04 & 17-40mm in '03).

So my guess is Canon wouldn't be releasing an ultra-wide zoom in the near future.

 

[wickidwombat]

Why does the 16-35 get so dogged on? I've oft been intrigued by it, but, as I use a 7D, I'm a little hesitant about the resultant focal length.

Therefore, I covet the Tokina 11-16. Any comparisons between the two?

(Moreover, for those who hate the 16-35, just mail that miserable lens to me! I will be glad to help alleviate your suffering! 8))

I absolutely love my 16-35 on a crop it is an awesome walk around lens well i havent used it on a 1.6 crop yet but on a 1.3 crop its effectively 20mm to 48mm then I have the 70-200 on the FF and got everything covered
so on a 7d it would be like 26mm to 56mm still a decent walk around and the sharpness will blow you away

 

[Viggo]

I'm not sure 14-24 zoom makes too good of sense for Canon. For Nikon, the 14-24 is effectively the replacement for the 14mm prime, and has been said to be of superior image quality to the wide 14mm Nikon Prime. The Canon 14mm prime on the other hand is said to superior to all the aforementioned lenses, including the 16-35 L II, (all third hand information from scouring various reviews, mostly Ken Rockwell). Also the zoom range from 14-24 seem a bit awkward.

http://minus.com/mwi8ith2f

Seriously, have you looked through 14 and 24 on a FF camera? the difference is HUGE!! I miss the extra 3mm from my 14 L II when I got the TS 17, but the IQ and endless possibilities with the TS makes me forget lightning AF, small and light, f2,8, weathersealing and all other things that are better with the 14. Because the 17 is the best UWA Canon has ever made, and Nikon (and everyone else) have nothing to challenge it with...

And if you want 2,8 to isloate an item with UWA, yo neeeed to check out what the TS 17 can do at f4.

 

[Jettatore]

TS-E 17 would probably be awesome to have, dunno, I've never used one but I've heard the IQ of the TS-E lenses are other-worldly. Although I'm quite content to do tilt-shift effects in post while keeping auto-focus, I understand why they are essential to certain professions. And yes I have seen the difference between 14mm and 16mm on full-frame, it's reasonable. 14-24 would be a decent bit bigger than the difference between a hypothetical 16-24 range and no where near the difference between 16 through 35. If 14-24 works for you, I have no argument to that and if you told me it was for full-time interior architectural shots it would make more sense then if you told me you were a photo-journalist. All of these lenses (even some of the better EF-S lenses) take amazing pictures, and with that, the most important thing is to find the right combination of lenses to suit your use. Personally, I would take a 16-35 over a 14-24 for zooms, because at that point, I'd just assume switch to primes and walk around with a 14mm Prime and a 35mm Prime and use my feet for everything in between while enjoying the full 2 stops benefits of f/1.4 over f/2.8 when the wider angle isn't needed. 14-24 isn't useful enough to justify losing the 2 stops for me, but the near three primes in one lens range of the 16-35 is worth that trade for me.

 

[Jettatore]

Actually Viggo, if you have some moments to share I have a favor to ask. Could you take a series of shots from the TS-E 17mm and post them as high-resolution files. One straight on without any tilt or shift effect, and then one or two more, slightly recomposed with tilt and or shift to show off it's two main effects. But without moving your feet too much or anything too crazy to make first challenge try on this impossible. Because I want to try to take the original, and aside from the inevitable cropping, re-create the perspective and focal plane shifts as best as possible. I've never had actual controlled samples from a TS-E to compare to and try to match but it will make a fun challenge. Would be very much appreciated, Thanks.