# Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L in Late 2013 [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 14, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12256"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12256">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>A New Canon Ultrawide Zoom


</strong>This lens comes up every now and then as something that will be added to the Canon lineup. A couple of patents that have referenced this optical formula are out there, which tells us it’s something that is on the minds of the R&D team at Canon.</p>
<p>I was told today that the lens is in the pipeline and will be coming in 2013 if there are no more delays with lens production. I was told to expect availability to be in late 2013, but the announcement date was unknown at this time. It makes perfect sense that this sort of lens would be announced with the imminent large megapixel camera that Canon will unveil in 2013.</p>
<p>There were a few lenses that were to be announced in 2012 that will be pushed into 2013. A lot had to do with production delays with the new supertelephotos as well as the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/843008-USA/Canon_5175B002_EF_24_70mm_f_2_8L_II.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">EF 24-70 f/2.8L II</a>.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Imagination_landB (Dec 14, 2012)

let's now start the how much will it cost poll! I say 2899 !


----------



## AtSea (Dec 14, 2012)

As a point of reference, the Nikon 14-24 2.8, which is regarded by many as the sharpest wide-zoom in the world, is $2000.


----------



## kidnaper (Dec 14, 2012)

I don't care what it costs, get me on the list.


----------



## orioncroft (Dec 14, 2012)

Just as I was considering adding the 16-35mm...

Go figure :


----------



## ddashti (Dec 14, 2012)

The 16-35 definitely covers a wider range of focal lengths, which is useful for certain purposes, but the 14-24 is theoretically better in every aspect except for the focal length in the long-range. Here's the main question: would a photographer get the 14-24 for the wider focal length and better performance, or would a photographer get the 16-35 for the versatility in focal length? I'd definitely pick the 14-24. Any day. It just offers so much more!


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 14, 2012)

Dear Santa,
Please make this CR2 comes true :


----------



## distant.star (Dec 14, 2012)

ddashti said:


> The 16-35 definitely covers a wider range of focal lengths, which is useful for certain purposes, but the 14-24 is theoretically better in every aspect except for the focal length in the long-range. Here's the main question: would a photographer get the 14-24 for the wider focal length and better performance, or would a photographer get the 16-35 for the versatility in focal length? I'd definitely pick the 14-24. Any day. It just offers so much more!



I don't see the photojournalist crowd going 14-24. Everybody else (who can afford it), hell yes!


----------



## sagittariansrock (Dec 14, 2012)

When I saw this on CR, I thought if this doesn't get a bunch of ecstatic posts, then the forum members are just plain weird. Thank god I wasn't disappointed.
50 1.4 IS and now 14-24 2.8- Wow! That's all I can said. All in the year I hope to go FF. And right after I bought the 70-200mm II. Sweet!!!


----------



## Woody (Dec 14, 2012)

Finally

Edit: Remember there was some mention of patent exchange between Nikon and Canon this year. Perhaps Canon gave them the formula for 70-200 f/4 while they provided Canon something for 14-24 f/2.8.  This is the last lens needed to complete the f/2.8 zoom trinity.


----------



## infared (Dec 14, 2012)

Anyone want to buy my 16-35 II?


----------



## verysimplejason (Dec 14, 2012)

distant.star said:


> ddashti said:
> 
> 
> > The 16-35 definitely covers a wider range of focal lengths, which is useful for certain purposes, but the 14-24 is theoretically better in every aspect except for the focal length in the long-range. Here's the main question: would a photographer get the 14-24 for the wider focal length and better performance, or would a photographer get the 16-35 for the versatility in focal length? I'd definitely pick the 14-24. Any day. It just offers so much more!
> ...



Some photojournalist will certainly get one of these. Sometimes you need to view everything that's happening but you still want to be as close as possible to your subjects. I'm not saying the 16-35 can't do this. All I'm saying is that you can capture more with 14-24.


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 14, 2012)

Typical of canon to feed rumors and leak announcements a year in advance, and control discontent among the brand loyalists, announce as late as they can in the next year, and deliver the actual product even later still like in 2014. Seen this play before. *yawn*


----------



## EchoLocation (Dec 14, 2012)

I'm imagining a price of $2899 and a general availability of summer 2014.


----------



## Woody (Dec 14, 2012)

Ray2021 said:


> Typical of canon to feed rumors and leak announcements a year in advance, and control discontent among the brand loyalists, announce as late as they can in the next year, and deliver the actual product even later still like in 2014. Seen this play before. *yawn*



Either the above or get the product out of the door asap with poor factory QC like some companies. Pick your poison.

BTW, the 14-24 f/2.8L patent was confirmed in 2009, filed in 2007 within Japan and 2008 within USA. See this. So, if what you say is true, then Canon must have been fueling rumors and anticipation several years prior to actual product release.


----------



## killswitch (Dec 14, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Dear Santa,
> Please make this CR2 comes true :



+1 Lol!


----------



## sagittariansrock (Dec 14, 2012)

Ray2021 said:


> Typical of canon to feed rumors and leak announcements a year in advance, and control discontent among the brand loyalists, announce as late as they can in the next year, and deliver the actual product even later still like in 2014. Seen this play before. *yawn*



Was wondering how long to wait for this comment 
I think it's good to notify people well ahead of time rather than dropping surprises on them, but that's just my opinion.


----------



## Nishi Drew (Dec 14, 2012)

Woody said:


> Ray2021 said:
> 
> 
> > Typical of canon to feed rumors and leak announcements a year in advance, and control discontent among the brand loyalists, announce as late as they can in the next year, and deliver the actual product even later still like in 2014. Seen this play before. *yawn*
> ...



Right, because Canon products are immune from poor QC, if that were entirely true then the wait + final cost wouldn't matter so much


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 14, 2012)

infared said:


> Anyone want to buy my 16-35 II?



I'll hold on to it ...till it becomes CR3 in the rumors forums or it is 2015' which ever arrives ...later. 

P.S. Don't get on my case, I am that wide eyed canon loyalist who has repeatedly gone along for the ride they take me on, least I am allowed is a snarky comment now and again


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 14, 2012)

sagittariansrock said:


> When I saw this on CR, I thought if this doesn't get a bunch of ecstatic posts, then the forum members are just plain weird.



I guess I'm weird.

My least used lens is my ultra wide rectilinear. I either use a 24-xxx rectilinear or my Sigma 15mm f/2.8 fisheye. That fish is every bit an L-prime, and I find a fisheye is a much more useful lens than an ultrawide rectilinear. I shot 18 times as many shots in 2012 with the fish as I did with my ultrawide rectilinear. That number appears to be going up over time, as it's only 3x over the last 6 years. I guess I'm getting more and more comfortable with the fish.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Dec 14, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > When I saw this on CR, I thought if this doesn't get a bunch of ecstatic posts, then the forum members are just plain weird.
> ...



Oh, you're fine. An ultrawide zoom isn't what everyone wants. 
But there are so many people here who have been posting repeatedly asking for the 14-24 and praising the Nikon, I wonder where they are hiding now. Even yesterday someone responded to the 50 1.4 IS post by saying where's the 14-24.


----------



## Ricku (Dec 14, 2012)

Oh dear god! Please let it be true, and please bring it sooner than late 2013.


----------



## robbymack (Dec 14, 2012)

interesting, may make me hold off on a purchase...then again I fully expect this to be priced around $3K so I'll just keep dreaming


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Dec 14, 2012)

I can see it being $2499+ (hopefully Canon prepares it's 2.8 trinity of the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 2.8 IS within the $2-2.5k mark), though I am personally prepared and set aside up to $3k for this lens!

Besides optics, I just hope they don't screw up the lens cap design with the protruding glass front with a cheap plastic cap cover that just comes right off in your bag like on the Canon 8-15mm fisheye, Nikon 14-24mm or like the the slide in caps on the Zeiss 15mm or Canon 14mm II that over time and use will show noticeable wear on the built in lens hood. Hopefully Canon can get it done right like the twist-on cap design on the 17mm ts-e!


----------



## M.ST (Dec 14, 2012)

I want this lens in spring 2013.


----------



## dirtcastle (Dec 14, 2012)

Unless the 14-24mm L is a better performer than the existing 14mm f/2.8 L, wouldn't it make nearly as much sense to combine the 14mm L with either a 24mm L II or the 24-70mm L II ?


----------



## Woody (Dec 14, 2012)

Nishi Drew said:


> Right, because Canon products are immune from poor QC, if that were entirely true then the wait + final cost wouldn't matter so much



Sure, they have poor 'QC' issues in the past. The truth is a number of those problems are mostly due to poor design, e.g., portrait issue of 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS, 1D3 AF problems, light leak in 5D3. But most importantly, they are officially acknowledged and rectified. Some companies don't even acknowledge their problems... like this article dated 6-Dec-2012: http://bythom.com/.


----------



## dolina (Dec 14, 2012)

It should sell more than the Nikon equivalent.

Where's my damn 135L and 400/5.6L update!


----------



## AudioGlenn (Dec 14, 2012)

killswitch said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Dear Santa,
> ...



+1 i need this lens to go with my new mark III, 24-70 II, and 70-200 IS II. I had to give up my EF-S 10-22 and am currently without an UWA!!!!


----------



## candyman (Dec 14, 2012)

orioncroft said:


> Just as I was considering adding the 16-35mm...
> 
> Go figure :



Me too. I have this 14-24 on my list.

But the 14-24 is still not available for at least one year
The 16-35 MKII currently cost - here in the Netherlands - about 1260 euro

The 14-24 will cost - for sure - about 2200 euro

The 16-35 is certainly not perfect but a very good lens. It still will have value if you sell it next year.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Dec 14, 2012)

This is the only Canon lens I would instantly buy at the moment without any reconsidering if IQ is good (nearly as good as Nikons or better) ...


----------



## pedro (Dec 14, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12256\"></glusone></div><div style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a href=\"https://twitter.com/share\" class=\"twitter-share-button\" data-count=\"vertical\" data-url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12256\">Tweet</a></div>
> <strong>A New Canon Ultrawide Zoom
> 
> 
> ...



YESSSS! Virtual Christmas present for me then. There is joy in the waiting. Hopefully it won't be more than 2k


----------



## pedro (Dec 14, 2012)

sagittariansrock said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...


The ones that were asking for a 14-24 in the 50 1.4 IS thread was another poster and me. And here I am, jumping up and down. ;-) See my former post.


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 14, 2012)

sagittariansrock said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



They're in shock.... and wondering how hey're going to save up all that money!


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 14, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



I know someone that switched to Nikon for the 14-24. When he got it, he was so happy. A year later he switched back after realizing he almost never used the 14-24.

It's not that it doesn't have its uses, but it's uses are so limited for many that it just doesn't get used that much. 14 is awfully wide for a rectilinear, giving you very stretched corners, having "only" 24mm on the long end makes it even less useful than the 16-35 or 17-40, and landscapers ought to be using the 17TSE or 24TSE instead.


----------



## pedro (Dec 14, 2012)

I will use it for nightscapes. Due to the 500 or 600 rule (500 divided into the longest length of your lens yields sharp stars without trails) the shorter the better! It may cost me a fortune as an enthusiast amateur. But it will be a great lens, one you buy once in a lifetime. Thought about the Sigma 12-24 4.5-5.6 first, but I held myself back and now I am glad I did. 16-35 seemed a bit long according to the above mentioned technique. So, can't wait to add it to my lens line up and do night sky at 14mm even wide open and ISO 6400, 8000 or even 12800 on my 5Diii! Won't buy it in the first hour once it hits the shelf, as saving up for it is almost as much as great! Meanwhile, the 28 2.8 will do. 8)


----------



## Jesse (Dec 14, 2012)

I love Canon 2013.


----------



## distant.star (Dec 14, 2012)

infared said:


> Anyone want to buy my 16-35 II?



I'll give you $500 cash for it today, Bob. No questions asked!!


----------



## ronderick (Dec 14, 2012)

Well, if it does emerge in the second half of 2013, that means most people have to wait till early 2014 for consistent supply, quirks with the first batch fixed, and the price stabilized... business as usual. *shrug*


----------



## distant.star (Dec 14, 2012)

verysimplejason said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > ddashti said:
> ...



That number will be infinitesimally small. Even with a Reuters budget, imagine trying to convince the bean counters you want a lens that's $3000 (instead of $1500) because it widens to 14mm rather than 16mm. I don't see that happening. And for the stringers, you'd have to be damn successful (monied) to add that to your expense side.

Also, the 24 limit is going to scare pros. I think they feel constrained enough with the 16-35 already, but I'm guessing that's what photo editors want. Given the overall IQ with that lens and the digital sensors, they can crop 80% and still have an image viable for 99% of what they need. (Try that with film!)


----------



## bchernicoff (Dec 14, 2012)

To everyone saying they would buy this lens immediately, I have to ask, and I'm not trolling...how is the current 14mm L lens letting you down? Is the ability to zoom from 14-24 that killer of a feature?


----------



## fegari (Dec 14, 2012)

Very interesting focal range, hopefully it can compete with the Zeiss 21/2.8 in IQ.

However the more people say they are willing to pay 3k, 4k for it and that they'll buy ten of them...the more that Canon is going to charge 3k, 4k.

I've always thought they only leak products preciselly to finetune their price point...and have a bunch of people reading forums...see what happened with the 5D3, all forums full of people saying they were willing to sell a kidney for it...and then I had to sell mine to get it! now is significantly cheaper, not very long after release.

Anyway, hope the 14-24L becomes a reality :=)


----------



## iMagic (Dec 14, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> To everyone saying they would buy this lens immediately, I have to ask, and I'm not trolling...how is the current 14mm L lens letting you down? Is the ability to zoom from 14-24 that killer of a feature?



I am loving my 14mm L. I have done amazing landscapes with it. I really don't know if the 14-24 would be attractive. If it turns out killer perhaps I might consider parting with the 14L and 24L. But I really dont think so. For me I think the primes will complete my needs for landscape.


----------



## iMagic (Dec 14, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> As for photojournalists, many of them that are using 16-35's are still shooting 1D MkIII and MkIV's, the 16-35 works very well in the pack on a 1.3 crop camera, the 14-24 would not be anywhere near as attractive, that is why Nikon still offer a 17-35 f2.8 as well as the 14-24.
> 
> Why would I get one? Well yes the zoom is nice but it wouldn't replace my 16-35, however the Canon 14mm, well the two I have shot with, one a loaner via CPS and one from LensRentals, were both crap in the corners. I do some high end real estate work and currently use the 17mm TS-E for most of it, but when I want wider and not stitch then I have found the 15mm fisheye defished is better in the corners than the 14mm L prime, and it gives a wider field of view.



After CPS adjustment, my 14L is very good to excellent


----------



## mcconkeyb (Dec 15, 2012)

Why has no one asked about the use of filters on this lens. How wide is the front element likely to be and will it be designed to accommodate filters?


----------



## Daniel Flather (Dec 15, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> To everyone saying they would buy this lens immediately, I have to ask, and I'm not trolling...how is the current 14mm L lens letting you down? Is the ability to zoom from 14-24 that killer of a feature?



Yeah, my thoughts too. If I had the 14-24, I know I'd use it at 14mm 90% of the time. I had the 10-22 and I used it at the wide end all the time. But, the range from 14 to 24 is huge.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Dec 15, 2012)

iMagic said:


> bchernicoff said:
> 
> 
> > To everyone saying they would buy this lens immediately, I have to ask, and I'm not trolling...how is the current 14mm L lens letting you down? Is the ability to zoom from 14-24 that killer of a feature?
> ...



A 2.8 zoom is NOT a replacement for the 24/1.4II. If you wana jump and dump the 14L, PM me.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Dec 15, 2012)

I'll make a bold guess. For the cost of the 14-24, I bet you could almost buy the 14L and 17L.


----------



## AdamJ (Dec 15, 2012)

mcconkeyb said:


> Why has no one asked about the use of filters on this lens. How wide is the front element likely to be and will it be designed to accommodate filters?



I shouldn't think there will be any native provision for front-mounted filters (rear gels only) but third party front filters and filter holders are available for the Nikon from Lee (150mm square) and Photodiox (145mm circular), so I'm sure they will be on the case.


----------



## dirtcastle (Dec 15, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> I'll make a bold guess. For the cost of the 14-24, I bet you could almost buy the 14L and 17L.



That's exactly what I was thinking. OR even a 14L + 24L (which takes filters). Plus, so many shots in the UWA range are done with tripods, for which the versatility of a zoom is diminished a bit, imo. That said, for long treks it would make a lot of sense to pack a 14-24mm to keep the load light.


----------



## rj79in (Dec 15, 2012)

I guess this makes my plans to upgrade from the 17-40L with the 16-35L in the next 6 months go for a spin. 

A big dilemma here ... whether to upgrade to the 16-35 or to wait for the 14-24 - biggest problem is that one might be tempted to wait but with Canon maybe I will end up waiting too long :-\


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Dec 15, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> To everyone saying they would buy this lens immediately, I have to ask, and I'm not trolling...how is the current 14mm L lens letting you down? Is the ability to zoom from 14-24 that killer of a feature?



For me it's sharpness and the chromatic aberrations in the corners on the 14 II. Also the versatility to compose ultra wide angle shots from 14-24mm when you may be restricted by a fence/trail/cliff/etc.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Dec 15, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> bchernicoff said:
> 
> 
> > To everyone saying they would buy this lens immediately, I have to ask, and I'm not trolling...how is the current 14mm L lens letting you down? Is the ability to zoom from 14-24 that killer of a feature?
> ...



From your post below on the 50 1.4IS thread I thought you were asking for the 14-24 and this was a typo. From this post, I guess not. So you're really looking for a 12-24? 



Daniel Flather said:


> Where's the 12-24?


----------



## sanj (Dec 15, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> To everyone saying they would buy this lens immediately, I have to ask, and I'm not trolling...how is the current 14mm L lens letting you down? Is the ability to zoom from 14-24 that killer of a feature?



I totally agree. If a person is attempting to shoot with ultra wide then he/she is in this market. And then 14 works best as its the widest...


----------



## Ricku (Dec 15, 2012)

rj79in said:


> I guess this makes my plans to upgrade from the 17-40L with the 16-35L in the next 6 months go for a spin.
> 
> A big dilemma here ... whether to upgrade to the 16-35 or to wait for the 14-24 - biggest problem is that one might be tempted to wait but with Canon maybe I will end up waiting too long :-\


If you use your UWA-zoom for landscapes, you should wait for the 14-24.

Edge to edge and corner sharpness is very important when it comes to landscapes, and the 16-35 just doesn't cut it.

I think (and hope) the 14-24L will be a winner.


----------



## pharp (Dec 15, 2012)

I want to hear from someone who *actually* bought the Nikon version and 16-9/ Novoflex (or cheap Chinese versions) Nikon-G to Canon adapter for their 5D. Was the view worth the climb? Would you trade for a Canon version (for an extra grand***)? I'm assuming the Canon version won't be a big (or any) improvement. By most accounts (that I've read anyway), and seems to be born out by the constant stream of barely used Nikon 14-24's on E-Bay - great lens, but is big, heavy, prone to flare, bothersome front element and just not that useful. See also here. 

*** The Nikon is currently $2K new @ B&H - considering current pricing, the Canon is probably going to be at least $3K (or $4k with IS).

I'd rather just have a killer 16L prime that takes filters, but that'd probably be $3K also.  Looks like Sigma has really stepped up their game - how about it? The Zeiss 15mm looks really good, but its also $3K - trend? or I'm still waiting for a FF mirrorless with smaller and hopefully cheaper UWA lenses.


----------



## AdamJ (Dec 16, 2012)

Canon 14-24 said:


> I can see it being $2499+ (hopefully Canon prepares it's 2.8 trinity of the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 2.8 IS within the $2-2.5k mark), though I am personally prepared and set aside up to $3k for this lens!
> 
> Besides optics, I just hope they don't screw up the lens cap design with the protruding glass front with a cheap plastic cap cover that just comes right off in your bag like on the Canon 8-15mm fisheye, Nikon 14-24mm or like the the slide in caps on the Zeiss 15mm or Canon 14mm II that over time and use will show noticeable wear on the built in lens hood. Hopefully Canon can get it done right like the twist-on cap design on the 17mm ts-e!



My Sigma has a flock-lined metal slide-on cap that fits over the metal petal hood. I don't use it; instead I use a LensCoat Hoodie which is made of stretchy neoprene with a rigid disc in the base which abuts the petal hood and protects the front element. It fits very nicely with no chance of scuffing the hood, yet tightly enough not to come off accidentally. They come in lots of sizes.


----------



## NWPhil (Dec 16, 2012)

sagittariansrock said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



not hiding, probably just looking at their lens collection and selecting what to dump in order to get funds ;D
I have been moving away from zooms, but if this one is anything close to the Nikon version, YES I WILL BUY 8)
btw - 24mm is not UWA, just WA
There is a niche for this lens, otherwise Canon would not consider producing it.


----------



## pharp (Dec 16, 2012)

prediction - many will buy this out of the gate, then there will will be plenty of used ones available once they've actually taken it out and used it.


----------



## pedro (Dec 16, 2012)

AdamJ said:


> Canon 14-24 said:
> 
> 
> > I can see it being $2499+ (hopefully Canon prepares it's 2.8 trinity of the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 2.8 IS within the $2-2.5k mark), though I am personally prepared and set aside up to $3k for this lens!
> ...


@AdamJ: and how is your Sigma doing so far. I do nightsky/nightscapes at ISOs 6400 or so. How does it behave? Would it work out well, as my exposures avoid stars from trailing? 25 sec ISO 6400 to 8000 on the 5DIII is that an okay value for enough light? I guess so, my 28 F/2.8 does well even wide open...So I'd like to hear some Sigma results...as the price of the Canon lens will be very high...Thanks!


----------



## AdamJ (Dec 16, 2012)

pharp said:


> prediction - many will buy this out of the gate, then there will will be plenty of used ones available once they've actually taken it out and used it.



From your earlier post, I think I see where you're coming from. I guess it depends on one's motive for buying a lens in the first place. It's easy to be seduced by the reputation of a lens without first thinking about one's need for it. For example, I'd love to have a 135mm L but I know I'd hardly ever use it. Nikon's 14-24mm is almost legendary, which enhances its desirability but not its usefulness.

For most users, 14-24mm is not a general-use focal range. As long as buyers recognise that this lens will be one to pull out of the bag when needed rather than to remain mounted as a general-use zoom, they won't be buying with their eyes shut. $3,000 is a lot to pay for something that just weighs down your bag.


----------



## AdamJ (Dec 16, 2012)

pedro said:


> AdamJ said:
> 
> 
> > Canon 14-24 said:
> ...



I've never tried astrophotography, Pedro, but I would guess that the Sigma's f/4.5-5.6 maximum aperture does not make it a very good choice for that application.


----------



## pedro (Dec 16, 2012)

@AdamJ: Thank you for your reply!


----------

