# Announcement on January 8, 2013? New Lenses [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 23, 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/2012/12/announcement-on-january-8-2013-new-lenses-cr1/"></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/2012/12/announcement-on-january-8-2013-new-lenses-cr1/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>New lenses soon?

</strong>I have received my first announcement date of 2013. It’s apparently going to be January 8, 2013.</p>
<p><strong>What is coming that day?</strong>

I am told 2 new L lenses. The EF 35 f/1.4L II and EF 14-24 f/2.8L will be announced. Both lenses would be available by the end of March 2013. The EF 35 f/1.4L II is a complete redesign and has 2 UD elements.</p>
<p>This is a [CR1] for now as I try and get confirmation of the announcement date and the lenses that are coming.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Dec 23, 2012)

I hope so - a savings account would be opened just after the reviews of the EF 14-24mm f/2.8 would be released.


----------



## tome223 (Dec 23, 2012)

I think I,ll start with 17-40 for $699 deal at bh and also open a separate savings account for this one. I bet it will be almost 4x as expensive as the 17-40!


----------



## Viggo (Dec 23, 2012)

The 35 L II, I am so seriously excited about that lens, seems the wait has been forever!

The savings account have always been there for it, lol. JUST yesterday me and my son wnet out in a crazy blizzard, we have those pretty much everyday now, the snow travels so fast it actually sticks to the windows. And I had no choice but to use the 24 (weathersealing) as the 50 was too narrow, the 35 would have been perfect... And, no, I coudn't have used a 24-70 as it was to thick snow and too poor light, I was at f1,6 @ 1/500s (freeze action, no pun intended) at iso 8000

Our national holiday is 17th of May, if it's here by then I'll be happy camper. ;D


----------



## SJTstudios (Dec 23, 2012)

Can't wait for these, the 14-24 I hope will be amazing. 

I'm suprised to hear the 35mm 1.4 ii, I though because the new 35mm f2 is was not a sharp as the origional 35mm 1.4, they wouldn't replace it, but I guess with Nikon and Sigma beating Canon in that Place.


----------



## pedro (Dec 23, 2012)

I'll be looking forward to the 14-24 pricetag...Don't wanna crash the party here, but as a "tripod-lens" for nightphotography the 12-24 sigma could be fine anyway. The 14-24 from Canon will be constantly two to three stops faster...hmm...As the lens from the dark side is at about 1.8k over here, will the canon premium increase the price over 2 k?


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 23, 2012)

All I got to say is.... Bwaahahaha! On so many levels


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 23, 2012)

The plan: wait until 35L II is announced at a very high price, sell 35L for much less than that, but still at least what I paid for it new, then buy 35L II.


----------



## Zv (Dec 23, 2012)

35L II - YES PLEASE! ;D


----------



## criza (Dec 23, 2012)

I don't think the old 35L will sell for more than it sells now used (max. 1100 USD).


----------



## brad-man (Dec 23, 2012)

CR1? Could this be a marketing ploy to stem the tide of folks jumping ship for the new Siggy? If so, it didn't work for me. B&H via UPS will be delivering mine tommorrow


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 23, 2012)

criza said:


> I don't think the old 35L will sell for more than it sells now used (max. 1100 USD).



Did you price the 24-70 MkI before the MkII vs. now? $900-1100 a few months ago, $1400 today. When the MkII came out, retailers immediately raised prices on remaining MkI stock to full MSRP (well above street price), and used prices followed suit. Same with the 70-200/2.8 IS, and it was about 2 years (i.e. beginning of this year) that used MkI prices returned to their pre-MkII levels. So I think it's quite probable the same will happen with the 35L...


----------



## kidnaper (Dec 23, 2012)

My question is whether the 14-24 will have any impact on the resale of the 16-35II. I'd gladly sell my 16-35, and inject about 3K of my own cash for the 14-24 and 35II.


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 23, 2012)

I sold my 2 year old 24-70 Mk 1 for $10 less than what I paid for it last month. I am beyond excited for a 14-24, I have had a 17-40 and found the corners far too soft and cannot bring myself to get a 16-35 which is not THAT much better for the cost difference and who needs a super fast landscape lens? I need Zeiss 21 quality in a zoom.


----------



## Jesse (Dec 23, 2012)

Really interested to see how the 14-24 performs in terms of distortion on the 24mm end compared to the new 24-70.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 23, 2012)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > criza said:
> ...



The above was a forward-looking statement. Past performance is not a guarantee of future yields. YMMV. But...probably!


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 23, 2012)

There is a fly in the ointment ... Great rouse to stem the sigma tide, but "end of march" will eventually become "delayed due to my aunt falling on her back till late July" ...then release 7 copies in august to keep the pot boiling and mass availability in November or December at the usual high initial price... 

This is not cynicism, this is what we have seen repeatedly in the past few release timeline with high end canon lenses.
Well practiced marketing strategy... It is called "stringing people along".


----------



## Phenix205 (Dec 23, 2012)

Having been thinking about the 35 1.4 for a while, I was wondering how much time would the 35 1.4 owners shoot at f2 or wider? I shoot at wide open a lot except for the 50 1.4. Any info is appreciated.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 23, 2012)

Ray2021 said:


> There is a fly in the ointment ... Great rouse to stem the sigma tide, but "end of march" will eventually become "delayed due to my aunt falling on her back till July" ...then release 7 copies to keep the pot boiling and mass availability in November at the usual high initial price...  This is not cynicism, this is what we have seen repeatedly in the past few release timeline with high end canon lenses.
> Well practiced marketing strategy.



By x-mas of 2013, Canon offer $200ish rebate plus BH discount.....I see the delay as pro ;D


----------



## agierke (Dec 23, 2012)

> Having been thinking about the 35 1.4 for a while, I was wondering how much time would the 35 1.4 owners shoot at f2 or wider? I shoot at wide open a lot except for the 50 1.4. Any info is appreciated.



i rarely shoot the 35L at 1.4 as it tends to go a bit soft wide open and it is just damn hard to nail focus at that aperture for the type of shooting i do. i am however in love with it at F2.0....it just sings at that aperture.


----------



## Joes Dad (Dec 23, 2012)

I will promptly welcome the 14-24 into my home. Happy holidays.


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 23, 2012)

Phenix205 said:


> Having been thinking about the 35 1.4 for a while, I was wondering how much time would the 35 1.4 owners shoot at f2 or wider? I shoot at wide open a lot except for the 50 1.4. Any info is appreciated.



My old 35L is perennially stuck at 1.4. Remember this is not a do-it-all lens if you are getting your feet wet... It is a great low light indoors lens in smallish spaces...it is also usable for traditional street photography. Indoors you usually know the subjects and you can jostle closer and they won't mind.

In large events or even for street my personal preference is actually for something longer so you can hang back and go for candid shots with out the camera in strangers' faces. With the 35L if you hang way too back you get those listless wide shots with tiny people doing too many things. Not too compelling. So you have to get a bit closer with 35L in general to have a coherent intimate theme... Outdoors or indoors. Much of my use for this lens has been indoors ambient light wide open. Performs like a champ!


----------



## distant.star (Dec 23, 2012)

.
How many aunts do they have?




Ray2021 said:


> Great rouse to stem the sigma tide, but "end of march" will eventually become "delayed due to my aunt falling on her back till late July"


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 23, 2012)

distant.star said:


> .
> How many aunts do they have?
> 
> 
> ...



LOL ... If we go by the last few teles... And the "soon" to come integrated 1.4 extender offering ...I would guess they have an inexhaustible supply of aunts.


----------



## Marek Truchlik (Dec 23, 2012)

For a while I have 8-15 in my mind. For purpose of use as wide lens. I thing for general purpose new 12-24 would be much more better. Looking forward to have it soon. 

I do not use 35mm, prefer 24. True is that most often at f2.0


----------



## Joes Dad (Dec 23, 2012)

dilbert said:


> crasher8 said:
> 
> 
> > Except that you won't be able to use filters with the 14-24 because of the curved front surface.
> ...


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 23, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Ray2021 said:
> 
> 
> > There is a fly in the ointment ... Great rouse to stem the sigma tide, but "end of march" will eventually become "delayed due to my aunt falling on her back till July" ...then release 7 copies to keep the pot boiling and mass availability in November at the usual high initial price...  This is not cynicism, this is what we have seen repeatedly in the past few release timeline with high end canon lenses.
> ...



True, but they won't do that for a brand new product... Even with the 24-70 II, it is newish...but it has been around a few months before we saw the rebate.


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 23, 2012)

We should hopefully expect in the 35L II: 

1) weather sealing 
2) 9-bladed aperture 
3) increased corner sharpness (though this was never an issue I cared much about for indoor shots).


----------



## jthomson (Dec 23, 2012)

Need to wait and see if the 35mm beats the sigma.
As for the 14-24, too late I already sprung for the Tokina 16-28.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 23, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> criza said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think the old 35L will sell for more than it sells now used (max. 1100 USD).
> ...


 
+1

That has been the pattern for several years now.

I am wondering why Canon would be introducing expensive new lenses at that time. The worldwide econoomic situation, plus many people having to deal with bills from Christmas purchases doesn't sound right. Maybe it won't actually ship until 1915!


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 23, 2012)

jthomson said:


> Need to wait and see if the 35mm beats the sigma.
> As for the 14-24, too late I already sprung for the Tokina 16-28.



If the canon 35L II actually materializes (let's not forget, this is a rumor), canon will address or top the competition. Given the brand loyalty, they can sell the lens at a premium just for updating the old lens...sad, but such is life.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 23, 2012)

jthomson said:


> Need to wait and see if the 35mm beats the sigma.
> As for the 14-24, too late I already sprung for the Tokina 16-28.



It is 100% certain the 35 L II will be weathersealed, THAT alone beats the Sigma for soooo many of my shots.


----------



## brad-man (Dec 23, 2012)

Ray2021 said:


> jthomson said:
> 
> 
> > Need to wait and see if the 35mm beats the sigma.
> ...




Yes. Quality will not be the issue. Success will be determined by how much folks are willing to pay for the weather sealing and the red ring...


----------



## Marek Truchlik (Dec 23, 2012)

brad-man said:


> Ray2021 said:
> 
> 
> > jthomson said:
> ...



Definitely there is huge crowd waiting for this lens.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 23, 2012)

am interested to see, whether or not Canon can match the Nikkor 14-24 and the Sigma 35/1.4 ... at 2 or 3 times the prices that is ... har har!!

glad I have not moved to FF .. love my 10-22 and my 17-55 IS ..bought them DIRT cheap, hehe! ;D 8)


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Dec 23, 2012)

35L is under the tree, and I'm no less excited about it after the CR1 news about version II. Especially with the sale price that has been on at B&H for the last while.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Dec 23, 2012)

Definitely the two lenses I want to add to my setup. Come to papa.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 23, 2012)

Not buying this rumor -- especially for the 35. A new flagship L with _less_ technology than its non-L counterpart?

The new 35L certainly will have IS. 

- A


----------



## Zv (Dec 23, 2012)

ahsanford said:


> Not buying this rumor -- especially for the 35. A new flagship L with _less_ technology than its non-L counterpart?
> 
> The new 35L certainly will have IS.
> 
> - A



Doubt it will have IS, seems more like a response to Sigma pressure.


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 23, 2012)

ahsanford said:


> Not buying this rumor -- especially for the 35. A new flagship L with _less_ technology than its non-L counterpart?
> 
> The new 35L certainly will have IS.
> 
> - A



Zero chance of an IS ... Shouldn't expect IS for any of their L primes until you reach the tele range. 24L II, 50L, 85L II should tell you the story.


----------



## BRNexus6 (Dec 23, 2012)

Canon has some stiff competition as the Sigma 35mm 1.4 is an incredibly sharp lens for under $1,000. I just don't see the new Canon 35mm 1.4 ll outclassing the Sigma in sharpness by enough to justify a huge premium over the Sigma. I'm guessing the Canon 35mm 1.4 ll will retail for around $1599.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 23, 2012)

Ray2021 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Not buying this rumor -- especially for the 35. A new flagship L with _less_ technology than its non-L counterpart?
> ...




Respectfully, I disagree. Canon is in the process of adding IS + USM + internal focusing + much improved build quality on every non-L prime (3 down, more certainly to come). Carnathan at TDP was surprised the 24/28 IS lenses didn't get red rings they were so well built. And as we know from early testing, the sharpness of these new non-Ls rivals the current Ls stopped down to a comparable aperture.

So these new L lenses must must must offer more than simply a red ring and a weathersealing gasket. A slight IQ bump is not enough.

[the writer gets on his soapbox]

I think some folks need to warm up to the notion that in low light, F/2 or F/2.8 (depending on the non-L prime we're talking about) with IS will _dominate_ F/1.4 without it. I can't speak to what you all shoot, but when I am in ultra low light + handheld situations, I'm not shooting moving targets. So IS is buys me flexibility in the darkest conditions.

Ray 2021 posted that he leaves his 35L on F/1.4 for low light, cramped conditions. That's exactly why I bought my 28 IS. I would contend the non-L at F/2 with the 3-4 stops of IS would net those same shots at a sharper narrower aperture with a stop or two to spare to stop down further for sharpness OR choose a less noisy ISO. (Again --> flexibility)

[/soapbox]

Or perhaps another way to put it -- once the Canon users get a taste of the value of IS in low light, _why on earth would they give that up?_ I think IS becomes the great entitlement of photographers in the next few years -- it becomes an absolute expectation of most users.

Or perhaps way #3 to put it -- if I am _not _getting IS with a new 35L, the IQ had better be off the charts better than the very very good non-L with IS.

I know I am in the minority in this opinion, but I'll keep sharing my take.

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 23, 2012)

an f/1.4 wide-angle lens is NOT about speed. It is about the chance to get at least some halfway decent bokeh at wide-angle focal lengths. An f/1.4 lens therefore can never be substituted by a slower lens with IS.

The real issue however is not IS or not IS, it is the fact, that all of Canon's current 1.4 lenses deliver SUB-PAR IQ wide open. NB matter whether they have a red ring or not. 24 L II, 35 L I, 50 non L. And the 50/1.2 L is a sub-par piece of cr*p as well by todays standards. A Sigma 50/1.4 runs circles around it. 

As far as 35mm fixed focals are concerned, currently the only 35/1.4 in the entire market which is fully usable at f/1.4 is the Sigma 35/1.4. At a street price wich is lower than the totally useless Canon 24 /2.8 IS and 28/2.8 IS and it beats the Zeiss Distagon 35.

And btw, I come from an entirely different usage situation:
* when I shoot handheld in low light, I ALWAYS shoot moving targets ... that is ... PEOPLE in motion ... 1/60s needed, nothing less. IS useless.  
* when I shoot static targets in low light, I ALWAYS use a tripod. IS useless.


----------



## willis (Dec 23, 2012)

Looking for 14-24 F2.8L 8)


----------



## Viggo (Dec 23, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> an f/1.4 wide-angle lens is NOT about speed. It is about the chance to get at least some halfway decent bokeh at wide-angle focal lengths. An f/1.4 lens therefore can never be substituted by a slower lens with IS.
> 
> The real issue however is not IS or not IS, it is the fact, that all of Canon's current 1.4 lenses deliver SUB-PAR IQ wide open. NB matter whether they have a red ring or not. 24 L II, 35 L I, 50 non L. And the 50/1.2 L is a sub-par piece of cr*p as well by todays standards. A Sigma 50/1.4 runs circles around it.
> 
> ...



Wow.. does it hurt to be so wrong?

And besides, not all moving people are like the elderly and very cold, you apparently shoot.


----------



## Marek Truchlik (Dec 23, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> an f/1.4 wide-angle lens is NOT about speed. It is about the chance to get at least some halfway decent bokeh at wide-angle focal lengths. An f/1.4 lens therefore can never be substituted by a slower lens with IS.
> 
> The real issue however is not IS or not IS, it is the fact, that all of Canon's current 1.4 lenses deliver SUB-PAR IQ wide open. NB matter whether they have a red ring or not. 24 L II, 35 L I, 50 non L. And the 50/1.2 L is a sub-par piece of cr*p as well by todays standards. A Sigma 50/1.4 runs circles around it.
> 
> ...


I do agree totally on performance of 1.4 or 1.2 lenses from Canon, definitely could be better. 
It will be difficult to beat current Sigmas.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 23, 2012)

roimund said:


> the 50L is CRAP.. .. the 85L is the only sub 100mm L that kicks some serious ass..



Interesting. So, you owned the 50L and, what...chucked it in the bin? Better bokeh than any Sigma lens and most Canon lenses, but sure...crap. Maybe intended use, portraits, for example, should be considered? Naah, you're right it's crap. 

You're right about no other sub-100mm L lenses except the 85L being any good, either. My TS-E 24L II must be crap, too.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 23, 2012)

roimund said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Wow.. does it hurt to be so wrong?
> ...



Just another no budget talker. I wonder, what kina lenses do you have?

I'm sure you think 1D X is crappy camera too


----------



## nightbreath (Dec 23, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> roimund said:
> 
> 
> > the 50L is CRAP.. .. the 85L is the only sub 100mm L that kicks some serious ass..
> ...


+1. 50L is a great tool for an artist, not the best one for making test chart shots. It's all about who you want to be


----------



## roimund (Dec 23, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Just another no budget talker. I wonder, what kina lenses do you have?
> 
> I'm sure you think 1D X is crappy camera too



28/1.8 and a 50/1.4 - mostly carry it with me on the streets in the bag whilst walking about during my commute in the city where i study.. so yeah.. i don´s have the money for a noctilux.. 

the 1D X is an excellent camera for sport shooters.. why on earth would i say it were crappy?


----------



## Daniel Flather (Dec 23, 2012)

ef 14/2.8LII here we come, cuz teh 12-24 will be $3000+. I just need the validation.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Dec 23, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> roimund said:
> 
> 
> > the 50L is CRAP.. .. the 85L is the only sub 100mm L that kicks some serious ass..
> ...



The 24/1.4L II is teh blowz0r too, and the 85/1.8, 35/1.4 et al.


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 23, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> ef 14/2.8LII here we come, cuz teh 12-24 will be $3000+. I just need the validation.



I was thinking more like $2400 to 2500? Optimistic ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 23, 2012)

roimund said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder, what kina lenses do you have?
> ...



In that case, on what are your scathing comments on the 50L based? Rented it a few times, perhaps? Or have you just read lots of reviews? Personally, I've never used the 28/1.8, but reviews call it soft and 'disappointing' (and the 'kinda ok' 24L II and 35L are certainly sharper). How does that match up with your real-world experience with the 28/1.8?


----------



## Viggo (Dec 23, 2012)

roimund said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Wow.. does it hurt to be so wrong?
> ...



The TS 17 was so soft I had to sell it, the af didn't work on three copies !! Useless...


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 23, 2012)

Viggo said:


> The TS 17 was so soft I had to sell it, the af didn't work on three copies !! Useless...



Er... Sorry..TS E 17 is a manual lens ...trying to auto focus it is like trying to milk a bull?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 23, 2012)

Viggo said:


> The TS 17 was so soft I had to sell it, the af didn't work on three copies !! Useless...



Damn, the AF on my TS-E 24L II doesn't work, either. *Canon's QC sucks!!!* :


----------



## Viggo (Dec 23, 2012)

Ray2021 said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > The TS 17 was so soft I had to sell it, the af didn't work on three copies !! Useless...
> ...



Did you actually think I owned the TS17 on a 1d X not knowing it's MF? Irony in writing is sometimes lost, apparently...


----------



## roimund (Dec 23, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> In that case, on what are your scathing comments on the 50L based? Rented it a few times, perhaps? Or have you just read lots of reviews? Personally, I've never used the 28/1.8, but reviews call it soft and 'disappointing' (and the 'kinda ok' 24L II and 35L are certainly sharper). How does that match up with your real-world experience with the 28/1.8?



it´s the Nikon F-mount one.. not the Canon EF.. i used to have the 7D and was here a looot.. still have the habit of coming here.. and yeah.. the 28mm is also "kinda ok", never praised the lord out of it.. but the 50L is really rather bad.. when you take the 1400€ price.. for ~800€.. it would be a whole lot better.. and i hope you are mature enough not to mock me having a "sony".. i am loyal to the price/performance ratio.. 

and for all the other children that like to be smart about stuff.. the sub-100mm L lenses that i mentioned.. were fast-primes (i didn´t write it because i thought it was self-explanatory, seem to have been mistaken).. the TS-E when not T-ed are over-designed.. how the heck would it look like if whey were soft? grow up, please - thank you.


edit: oh right, my background with the 50L was rather brief, when they had a "try it out" at a sport event - on the screen it looked rather nice.. but on the PC.. it was "kinda ok" for a 800€ lens.. and "CRAP" for a 1400€ lens..


----------



## Daniel Flather (Dec 23, 2012)

Ray2021 said:


> Daniel Flather said:
> 
> 
> > ef 14/2.8LII here we come, cuz teh 12-24 will be $3000+. I just need the validation.
> ...



Maybe, but the 14LII is still much less at $1999 CAD right now. 
http://www.cameracanada.com/enet-cart/product.asp?pid=2045B002


----------



## sagittariansrock (Dec 23, 2012)

nightbreath said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > roimund said:
> ...




This is actually a great statement and very useful for people looking for the more expensive lenses the first time.
There are always a lot of conflicting statements about every lens (every tool for that matter) on the Internet. For most good lenses, the negative comments come from people who never used it or shot charts.
I read so much bullshit about the 17-55's dust issue before just renting it, loving it and buying it.
Same with the 70-200 IS mark I. 
People keep talking about back-focusing issues on the 50 1.2 and lack of sharpness on the 35 1.4 yet so many people are using them everyday with great results- that itself should be the hint.

Back to topic: anyone thinks this might be a 1.2? Although Canon can definitely just make ample optic and build improvements to justify a mark II, a 35 1.2 would be nice  Especially since I am still on crop for at least a while...


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 23, 2012)

sagittariansrock said:


> Back to topic: anyone thinks this might be a 1.2? Although Canon can definitely just make ample optic and build improvements to justify a mark II, a 35 1.2 would be nice  Especially since I am still on crop for at least a while...



No...The patent was posted here a bit earlier... Even if it is something very different from that it will most likely remain f1.4. Wide angle lens designs present unique set of problems to overcome and I don't think canon will complicate things.... They probably just want to update an aging lens with tweaks and in the process counter Sigma quickly... Introducing new variables, and further increasing what is likely to be a high price already for 1.4 is not something canon will want to try now.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 23, 2012)

roimund said:


> i am loyal to the price/performance ratio..
> 
> it was "kinda ok" for a 800€ lens.. and "CRAP" for a 1400€ lens..
> 
> and for all the other children...



That's your personal value judgement, and while you're entitled to it, the lens performs as it does, regardless of price. The $13K 600mm f/4L IS II costs $4K more than its predecessor. Are the optical improvements and lower weight worth $4K? Was the original worth $9K? Perhaps not to you...but does that make either lens crap? A Chevy Camero ZL1 has just as big an engine as a Mercedes C63 AMG, but the Chevy is half the price - that much better price/performance ratio that you're so loyal to means that Mercedes must be crap, right?

As for parroting the statements of others and calling a lens which is a favorite portrait lens of many photographers for good reason, and more importantly, one that you have very limited experience with, crap, well, thanks for being a shining beacon of maturity.


----------



## papaxyang (Dec 24, 2012)

anyone has a rough idea of the price for the 35L II? im seeing a price tag of roughly $2,000.00 correct me if im wrong.


----------



## 87vr6 (Dec 24, 2012)

I have a 14mm 2.8 II and the 24mm 1.4 II.... Would I get rid of them for the 14-24 zoom? Tough thoughts there..


----------



## roimund (Dec 24, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> That's your personal value judgement, and while you're entitled to it, the lens performs as it does, regardless of price. The $13K 600mm f/4L IS II costs $4K more than its predecessor. Are the optical improvements and lower weight worth $4K? Was the original worth $9K? Perhaps not to you...but does that make either lens crap? A Chevy Camero ZL1 has just as big an engine as a Mercedes C63 AMG, but the Chevy is half the price - that much better price/performance ratio that you're so loyal to means that Mercedes must be crap, right?
> 
> As for parroting the statements of others and calling a lens which is a favorite portrait lens of many photographers for good reason, and more importantly, one that you have very limited experience with, crap, well, thanks for being a shining beacon of maturity.



did you really just compare an American riverboat with four wheels attached to it to a C63 AMG to make a point and put the word immature on the end of it? judging from that alone.. you either don´t know jack about cars.. or you must be american.. if anything.. the 50L is a Camaro being sold for 20k more than the Mercedes.. but can´t handle fast corners (f1.2 and 1.4).. and all it has for it are fancy looks and a big engine (f/1.2) for the straights (portraiture).. if you find it justifiable to spend 800€ more for the 50L than the Sigma 50/1.4.. by all means.. it´s your money..

okay.. let me correct my harshness from before. the 50L is what it is - but for the price that they charge you, it ought to be a lot more of what it now just is not. i know you don´t give a furry crack of a rats behind.. but for the average consumer, the price policy of Canon in the last year or so (50L EFs have always been a bit silly).. is just plain ridiculous and you have to agree that although it is a creative lens.. if you consider what you actually get for your buck.. it is rather a bit of a pile of something - or if it´s the word that bothers you.. the lens is rather.. ridiculously over-priced for what it can optically do - the 50/1.4 for 400€.. is 95% as useful for 3.5x less.. and even you can´t deny.. the bokeh that the Sigma delivers.. is pretty darn creamy but just a bit less of.

and as for the big white thingies.. they tend not to sell that many, development tends to be just as high as with mass lenses, production is rather specific and more by hand than the mass ones.. the 9k$ in 1999 is about 12.5k$ in 2012.. when the 13k$ price goes down a bit.. yeah.. the new price is justified.


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 24, 2012)

papaxyang said:


> anyone has a rough idea of the price for the 35L II? im seeing a price tag of roughly $2,000.00 correct me if im wrong.



Probably $1500 or so... If they go with $2000 that would cut the possible buyers down significantly....this is a general wide angle lens... Lots of people could want it...but only if priced properly...go a bit too high it becomes a specialty type pricing (like TS E, or ultra wide prime at 2k as in 14mm). No they will have to come somewhere in the 1500 to 1600 range...it will quickly slide down to the current L prime average of ~1400 after release and initial rush is gone. Not sustainable for a 35mm otherwise.


----------



## BrandonKing96 (Dec 24, 2012)

Hmmm.. Just need to wait for the 14-24 to actually be announced.. then that's another 3 months working my butt off for another piece of camera equipment. But it'll be worth it


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 24, 2012)

roimund said:


> the lens is rather.. ridiculously over-priced for what it can optically do - the 50/1.4 for 400€.. is 95% as useful for 3.5x less.. and even you can´t deny.. the bokeh that the Sigma delivers.. is pretty darn creamy but just a bit less of.



Optically, the Sigma 50/1.4 seems quite good. But when I read reliable reports describing the Sigma's AF as "very inconsistent" (TDP) and "schizophrenic" (lensrentals.com)...well, I'd rather not have my intended subject be part of that creamy bokeh - the best IQ in the world sucks if the lens can't achieve correct focus. 

It's interesting that you mentioned the 85L as 'bad ass' - given slow AF, and that the 85/1.8 is one of the best values in the Canon lineup for IQ/cost, and the very nice Sigma 85/1.4 is half the price of the 85L, I'd have thought the 85L would also be an overpriced pile of...whatever.


----------



## jondave (Dec 24, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> And the 50/1.2 L is a sub-par piece of cr*p as well by todays standards. A Sigma 50/1.4 runs circles around it.



Crap may be too strong a word, but I agree the 50L is not good value for money. I dare anyone to put it in their top 5 best primes (super teles excluded) if their life depended on it. I mean, my top 5 would be 100mm f2.8L IS Macro, 135mm f2, 85mm f1.2, 24mm II TS-E, 35mm f1.4.

I'm really surprised canon is refreshing the 35mm 1.4. I really feel it should be the 50mm 1.2 they should be updating. I guess Sigma got them pissed...


----------



## Zv (Dec 24, 2012)

Ummm can we get back to talkin about 14-24 and 35s? This 50L talk is ruining our fun!


----------



## Zlatko (Dec 24, 2012)

jondave said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > And the 50/1.2 L is a sub-par piece of cr*p as well by todays standards. A Sigma 50/1.4 runs circles around it.
> ...



The 50/1.2L stands out in the EF lens line, not for its sharpness, but for the beautiful way in which it draws, especially in the f/1.2 to f/2.8 range. Canon obviously designed it with a certain look in mind. It is easily my most-used prime and the last L prime that I would sell. The 24L, 35L, 85L, 100L and 135L are all exquisitely good, but not as useful for me. And it tests pretty well for sharpness. In LensRentals.com's "The Great 50mm Shootout", the 50L tested better for sharpness than Nikon, Sigma and Zeiss 50mm lenses, though not quite as high as two Leica 50mm lenses.


----------



## Zlatko (Dec 24, 2012)

Zv said:


> Ummm can we get back to talkin about 14-24 and 35s? This 50L talk is ruining our fun!


Sure thing, now that I've commented on that "crap" lens.


----------



## jondave (Dec 24, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> The 50/1.2L stands out in the EF lens line, not for its sharpness, but for the beautiful way in which it draws, especially in the f/1.2 to f/2.8 range. Canon obviously designed it with a certain look in mind.



Are you saying Canon designed the 50L not to be sharp but instead to get a 'certain look'? I really doubt Canon would design an L prime with sharpness NOT their top priority... if what you're saying is indeed the case, then I wonder what the Canon engineers had in mind when they designed the 24mm 1.4 Mk I?

Now, if Canon is indeed planning to release a 35mm MkII and 14-24mm f2.8 they better make sure making them tack sharp is their main priority.


----------



## tron (Dec 24, 2012)

Ray2021 said:


> papaxyang said:
> 
> 
> > anyone has a rough idea of the price for the 35L II? im seeing a price tag of roughly $2,000.00 correct me if im wrong.
> ...


$1479 is the B&H price when there are no rebates. Why Canon would spend a lot on R&D to make a 35mm 1/4L II that will cost almost as version 1 costs. There is no logic on that.  Add to the fact that we know what Canon does to the prices of the next version lenses...


----------



## tron (Dec 24, 2012)

Viggo said:


> The 35 L II, I am so seriously excited about that lens, seems the wait has been forever!


For how many years there are rumors that 35mm 1.4L is being replaced? Let's don't rush to celebrate an imaginary version II.


----------



## Zlatko (Dec 24, 2012)

jondave said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > The 50/1.2L stands out in the EF lens line, not for its sharpness, but for the beautiful way in which it draws, especially in the f/1.2 to f/2.8 range. Canon obviously designed it with a certain look in mind.
> ...


I'm not saying they designed it "not to be sharp". As I mentioned, it tests very sharp. It's just not as sharp as the 85/1.2L or the 200/2L. Sharpness is just one goal for a lens designer. It isn't the only goal. A lot of goals come to together in a lens design.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 24, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> The 50/1.2L stands out in the EF lens line, not for its sharpness, but for the beautiful way in which it draws, especially in the f/1.2 to f/2.8 range. Canon obviously designed it with a certain look in mind. It is easily my most-used prime and the last L prime that I would sell. The 24L, 35L, 85L, 100L and 135L are all exquisitely good, but not as useful for me. And it tests pretty well for sharpness. In LensRentals.com's "The Great 50mm Shootout", the 50L tested better for sharpness than Nikon, Sigma and Zeiss 50mm lenses, though not quite as high as two Leica 50mm lenses.



How can you not understand that it costs a lot of money, and the 50/1.8 is dirt cheap and sharper at f/8. Therefore, the 50L is crap.

</sarcasm>

Back on topic....

If there's a 35L II, I'll definitely upgrade from my current 35L. If there's a 14-24L, I'll have to decide on whether or not to switch out my 16-35L II. I use a 10-stop ND a lot with that lens, and I've not ever felt a huge need for wider than 16mm...


----------



## agierke (Dec 24, 2012)

if third party lenses are now being tested with IQ just as good as the "overpriced" canon lenses then why complain about canon's pricing? just go buy the third party lens and be happy.

its as if deep down inside you want the canon lens...but why? if the third party lens is just as good but cheaper....


----------



## roimund (Dec 24, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Optically, the Sigma 50/1.4 seems quite good. But when I read reliable reports describing the Sigma's AF as "very inconsistent" (TDP) and "schizophrenic" (lensrentals.com)...well, I'd rather not have my intended subject be part of that creamy bokeh - the best IQ in the world sucks if the lens can't achieve correct focus.
> 
> It's interesting that you mentioned the 85L as 'bad ass' - given slow AF, and that the 85/1.8 is one of the best values in the Canon lineup for IQ/cost, and the very nice Sigma 85/1.4 is half the price of the 85L, I'd have thought the 85L would also be an overpriced pile of...whatever.



well, as far as the AF of the Sigma goes.. I had mine calibrated at sigma (took him one afternoon), so did my friend - both lenses worked like a charm afterwords (well up to f/3.2 - never really went smaller) - but yeah, it sucks to be the owner of a new 50/1.4 most of the time.. but in the end.. it pays of.. metaphorically as well as literally.. 

the 85L was designed with mostly one purpose as far as i can tell.. to get sharp pictures at f/1.2 - does it? yes - and it should.. if you are going to buy that chunk of glass.. you better hell use it at f1.2-f/2.. or you may as well get the f/1.8 you mentioned - the 85L isn´t cheap, but you get for what you payed for, a really "bad-ass" lens you will love to use at f/1.2.. with the 50L you simply don´t get that and if you did.. hell.. charge 2k€ if you will.. people will want to buy a sharp 50/1.2.
as far as the sigma 85mm goes.. sure.. it is half the price, but at least in this case.. you get what you pay for with the Canon.. and that is the only 85mm lens that goes to f/1.2 and is actually sharp when doing so.. and hey.. it´s only 2x the price of the Sigma.. the 50L is 3.5x the price..


----------



## roadrunner (Dec 24, 2012)

agierke said:


> if third party lenses are now being tested with IQ just as good as the "overpriced" canon lenses then why complain about canon's pricing? just go buy the third party lens and be happy.
> 
> its as if deep down inside you want the canon lens...but why? if the third party lens is just as good but cheaper....



I agree with this statement completely. Personally, I am extremely interested in the new Sigma 35mm 1.4, and my purchase will depend on how this rumor pans out. I also think the Sigma 50mm F1.4 is an excellent lens, especially considering the price. I don't think anyone is arguing over which lense gives you more for your money.

That's when you need to step back and remember not everyone has the same budget as us. Sure, I can't afford to drop $1500 on a new 50mm lens right now, but that doesn't mean others can't. Just read this thread, one said he would gladly trade in his 16-35 and $3k for a single UWA. Great for him, if he can afford it, and the new lens suits his needs. Just because I can't afford it right now doesn't mean everyone else has to make purchases bsaed on my budget.

If you absolutely need F1.2 and weathersealing, what other options are there? You can complain all you want about it being overpriced (And I agree, to an extent) but that doesn't change the fact that the people that need F1.2 and weathersealing don't have any other choice. We can happily buy the Sigma (Actually, I won't, I'm worried by the focus shift... waiting for the canon 50mm 1.4 replacement) and they can happily purchase the canon version. Everyone wins.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 24, 2012)

agierke said:


> its as if deep down inside you want the canon lens...but why? if the third party lens is just as good but cheaper....



Weather sealing, resale value, compatibility with future Canon bodies, etc...



roimund said:


> the 85L was designed with mostly one purpose as far as i can tell.. to get sharp pictures at f/1.2 - does it? yes - and it should.. if you are going to buy that chunk of glass.. you better hell use it at f1.2-f/2.. or you may as well get the f/1.8 you mentioned - the 85L isn´t cheap, but you get for what you payed for, a really "bad-ass" lens you will love to use at f/1.2.. with the 50L you simply don´t get that and if you did.. hell.. charge 2k€ if you will.. people will want to buy a sharp 50/1.2.
> as far as the sigma 85mm goes.. sure.. it is half the price, but at least in this case.. you get what you pay for with the Canon.. and that is the only 85mm lens that goes to f/1.2 and is actually sharp when doing so.. and hey.. it´s only 2x the price of the Sigma.. the 50L is 3.5x the price..



Thanks...see, I just _knew_ there was a reason I have the 85L II and not the 50L.


----------



## Cfunkexplosion (Dec 24, 2012)

I just recently purchased the 35L, though I do not regret it. Really loving that lens, and it compliments the 85L so nicely. I had the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 when I had a crop sensor, and the autofocus was never consistent. It would take a lot for me to consider another Sigma lens, no matter how good the image quality can potentially be. If there is a 35L II about to debut, I doubt it is in response to Sigma, but rather in response to Canon L series owners looking for a refresh. While I'd like weather sealing, I find the current 35L to be a great lens, and I probably won't get too envious of the II. 

Now, if it was a 35 f/1.2L...


I'd like a wide angle, and a 14-24 would be intriguing. That is a lens I'd save up and pay for if it is superlative. 16-35 kind of gets "only" good, not great, reviews, though perhaps that is just in comparison to Nikon's 14-24. Was about ready to pull the trigger on the Tokina 16-35, though I might just wait to see if anything happens on January 8th.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Dec 24, 2012)

So I was wondering: let's say Canon announces a 17-40 f/4 L IS instead of the 14-24 f/2.8
How many of you will be happier (not just happy for Canon or happy in general for humankind- I mean will seriously plan to buy it)?
Nikon did it- can't be out of the question, and will probably cost similar to the 16-35 II
Would you prefer a 17-40 f/4 IS or a 14-24 f/2.8?


----------



## Woody (Dec 24, 2012)

sagittariansrock said:


> Would you prefer a 17-40 f/4 IS or a 14-24 f/2.8?



I suspect both will be released, just a matter of time. Personally, I am only interested in the f/4 IS version because it will have front threading and will also be lighter.

Many however find the 14-24 more appealing because of the focal length range.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Dec 24, 2012)

I like the idea of the 14-24 range much better than a 17-40. I think between f4 IS and 2.8 it's too close of a call in the UWA range. IS is just not as practical in the UWA range, and 2.8 will be more expensive to produce. I'm sure Canon is considering to market for both. If Canon makes a 14-24 2.8 that performs better than Nikon's I definitely wouldn't mind. It's gonna be expensive as hell though.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Dec 24, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> agierke said:
> 
> 
> > its as if deep down inside you want the canon lens...but why? if the third party lens is just as good but cheaper....
> ...



I've owned the 50/1.8 Mrk I, the 50 f1.4, and I currently own the 50L. The 50L is worth the cost IMHO. I have real world use of these three lenses. If you want razor sharp 50mm, buy the 50 macro.

Neuro, you have so many lenses I think 50L ownership is just a matter of time for you. You want it —you're looking for validation.


----------



## symmar22 (Dec 24, 2012)

Well, I have the 50mm f2.5 Compact Macro, and my feelings are mixed. It is extremely sharp around f4 in the middle, but you need f8 to get perfect corners. The AF is quite inconsistent, the vignetting is a disaster until f5.6 minimum. But I use it for architecture, and it has no distortion at all, combined to an excellent sharpness until f16, good at f22 (only f32 is really bad). The mechanics are awful too, nasty focus, and it gives only 1:2 macro. The only thing that can't be beaten is the price, I got it for 220 Euro.

This is one lens Canon should update in an emergency. Even the old Nikkor 55mm AIS beats the hell out of it.

I could be interested in the 35 f1.4, depending on the tests, I will wait until I can compare the f2 IS and the 1.4 II though.

For the 14-24mm, I have no urgent need, but I would like to see how it compares to Nikon's, hoping it won't be 3.5k.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 24, 2012)

Compare a 1,4 to a f2? Well, the 1,4 let's in twice the light, do you want that and shallow dof as a result? The answer to that question gives the lens you want... add weatherseal too..


----------



## M.ST (Dec 24, 2012)

Some photographers get the EF 14-24 f/2.8 for testing a few weeks ago.


----------



## candyman (Dec 24, 2012)

M.ST said:


> Some photographers get the EF 14-24 f/2.8 for testing a few weeks ago.


 
If it is only a few weeks ago, then we may expect an announcement in Q1 of 2013. But actual availability may be Q3 or Q4. I suspect QC can deliver issues that need to be resolved before the productionproces and final delivery start


----------



## Viggo (Dec 24, 2012)

M.ST said:


> Some photographers get the EF 14-24 f/2.8 for testing a few weeks ago.



Does "some" include yourself? So, how is it? 8)


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Dec 24, 2012)

Ray2021 said:


> There is a fly in the ointment ... Great rouse to stem the sigma tide



I'm considering the Sigma in place of the 35mm f/2 - the price of the mk1 L is far too high for me, and the mk2 L would be even more expensive.


----------



## candyman (Dec 24, 2012)

Viggo said:


> M.ST said:
> 
> 
> > Some photographers get the EF 14-24 f/2.8 for testing a few weeks ago.
> ...


 
No chance. I once asked M.ST about his experience with the 7D MKII. No reply. Which is understandable since he probably - for sure - signed a NDA


----------



## tron (Dec 24, 2012)

candyman said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > M.ST said:
> ...


This or, there are no such things as 7DMkII and FS14-24 f/2.8L yet! 8)


----------



## pedro (Dec 24, 2012)

Well, made my decision today. Saving account for the 14-24 F/2.8 is set up. Hope I'm not upset about the price tag!!! :-[ But this is a "once in a lifetime" lens, and worth the wait. Merry Christmas to ya'll. Cheers, Pedro.


----------



## agierke (Dec 24, 2012)

> its as if deep down inside you want the canon lens...but why? if the third party lens is just as good but cheaper....
> 
> 
> Weather sealing, resale value, compatibility with future Canon bodies, etc...



lol, yes i know. i was being facetious. i like the direction the new canon lens releases are going including edge to edge sharpness, improved chromatic aberration and all the things you mentioned.

im in your boat as i picked up the 35L this year (i did so knowing a replacement was imminent) so will likely be watching the resale market for the most opportune time to sell it and put that money towards the II.


----------



## switters (Dec 24, 2012)

If this rumor is indeed true (which we don't know yet), I think it can only be positive that there will be so many good options at 35mm: the new Sigma, the current 35L (aftermarket once the 35L II goes on sale), the 35L II, and for those that need IS, the 35 IS. 

I have to say, though, that I would have been happier with an announcement for a 50L II or a 50/1.4 II. That's where I feel the Canon line-up needs more attention.


----------



## tron (Dec 24, 2012)

pedro said:


> Hope I'm not upset about the price tag!!! :-[


You will and you know it! :


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 24, 2012)

roimund said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Just another no budget talker. I wonder, what kina lenses do you have?
> ...



As a prev. owner of 28mm f1.8 and 50 f1.4, I know both of these lenses well. None of these lenses can be shot at wide open, especially the 28mm. Both lenses need to stop down at least 1stop before you can see the sharpness. 

What is the point of buying a prime with f1.ish and shoot at f2ish. Just FYI...both 35L and 50L are sharp at wide open... and yes, I have real life pictures if you want to see.


----------



## pedro (Dec 24, 2012)

tron said:


> pedro said:
> 
> 
> > Hope I'm not upset about the price tag!!! :-[
> ...


yepp, anyway. time will tell and, there is joy in saving up. As it was on the route to 5D3... 8)


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 24, 2012)

M.ST said:


> Some photographers get the EF 14-24 f/2.8 for testing a few weeks ago.



Should I sell my 16-35 II NOW? Give us little hint


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 24, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Should I sell my 16-35 II NOW?



I've been thinking about that...the front filter capability is what's stopping me. Oh...that, and the fact that no 14-24/2.8 has actually been announced, and even if one is, it might be many months before it's actually available.


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 24, 2012)

I have held off on getting many UWA primes & zooms, Samyang 14, Tokina 16-28, 14L etc etc because I'd really like a Polarizer on the front. I hope the rumored 14-24 has threads.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 24, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Should I sell my 16-35 II NOW?
> ...



Assuming this rumor is true, the design is good/better than Nikon 14-24 and I have a good copy in my hands....otherwise the 16-35 will remain in the bag 

Friend of mine went to Redwoods, CA. Here are some photos of D800 + 14-24. He shots with jpeg 
http://luisfavorites.phanfare.com/5856307

Happy Holidays Neuro


----------



## roimund (Dec 24, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> As a prev. owner of 28mm f1.8 and 50 f1.4, I know both of these lenses well. None of these lenses can be shot at wide open, especially the 28mm. Both lenses need to stop down at least 1stop before you can see the sharpness.
> 
> What is the point of buying a prime with f1.ish and shoot at f2ish. Just FYI...both 35L and 50L are sharp at wide open... and yes, I have real life pictures if you want to see.



i´m on F-mount (used to own a 7D - still have the habit of coming here), the 28mm 1.8 is rather new and is not that bad when it is paired with the 16Mp sensor and on say a 20-ish Mp sensor it is more than "ok" when wide-open and the 50/1.4 is the sigma bulk of glass, had it with the 7D, was really rather sharp wide-open, so i opted to buy a Nikon mount when i traded in mounts 

okay, let me see some out of the camera pictures, please


----------



## symmar22 (Dec 24, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Compare a 1,4 to a f2? Well, the 1,4 let's in twice the light, do you want that and shallow dof as a result? The answer to that question gives the lens you want... add weatherseal too..



For me it makes sense, I use my lenses stopped down most of the time, but I can be in need of a large aperture sometimes. It's not to compare the amount of light the lens gathers, it's clear the 1.4 is twice as fast, it's to see how sharpness compares with smaller f-stops as well (again in my case). the 1.4 can be sharper with larger apertures but can be beaten by the f2 IS around f8-f11. I can accept some softness with large apertures, considering only a part of the picture is in focus anyway, but when I stop down I expect excellent sharpness all over, since it's likely that everything in the frame will be sharp then. Vignetting and mainly distortion are a big part of the equation too. Weather-sealing is a big plus but not a must for me, IS on the other hand can be an interesting feature....

I had the Nikkor 35mm 1.4 AI-S 20 years ago and finally exchanged it for 35mm f2 AI-S that was sharper, had less distortion an vignetting. 

The 35mm 1.4L vs the 35mm f2 IS not like comparing apples and oranges, they are both 35mm USM, one is 1 stop brighter, one has IS, IMO it's worth hesitating a bit....


Not that I am comparing to him, but David Noton uses the 35mm 1.4, though likely on a tripod for landscape. 

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/david_noton_on_the_eos_5d_mark_iii.do?utm_source=newsletter-december-1-2012&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter

My guess is the old 35mm f2 was not enough IQ for him (picture 3 of the portfolio is a 35mm f1.4, stopped down to f8)


----------



## pedro (Dec 24, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Should I sell my 16-35 II NOW?
> ...



As many the months maybe...I don't care : As I am saving up I will be glad about its release and what is shared by early adopters... 8) Merry Christmas to everyone west of the pond or wherever you may be.


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 24, 2012)

I will be keeping my 16-35 II _unless_ the new zoom proves to be exceptionally sharp overall and noticably better in the corners (I will leave expecting pin sharp corners in a 14mm UWA with usually curved image planes to dreamers, I will be happy with moderate improvement). Though not central, the details of the mechanics, weight etc will also have some sway. 

The 16-35 II is compact and is also little more versatile due to its focal length range...so no, I won't be jumping ship on a whim.


----------



## Cory (Dec 24, 2012)

Do you think the 12-24 might be a good bet for crop sensors? My "normal" lens is a Sigma 30 1.4 and I'm considering the new Tokina 11-16, but would gladly wait to see what the 12-24 is all about.

:-*


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 24, 2012)

Cory said:


> Do you think the 12-24 might be a good bet for crop sensors? My "normal" lens is a Sigma 30 1.4 and I'm considering the new Tokina 11-16, but would gladly wait to see what the 12-24 is all about.
> 
> :-*



If you mean _14-24_ then I would say the two current UWA to WA zooms 17-40L and 16-35L II are both already great zooms on your crop body covering wide to normal+ range (~27-64mm and ~26-56mm, respectively). As the crop captures just the center of the image plane you will not even see the corner issues in your body. Also, barrel distortion when it exists will be less noticeable as you will be capturing the sweet spot. 

But you can always wait and pay more.


----------



## Bosman (Dec 25, 2012)

Canon is doing the classic, omg they have a great lens, before they snatch our potential 35 up-graders we better release ours. AKA Sigma.


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 25, 2012)

Bosman said:


> Canon is doing the classic, omg they have a great lens, before they snatch our potential 35 up-graders we better release ours. AKA Sigma.



And on a completely unrelated note...the ones who took the bait early and raved on at infinitum about the sigma have gone ominously quiet in this thread. 

P.S Now, be gentle with me...It is Christmas.


----------



## tron (Dec 25, 2012)

pedro said:


> As many the months maybe...


Or... years!  This is a rumors site and everyone can write his or her BS! We simply do not know. For now I prefer to enjoy my TS-E 17mm. Less wide but still wide enough, plus having Tilt and Shift capability  (and anyway the 14-24 is likely to have an equally high price).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 25, 2012)

jondave said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > The 50/1.2L stands out in the EF lens line, not for its sharpness, but for the beautiful way in which it draws, especially in the f/1.2 to f/2.8 range. Canon obviously designed it with a certain look in mind.
> ...



Excellent bokeh was a priority for Canon with the 50L. They stated, "_With the increasing popularity of digital SLR cameras, calls for large aperture single-focal length lenses with excellent image quality and *pleasing bokeh* (blur effects) for portraits have increased,_" (Tech Report, 11/2006). Spherical aberration results in a loss of sharpness, but completely correcting for spherical aberration results in a harsh, jittery bokeh. In the 50L design, the spherical aberration was left deliberately undercorrected to produce the creamy bokeh for which the lens is known. 



Daniel Flather said:


> Neuro, you have so many lenses I think 50L ownership is just a matter of time for you. You want it —you're looking for validation.



LOL.  I've considered buying it, but I'll likely get the 24-70 II first.


----------



## tron (Dec 25, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > pedro said:
> ...


Well, YES and NO. You must not shift a lot since it will cause vignetting in one side and it will impact the quality.
Plus you have to shift the camera and not the lens. To do that properly you need the HARTBLEI TS Collar for 500+ euros!!!

With that amount of money you can get a panoramic solution and use more lenses...

But generally 17mm is enough for me and I quite enjoy my TS lenses.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Dec 25, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> LOL.  I've considered buying it, but I'll likely get the 24-70 II *first.*



I can read in to that.


----------



## danski0224 (Dec 25, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> Maybe I should write an article for the site on TS-E use as few people seem to know how to get the best out of these extraordinary lenses.



Please do.


----------



## Bosman (Dec 25, 2012)

Oh and the 35 that would take back some from Sigma would be a 35 F1.2. Heres hoping for the next revolution hopefully consisting of wides below F1.4.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Dec 25, 2012)

danski0224 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe I should write an article for the site on TS-E use as few people seem to know how to get the best out of these extraordinary lenses.
> ...



+1


----------



## tron (Dec 25, 2012)

danski0224 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe I should write an article for the site on TS-E use as few people seem to know how to get the best out of these extraordinary lenses.
> ...


Even better, do it first, announce it later :


----------



## MangroveHunter (Dec 26, 2012)

Need some advice. I just bought the 16-35. Should I return it and wait for reviews of 14-24?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 26, 2012)

MangroveHunter said:


> Need some advice. I just bought the 16-35. Should I return it and wait for reviews of 14-24?



Sounds like you don't have a significant need for an ultrawide zoom, if you're considering waiting for reviews of a lens that hasn't even been announced (and may not be...).


----------



## Zv (Dec 27, 2012)

MangroveHunter said:


> Need some advice. I just bought the 16-35. Should I return it and wait for reviews of 14-24?



Which version? 16-35 ii?? I'd hang on to that for now, you could always sell it if and when the 14-24 surfaces.


----------



## MangroveHunter (Dec 27, 2012)

Zv said:


> MangroveHunter said:
> 
> 
> > Need some advice. I just bought the 16-35. Should I return it and wait for reviews of 14-24?
> ...



Yes, it's the 16-35 ii. That's the direction I was leaning towards. Must have been experiencing some buyers remorse. I just received this lens and then saw rumors on the 14-24. Thanks.


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 27, 2012)

MangroveHunter said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > MangroveHunter said:
> ...



They are/will be different beasts... For which reason the 14-24 if and when it materializes will not be a replacement for the 16-35II ...canon will continue to produce 16-35II and continue to charge ~$1399+.

Personally I find the 16-35II a bit more versatile...might switch if the 14-24 is insanely sharper (not marginally).

I also prefer to use and enjoy things I have in real world now and not wait for the next best thing coming out perpetually in the next few months. That's just me


----------



## joshmurrah (Dec 27, 2012)

I'm in the same boat as MangroveHunter, having just bought a 16-35 II. 

I'm going to enjoy what I have, and it also doubles as a standardish-zoom on my 7D for now. 

When I've moved to a two-5D setup (swapping the 7D for a 5D3), I'll probably swap to the 14-24 if it's not astronomically-priced.


----------



## K-amps (Dec 28, 2012)

sagittariansrock said:


> So I was wondering: let's say Canon announces a 17-40 f/4 L IS instead of the 14-24 f/2.8
> How many of you will be happier (not just happy for Canon or happy in general for humankind- I mean will seriously plan to buy it)?
> Nikon did it- can't be out of the question, and will probably cost similar to the 16-35 II
> Would you prefer a 17-40 f/4 IS or a 14-24 f/2.8?



IS is welcome, but what I would really like is a 17-40L ii that is tack sharp on the corners with little distortion. Currently, if I take group shots and have people at the ends, the lens makes a 170lb man look like 340lb... I am still looking for the person that appreciates those kinds of "embellishments".


----------



## tron (Dec 28, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...


Thanks! Even if I will have to test it for the 24mm setting this was really useful information...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



DxO Optics Pro corrects it on RAW files, and the corrections are lens specific, meaning no messing about. DxO's ViewPoint software corrects as a PS/LR plugin (perhaps on RAW in LR, not sure).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> The *auto* examples I have seen of DXO ended up cropping too much, but their "volume anamorphosis correction" settings have to be dialed in per image manually, either cylindrical or spherical, ( http://www.dxo.com/us/photo/dxo_optics_pro/features/optics_geometry_corrections/anamorphosis ).



Sort of - you select a volume anamorphosis correction from the menu, and it's applied based on the lens module. My point was you don't need to 'mess about' for different lenses or different focal lengths on a zoom. But of course, you're free to tweak the default settings as desired. For me, since DxO is my RAW converter of choice, there's no extra software needed, either.  I do have CS6, but I prefer do make all the corrections possible on the RAW images, except for final downsizing (and sharpening as needed based on that).


----------



## sagittariansrock (Dec 29, 2012)

K-amps said:


> IS is welcome, but what I would really like is a 17-40L ii that is tack sharp on the corners with little distortion. Currently, if I take group shots and have people at the ends, the lens makes a 170lb man look like 340lb... I am still looking for the person that appreciates those kinds of "embellishments".



I have a friend who is 6", 120 lbs and is losing weight in spite of eating more fat in a meal than I dare to eat in a month. 
Now that's someone who wouldn't mind some embellishment


----------



## Bennymiata (Dec 29, 2012)

When you are taking these large group photos with wide angle lens, , just arrange the people so the really skiny people are on the ends, with the heavier people towards the middle.

Problem solved!


----------



## pedro (Dec 30, 2012)

Bennymiata said:


> When you are taking these large group photos with wide angle lens, , just arrange the people so the really skiny people are on the ends, with the heavier people towards the middle.
> 
> Problem solved!



LOL! good one. Looking forward to January 8. BTW: it's Elvis Presley's Birthday. Maybe they announce another lens: a "kingsized" zoom 8) Cheers, Pedro.


----------



## Rick (Dec 30, 2012)

*14-24 or a 16-35 III*

Either way will make me very happy as long as the lens competes well with the Nikkor 14-24G. 

Edit: now that I've checked the lens rumor list, the 14-24 was the subject of a rumor in 2010, so...not so excited now until verification.


----------



## pedro (Dec 30, 2012)

Let's hope for a CR2 soon...No hurry here to buy the lens. Still saving up. Especially if it passes the 2k line...


----------



## Quasimodo (Dec 30, 2012)

[/quote]


Maybe I should write an article for the site on TS-E use as few people seem to know how to get the best out of these extraordinary lenses
[/quote]

+1


----------



## tron (Dec 30, 2012)

Quasimodo said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe I should write an article for the site on TS-E use as few people seem to know how to get the best out of these extraordinary lenses
> ...


+1 (actually + 1000000) When it is done not when it is simply announced :


----------



## teedidy (Jan 8, 2013)

I see Sigma has Two lenses announced today, did we get duped by sigma into thinking they were Canon's?


----------

