# Ultrawide Zoom from Canon?



## Canonicon (Sep 4, 2014)

When will Canon announce a fast ultrawide zoom?

Nikon has the great 14-24mm f2.8.
Canon only a 16-35mm f2.8 that shows weakness at the borders and a slow f4 version.

Any chance for a Photokina announcement?


----------



## DominoDude (Sep 4, 2014)

*Re: Ultrawide Canon?*



Canonicon said:


> When will Canon announce a fast ultrawide?
> 
> Nikon has the great 14-24mm f2.8.
> Canon only a 16-35mm f2.8 that shows weakness at the borders and a slow f4 version.
> ...



What about Canon's EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM? Not wide enough, or not fast enough?


----------



## Ruined (Sep 4, 2014)

*Re: Ultrawide Canon?*



Canonicon said:


> When will Canon announce a fast ultrawide?
> 
> Nikon has the great 14-24mm f2.8.
> Canon only a 16-35mm f2.8 that shows weakness at the borders and a slow f4 version.
> ...



Always a chance, but I am not sure the time is right yet. The 16-35 f/4 IS still is new and they may want to "double dip" people who buy that lens on a 16-35 f/2.8 III a year from now for more profit. A wider option is also a possibility, but recall that the 14mm f/2.8 prime already exists.

Finally, while the 16-35 f/2.8 II shows weakness at the borders, it is still optically superior to the still-in-production Nikon 17-35 f/2.8. The 14-24 f/2.8 is great, however it has a bulbous element and cannot do 35mm obviously; so it is also possible that the 16-35 f/2.8 II will remain in the lineup for some time and be complemented by an 11-24/12-24/14-24.

Most people who are truly worried about sharp corners do not need f/2.8 (i.e., landscape and probably would prefer the ability to use a front filter). Most people who are worried about f/2.8 do not need sharp corners (i.e. event photographers, photojournalism - human subject near center of frame to avoid perspective distortion at this focal length, corners mainly out of focus background). Because of this, it makes this a less pressing lens for Canon IMO. It would be nice to have a non-bulbous 16-35 f/2.8L III that did it all, though - sharper corners for landscape (or at least less CA) but also f/2.8 for people.


----------



## climber (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: Ultrawide Canon?*

What about Zeiss 15mm f/2.8? Wide enough, fast enough, expensive enough too.


----------



## Canonicon (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: Ultrawide Canon?*



climber said:


> What about Zeiss 15mm f/2.8? Wide enough, fast enough, expensive enough too.



I thought about it. But i want AF.
An i really would love to have the 24mm end on such a lens too.
A Zoom is simply more versatile.




> Most people who are truly worried about sharp corners do not need f/2.8 (i.e., landscape and probably would prefer the ability to use a front filter).



Most people use lenses for more than one purpose.
For one purpose you want maximum sharpness, you can simply stop down with a fast lens.

For another purpose you want to gather as much light as possible.


----------



## Khalai (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: Ultrawide Canon?*



Ruined said:


> Most people who are truly worried about sharp corners do not need f/2.8 (i.e., landscape and probably would prefer the ability to use a front filter). Most people who are worried about f/2.8 do not need sharp corners (i.e. event photographers, photojournalism - human subject near center of frame to avoid perspective distortion at this focal length, corners mainly out of focus background). Because of this, it makes this a less pressing lens for Canon IMO. It would be nice to have a non-bulbous 16-35 f/2.8L III that did it all, though - sharper corners for landscape (or at least less CA) but also f/2.8 for people.



Landscapers already have their 16-35/4L IS, which is at last sharp from corner to corner. So there would be a lesser appeal for them, if Canon released 11-24/14-24/16-35 with f/2.8. Major deterrent would be price and weight over the 16-35/4L IS. And to be honest, even 16mm is plenty wide and there are very rare occasions you need to go wider IMHO.


----------



## Canonicon (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: Ultrawide Canon?*



Khalai said:



> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > Most people who are truly worried about sharp corners do not need f/2.8 (i.e., landscape and probably would prefer the ability to use a front filter). Most people who are worried about f/2.8 do not need sharp corners (i.e. event photographers, photojournalism - human subject near center of frame to avoid perspective distortion at this focal length, corners mainly out of focus background). Because of this, it makes this a less pressing lens for Canon IMO. It would be nice to have a non-bulbous 16-35 f/2.8L III that did it all, though - sharper corners for landscape (or at least less CA) but also f/2.8 for people.
> ...




People here are great to make excuses for Canon.
But honestly you obviously don´t know what people need. 

There are enough lenses that show there is need and demand for fast zoom lenses wider than 16mm. Just not from Canon.


----------



## Khalai (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: Ultrawide Canon?*



Canonicon said:


> But honestly you obviously don´t know what people need.



I don't even have to, I'm not a marketing director of Canon. But this makes an impression like you claim you do, what people need 

On a more serious note, how many of total top-notch wide angle shots used wider than 16mm? I'm just asking, because even under 24mm, the perspective distortion takes its toll and even shooting events with people is difficult, not to make a disproportionate person in the frame. 16mm is quite a challenge for either events and landscapes. Sure I've seen amazing ultrawide images with either 14mm or even 12mm (Sigma), but they are far from majority of all the wide-angle shots. If someone really needs wider than 16mm, it's rather specialty or niche, not a majority.

And apart from 15mm Zeiss (with huge filter thread), I've yet to see filterable lens wider than 14mm (for FF that is), which can be a no-go for quite a number of landscapers


----------



## gwflauto (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: Ultrawide Canon?*

I consider my 14 mm/2,8 an ultrawide . A wonderful lens. .... from Canon.


----------



## Canonicon (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: Ultrawide Canon?*



gwflauto said:


> I consider my 14 mm/2,8 an ultrawide . A wonderful lens. .... from Canon.



I forgot the word ZOOM. 
I edited the fist post to make that more apparent.

Thought my examples in the first post should have made clear i speak about ultrawide zooms.


----------



## Canonicon (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: Ultrawide Canon?*



Khalai said:


> Canonicon said:
> 
> 
> > But honestly you obviously don´t know what people need.
> ...



Well look at this forum, look at other forums.

People obviously want such a 12-24mm or 14-24mm f2.8 zoom.

Nikonias love the 14-24mm f2.8.

What more proof do you need?


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: Ultrawide Canon?*



Canonicon said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > Canonicon said:
> ...



Many people don't even know what they want.
For example, which Canon ultra-wides have you owned and used? Have you used the 16-35/2.8? Have the corners degraded the images? Care to share some examples? 
What do you primarily shoot? In which situations do you use a UWA zoom where the edge IQ AND fast aperture was necessary?
Would you be willing to pay for a $2k lens? What other similarly priced lens do you own? What is your budget on photographic equipment?
Without that background, this post reads like trolling to me. 
There is definitely a demand for a sharp ultra-wide zoom, but it is not as big as one would think. For one, I'm hoping for a 12-24/2.8, but neither can I claim that the lack of that lens is affecting my photography seriously, nor can I claim I'd be able to afford it when it arrives. So I'm not a demographic Canon would like to rely on making such a large investment. Are you?


----------



## Khalai (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: Ultrawide Canon?*



Canonicon said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > Canonicon said:
> ...



Wanting something and needing something are two different things  Sure, there is a place for such zoom. I'd love to see one and try one as I consider myself a gearhead and loving such optical stunts as this. But as soon as you launch this lens, there will be a horde of complainers, spitting fire over price/weight/no filter thread/badly designed lens cap/incorrect colour of the red ring - just take a pick 

And you forgot the silent and satisfied majority of users, who don't post on the forums. Besides, people will always b**ch about the things they think they need. Give them 12-24/2.8L lens and soon, they'll want 8-16/4L for fullframe, rectilinear with filter thread. And after that, we are just a small step for a mythical unicorn called 8-1200mm f/1.4L IS USM Macro Pancake for a mere 1000 USD  Forum folk is never satisfied


----------



## pwp (Sep 5, 2014)

Rent a 14mm f/2.8II. It's a remarkable lens. I'd class it as an ultra-wide.
If shopping for a pre-owned 14mm f/2.8 avoid the old model, MkII only please.

-pw


----------



## Canonicon (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: Ultrawide Canon?*



sagittariansrock said:


> Canonicon said:
> 
> 
> > Khalai said:
> ...




Good that you know so much about what other people know.
Can you rent me you crystalball?

I have the Sigma 12-24mm and the EF 17-40mm.
I am waiting to replace both with a sharp and fast canon 12/14-24mm ultrawide zoom.
I wait for some time.



> Would you be willing to pay for a $2k lens?



When it offers the quality.. in an instant yes.
The 24-70mm f2.8 was not cheap either but it offers outstanding quality.
I am well aware that quality does not come cheap. 




The 16-35mm lacks on the corners especially wide open. Every review says that.
But of course they are all wrong. :

As long as Canon does not offer a lens people don´t need it.
Sorrry but how could i not expect the typical fanboy reply. 
Who cares that even this forum proofs the opposit.

On the other side a 200-400mm, that only a minority can afford, is the biggest achievment ever. But who needs a ultrawide zoom?

A zoom that is even wide on APS-C without being limited to APS-C.
Who could possibly need such a lens? :


----------



## Canonicon (Sep 5, 2014)

pwp said:


> Rent a 14mm f/2.8II. It's a remarkable lens. I'd class it as an ultra-wide.
> If shopping for a pre-owned 14mm f/2.8 avoid the old model, MkII only please.
> 
> -pw



Is it a zoom? 

I agree it´s a great lens. But it´s another (one more) lens i have to carry around.

Another point:

On my 7D i don´t use a EF-S 18-55mm or EF-S 10-22mm, i use the 17-40mm and the Sigma 12-24mm.

For me a really good 12/14-24mm f2.8 ultrawide zoom from Canon would be usefull on both my APS-C and FF bodys. I don´t like buying EF-S lense when i don´t have too.


----------



## Khalai (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: Ultrawide Canon?*



Canonicon said:


> The 16-35mm lacks on the corners especially wide open. Every review says that.
> But of course they are all wrong. :



16-35/2.8L II has bad corners, there is no doubt about that. I'd just like to know the scenario, when you need sharp corners and shoot wide open at the same time. Astrophotography perhaps? But then, you are far better off with Samyang 14/2.8 anyway for astro 



Canonicon said:


> A zoom that is even wide on APS-C without being limited to APS-C.
> Who could possibly need such a lens? :



Who the hell would like to spend over 2K USD over rather specialty UWA lens and then totally lose the purpose of mounting it to APS-C body? I mean, why? You could use cheaper, lighter and more APS-C tailored lens anyway. There may be sometimes need for that, but I'd never consider that as a common scenario anyway.


----------



## Canonicon (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: Ultrawide Canon?*



Khalai said:


> Who the hell would like to spend over 2K USD over rather specialty UWA lens and then totally lose the purpose of mounting it to APS-C body? I mean, why? You could use cheaper, lighter and more APS-C tailored lens anyway. There may be sometimes need for that, but I'd never consider that as a common scenario anyway.



You don´t get the point. Because you don´t look beyond your own horizon.

Do you travel with your gear? Mountaineering by any chance?

I don´t buy it to use it solely on APS-C. :

But when it´s in my backback i can use it on my APS-C camera TOO.
And a 12mm on APS-C is still much wider than a 16mm. 

I carry two bodys but i don´t want to carry more lenses than i have too.

Of course i could buy a slower EF-S 10-22mm any carry that around .... but i prefer not too.


----------



## Khalai (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: Ultrawide Canon?*



Canonicon said:


> Do you travel with your gear? Mountaineering by any chance?



When I do, I use to travel light, hence single body and 2-3 lenses only 



Canonicon said:


> But when it´s in my backback i can use it on my APS-C camera TOO.
> And a 12mm on APS-C is still much wider than a 16mm.



12mm on Canon crop bodies is merely 19ish mm equiv. If you carry two bodies, I assume one of them is FF. Why would you put an UWA on the APS-C one, when you have FF (thus much wider angle) in your backpack too?


----------



## Canonicon (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: Ultrawide Canon?*



Khalai said:


> 12mm on Canon crop bodies is merely 19ish mm equiv.



And 16mm is 25ish mm equiv.
So? 

Is 19mm useless or what do you want to say? 
Im well aware that i don´t get so wide on APS-C. 
I still get wider than with a 16-35mm.



> If you carry two bodies, I assume one of them is FF. Why would you put an UWA on the APS-C one, when you have FF (thus much wider angle) in your backpack too?



In case my FF dies and there is no Canon shop on the Mountain.

In case i need/want a different lens on my FF and i don´t want or can switch lenses in a situation.

Yes, i was in both situations before.

Again i don´t buy such a lens FOR my APS-C camera... but the use is greater for me than a 16-35mm would be. 

What is the alternative?
Another lens like the EF-S 10-22mm. And i don´t want to carry that.

It´s about versatility for me. But it´s only one point why i want this lens.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 5, 2014)

Canonicon said:


> When will Canon announce a fast ultrawide zoom?
> 
> Nikon has the great 14-24mm f2.8.
> Canon only a 16-35mm f2.8 that shows weakness at the borders and a slow f4 version.
> ...



I doubt it since the rumor died almost as quickly as it appeared.... BUT, as far as people hoping it's soon, and indeed at Photokina - I'm with you because I'm feeling trapped in regards to my next lens purchase. All I have is 1 lens bought beyond my kit lens, which is at least one to two lenses behind where I expected to be by now.

My most recent lens acquisition was a 70-200 f/2.8, which to be perfectly honest, I bought it because it was the ONLY lens right now that had everything I wanted (fast, IS, sharp, etc.) With the new 16-35, I have to choose between those features? Similar deal with the 24-70.

We keep hearing Canon has been investing its time and resources in Cinema lenses... ok... but could they at least then give us development announcements so we're not left in the dark?

One of the biggest reasons, to me at least, for being loyal to Canon, is their glass. I'd really like to see a few years of releasing new USEFUL products.

I emphasize "USEFUL" because I understand that the new 24-105 might display that future FF bodies might have Dual Pixel tech (that would be great), and that it might be the kit lens for a less expensive FF kit (ok, if people say so) - but neither Dual Pixel tech on FF, nor that less-expensive kit currently exist - so why is this lens amongst those that what they've been working on for release at Photokina?

What happened to lenses that would sell lot hotcakes (ie: 100-400 refresh)? They have to know that a crisp, fast UWA zoom would sell like hotcakes. ??? 

So, long story (above) short - I'm with you. Hoping. Just hoping.


----------



## Canonicon (Sep 5, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> I emphasize "USEFUL" because I understand that the new 24-105 might display that future FF bodies might have Dual Pixel tech (that would be great), and that it might be the kit lens for a less expensive FF kit (ok, if people say so) - but neither that Dual Pixel tech on FF, nor that kit currently exist - so why is this lens amont those that what they've been working on for release at Photokina?



if they had made it a constant f4 lens... but not even that.


----------



## Sabaki (Sep 5, 2014)

Not every lens Canon produces, will end up in every kit bag out there. 

There may be a need, like a WA, that is filled by different variants (give a mm or 2 here, some aperture there) and Canon knows this. So they will build a 10-22, 17-40, 16-35f/2.8, 16-35 F/4, 14mm, TS-Es etc

A 12/14-24mm f/2.8 will not be an irrelevant product. Top notch performance will make it's position in the market irrepressible. Heck, we may even find some Nikonites with it strapped to their D810s


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 5, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> Not every lens Canon produces, will end up in every kit bag out there.
> 
> There may be a need, like a WA, that is filled by different variants (give a mm or 2 here, some aperture there) and Canon knows this. So they will build a 10-22, 17-40, 16-35f/2.8, 16-35 F/4, 14mm, TS-Es etc
> 
> A 12/14-24mm f/2.8 will not be an irrelevant product. Top notch performance will make it's position in the market irrepressible. Heck, we may even find some Nikonites with it strapped to their D810s



I don't think Canon EF lenses work on Nikon bodies. as the lens will focus in front of the sensor.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: Ultrawide Canon?*



Canonicon said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Canonicon said:
> ...






Neither do I have a crystal ball, nor am I a fanboy.
I would definitely want a 12-24/2.8 to come out, although I don't know if I will be able to afford it for a while. I will need to wait for a year or so until the prices go down a bit, or the lens is available refurbished. So you see, people like me will not fulfill Canon's market requirements. They need early adopters to make up the investment costs. Lenses like the 200-400 sell like hotcakes and are sold out by pre-ordering.
If Canon brings something out though, be sure it will rock everyone's socks off. I don't think Canon has produced anything second rate in terms of lenses for a while now. Even the strongest critics will agree to that.
Photokina? I don't know- wouldn't we have heard something then? Plus, a lens like this might demand its own announcement.


----------



## Canonicon (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: Ultrawide Canon?*



sagittariansrock said:


> They need early adopters to make up the investment costs. Lenses like the 200-400 sell like hotcakes and are sold out by pre-ordering.



Ok numbers?

How many 200-400mm f4 has Canon sold, how many produced?

How many 14-24mm f2.8 has Nikon sold?

Without hard numbers this is all a guessing game.

That the 200-400mm is sold out is fine... but how many have they produced?
500, 5000, 50000?


----------



## DominoDude (Sep 5, 2014)

Canonicon said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > I emphasize "USEFUL" because I understand that the new 24-105 might display that future FF bodies might have Dual Pixel tech (that would be great), and that it might be the kit lens for a less expensive FF kit (ok, if people say so) - but neither that Dual Pixel tech on FF, nor that kit currently exist - so why is this lens amont those that what they've been working on for release at Photokina?
> ...



Ok, since you changed the original topic, and wasn't too happy with the prime I suggested there: How about the Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM then? Now you have your UWA, the zoom, and a constant f/4.


----------



## Canonicon (Sep 5, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> Canonicon said:
> 
> 
> > Mitch.Conner said:
> ...




I don´t want a fisheye and i want something fast.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 5, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> Not every lens Canon produces, will end up in every kit bag out there.



Agreed, but wouldn't you agree that there are certain offerings that will end up in considerably more bags/studios/etc. than others? Some lenses just have mass appeal.



Sabaki said:


> There may be a need, like a WA, that is filled by different variants (give a mm or 2 here, some aperture there) and Canon knows this. So they will build a *10-22, 17-40, 16-35f/2.8, 16-35 F/4, 14mm, TS-Es etc*


I understand your point, but let's look at the offerings you mentioned.
The 10-22 is EF-S, to which I say - great, that makes perfect sense to give crop users a dedicated Wide Angle lens given the difficulties they might have trying to use a FF/film Ultra Wide Angle lens. This is the 16-35 for EF-S lenses in effect. No argument there. I don't have a use for it, but I'm sure tons of people do.
The 17-40 now occupies an odd position, especially since it didn't drop in price last weekend (to my knowledge). The new 16-35 f/4L IS has almost the same range, the same max aperture, better optics froom what I've read, and Image Stablization, for less than $400 more. Don't get me wrong, $400, isn't pocket change by any stretch, but I imagine many will opt for the new 16-35 f/4 unless Canon drops the price of the 17-40 somewhat more.
The two 16-35's for me are a tease. Do you want more light, or more sharpness and IS? While many I suspect will choose the latter, especially considering that it's less expensive than the 2.8 non IS version, I want as much light as I can get. Maybe it's an obsession of mine, but I'm just not a fan of f/4 being ok for new lenses. I'm ok with not getting more than f/2.8, as I don't think I've seen a zoom offered with more than that, so I assume there's a current tech limitation there for the moment, but 2.8 seems possible. Admittedly, I'm not a Canon optics engineer. Sadly, I also want IS. Ff I can avoid carrying a tripod, it stays at home or in the car.
Tilt-Shift?
 Don't get me wrong, as I'm very interested in learning more about what these lenses can do, as well as tilt shift photography in general, but I thought we were talking about Wide/Ultra-Wide zooms? Speaking of which, that would be very cool if Canon came out with one. I'm unaware of a reason why it couldn't be done, but again - I freely admit I'm not an optics engineer (or any kind of engineer). I'm a law student in my final year with strong interest in intellectual property (notably patents and patent law). So, I could be wrong about any part of what I've posted.



Sabaki said:


> A 12/14-24mm f/2.8 will not be an irrelevant product. Top notch performance will make it's position in the market irrepressible. Heck, we may even find some Nikonites with it strapped to their D810s [/b]



It's not an irrelevant product now. For $2k for the lens and $3,300 for the camera, Nikon users can already put a 14-24 f/2.8 on a D810. It doesn't have VR, but nobody's perfect. It's a good start though.

NOTE: I've not slept in a day, so please forgive any horrendous typos, grammar and punctuation mistakes, and the like.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: Ultrawide Canon?*



Canonicon said:


> Nikonias love the 14-24mm f2.8.
> 
> What more proof do you need?



Nikon doesn't have an ultrawide PC-E lens. Canon shooters love their TS-E 17mm. 

What more proof do you need? :


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 5, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > Not every lens Canon produces, will end up in every kit bag out there.
> ...



If you're keeping your tripod at home, you might be missing a lot.
Get a light travel tripod and carry it at all times.
Opens up so many possibilities.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 5, 2014)

I dont know what your smoking because even Roger Cicala agrees the 16-35 f/4L is so good the difference is negligible to the 14-24 in sharpness.


----------



## Canonicon (Sep 5, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> I dont know what your smoking because even Roger Cicala agrees the 16-35 f/4L is so good the difference is negligible to the 14-24 in sharpness.



Wow!

Too bad not in light gathering or wide angle. 
But one out of three are not bad.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> The two 16-35's for me are a tease. Do you want more light, or more sharpness and IS? While many I suspect will choose the latter, especially considering that it's less expensive than the 2.8 non IS version, I want as much light as I can get. Maybe it's an obsession of mine, but I'm just not a fan of f/4 being ok for new lenses. I'm ok with not getting more than f/2.8, as I don't think I've seen a zoom offered with more than that, so I assume there's a current tech limitation there for the moment, but 2.8 seems possible. Admittedly, I'm not a Canon optics engineer. Sadly, I also want IS. Ff I can avoid carrying a tripod, it stays at home or in the car.



There are always compromises. More light means more weight and higher cost. I agree that fast lenses and lenses with IS are preferable. They'll cost a premium and I'm willing (and able) to pay it. But that's not true for everyone, and if Canon's market research shows that it's not true for enough people for a given lens design, the lens won't get made.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 5, 2014)

Canonicon said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I dont know what your smoking because even Roger Cicala agrees the 16-35 f/4L is so good the difference is negligible to the 14-24 in sharpness.
> ...


I didn't say about the other two, but the sharpness is no longer a factor against canons UW.


----------



## NancyP (Sep 5, 2014)

Astrophotographers want fast lenses and are likely to choose primes for that reason, but would also consider f/2.8 zooms that do not have significant coma at f/2.8. Samyang has become the cheap astro lens provider due tp its low-coma designs, with Sigma potentially stepping up to the plate as well, what with the mid-price to full-price Art lenses. My astro kit, and landscape kit, is the Samyang 14 f/2.8, Zeiss 21 f/2.8, and the Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art.

The Canon 16-35 f/4L IS seems like a perfect landscape lens for 99% of uses. The light weight (compared with three primes) and desirable range make this lens highly attractive to me for longer or steeper backcountry trips where one is trying to trim every ounce possible from your pack weight. The 3 pound tripod/head (Feisol CT3442 without center column; Arca p0 head) will get carried and used regardless of lens IS. I would far rather carry the Canon 16-35 f/4 than the twice as heavy Nikon 14-24 f/2.8.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 5, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> I dont know what your smoking because even Roger Cicala agrees the 16-35 f/4L is so good the difference is negligible to the 14-24 in sharpness.



Why are we assuming that Canon couldn't make a better UWA than Nikon's?



neuroanatomist said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > The two 16-35's for me are a tease. Do you want more light, or more sharpness and IS? While many I suspect will choose the latter, especially considering that it's less expensive than the 2.8 non IS version, I want as much light as I can get. Maybe it's an obsession of mine, but I'm just not a fan of f/4 being ok for new lenses. I'm ok with not getting more than f/2.8, as I don't think I've seen a zoom offered with more than that, so I assume there's a current tech limitation there for the moment, but 2.8 seems possible. Admittedly, I'm not a Canon optics engineer. Sadly, I also want IS. Ff I can avoid carrying a tripod, it stays at home or in the car.
> ...



Well, I'm with you in the category of willing to pay. Judging from this site alone, one would think there are many who are... but I realize this site is not representative of the average Canon customer.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 5, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I dont know what your smoking because even Roger Cicala agrees the 16-35 f/4L is so good the difference is negligible to the 14-24 in sharpness.
> ...


Canon can make 120MP sensors but we don't see them in our cameras? Likewise, canon could make the sharpest UW in the world but in the past 7 years they didn't improve the designs. Kinda irrelevant.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: Ultrawide Canon?*



Ruined said:


> Canonicon said:
> 
> 
> > When will Canon announce a fast ultrawide?
> ...



Perfectly stated early on, and then kind of repeated throughout the thread!

Yeah, the bulbous front end is definitely a deal breaker for me, as I'd be just too worried about it.

The new 16-35mm f/4 is attractive, but as I do so much low light portraiture/event photography, I am holding out for the imaginary 16-35mm f/2.8 III... (I still occasionally use my old version one of the 16-35mm, but I'm so in love with my 24-70mm 2.8 II that I do my best to make it do in tight, dim rooms.


----------



## Ruined (Sep 5, 2014)

I ended up selling my 16-35mm f/2.8L II because for low light events my recently acquired 24mm f/1.4L + 50mm f/1.2L on each camera delivered superior results. More light, lower iso, less post needed. I generally only used 16-35 on landscape stuff recently but even there I do 24mm more than 16mm.

However, if Canon delivered an optically revamped 16-35mm f/2.8L III I'd certainly take a look at it.


----------



## Dantana (Sep 5, 2014)

Not every lens is going to be perfect for every photographer.

For me, if I looked at the full frame ultra-wide zooms that have come up in this posting so far:

17-40 4 - Size and weight are great, accepts filters, f4, soft unless stopped down. I've seen a lot of great images taken with this lens, but nobody "loves" it. The softness overall and the softer corners keep me from jumping on it. The price is great though, especially when there is a special at the refurb store.

16-35 2.8 II - Bigger and heavier than the 17-40, reportedly not a whole lot sharper, a lot more expensive, but it does accept filers, and it's fast. If I found a good deal on a used copy, I'd give it a try, otherwise the one stop difference doesn't matter that much to me (with the emphasis on "to me").

16-35 4 IS - About as big and heavy as the 2.8. Sharp across the frame. I don't really see the need for IS on this wide of a lens for how I would use it, and I wish there was a smaller lighter version without IS but with the same sharpness, but that doesn't exist. It's not cheap, but not crazy expensive. Something I will consider when it shows up in the refurb store.

Nikon 14-24 - The biggest and heaviest of these lenses. Sharp and fast. Bulbous front end won't take filters without giant filter system. Expensive. If this was a native Canon lens, it's not something that I would be thinking about anyway. For me, the cost, size, and filter situation outweigh its strengths.

Do I want Canon to come out with new fancy ultra-wide zooms? Sure. The advances they make on one product seem to make their way into others, and it could possibly lower the price of their other zooms. Would I buy it for myself? Probably not. I doubt I could afford it. And if it's huge and heavy and can't take normal filters, I don't have a whole lot of use for it. On my radar right now in this category is the 16-35 4, when it goes on refurb. There's a small chance I'd pick up one of the older lenses used or refurb at the right price. Until then, I'll make due with my Rokinon 14.

I'm not sure how many more lenses they would actually sell if Canon came out with their version of the 14-24 2.8. I'd have to imagine that it would be very similar to the Nikon. Yes, there are always people on boards like this clamoring for such a lens, but I think that in real world numbers that wouldn't really be that many sales for Canon. Maybe I'm wrong. It's happened once or twice.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 5, 2014)

Dantana said:


> Do I want Canon to come out with new fancy ultra-wide zooms? Sure. The advances they make on one product seem to make their way into others, and it could possibly lower the price of their other zooms. Would I buy it for myself? Probably not. I doubt I could afford it. And if it's huge and heavy and can't take normal filters, I don't have a whole lot of use for it. On my radar right now in this category is the 16-35 4, when it goes on refurb. There's a small chance I'd pick up one of the older lenses used or refurb at the right price. Until then, I'll make due with my Rokinon 14.
> 
> I'm not sure how many more lenses they would actually sell if Canon came out with their version of the 14-24 2.8. I'd have to imagine that it would be very similar to the Nikon. Yes, there are always people on boards like this clamoring for such a lens, but I think that in real world numbers that wouldn't really be that many sales for Canon. Maybe I'm wrong. It's happened once or twice.



+1000
Exactly! I am in this exact situation. Using a Rokinon 14mm, hoping for a price drop on the 16-35/4 or refurb version of the same. I would love if Canon brings out a wider faster UWA zoom, but I am sure I won't be able to afford it for a while. 
It is highly possible that many others are in this same situation, or in any case want a fast UWA to come out but won't commit to buying it for a while at least.




infared said:


> "I'm sure many, including myself, will love to see such a lens." (So.... Are you just going to look at it?)
> "However, how many will put their money where their mouth is?" (Do you always start conversations with challenges?)



So there is the answer to your snarky question, Infrared! I am not sure many will buy the lens right away even if they want it to come out, myself included. Not a challenge, but a valid question- will there be enough actual buyers?
Canon should have the numbers, considering they have a decent market sizing division. On hindsight we shall find out, when we either see a fast UWA from Canon or not.


----------



## JimHuber (Sep 5, 2014)

You can only wonder how Zeiss manages to sell lenses when you think 2000$ is much for wideangle.

Admit it you have no clue at all about demand for a 14-24mm f2.8 lens.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 6, 2014)

Ruined said:


> I ended up selling my 16-35mm f/2.8L II because for low light events my recently acquired 24mm f/1.4L + 50mm f/1.2L on each camera delivered superior results. More light, lower iso, less post needed. I generally only used 16-35 on landscape stuff recently but even there I do 24mm more than 16mm.
> 
> However, if Canon delivered an optically revamped 16-35mm f/2.8L III I'd certainly take a look at it.



Told you, 24mm on FF is wide enough for indoor, wedding.

Anyways....24mm prime is an excellent lens. 24L f1.4 + 85L II on FF is a killer combo in low light. Mark my word, soon or later you will switch that 50L to 85L II or III.


----------



## Ruined (Sep 6, 2014)

Canonicon said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I dont know what your smoking because even Roger Cicala agrees the 16-35 f/4L is so good the difference is negligible to the 14-24 in sharpness.
> ...



Yeah, but the 14-24 is not good at accepting ND filters or not being large and heavy. So I'd call it a draw between the two lenses overall. 2mm is not a deal killer for a wide angle landscape photo, the 16-35 has IS, and for where IS is not useful (moving people) 35mm top end is much preferable to 24mm.

If you really want light gathering + wide angle, Canon 24mm f/1.4L II will crush the 14-24 f/2.8. The places where you will most need light gathering (low light motion) you will probably be taking picture of people which is much more flattering at 24mm than 14mm due to perspective distortion, and f/1.4 lets in 4x as much light as f/2.8.

In summary, Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS + Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II = killer wide angle combo, and only $600 more than the 14-24mm f/2.8 alone.


----------



## jrista (Sep 6, 2014)

*Re: Ultrawide Canon?*



DominoDude said:


> Canonicon said:
> 
> 
> > When will Canon announce a fast ultrawide?
> ...



I assume the lack of zoom would be the key problem with that prime.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 7, 2014)

Canonicon said:


> When will Canon announce a fast ultrawide zoom?
> 
> Nikon has the great 14-24mm f2.8.
> Canon only a 16-35mm f2.8 that shows weakness at the borders and a slow f4 version.
> ...


Yes, there is a chance of a Photokina announcement, and the likelihood is somewhere between 0% and 100%.


----------

