# Need advice: Rumored 14-24 f/2.8L vs existing 16-35 f/2.8 L Advantages?



## pedro (Dec 30, 2012)

Hi, although my bank account is set up for saving, just a question towards the professional and more advanced photographers out there: As how important do you consider the additional 2mm on the wide end which will be offered by a rumored 14-24 f/2.8 L. Does it make a big difference or what would you do? What are the probable advanteges on the wide end?

As an enthusiast amateur I am on a budget and first considered the Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6. But it is a tad too slow for my nightphotography preferencies: nightscapes and milky way preferably during moonless nights.

So, maybe I'd go for a 16-35 instead which as equivalent to the Canon EF-S 10-22 on my former 30D expect the difference in speed (about one stop, but permanently). The price tag surely will be another argument, as it will be considerably higher than the one of the 16-35 f/2.8 L (CHF 1361.00 online over here).

Thanks for your advice. Cheers, Pedro.


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 30, 2012)

For most, imho the biggest difference would be corner sharpness to rival the Nikon 14-24. I think the extra 2mm is a +1 but the real issue with Canon UWA zooms has always been corner sharpness. The 14 prime and the 17 TS-E are nearly flawless but not as versatile. I too am looking for a UWA compliment to my 24-105 and have bought and sold two copies of the 17-40, one having horrible contrast and the other too mushy on anything but the center, stopped down or not. I have tried Tamron, Tokina and Sigma. If it wasn't for the rumor I might consider a Nikon and an adapter and just shoot manual focus.


----------



## pedro (Dec 30, 2012)

Thx crasher8 for your response. I was pondering about the 17-40 as well...But ducked away from it due to the speed. Soon we'll see if it is more than foam from a dreamers brain ;-)


----------



## robbymack (Dec 30, 2012)

Since af doesn't sound like a deal breaker you could always try the Samyang 14mm 2.8 If a 14-24 does indeed get released it will be probably close to $3000. That certainly gives me pause and would likely need a stead income stream from that lens alone to justify its purpose. I'm looking for a good quality used sigma 12-24 or canon 17-40 myself as neither the 16-35 or a rumored 14-24 make my bank account happy.


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 30, 2012)

it will certainly not be 3k. I would suspect 1799.A few hundred more than the 16-35 yet still priced under the 14 and 17 TS.


----------



## pedro (Dec 30, 2012)

@robbymack: 3k for me is out of range as well. Bought my 5D3 paying the 500+ premium this late summer, but I don't regret one cent of it. Crasher 8: 1799 would be great. Corner sharpnes s aside...That's a lot of money for additional 2 mm on the wide end 8) But it would suit my 500/600 rule nightsky photography.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Dec 30, 2012)

I'm expecting a 14-24mm to be at least 25% more than the current 14mm f2.8 prime / 24-70mm f2.8

Firstly, that extra 2mm makes a big difference on focal lengths that wide - I went from a 18 to a 15mm and thought it was a big deal, going to a 10mm on crop just blew me away, so going from 16 to 14mm will be a big deal, plus the corner sharpness on a new 14-24mm must exceed that of the 16-35mm to justify actually releasing such a beast

Best thing to do is google "Canon 14 Flickr" and "Canon 16-35 Flickr" and get a feel for what others are shooting.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Dec 30, 2012)

Hi Pedro, the 14-24 hasn't even been announced, released or tested yet.

If you want to wait then generally better things come along, but how long do you wait for.

If you were buying tommorrow you'd have the choice of the 16-35, 16-35 of 16-35, given your other requirements.

The real question is not whether a hypothetical lens is better than an actual lens that exsists, but how long you want to wait.

Remember, the 16-35 is on the mk2. If you get the 14-24 when it comes out would you not be kicking yourself when the 14-24 IS or 14-14 mk2 comes out.

Best wait 10 years to be sure.

Or buy what you want / need to take photos with just now.


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 30, 2012)

I would not expect there to be a correlation between prime and zoom pricing. I would however expect a new uwa zoom price point 500-700 more than the current most expensive wide zoom (1399)


----------



## pedro (Dec 30, 2012)

Thanks everyone for your insigthful replies! @paul13walnut5: The 16-35 is a classic. And a good alternative. Thanks for the suggestion. This will yield 15 sec of exposure applying 600 rule for nightphotography to keep the stars from trailing. At ISO 8k wide open it will work pretty well. As sensors improve, 6 years from now 8k ISO might be like 3k today IQ wise. I feel very privileged to be part of a forum and receive your feedback.


----------



## Jesse (Dec 30, 2012)

The question is, is the 14-24 gonna be good enough to make the 14mm prime obsolete? Or will Canon purposely make it lesser to prevent this?


----------



## Jesse (Dec 30, 2012)

Does anyone buy the $1500 Nikon 14mm prime?


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 30, 2012)

So you expect the rumored lens to be as good at 14 as a prime?


----------



## messus (Dec 30, 2012)

Jesse said:


> The question is, is the 14-24 gonna be good enough to make the 14mm prime obsolete? Or will Canon purposely make it lesser to prevent this?



Well, the Nikon 14-24, @14mm, with a Canon EF adapter, has already made the Canon EF 14mm 2.8 L II obsolete.

Canon has got only one thing to do, really, and that is not what you are suggesting. But I am not even sure Canon is capable of making a new EF 14mm 2.8 III prime which is better than the Nikon 14-24 @14mm.

Canon sure is taking their time though, so let's hope they prove me deadly wrong!

Well, I'll just keep posting pictures taken with my flagship Canon cameras 1DX and 5D3, paired with a 14-24mm lens from their main competitor!

My corner soft, CA, vignetting EF 16-35 2.8 II lens was sold years ago. Only comfort is, this lens is not worse than the newer Nikon 16-35 f/4 optically.


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 30, 2012)

"Always choose rumor over reality"... some should have it printed on their foreheads.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 30, 2012)

I like the 16-35 f/2.8L II lens. It snowed here heavily the last few days, and I plan on heading out tomorrow with it to shoot some scenery. Yes it has its negatives just like any other wide-angle zoom lens, but is very good from my experiences. One negative is the price.


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 30, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I like the 16-35 f/2.8L II lens. It snowed here heavily the last few days, and I plan on heading out tomorrow with it to shoot some scenery. Yes it has its negatives just like any other wide-angle zoom lens, but is very good from my experiences. One negative is the price.



Just took it out myself with snow still swirling... realized I may have to grudgingly get one of those damn filters I so hate. Neuro's graphs suggest there is no major vignetting with XS-pro with this lens, not that I ever much worried about corner light loss...I have just always as an article of faith believed buy no filters UV filters!

But this effort with the 16-35 II got me thinking I need something on the front...I had fluffy snow on the front black plastic part adjacent to the front glass that moves back and forth in the 16-35II. Crow for dinner?


----------



## Radiating (Dec 30, 2012)

Based on the likely optical design they will choose, the 12-24mm will simply have better image quality


----------



## robbymack (Dec 30, 2012)

crasher8 said:


> it will certainly not be 3k. I would suspect 1799.A few hundred more than the 16-35 yet still priced under the 14 and 17 TS.



You're dreaming...


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 30, 2012)

crasher8 said:


> it will certainly not be 3k. I would suspect 1799.A few hundred more than the 16-35 yet still priced under the 14 and 17 TS.



$1799 Bwahahahaha  I've been trying to sell this bridge...you are just the man! 

But yes, 3K is a tad too high and I won't be surprised if the "I got it first" folks will pay that...but canon likes to not overprice products so high that “aspiration” (a highly valuable commodity in its own right) is not killed among its customers...

In other words, it makes less economic sense to sell 100 units at $5000 (to fools who will buy anything to own something new) than to sell 100,000 units at $2500 (to an average customer). Do the math and you will see that if the number of customers who can afford the product drops off radically, they will gain no major revenue by introducing such a lens.

However, as a temporary measure, sky-high prices do help during the first few months as production may be slow to meet demand and high prices will buy Canon time as they ramp up production....all along gaining revenue from the feeble minded...er I mean early adoptoers...  

In the long run Canon will want to move units. 

So they will probably price it initially around what they charged the recent 24-70L II ...~$2500 to $2700 for “real” market value not what you see in mark-ups. Within months it may slide a couple of hundreds to get to where other high volume zooms now are closer to the 2.2K mark.


----------



## enice128 (Dec 30, 2012)

I've been wondering same thing. I actually have had the 17-40 for sometime, recently onm y 7D but now attached to my 1D mark IV which i love! Im looking to upgrade to the 16-35 II due to it being an f2.8. My passion is sports but do shoot events such as weddings, sweet 16's , etc. All my lenses r 2.8 or lower & feel the upgrade from an f4 would be huge either with or without my 580exii. I heard the 14-24 will be upwards of $2,000 (i'd say near $3,000!) which i cannot afford esp after my recent purchases of the 1D IV, 70-200 2.8 II & 50 1.2. I could get an excellent condition of the 16-35 II for around $1,200 which is around $300 less than a new one & worth it. Good glass is so expensive but well worth it esp if it brings u in income! DAMN YOU HOBBY!!! One other thing, i have borrowed the 10-22 which i love however for shooting people it distorts too much esp on the 10 end & im not a fan at all of the f-stop not being constant (3.5-5.6). I guess ive become a canon L "snob" (LOL) & weather sealing is huge to me. I shot the other nite in heavy snow w my 1D IV & 50 1.2 of my daughter playing in the snow but wished i had attached the 70-200 rather instead. Too late after my rig was covered in snow & didnt wanna open up to change lenses so i just went w it http://emcphotographyblog.shutterfly.com/pictures/4428
Check out my site:
emcphotographyblog.shutterfly.com


----------



## Axilrod (Dec 30, 2012)

crasher8 said:


> 1799.A few hundred more than the 16-35 yet still priced under the 14 and 17 TS.



You're living in a fantasy land, I'd be very surprised if it was even $2k, I'm guessing $2499. The Nikon version is $2k, that's a pretty good indicator. There is a huge demand for it and recently Canon has taken advantage of situations like that (5D3 for instance).


----------



## Axilrod (Dec 30, 2012)

Pedro, I'd recommend the 16-35mm for now, who knows when the 14-24 will actually show up, and even when it does it's going to be a hell of alot more expensive. If you're looking for an ultra-wide on the cheap the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 14mm f/2.8 is a damn good lens, especially for $400. Has a bit more distortion than the 14LII but in terms of sharpness it's just as good.


----------



## BrandonKing96 (Dec 30, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> crasher8 said:
> 
> 
> > it will certainly not be 3k. I would suspect 1799.A few hundred more than the 16-35 yet still priced under the 14 and 17 TS.
> ...


Lucky you don't live in Australia. The 70-200 IS II is around the $2900 AUD mark here. But surprisingly I managed to get my 24-70 II for $2100 AUD (cheapest I've managed and in a physical shop). So judging from that, I'd honestly say the 14-24 could cost around $2500/2600-$3000 USD upon release, and we may see the prie fall on the 14 f/2.8 II


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 31, 2012)

Sure, who knows what it will cost, hell it's ALL speculation. Nobody knows Sh_t about this lens. Nobody.


----------



## bycostello (Dec 31, 2012)

well one you can go out and buy and one you can chat about...


----------



## BrandonKing96 (Dec 31, 2012)

crasher8 said:


> Sure, who knows what it will cost, hell it's ALL speculation. Nobody knows Sh_t about this lens. Nobody.


Nobody can because it doesn't exist yet.


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 31, 2012)

You can wait or go out and play in the snow now with your 16-35 II... I am not a landscape artist so don't blame the lens.  5DIII + 16-35L II at 18mm.


----------



## pedro (Dec 31, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> Pedro, I'd recommend the 16-35mm for now, who knows when the 14-24 will actually show up, and even when it does it's going to be a hell of alot more expensive. If you're looking for an ultra-wide on the cheap the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 14mm f/2.8 is a damn good lens, especially for $400. Has a bit more distortion than the 14LII but in terms of sharpness it's just as good.



@Axilroad: Thanks a lot. Guess I'll go that route. Before they discontinue it and re-release it equipped with IS to get some more bucks out of us enthusiast amatogs 8)


----------



## infared (Dec 31, 2012)

Pedro,I find the 14-24mm "rumor" to be quite exciting. It gives hope that FF Canon owners will have:
1. A relatively fast ultra-wide angle lens that would fill the slot for the ultimate triade of lenses. (Coupled with the 24-70mm f/2.8L II & 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II)
2. Finally, a high-performing Ultra-wide-angle zoom

Number 2 above is the tough one for me, as Canon is definitely unproven in this lens area. The Nikon UWZ is the benchmark.Canon has not come close to this, no doubt....but based on recent lens offerings I am hopeful that Canon will compete in this area as well especially given the recent improvements in the 24-70mm f/2.8L II & 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II lenses.

But, since the Tsunami Canon has still not resumed their prior manufacturing capabilities AND Canon has instituted irrattic pricing guidelines.

So moving forward...this new Golden Fleece is just a rumor...if announced it is a long way off (I site the massive delays from the announcement date for the 24-70mm II), and you can bet your babushka that this Golden Fleece will be expensive (I site the intro pricing on the 24-70mm II). IF this lens is produced, and IF it is of the quality that we are hoping for it will be intro priced in the mid $2000's. No doubt about that. (Yes...I know I am speculating...about a "rumored" lens. LOL!). Again, based on post-Tsunami pricing policies. Canon shooters have been waiting years for this lens..expect to pay dearly for it.

I am encouraged that this lens will be built, as I think Canon is preparing its whole lens line-up to get the most out of the upcoming megapixel body that we keep hearing about. So it makes sense that this lens will materialize.

Until then...I plan to keep using my 16-35 II ( when I need auto-focus) and my Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 ZE (for when it really matters to me )...and during the long wait...I may pick up the new Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 ZE ( for when it really, really matters!)....but I am still on the fence about that because of the cost (ouch!).

I hope Canon makes this lens and that it is all that we hope for...time will tell.


----------



## pedro (Dec 31, 2012)

@infared: Thanks a lot. Yes, time will tell us. So, while the 16-35 is out there, that's a way to go. I wouldn't buy the nikon plus adapter. So I might purchase the classic L WA by summer and see what happens. If I wanna go UW for stars, there is still an 14 f/2.8 MF Samyang at a decent price, to provide as much as exposure value as possible while applying 500/600 rule for moonless nightsky shots.


----------



## infared (Dec 31, 2012)

pedro said:


> @infared: Thanks a lot. Yes, time will tell us. So, while the 16-35 is out there, that's a way to go. I wouldn't buy the nikon plus adapter. So I might purchase the classic L WA by summer and see what happens. If I wanna go UW for stars, there is still an 14 f/2.8 MF Samyang at a decent price, to provide as much as exposure value as possible while applying 500/600 rule for moonless nightsky shots.



Wow...if you want it for shooting stars the Sam Yang could be a great way to go for you...you get a LOT for that price...you can always sell it later.
If the Canon SWZ actually materializes AND is as good as the Nikon I plan on selling my 16-35mm L and my Zeiss 21mm..I might even have a little $ left over after the purchase!!!! LOL!


----------



## Axilrod (Dec 31, 2012)

crasher8 said:


> Sure, who knows what it will cost, hell it's ALL speculation. Nobody knows Sh_t about this lens. Nobody.



No one knows for sure but you can still make an educated guess based on pricing of recent Canon gear and pricing of similar equipment from other manufacturers. Nikon 14-24 is $2k, it's safe to say that the Canon will cost at least that much. But based on recent pricing it's safe to guess that it will be slightly more, so $2499 doesn't sound unreasonable and isn't a complete shot in the dark.


----------

