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



## Heidrun (Oct 25, 2011)

I think that the EF 16-35 needs a replacement because of the bad performence on f.2,8. And Nikon has one that is superior. So will it be a completely new one with the zoom range 14-24 with is.

I want one for shure


----------



## J. McCabe (Oct 25, 2011)

Heidrun said:


> I think that the EF 16-35 needs a replacement because of the bad performence on f.2,8. And Nikon has one that is superior. So will it be a completely new one with the zoom range 14-24 with is.
> 
> I want one for shure



The EF 16-35mm was released 4 years ago, and the 17-40mm & 14mm were announced around the same time.

As Canon has problems with the super teles it has already announced (300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4, 600mm f/4), is commited to it's "pre-announced" 200-400mm, and is probably planning to release new TS-E 45mm & 90mm, I wouldn't expect Canon to come with a response to the Nikkor 14-24mm any time soon.

Personally, I've bought the new Sigma 12-24mm, which does the work for me. It isn't as good as the Nikkor 14-24mm, but it is cheaper and available on the shelves.

I find the Nikkor 14-24mm very attractive, and the rumor about an FX Nikkor 10mm very interesting, which makes me think of either switching over to Nikon, or maybe use the money I'm saving to buy a Nikon D700 / D800 + Nikkor 14-24mm (+ 10mm, if announced), rather than spending it on more Canon equipment.


----------



## dr croubie (Oct 27, 2011)

J. McCabe said:


> I find the Nikkor 14-24mm very attractive, and the rumor about an FX Nikkor 10mm very interesting, which makes me think of either switching over to Nikon, or maybe use the money I'm saving to buy a Nikon D700 / D800 + Nikkor 14-24mm (+ 10mm, if announced), rather than spending it on more Canon equipment.



Or, given that you're going to use it for landscapes i'd guess, and if you're like me they're MF/Liveview, just buy a $5 adapter from ebay to mount the nikkor on your canon body. (As long as it's not a nikkor 'G' lens, they're stuck wide-open using an adapter)


----------



## J. McCabe (Oct 27, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> J. McCabe said:
> 
> 
> > I find the Nikkor 14-24mm very attractive, and the rumor about an FX Nikkor 10mm very interesting, which makes me think of either switching over to Nikon, or maybe use the money I'm saving to buy a Nikon D700 / D800 + Nikkor 14-24mm (+ 10mm, if announced), rather than spending it on more Canon equipment.
> ...



The 14-24mm is G lens. Whether the rumored 10mm lens would have an aperture ring, if it would ever be, is unknown.

There are occasions on which I would like to have 2 DSLR bodies, having a Nikon body would allow me to buy the best lenses from each manufacturor, and the 14-24mm makes for a nice excuse to spend the money.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2011)

Heidrun said:


> I think that the EF 16-35 needs a replacement because of the bad performence on f.2,8.



Bad performance?


----------



## pharp (Oct 27, 2011)

> As long as it's not a nikkor 'G' lens, they're stuck wide-open using an adapter



adapter with aperature control available - expensive. possible since diaphragm is mechanically actuated

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/724050-REG/Novoflex_EOSNIK_NT_EOS_NIK_NT_Lens_Adapter_for.html


----------



## dr croubie (Oct 27, 2011)

pharp said:


> > As long as it's not a nikkor 'G' lens, they're stuck wide-open using an adapter
> 
> 
> 
> adapter with aperature control available - expensive. possible since diaphragm is mechanically actuated


Ooh, looks good, although damned expensive.
Just gotta wait a while until china picks it up and makes their own for $20.
would be very nice on some lenses, most new nikkors are 'G', look at the performance difference of their 85/1.4 G and non-G, the 'G' beats the samyang and sigma versions easily.


----------



## photophreek (Oct 28, 2011)

quoted from Heidron:
"16-35mm f2.8 II needs a replacement for bad performance" 

The ver II of this lens was released in 2007 and I'm more than happy with it's performance. So, I'm not sure what the OP means by "bad performance". 

This site indicated a while back that Canon might release a 14-24mm 2.8L to compete with the nikon version. I don't think this lens is considered a 16-35mm replacement.


----------



## EYEONE (Oct 28, 2011)

I would love to see Canon release a 14-24mm f2.8L. First of all I'd love to have one. And secondly I think it's a range that Canon needs to address. It gives ASP-C and FF camera users excellent coverage with 3 lenses at f2.8. 14-24mm > 24-70mm > 70-200mm. Pricey coverage but good coverage.


----------



## dr croubie (Oct 28, 2011)

photophreek said:


> The ver II of this lens was released in 2007 and I'm more than happy with it's performance. So, I'm not sure what the OP means by "bad performance".
> 
> This site indicated a while back that Canon might release a 14-24mm 2.8L to compete with the nikon version. I don't think this lens is considered a 16-35mm replacement.



Just from reading the photozone.de review (and not owning one), that's probably directed at the nearly 3-stops of vignetting at 16mm f/2.8, and the corner softness (1700lp vs 3300 in the centre).

Still, for my money it beats the wide-open softness of the 24-70L at 70mm, and its field curvature. It also beats the off-the-charts corner softness of the 17-40L at 17mm f/4.
Designing fast-zooms in the ultra-wide range is by no means easy to keep every design aspect under control, but i'd say those two probably are lower-performers than the 16-35v2..


----------



## aldvan (Oct 28, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Heidrun said:
> 
> 
> > I think that the EF 16-35 needs a replacement because of the bad performence on f.2,8.
> ...


Same astonishment of as neuroanatomist...
"Bad performances, horrible defects, the latest model is trash" etc etc seem to be very easy statements on the Internet. Too often they are third-hand claims, based on stretching minimal differences found during some pedantical test, or on a bad example, may be one bad on ten thousand, superficially regarded as the norm by people spending all their time in front of a monitor.
The 16-35 L II is a wonderful lens that meets 100% of my architectural issues. In the real world my 16-35 has less barrel distortion than my 24 -105 and I use it very often as a standard lens. Outdoor I seldom use it at 2.8, and in interior I never found any problem also at full opening...


----------



## John Thomas (Oct 28, 2011)

Tokina AT-X 16-28 F2.8 PRO FX seems to be a very good lens for this range. And it is available now. 

Also I'm thinking at it. 

Perhaps there's someone which has hands-on experience with it to share?


----------



## niccyboy (Oct 28, 2011)

I don't think i've ever been really 'lacking' IS at a focal length that short?


----------



## Heidrun (Oct 28, 2011)

niccyboy said:


> I don't think i've ever been really 'lacking' IS at a focal length that short?



Tha lack of IS is very much in my mind. I love to stand out in the foggy night and take pictures. And then i could definatly need an IS. Thats because the shutter speed in the night would be slower than 1/60 of a second


----------



## ianhar (Oct 28, 2011)

Heidrun said:


> niccyboy said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think i've ever been really 'lacking' IS at a focal length that short?
> ...



The 16-35 is quite light weighting just around 650g compared to the 24-70 which weight around 900g. From this point of view i dont think you need an IS for 16-35. I dont own any 16-35 but i do own 50 1.2 which is just 100g lighter than 16-35 and even a shaky like me could hand held it at a shutter of 1/25. 

I dont know about anyone else but for me this lens does not have a priority to have an IS compared to other lens.


----------



## pharp (Oct 28, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> pharp said:
> 
> 
> > > As long as it's not a nikkor 'G' lens, they're stuck wide-open using an adapter
> ...



already have
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-G-lens-Canon-EOS-EF-adapter-7D-5D-II-60D-550D-/250918885947?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3a6bee5a3b


----------



## John Thomas (Oct 29, 2011)

Heidrun said:


> niccyboy said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think i've ever been really 'lacking' IS at a focal length that short?
> ...



The shutter speed should be 1/Focal Length and not 1/60. Hence you're ok with 1/16 - that's why this lens, and generally the WA and UWA doesn't have IS.

HTH


----------



## niccyboy (Oct 29, 2011)

John Thomas said:


> Heidrun said:
> 
> 
> > niccyboy said:
> ...



That is how i was taught.

Obviously 1/(Focal length*1.6) for APSC


----------



## aldvan (Oct 29, 2011)

It's just less simpler than the old '1/Focal Length' formula. Long telse and long zooms are very heavy and, obviously, 'long'...
So, focal length geometry apart, it's more difficult a steady grip on those than on a WA zoom, that is bulky but shorter and lighter than a tele... 1/8" is a shutter time that anybody without essential tremor can easily stand...


----------



## Tastino0 (Oct 30, 2011)

Would be great a 14-24 lens for canon! Any ideas about timeline? Patent show 2010 discover..


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 30, 2011)

I love my 16-35 f2.8 II i almost never use it wide open though I typically shoot f8 to f11 with it anyway and it is razor sharp bright clear colours all over even on ff. awesome lens IMO


----------



## moreorless (Oct 31, 2011)

wickidwombat said:


> I love my 16-35 f2.8 II i almost never use it wide open though I typically shoot f8 to f11 with it anyway and it is razor sharp bright clear colours all over even on ff. awesome lens IMO



To me a 12-24 f/4 with better sharpness would have much more appeal than an 14-24 2.8. Yes 2.8 on an UWA does have its uses but they seem much more limated to me than on normal or tele lenses and not worth the extra cost, weight and potentially flare. An f/4 lens also seems like it would balance the market better for Canon, the 17-40 as the cheap UWA, the 16-35 2.8 and 14 2.8 as the fast ones and the 12-24 as the widest.

I wonder whethert we'll see Pentax's idea of drop in lens barrel filters from the 25mm 645 feature in any more "bulb" UWA's? obviously it won't give quite the versatility of a filter system but would cut down on the fuss greatly for shots where you only need an ND or a polarizer. Is a zoom lens just going to be too complex for something like that?


----------



## dr croubie (Oct 31, 2011)

The one thing with any wide angle, zoom or prime, is that the closer you can between the last element and the sensor the better. I'm not sure how the Pentax works (i'll look for images once i've posted this), but if i were a lens designer i'd be putting the filter between the last few elements, whether the distance needed for that makes the design impossible I don't know.
.
But also, what I do know is that using a CPL on 15mm on APS-C (24mm on FF), you really can notice the blue banding in the sky. Using a CPL on 12mm on FF would make a very very uneven sky...


----------



## briansquibb (Oct 31, 2011)

IS is a marketing success - really not needed for 50mm or less. Should be on a tripod or rest otherwise.


----------



## pharp (Nov 1, 2011)

> To me a 12-24 f/4 with better sharpness would have much more appeal than an 14-24 2.8.



Agreed. There are many Nikon 14-24s for sale and almost invariably the seller says - too heavy, too big, no filters ...


----------



## niccyboy (Nov 1, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> IS is a marketing success - really not needed for 50mm or less. Should be on a tripod or rest otherwise.



Although seems to work quite well in the video test here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-ARFgNCeAo


----------



## EYEONE (Nov 1, 2011)

pharp said:


> > To me a 12-24 f/4 with better sharpness would have much more appeal than an 14-24 2.8.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. There are many Nikon 14-24s for sale and almost invariably the seller says - too heavy, too big, no filters ...



You'll always find people that don't like a certain lens. I for one have been waiting for Canon to finally release a 14-24 f2.8 for a long time.


----------



## moreorless (Nov 1, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> But also, what I do know is that using a CPL on 15mm on APS-C (24mm on FF), you really can notice the blue banding in the sky. Using a CPL on 12mm on FF would make a very very uneven sky...



With an UWA I find the main use for a polarizer is taking reflections off of the foreground with little or no sky in the frame. 

If they could come up with a drop in system I spose theres no reason they couldnt create grads aswell, they'd be fixed but still useful in many situations. 

Really going into fantasy land perhaps some kind of built in shifting grad system you could shift up and down in the barrel? I'm actually supprized that no manifacturer has tried that in a compact body yet ala the built in ND's and marketed it as a "landscape master".


----------



## pharp (Nov 1, 2011)

EYEONE said:


> pharp said:
> 
> 
> > > To me a 12-24 f/4 with better sharpness would have much more appeal than an 14-24 2.8.
> ...



That might be an interesting poll - how much does size/weight factor into buying decisions [assuming cost doesn't figure into it, e.g. the 2.8 lens is pricier than the 4]? I've read many people say they are put off by the size/weight of this or that lens - like your 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. Obviously not a problem for you, but for others?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2011)

pharp said:


> That might be an interesting poll - how much does size/weight factor into buying decisions [assuming cost doesn't figure into it, e.g. the 2.8 lens is pricier than the 4]? I've read many people say they are put off by the size/weight of this or that lens - like your 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. Obviously not a problem for you, but for others?



For me, not at all - at least for 'normal' lenses. It is a consideration for me when comparing the 100-400mm with the 500mm f/4L IS, for example - I tend to hike longish distances when shooting wildlife, and carrying the 500/4 is not so easy (in fact, that might make the weight reduction with the MkII worth the $3K price increase). But personally, I have no problem carrying around a gripped body and 70-200/2.8 or 100-400 - I do that routinely for much of the day. Given that, the difference between a 17-40/4 and a hypothetical 14-24/2.8, or between a 24-105/4 and a 24-70/2.8, is not an issue.


----------



## EYEONE (Nov 1, 2011)

pharp said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > pharp said:
> ...



That's true, it would be interesting. And you're right I don't mind the weight, I actually prefer it in some cases. I've gone in shoots with my 7D gripped, 70-200 f2.8 and 430EX for hours, no sweat. It would be a problem if I had to hold it the entire time but I have a BlackRapid so I can essentially put the camera down and rest.

And regarding the 14-24: If Canon made it a f4 lens I would be less interested and probably just go with the 16-35mm F2.8 II. It is a lot more attractive at f2.8 regardless of the weight.

I love the 10-22mm. Fantastic lens. But I feel like it is too light. It felt like it might break and I didn't have a lot of confidence in its constructions.


----------



## iaind (Nov 1, 2011)

Could well come a year or two down the line but will probably be non IS


----------



## moreorless (Nov 2, 2011)

UWA's do seem more likely to run into weight problems to me if only because they tend to be used more for landscapes with the possibility of lenghty difficult walks.

I would ask aswell what exactually do people use 2.8 on an UWA for? isolating the subject doesnt really seem like something best suited to UWA and while DOF maybe deeper your also going to have alot of close foreground. Personally I find even with the extra DOF I tend to stop down more with UWA zooms than I do with normal zooms for that reason.

You look at the rest of Canon's range and I think what stands out over Nikon is that they offer quality f/4 zooms like the 24-105 and 70-200's.


----------



## John Thomas (Nov 2, 2011)

moreorless said:


> I would ask aswell what exactually do people use 2.8 on an UWA for? isolating the subject doesnt really seem like something best suited to UWA and while DOF maybe deeper your also going to have alot of close foreground. Personally I find even with the extra DOF I tend to stop down more with UWA zooms than I do with normal zooms for that reason.



Special effects in interiors and architectural details in almost complete dark / night.

See here:

http://vatopaidi.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/spod33/

Imho, I think that is _worth_ the effort.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 2, 2011)

moreorless said:


> I would ask aswell what exactually do people use 2.8 on an UWA for? isolating the subject doesnt really seem like something best suited to UWA and while DOF maybe deeper your also going to have alot of close foreground. Personally I find even with the extra DOF I tend to stop down more with UWA zooms than I do with normal zooms for that reason.



This:




EOS 5D Mark II, EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM @ 27mm, 1/25 s, f/2.8, ISO 3200


----------



## EYEONE (Nov 2, 2011)

John Thomas said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > I would ask aswell what exactually do people use 2.8 on an UWA for? isolating the subject doesnt really seem like something best suited to UWA and while DOF maybe deeper your also going to have alot of close foreground. Personally I find even with the extra DOF I tend to stop down more with UWA zooms than I do with normal zooms for that reason.
> ...



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


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 2, 2011)

EYEONE said:


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



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


----------



## Kris_P (Nov 2, 2011)

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


----------



## AprilForever (Nov 2, 2011)

Any chance Canon might make a 7-14 ef-s? ;D


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 3, 2011)

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

Think of what you do with zooms, for me it's to have a bunch of lenses on hand without having to carry/swap them all, and also to be able to get an action shot while it's happening that you would otherwise have missed if you had to move or switch lenses. 14-24 really doesn't seem to fit into that, so what it's utility is, is just going from ultra wide to wide in one lens. I guess that's mildly useful if the 14mm distortion is just too much for your shot, but on the 16 to 35, you go from near ultra-wide, to wide, to near standard and can be used as a walk-around/photo journalism lens. If you stick the 35mm end into your subjects face, you don't get perspective distortion, so it's a nice option to switch to compositionally for many shots, vs. 16mm. 24 on the other hand just doesn't seem to useful because up close, you still get some distortion but it's not exaggerated, and I use my 16-36 normally on the 16 or the 35mm end and 24 is still there if it would prove useful for some situation.

Also, most of the reviews that talk about these various wide-angle lenses, nit-pick minute details to such a major degree, that I barely think it means too much, especially if your handy in post with your digital editing tools. I normally go to here http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406 and just see what people are doing with the actual lenses, taking a large sample of the best pictures offered, and usually what I conclude is, that good photographers take the best pictures, not lenses, as the IQ of most all the L lenses are just phenomenal even for poorly composed/poorly lit/boring shots, and all the hype is just pixel peeping. Pick out the lens for what you want to do with it, not for the minute results someone might criticize or praise it for under an electron microscope. And get really good at digital editing for the small stuff when it really does count.

Personally, if it wouldn't degrade IQ, the only thing I could wish for would be perhaps IS, but I fear that would probably bring the lens into the f/4 category and I don't usually like that trade-off.

p.s. IQ on the 16 - 35 is fantastic, and any minor gripe I've heard of in reviews can be easy removed by a competent digital developer in post, if it's even effecting the image before print to begin with, and I don't find that to be the case from my use. I took this shot with the 16-35 on a 7D at ISO 800 out of the window of my car while stopped in traffic, works for me.

http://minus.com/mwi8ith2f


----------



## wockawocka (Nov 3, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


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



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


----------



## moreorless (Nov 3, 2011)

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

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

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


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 3, 2011)

wockawocka said:


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



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



moreorless said:


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



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


----------



## John Thomas (Nov 3, 2011)

Kris_P said:


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



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

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

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

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

HTH


----------



## moreorless (Nov 4, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


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



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

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


----------



## AprilForever (Nov 4, 2011)

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

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

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


----------



## shoutout33 (Nov 8, 2011)

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


----------



## Tastino0 (Dec 12, 2011)

Is there any news on this lens?


----------



## J. McCabe (Dec 12, 2011)

Tastino0 said:


> Is there any news on this lens?



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

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


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 12, 2011)

AprilForever said:


> Why does the 16-35 get so dogged on? I've oft been intrigued by it, but, as I use a 7D, I'm a little hesitant about the resultant focal length.
> 
> Therefore, I covet the Tokina 11-16. Any comparisons between the two?
> 
> (Moreover, for those who hate the 16-35, just mail that miserable lens to me! I will be glad to help alleviate your suffering! 8))



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


----------



## Viggo (Dec 12, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> I'm not sure 14-24 zoom makes too good of sense for Canon. For Nikon, the 14-24 is effectively the replacement for the 14mm prime, and has been said to be of superior image quality to the wide 14mm Nikon Prime. The Canon 14mm prime on the other hand is said to superior to all the aforementioned lenses, including the 16-35 L II, (all third hand information from scouring various reviews, mostly Ken Rockwell). Also the zoom range from 14-24 seem a bit awkward.
> 
> http://minus.com/mwi8ith2f



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

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


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 15, 2011)

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


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 15, 2011)

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


----------

