# Reasons why 14-24L zoom will not be coming soon



## RS2021 (Jan 13, 2013)

Canon may not be in any rush to introduce 14-24mm quickly in spite of all the hype in the rumor circuit...if it comes at all, it would be a pleasant surprise for those who are waiting....and not an expected obligatory move from Canon. In fact, some sober thought would suggest the wait is likely to be longer.

Why?

1) A minor issue is that there is no such thing as a "perfect" UWA zoom; the UWA designs are typically a jumble of compromises... and there *will be* no such perfection in the new Canon designs over and above the current UWA offerings. They may get it to be marginally better but they will face the same corner issues and will have to make compromises on distortion and vignetting and perhaps curved focal planes. So they won't be in a hurry to introduce yet another UWA zoom that comes up short…as it invariably will be given the high expectations.

2) Second problem is Canon's current line up on the WA and UWA end and its marketing strategy. The existence of a patent does not mean a product will be forthcoming soon. They introduced relatively in quick succession (not including the 17 TSE, and the 17-40L), the 16-35 II, and 14L II, and 24L II...and note all these are version II “updates”! A high quality 14-24 zoom that goes across all these will be an issue. Especially with the 17-40 and relatively young 16-35II already in the lineup.

3) And above all, the worst assumption is that Canon will "have" to somehow match and compete with Nikon lenses on the EF mount! On camera bodies, yes, as Nikon can pull away new comers not attached to a brand by providing cheaper, better bodies. But on the high end EF lenses ...not so much. 

Once you are in the lens kennel tied to the EF mount with multiple lenses in your collection, you are like fish in a barrel for Canon. And let’s face it, for a high priced UWA zoom, we are talking well-heeled folks who are unlikely to be newbies to the Canon Brand.

As the dominant dog in the kennel with a lens branding that is highly regarded ...Canon has less incentive to "match" anything that Nikon does. Regardless of how stellar they are, the Nikon mount lenses do NOT compete directly with the Canon EF mount.

Yes, the whimpering from the impotent Canonites that they will switch to Nikon if Canon doesn't introduce this that or the other will continue...switch due to what? A single UWA lens while giving up the whole Canon platform? Laughable! And Canon knows this well. They can drag this out for long and still keep you guessing.

So yeah... sorry to rain on the parade, but I am just not convinced that 14-24 zoom is coming anytime soon. If it does, I will genuinely be happy for ya.


----------



## rs (Jan 13, 2013)

As much as I like to believe in the rumoured 14-24 and new 35 lenses, I do wonder if that was just a combination of the Cinema 14 and 135 lenses and Chinese whispers. Those were announced at about the time the 14-24 and 35 were earmarked for.

Having said that, Canon are slowly improving their lens lineup, and as far as I know they haven't launched a dud in years. There might be price (all of them), zoom range (24-70/4), max aperture (24/2.8 IS and 28/2.8 IS) or lack of IS (24-70 II) to moan about, but nothing recent has been short of amazing. I'd love to see a new ultra wide angle zoom follow on with this tradition, and Nikon have proved it is possible to get close to it with their 14-24.


----------



## verysimplejason (Jan 13, 2013)

Give me an update of the 20mm (or 18mm and no IS please to reduce the cost) and I'll be happier. I want a UWA with filter. I'm not a fan of zooms.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 13, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> ...the whimpering from the impotent Canonites that they will switch to Nikon if Canon doesn't introduce this that or the other will continue...



I'll take the 'whimpering from the impotent Canonites' over the incessant whining from the Nikonophilic anti-Canonites who seem to contribute nothing to these forums other than troll posts. 

Alas, both are far too common.


----------



## rj79in (Jan 13, 2013)

Ray2021 said:



> Canon may not be in any rush to introduce 14-24mm quickly in spite of all the hype in the rumor circuit...if it comes at all, it would be a pleasant surprise for those who are waiting....and not an expected obligatory move from Canon. In fact, some sober thought would suggest the wait is likely to be longer.
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...



While I agree that the 14-24 may take some time to materialize, your first and second argument are contradictory. As per your own argument the 14-24 will be a compromise of sorts so the IQ of the primes will be better. Prime shooters will still go for the primes regardless of the existence of the 14-24. 

If this were the case, the 24-70 II would cannibalize the sales of the 24, 35 and 50 Ls. Don't see that happening.


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 13, 2013)

Neuro, surely it is unfair to suggest that this post makes me a "nikonophile." :-X
As a kid I thought if I touched a Nikon I'd get Cooties and as an adult I break out in rashes when I see a friend use one.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 13, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> Neuro, surely it is unfair to suggest that this post makes me a "nikonophile." :-X
> As a kid I thought if I touched a Nikon I'd get Cooties and as an adult I break out in rashes when I see a friend use one.



No, I wasn't speaking of you, specifically. But I hear there's a cream for that rash...


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 13, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ray2021 said:
> 
> 
> > Neuro, surely it is unfair to suggest that this post makes me a "nikonophile." :-X
> ...



Yes, i recently got the cream, it's called 1DX.


----------



## distant.star (Jan 13, 2013)

.
Sorry, 2021, no sale.

Point 1: If they can't make a "perfect" lens, they won't make any lens. They already have a whole fleet of imperfect lenses, yet they keep trying.

Point 2: It's just a patent, and the field is already overcrowded. As for patent, they probably have a patent for a lens that dispenses toilet paper in nice origami shapes. As for overcrowded it's plain to me a 14-24 would replace the older 17-40.

Point 3: I think you're mostly right that Canon doesn't feel compelled to compete directly with Nikon. But as I've often said I believe as far as marketing, the Nikon influence on Canon is greatly overestimated.

Finally, as I also keep saying -- trying to comprehend Canon and their marketing is like staring at the sun hoping to see a single hydrogen atom. You'll never see it, and you'll go blind trying.


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 13, 2013)

rj79in said:


> While I agree that the 14-24 may take some time to materialize, your first and second argument are contradictory. As per your own argument the 14-24 will be a compromise of sorts so the IQ of the primes will be better. Prime shooters will still go for the primes regardless of the existence of the 14-24.



I partly agree... I think the 24L II is safe... it is a faster f1.4 and is safe from internal price poaching. 

But the two f2.8 lenses (16-35II and the 14L II), I am not so sure: 16-35L II at f/2.8 though not a direct competition, is a reliable revenue generator for Canon and I think they will try to keep it even if this hypothetical zooom is planned ; but there will be some residual predation there as at least some who are currently forced to choose 16-35 II even though they have the money, will opt for the overlapping wider UWA. 

Now the 14L II currently costs about $2300 and bears the usual crosses that UWA's bear (still agreat lens) may not be so safe at f/2.8. The hypothetical 14-24L zoom, even if it has a smidge less IQ, will tempt some, it will tempt me.



rj79in said:


> If this were the case, the 24-70 II would cannibalize the sales of the 24, 35 and 50 Ls. Don't see that happening.



This, I don't agree with. All three primes you list are faster at f1.4 or f1.2... with stellar reputation for the first two lenses and a controversial cult following for the 50L. not even a close comparison to the 24-70II at f/2.8. If you want faster, you will choose the L primes.

Now will one do the same with the $2300 14L II f2.8 prime if the f/2.8 zoom existed... I don't really know.


----------



## rj79in (Jan 13, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> Now will one do the same with the $2300 14L II f2.8 prime if the f/2.8 zoom existed... I don't really know.



Well yes ... that's a fair question and I didn't think of that. Given a choice, unless the IQ was way short, I would go for the zoom.


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 13, 2013)

distant.star said:


> .
> It's just a patent, and the field is already overcrowded. As for patent, they probably have a patent for a lens that dispenses toilet paper in nice origami shapes. As for overcrowded it's plain to me a 14-24 would replace the older 17-40.



LOL on the toilet paper patents, but come on now, the japanese use those fancy bidet things...
The 14-24L is likely to be an "up-market" product probably skirting $2500 to $3000 at introduction... so if anything the highly affordable 17-40L will not be a direct competition...the 16-35 II, though also not exactly a direct competition, could be at somewhat more danger given importantly its ~$1400 price point.



distant.star said:


> .
> I think you're mostly right that Canon doesn't feel compelled to compete directly with Nikon. But as I've often said I believe as far as marketing, the Nikon influence on Canon is greatly overestimated.



I concur, Canon will not feel compelled to match "lens-for-lens" or "focal length-for-focal length" on the EF mount. If there is a big gaping hole, may be...currently I don't see that in the UWA range.

As for starring into the Sun and Canon's marketing... we have all been there. :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 13, 2013)

rj79in said:


> Ray2021 said:
> 
> 
> > Now will one do the same with the $2300 14L II f2.8 prime if the f/2.8 zoom existed... I don't really know.
> ...



A zoom will almost certainly have more distortion than the prime at 14mm. Correctable, yes...but only by adding softness to corners already unlikely to be exceptionally sharp.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 14, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > A zoom will almost certainly have more distortion than the prime at 14mm. Correctable, yes...but only by adding softness to corners already unlikely to be exceptionally sharp.
> ...



Not ignored, but I'm not sure it's a relevant comparison. The 14-24mm is much newer than the Nikkor 14/2.8. 

Compare the 70-200/2.8 IS vs. the MkII to see how far Canon went in a similar period of time.


----------



## crasher8 (Jan 14, 2013)

Who here thinks Canon would counter with a no filter, fixed hood, bulbous element UWA zoom?


----------



## ddashti (Jan 14, 2013)

That's quite a nice post you have here.
Very good point on the improvement of corners and such.


----------



## NWPhil (Jan 14, 2013)

hate to say it, but maybe the 14-24 will be a F/4 instead of 2.8. 
That would be indeed more in line of replacing the 17-40, and sort of leaving the 16-35 mk2 and other primes in "peace"; and along the way, the f/4 could be sharper to start with, and aiming towards landscapers. 
After all, even f/4 is seldon used, unless you are into night shots or low light situations that iso can't really solve.


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 14, 2013)

NWPhil said:


> hate to say it, but maybe the 14-24 will be a F/4 instead of 2.8.
> That would be indeed more in line of replacing the 17-40, and sort of leaving the 16-35 mk2 and other primes in "peace"; and along the way, the f/4 could be sharper to start with, and aiming towards landscapers.
> After all, even f/4 is seldon used, unless you are into night shots or low light situations that iso can't really solve.



This is not that far fetched actually. 

Hell, if they went f/4, they can even leave the 17-40L around for the budget minded and the 16-35II for the slightly higher price and still ask $1600 for the new 14-24L f/4. The f/4 will also make the new zoom more affordable and target more buyers than coming up with an expensive superduper f/2.8 that only a few can buy at upward of $2500. 

Should such a hypothetical zoom show up in the Canon UWA lineup, one would be still forced to choose between the 16-35II with faster f/2.8 but less wide and the new zoom with slower f/4 but starting wider at 14mm. And Canon can still keep the prime 14L II f/2.8 in its place for the really IQ minded with more $$$'s.

Canon is not dumb enough to offer a *single* lens that does it ALL and well...including best IQ, speed, IS, build, focal range etc ..their strategy is to split the features and gain more revenue... so f/4 makes sense, but I am still not convinced this is a near term thing.


----------



## Aglet (Jan 14, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



The Samyang 14mm prime is even sharper than the vaunted Nikon 14-24 and much better in the corners too... At the expense of a lot of bulbous barrel distortion in the middle. Not much of a problem for nature but nasty for anything with straight lines not running right down the center of your composition.
So Nik's 14-24mm is a compromised but very nicely behaving UWA lens for a variety of uses and you get to pay many x the price for that. Canonites can expect Canon to produce a similarly well behaved and likely even better optic but you'll be paying for that.


----------



## crasher8 (Jan 15, 2013)

aha! My 1799 price isn't seeming so outrageous now! Whatever, just ordered a 16-35. I have a bada$$ southern utah/nevada landscape trip coming up and I think I'll be in heaven with it and using the 2.8 on the strip as well!


----------



## Aglet (Jan 15, 2013)

FWIW, I've recently tried (by way of purchase) a new *Tokina 17-35mm f/4*, hoping to find a lens that performed better at the wide end than the 17-40 f/4 L. (to use on my FF F-mount system)
I've only done some flat-field, close-in test photos and a few other landscape types.

For the price, I'd not take the Tokina over the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L.
On F-mount it's a cheap enough option to consider.


----------



## Zlatko (Jan 15, 2013)

NWPhil said:


> hate to say it, but maybe the 14-24 will be a F/4 instead of 2.8.


I'm guessing a high quality f/4 version would be more attractive generally. Lower price, smaller size & weight. The ultra-wide range of 14-24 is very cool, but how many of us really need it to be f/2.8 and want to pay extra for it to be f/2.8 and want to carry the a big bulbous design that f/2.8 requires? I'm sure some people want it to be f/2.8, but I'm guessing many would be as happy or even much happier with with an f/4 version.


----------



## rs (Jan 15, 2013)

Wouldn't a 14-24/4 FF lens would still have a bulbous front element? Either that of something verging on impractical like a 95mm filter like the Zeiss 15/2.8 has.

I'd have thought a 14-24/2.8 is a very different lens to a 16-35/2.8, and therefore if it is released, it doesn't necessarily mean the end of the other.

The 16-35 range is better for some purposes - it zooms in more, so for anyone choosing to take just an ultra wide zoom and a 70-200, the 16-35 potentially makes much more sense. And then there's the whole filter/lens protection issue.

The rumours of the 14-24 offer two main changes from the 16-35 - a wider field of view, and the hope of sharper optics.

I can see room for three ultra wide angle lenses in the Canon line up.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jan 15, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> 1) A minor issue is that there is no such thing as a "perfect" UWA zoom; ... So they won't be in a hurry to introduce yet another UWA zoom that comes up short…as it invariably will be given the high expectations.



I'm not expecting an EF 14-24mm to be perfect, but rather about as good as the Nikkor 14-24mm.



Ray2021 said:


> 2) Second problem is Canon's current line up on the WA and UWA end and its marketing strategy. The existence of a patent does not mean a product will be forthcoming soon. They introduced relatively in quick succession (not including the 17 TSE, and the 17-40L), the 16-35 II, and 14L II, and 24L II...and note all these are version II “updates”! A high quality 14-24 zoom that goes across all these will be an issue. Especially with the 17-40 and relatively young 16-35II already in the lineup.



I agree a patent does not mean a product will be introduced, but I do think it indicates Canon is considering introducing one.

The 17-40mm is part of the cheap[er?] f/4 line, and I don't think it would compete with a new 14-24mm. The 24mm f/1.4 is two stops faster, and therefore has it's own niche.

IMHO, a 14-24mm wouldn't compete with the 16-35mm as there's a big difference between 24mm and 35mm. E.g. I see a wedding photographer using a 16-35mm, but not a 14-24mm.



Ray2021 said:


> 3) And above all, the worst assumption is that Canon will "have" to somehow match and compete with Nikon lenses on the EF mount! ...
> 
> Once you are in the lens kennel tied to the EF mount with multiple lenses in your collection, you are like fish in a barrel for Canon. And let’s face it, for a high priced UWA zoom, we are talking well-heeled folks who are unlikely to be newbies to the Canon Brand.



There already are used Nikon D700 & Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 on sale, plenty good for A4-A3 prints. I'll be happy to settle for that. Canon would not lose sale on a 14-24mm it wouldn't make, but the next time I buy a lens I would consider buying it Nikkor for the D700 - and that's a sale Canon might lose.

Why didn't I buy those yet? Cause I can wait for that saving account to be release in October.


----------



## NWPhil (Jan 15, 2013)

Zlatko said:


> NWPhil said:
> 
> 
> > hate to say it, but maybe the 14-24 will be a F/4 instead of 2.8.
> ...



I would be happier with the price and range, but 2.8 helps a bit in nightscapes. For daytime shots, not so much; after all general rule for it, places the apt in the f5.6-f11 range.
With that in mind, what about a 1.4 or 1.8 UWA prime? a 16mm focal would be fine with me ;D


----------



## pedro (Jan 19, 2013)

NWPhil said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > NWPhil said:
> ...



An F/4 UWA - great. I'd go for such a lens. Even for nightscapes, as I often stop it down to f/8. Results with the 28 f/2.8 and the forementioned settings are pretty fine. 




Z96A2899bMasterKLEIN by Peter Hauri, on Flickr


So, I would prefer a 14-24 f/4 over a 2.8 as the price tag would be much nicer...
For inhouse low light photography I re-discovered my 50 f/1.4 after my recent upgrade to FF. 

Recently I was shooting my cat at ISO 51200 in an almost dark bedroom at 6:30 a.m. Canon 5D3, Canon EF 50 F/1.4 @ F/1.6, 1/40 sec. While a small amount of ambiental light fingered into the room I manually focussed at the animals ears which I saw better than it's eyes, therefore the face is slightly out of focus. Photograph above: no NR applied. Photograph below: NR value in both Luminance Noise & Chromniance Noise: 14 out of 20 in Canon's free software Digital Photo Professional. This goes way beyond my wildest enthusiast amateur dreams! Watch it in full mode, although due to reduction in post for webupload the difference is less obvious. But the pic without NR looks as grainy as back in the filmdays...But that's quite awesome at these ISOs!




Shooting my Cat at ISO 51k by Peter Hauri, on Flickr


----------

