# New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 19, 2013)

```
<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/?p=13751"></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/?p=13751">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>Announcements in the fall</strong>

We’re told that two new wide angle zooms for full frame will be coming from Canon in the next 6-8 months. At least one of them could be announced in Q4 of 2013.</p>
<p>One of the lenses will be the 14-24 f/2.8L, that will complete Canon’s run of lenses covering 14mm to 560mm.</p>
<p>The other will be a replacement to both the 16-35 f/2.8L II and the 17-40 f/4L. We’re told one of the configurations in test is an EF 16-50 f/4L IS.</p>
<p>This comes from a source that has been correct in the past, although timing is always hit and miss with Canon lenses.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Knut Skywalker (Jun 19, 2013)

The 16-50 F4L IS sounds REALLY intriguing, lets hope it's around 1k and I'll buy it.


----------



## Hannes (Jun 19, 2013)

That 16-50 could be very interesting for lots of people, good normal zoom for crop and nice and wide for FF. Let's just hope they make one


----------



## insanitybeard (Jun 19, 2013)

I await developments with interest.... would quite like to see an improved 17-40L or some derivative.


----------



## Dianoda (Jun 19, 2013)

A weather-sealed 16-50mm f/4 IS sounds wonderful. As does the 14-24mm f/2.8 - but what'll she cost? $3K?


----------



## Dimson (Jun 19, 2013)

a 16-50 with good corner to corner sharpness would be ideal for the landscape shooters out there. i think the prices will be in line with nikon's counterpart, maybe a little higher if they come up with a really flawless optical design

2200$ for 14-24 and around 1300$ for the 16-50 is what i would be willing to pay if they both perform up to expectations

also i would expect them to launch with a new high MP body


----------



## Terry Rogers (Jun 19, 2013)

I could see a 16-50 f/4IS sell well among rebel users intending to upgrade from kit and to full frame at a later date. Though it would cut into 17-55 2.8 IS sales. I suspect it would be priced similar to the 24-70 f4 IS. Not sure which I would prefer on a crop camera, a 16-50 or 24-70 given both at f/4. That would be a tough decision.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 19, 2013)

Thoughts:

*16-50 F/4 IS* is an intriguing concept. A good percentage of us prefer a wider walkaround than 24-70. I certainly use the 24-50 side of my 24-70 more than the 50-70. I hope this one gets the smaller/lighter L treatment that we just saw with the currently demonized (but still an interesting design) 24-70 F/4 IS.

The *14-24* has _massive_ shoes to fill. *I am not starting a dynamic range / low ISO / Nikon D800 conversation*, but landscape work has been one of the _perceived_ chinks in the armor of Canon's armamentarium. Something that punches its weight against Nikon's seemingly legendary 14-24, possibly coupled with a high MP sensor, would be two huge steps towards correcting that perception.

For those not visible to the performance of Nikon's homerun hitter, it pulls in resolution figures right up there with the Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS II. Landscape filter companies make products specifically to work around this lens' huge front element. Canon guys use adapters to mount this on their bodies. It's _that_ amazing, apparently. 

I still don't understand why we don't have a breathtakingly sharp autofocusing prime for landscape work. I am drowning in a sea of ultrawide zooms (soft in corners), arty huge aperture L lenses (ditto), tilt-shift (no AF), and Zeiss glass (no AF). I appreciate landscapes ==> tripods ==> liveview ==> no need for AF, but some folks just want to snap a picture of a coastline or a mountain range without all that fanfare. I'd pay $1-2K for a breathtakingly sharp autofocusing 24mm L that didn't shoot itself in the foot (i.e. corners) to offer side a wide aperture. Negative points if you tell me to just buy the 24-70 II. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 19, 2013)

Terry Rogers said:


> I could see a 16-50 f/4IS sell well among rebel users intending to upgrade from kit and to full frame at a later date. Though it would cut into 17-55 2.8 IS sales. I suspect it would be priced similar to the 24-70 f4 IS. Not sure which I would prefer on a crop camera, a 16-50 or 24-70 given both at f/4. That would be a tough decision.




Good comments. Tough call on walkaround length -- I think both are attractive for different reasons.

As for supplanting 17-55 business, I am not so sure. If this is simply an L refresh of the 17-40 with a little more length, you may be right. But if this is a beastmaster 2.5 pound lens with crazy IQ and top-end weather sealing, it may get priced out of the 17-55's territory. 

- A


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 19, 2013)

Knut Skywalker said:


> The 16-50 F4L IS sounds REALLY intriguing, lets hope it's around 1k and I'll buy it.



+1

let's hope it does 24mm as crisply, edge to edge as the 24-70 II


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 19, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Knut Skywalker said:
> 
> 
> > The 16-50 F4L IS sounds REALLY intriguing, lets hope it's around 1k and I'll buy it.
> ...



That's the elephant in the room, isn't it? The new 24-70 II is such a monster that landscape shooters who own that would need a really compelling reason to look at anything other than a stellar 14-24.

- A


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 19, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> Thoughts:
> 
> *16-50 F/4 IS* is an intriguing concept. A good percentage of us prefer a wider walkaround than 24-70. I certainly use the 24-50 side of my 24-70 more than the 50-70. I hope this one gets the smaller/lighter L treatment that we just saw with the currently demonized (but still an interesting design) 24-70 F/4 IS.
> 
> ...



Did you ever consider just getting the 24-70 II?


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Jun 19, 2013)

This announcement could not have had better timing. I am looking at upgrading my 17-40L within the next year. I've been on the fence about just buying a 16-35 ii just to play with it, but I will hold off until one or both of these are announced. The 14-24 2.8 is really what I'm after, but I would consider the latter depending on price. Wahoo!

-Tabor


----------



## preppyak (Jun 19, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> 'd pay $1-2K for a breathtakingly sharp autofocusing 24mm L that didn't shoot itself in the foot (i.e. corners) to offer side a wide aperture. Negative points if you tell me to just buy the 24-70 II.


Except they already make that. Just tape your 24-70mm L II into the 24mm position and you're set. You don't want it to go to f/1.4 apparently, so it doesnt, it does f/2.8 sharp corner to corner. Sure, it'd be great if it was $500 cheaper, but thats the price of sharpness


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 19, 2013)

Where can I place a pre-order for 14-24


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jun 19, 2013)

*16-50mm* ? That leaves an interesting concept in my mind of a *50-135mm* F4 IS - creating a crop centric focal range that migrates to full frame when the user wants too...


----------



## dirtcastle (Jun 19, 2013)

Haydn1971 said:


> *16-50mm* ? That leaves an interesting concept in my mind of a *50-135mm* F4 IS - creating a crop centric focal range that migrates to full frame when the user wants too...



Or how about a 24-50mm f/2?


----------



## raptor3x (Jun 19, 2013)

preppyak said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > 'd pay $1-2K for a breathtakingly sharp autofocusing 24mm L that didn't shoot itself in the foot (i.e. corners) to offer side a wide aperture. Negative points if you tell me to just buy the 24-70 II.
> ...



Even better, set the lens to 24mm, engage the lock, and then epoxy the switch in place. 24mm prime in 5 minutes.


----------



## dadgummit (Jun 19, 2013)

Nice!! I am really looking forward to the 16-50!!!! The 14-24 is interesting but I hate the huge bubble front element that it will likely have, the 14-24 range has limited utility for me, and the $2500-3000 it is likely to cost is just too steep. 

If the 16-50 has good corners and costs less than $1500 I am in! Close focusing at 50 would be nice too. Anyone want to buy a used 16-35 II?


----------



## backcountrygirl (Jun 19, 2013)

*Re: New Wide Angle Lenses in 2013 [CR2]*

I'm for one that would welcome the 14-24mm 2.8!
If there was a lens Nikon had that Canon didn't have, the 14-24mm is that lens for me!
If I had to guess on a price I'd say your in the ballpark of $2300 based upon what Nikon's
price is for it's own 14-24mm 2.8.


----------



## RGF (Jun 19, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> I'd pay $1-2K for a breathtakingly sharp autofocusing 24mm L that didn't shoot itself in the foot (i.e. corners) to offer side a wide aperture.



I thought that the 28mm II fit the bill?? I don't own the lens, but have read some nice things about it on this forum.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 19, 2013)

dirtcastle said:


> Haydn1971 said:
> 
> 
> > *16-50mm* ? That leaves an interesting concept in my mind of a *50-135mm* F4 IS - creating a crop centric focal range that migrates to full frame when the user wants too...
> ...



That's what the Sigma 18-35 F/1.8 zoom should have been. I want that.

- A


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jun 19, 2013)

dadgummit said:


> Anyone want to buy a used 16-35 II?



I'll wait till the 14-24 is out and the market will be flooded with 16-35s


----------



## Act444 (Jun 19, 2013)

Just acquired a 16-35 2.8 (I didn't have a WA beforehand...this completes the range for me)...it's a decent enough lens but its flaws are clearly noticeable...soft corners even stopped down to f9 (!) that is not an issue with any of the other lenses I have, that was a bit of a surprise...I guess most WA lenses are like that? anyway, I'm really not much of a WA shooter but given the right conditions, it's certainly an interesting perspective. I like the 2.8 though, it's already come in handy a couple times... 

I learned a while ago not to make decisions based on rumors...in the past I've waited forever for stuff that never materialized, or that took an eternity to do so (and "vapor ware" does no good in the present). I've heard Canon was preparing a 14-24 and that weighed in my mind but ultimately figured it would be insanely expensive and would have a bulging front element (like the Nikon version) so I'd be unable to put a filter on it (and when would such a lens actually be available? Next year? 2015?) . Besides, I appreciate having the 35mm available to me on that lens for general shooting, I think 24 would be too limiting and force it into "niche" category...


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 19, 2013)

RGF said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I'd pay $1-2K for a breathtakingly sharp autofocusing 24mm L that didn't shoot itself in the foot (i.e. corners) to offer side a wide aperture.
> ...



28mm II? If you mean the new non-L 28mm F/2.8 IS, yes, I have it, and it's a peach. It does lack weather sealing, though. That said, it's the best option for me right now.

If you mean the 24L II prime, like many huge aperture lenses, it's an art / environmental portraiture tool. Soft in the corners, spectacular in the middle. Not for me.

Hopefully these new zooms will trump the primes like the 24-70 II has recently done. Then I'm buying for sure.

- A


----------



## shutterlag (Jun 19, 2013)

Please Canon, just give us a sharp prime in the teens at a reasonable cost? I love the IQ on my 14mm SamRokinBow, but the build quality makes it almost a throwaway. We've got the choice of that for $350, or the 14mm L v2 for $2,200!!! There must be a happy medium in there, maybe an F3.5, or F4 17mm for $1,000? Please?


----------



## hmmm (Jun 19, 2013)

That 14-24 2.8 will likely be awesome, but at my budget I'm more interested in the 16-50 f4L IS. 

If the corners are sharp and the price is reasonable (~ 1.3 k) -- I'm in.


----------



## RGF (Jun 19, 2013)

Will the 16-50 be an L lens and hopefully better than than 16-35?

Will Canon strike a deal with Nikon and have Nikon make their 14-24? Probably the easiest and cheapest route for Canon to get a quality UWA zoom quickly.

I would like to see Canon license its AF, .. technology to zeiss so that they can make their (Zeiss) lenses work in the fully automated mode with Canon bodies. If Sigma, etc can make lenses that work with Canon bodies, why can't Zeiss? Licensing issue or something else?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 19, 2013)

raptor3x said:


> preppyak said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Of course you could also get there buy just getting the 24 1.4 II instead for a lot less money and somewhat less weight.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 19, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



24 II corners are pretty much like the 24-70 II and much better than on the 24-105 or 24 2.8 non-IS. Of course a 24 2.8 II non-IS could cost a lot less than the 24 1.4 II and weigh less and be even better.

I wonder how the 24 2.8 IS performs.


----------



## bk-productions (Jun 19, 2013)

A 16-50 4L would be great for my video shootings


----------



## dirtcastle (Jun 19, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> dirtcastle said:
> 
> 
> > Haydn1971 said:
> ...


I forgot about this Sigma! Alas, I'm on a full-frame.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 19, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> 24 II corners are pretty much like the 24-70 II and much better than on the 24-105 or 24 2.8 non-IS. Of course a 24 2.8 II non-IS could cost a lot less than the 24 1.4 II and weigh less and be even better.
> 
> I wonder how the 24 2.8 IS performs.



Ask and ye shall receive:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=788&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=486&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Do the mouseover and watch the arrow to show what is being shown at the time. I've compared to the gold standard 24mm T/S II, starting at F/8 but you can change that as you need to. I think the new 24 IS solid in the center but leaves something to be desired in the corners. The T/S really seems to excel there.

Alternatively, PhotoZone has data on the 24mm T/S II and the _*28*_mm IS F/2.8:

Tilt-Shift: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/603-canon24f35tse2?start=2
28mm IS: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/774-canon28f28isff?start=1

And as you can see, the 28 is not too shabby. I do love it, but I just wish it had a WS gasket.

-100 to everyone who said to lock the 24-70 on 24.  I know it's sharp, but it's also big and heavy. 

- A


----------



## Hannes (Jun 19, 2013)

RGF said:


> I would like to see Canon license its AF, .. technology to zeiss so that they can make their (Zeiss) lenses work in the fully automated mode with Canon bodies. If Sigma, etc can make lenses that work with Canon bodies, why can't Zeiss? Licensing issue or something else?



Sigma and Tamron reverse engineer the AF code to make their lenses work. That is why older sigma lenses won't work very well on new bodies.

Nissin on the other hand licence the flash instructions off Canon so I'm sure they'd be amenable to licencing their AF tech but it'd mean Sigma and Tamrons would be more expensive.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Jun 19, 2013)

This is great news. I've been patiently waiting to add an ultra wide angle to my FF lens collection!


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 19, 2013)

Knut Skywalker said:


> The 16-50 F4L IS sounds REALLY intriguing, lets hope it's around 1k and I'll buy it.



No way - the 17-40L already is €600 after years and years on the market, a wider version (ad $$$) plus larger zoom range (add $$$) plus better iq (add much more $$$) will result in a hefty price tag - and Canon will sell it, because a really good 14-24 will be even more expensive.

For me, this is good news because I'm very happy I bough my 17-40L at a really reasonable price for a sealed L lens, it's sturdy and has good for what I do with it


----------



## willis (Jun 19, 2013)

Most exciting lens will be that 14-24mm F2.8L, been looking for it way too long now! 8)


----------



## Pi (Jun 19, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Knut Skywalker said:
> 
> 
> > The 16-50 F4L IS sounds REALLY intriguing, lets hope it's around 1k and I'll buy it.
> ...



+1. I hope that going to 50mm would not compromise the UWA performance too much.


----------



## bitm2007 (Jun 19, 2013)

16-50mm is an interesting focal range. It would only leave a 20mm gap between it and the 70-300L and 70-200L's. It could conceivably replace my good but not stellar preforming 17-40mm and 24-105mm L's, leaving only a small gap to the 70-300mm L.


----------



## Vivid Color (Jun 19, 2013)

Most welcome rumor I've seen in a while. I'm glad I've held off on buying an ultra wide. If the 14-28 turns out to be true and as good optically as the other recently issued f2.8 zooms, then I know what's going on my wish list. Only decision left will be whether to buy the ultra wide angle before or after I get Canon's 100L macro. If only all decisions were so nice.


----------



## MadHungarian (Jun 19, 2013)

Good to hear about this. I've currently got a 17-40, and was debating whether or not to get a 16-35. I guess this solves the debate...


----------



## hambergler (Jun 19, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> Thoughts:
> 
> *16-50 F/4 IS* is an intriguing concept. A good percentage of us prefer a wider walkaround than 24-70. I certainly use the 24-50 side of my 24-70 more than the 50-70. I hope this one gets the smaller/lighter L treatment that we just saw with the currently demonized (but still an interesting design) 24-70 F/4 IS.
> 
> ...



I don't agree that canon has massive shoes to fill in the landscape department. If you are already on a tripod and doing serious landscape work than I'd put the 17 TSE against the Nikon 14-24 anyday.

Sensors are another matter of course.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Jun 20, 2013)

hambergler said:


> I don't agree that canon has massive shoes to fill in the landscape department. If you are already on a tripod and doing serious landscape work than I'd put the 17 TSE against the Nikon 14-24 anyday.
> 
> Sensors are another matter of course.



Some people just like the versatility of a zoom especially in the ultra wide angle range. It doesn't hurt to even bring/have both a 14-24mm and 17mm tse as I do plan to keep my 17mm tse and pair it with a 14-24 type of lens. It doesn't hurt having a wider lens too to get a single wide shot without having to shift multiple images that results in a more narrow pano shot nor does it hurt also carrying around the 17mm for perspective correction. Additionally, in the event of wind/dust/dirt/rain environments I'd probably slap the 14-24 on over shifting/tilting with the 17mm as well.

In any case, my money is ready for this lens!


----------



## Zv (Jun 20, 2013)

No! Is it ... is it finally happening? The elusive 14-24? I just can't believe it! I don't even want this lens but I want to see Canon make it. 

This rumor has already made my day!


----------



## Jesse (Jun 20, 2013)

Awesome! Where are the new tilt-shifts too?


----------



## infared (Jun 20, 2013)

YIPPEE!!!
I just picked up a 17mm TSE...(tried it out last weekend...AMAZING LENS!)....so with this news about the new Wide Angles...I will be putting my 16-35mm II on the block...it is getting less and less use with my growing collection of primes. I expect the new 14-24mm to be spectacular, (and expensive...YIKES!)....but I plan on having one in my quiver for when I need quick versatility and fast AF!


----------



## JonAustin (Jun 20, 2013)

Given satisfactory performance from the final product, I'd be interested in a 16-50 f/4L IS, as well. 

I bought a 17-40 right after they came out 10 years ago; I was shooting with a crop-sensor body then, and the 17-40 became my walk-around lens. When I moved to full-frame, my new walk-around became the 24-105.

I'm very happy with my 17-40, but don't use it very much anymore, due to its limited zoom range. I think a 16-50L with current IS and all the other recent tech would be a nice upgrade, and something I would use more often.

In the meantime, I wait (not so) patiently for an update to the 100-400, and -- much longer term -- a 24-70/2.8 _with IS _ (unless my 7½-year-old, heavily used 24-105 dies in the meantime).


----------



## ddashti (Jun 20, 2013)

Once the 14-24 comes out, many of those who had converted to Nikon might convert back without second thought.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Jun 20, 2013)

Sitting here it seems to me that I'll either have some interesting new choices or pleasantly depressed prices on a 16-35, so either way it's all coming up Milhouse.

Jim


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jun 20, 2013)

Great news...


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jun 20, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> One of the lenses will be the 14-24 f/2.8L, that will complete Canon’s run of lenses covering 14mm to 560mm.


Hallelujah


Canon Rumors said:


> We’re told one of the configurations in test is an EF 16-50 f/4L IS.


Hallelujah once again


----------



## verysimplejason (Jun 20, 2013)

ddashti said:


> Once the 14-24 comes out, many of those who had converted to Nikon might convert back without second thought.



If and only if 14-24 performs better than Nikon's or at least be on par with it and Canon releases the high MP, high DR model for landscape photographers. As of now, D800/E is still the best 35mm landscape camera.


----------



## verysimplejason (Jun 20, 2013)

I am hoping Canon will put out a CHEAPER and lighter and smaller *"GOLD"* version of these lenses. Maybe a refresh of the 20mm F2.8 USM (an 18mm is better) will do it for me. PLEASE Canon!


----------



## Zv (Jun 20, 2013)

ddashti said:


> Once the 14-24 comes out, many of those who had converted to Nikon might convert back without second thought.



I highly doubt that.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jun 20, 2013)

Zv said:


> ddashti said:
> 
> 
> > Once the 14-24 comes out, many of those who had converted to Nikon might convert back without second thought.
> ...


+1


----------



## candyman (Jun 20, 2013)

Daniel Flather said:


> dadgummit said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone want to buy a used 16-35 II?
> ...




I am sure that a 14-24 f/2.8 will cost up north of 2K euro. That would make it for me less attractive to replace my 16-35 f/2.8 II. But, if a 16-50 f/4 IS would arrive with a price max 1300 euro then I might consider replacing it. It will be a good lens for indoors on FF especially equiped with IS. I am not sure what will be the price I can get for the 16-35 if more of you drop it on the market


----------



## kennephoto (Jun 20, 2013)

I've been trying to decide on a wide angle lens to buy since my 24-105 isn't wide enough for me. Will the 14-24 be bulbus front element and not take screw on filters? I want to take some wide angle photos using ND filters. Guess I shall keep saving and waiting.


----------



## RGF (Jun 20, 2013)

hambergler said:


> I don't agree that canon has massive shoes to fill in the landscape department. If you are already on a tripod and doing serious landscape work than I'd put the 17 TSE against the Nikon 14-24 anyday.
> 
> Sensors are another matter of course.



I would like to see Canon have fixed 17 and 14 both equal sharp as the 17 TS-E (but without the extra cost and bulk of the TS-E).

Or simply license Nikon 14-24 and make it work with the EOS bodies and put a Canon red band on it.

I wish Zeiss would make their lens AF on Canon bodies


----------



## mxwphoto (Jun 20, 2013)

What I have always wondered is why the manufacturers do not make the UWA lenses with drop in rear glass filters? ??? ??? The telephotos have it because nobody's going to make a 200mm CPL, so why can't we have it on wide angles - nobody's going to be making curved CPL filters... I'm sure if they make UWAs with rear drop ins it'll sell like hotcakes! That and Canon can sell their own proprietary filters for it as well, so it's a win win for everyone imo. *Wink wink Canon!*   ;D


----------



## M.ST (Jun 20, 2013)

I can confirm that a EF 16-50 f/4 prototype exist.

The EF 14-24 f/2.8 is tested over a long time.


----------



## Etienne (Jun 20, 2013)

I guess I'm the odd guy out here, because I don't get the interest in 16-50 at f/4 over 16-35 f/2.8 even with the IS.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE image stabilization, and I like it on the new 28 2.8 IS. But f/4 does nothing for me, especially in the longer focal length; f/2.8 give me a lot of extra light when I need it.

The 14-24 could be interesting if it doesn't flare like the 4th of July as it does in Nikon-land. Otherwise I am only interested in replacing my 16-35 2.8 II ... IF version III is significantly better, and the upgrade doesn't kill my bank account.


----------



## messus (Jun 20, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> Thoughts:
> 
> *16-50 F/4 IS* is an intriguing concept. A good percentage of us prefer a wider walkaround than 24-70. I certainly use the 24-50 side of my 24-70 more than the 50-70. I hope this one gets the smaller/lighter L treatment that we just saw with the currently demonized (but still an interesting design) 24-70 F/4 IS.
> 
> ...



Totally agree!

Canon need to produce an optically competitive UWA to battle the Nikon 14-24!
I sold the 16-35 2.8 L II due to corner softness, CA, coma.. It is basically useless for low lit landscape work.
I have the 24 II 1.4, which should also be replaced soon! Corners are ridiculously bad!! The coma is the worst I have ever seen in a lens! You don't buy a 24 1.4 lens to stop it down, you buy to be able to use it wide open! Due to the bad corner performance of this lens it is also almost useless wide open.

The 24.70 II is very good! But we need a UWA lens which can compete with the Nikon 14-24!

BTW! The EF 14 L 2.8 II is also BAD in the corners, suffering from coma and CA, and needs to be replaced. As well as the 35mm 1.4, the 50mm 1.2./1.4/1.8. But it is ridiculous that those of us that actually spent 7 grand on a 1DX, and 3 grand on a 5D3, do not have a really sharp and good Canon UWA lens to use on those bodies! It is actually disrespectful to Canon FF customers!! So more important with new UWA 2.8 and 24 1.4, than 35 and 50mm.

I am using the Nikon 14-24 with adapter, and the Samyang 14. Waiting for the Canon 14-24, I will happily pay 2K for it, but I suspect it will cost 3K. 

I hope the EF 14-24 2.8 L is at least equally good as the Nikon 14-24, if not, it may hurt Canon really really bad!! I think Canon is aware of this, and this may be the reason why it takes so long before this lens is announced! This lens NEEDS to be PERFECT !!

If Canon is incapable of matching the Nikon 14-24, it may be wise to just skip this lens. The negativity that will arise among Canon FF customers, if the Canon EF 14-24 is not equally good (hopefully better) as the Nikon 14-24, will be out of proportions!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 20, 2013)

Etienne said:


> I guess I'm the odd guy out here, because I don't get the interest in 16-50 at f/4 over 16-35 f/2.8 even with the IS.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I LOVE image stabilization, and I like it on the new 28 2.8 IS. But f/4 does nothing for me, especially in the longer focal length; f/2.8 give me a lot of extra light when I need it.
> 
> The 14-24 could be interesting if it doesn't flare like the 4th of July as it does in Nikon-land. Otherwise I am only interested in replacing my 16-35 2.8 II ... IF version III is significantly better, and the upgrade doesn't kill my bank account.



I'm with you there! The problem with the Nikkor 14-24mm lens is that there is a very vocal group who keep telling every one that it's the best wide lens ever....and yet filters are a pain. The curved front element is very prone to damage and even water drops seem to get magnified on it. Sure it's image corners are sharp wide open, but it's not a lot greater than mose wides when stopped down (ie landscapes). It flares badly due to the bulbous front element and the angular distortion is quite high at 14mm. I don't really see much photographic value of those extra 2mm over the far more versatile 16-35IIL. 

The 16-35IIL is a little dated as a design. Newer coatings would be good and less CA. Sharpness, well it's OK but I'm sure Canon can coax a little more line resolution out of a re-design. The thing I love about the 16-35IIL is that it is so versatile. It does so much so well. If I need a wide lens I can rely on...its a 16-35IIL.

I had a 17-40L for a few years. It was very nice and almost the equal to the 16-35IIL optically, except the f4 and focal range. I really liked this lens but I needed the extra stop. I used to have an ef-s 10-22mm, which again was very simular. Not as bright but again very simular to the 16-35IIL. I'm sure the extra focal range will be welcome by many although not the revised entry price I'm guessing! I don't really see the need for an image stabiliser on a wide lens. Although a lot of people will be using this lens on a 1.6x crop...so I guess it makes a bridge lens for 1.6x to full frame migrators. on a 1.6x crop it's an effective 25-80mm, quite a nice range.

Given that all of Canon's recent lens releases have been steller (I think everything AFTER the 50mm f1.2L have been amazing optically), I'm sure these two new lenses will be remarkable.


----------



## vlim (Jun 20, 2013)

> I suspect it would be priced similar to the 24-70 f4 IS



For sure the price won't be under 1K $/€


----------



## Etienne (Jun 20, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I'm the odd guy out here, because I don't get the interest in 16-50 at f/4 over 16-35 f/2.8 even with the IS.
> ...



+1

Agreed ... the 16-35 II is extremely versatile. It's very resistant to flare and possibly the only UW zoom that can get a decent shot even with the sun in the frame.

Of course I wish it was better in some areas. I wish that with every one of my lenses. But at the end of the day, it's the best, and most versatile, UW zoom available for Canon FF today, including the Nikon 14-24 with adapter.

Still, I hope they release a new, sharper, smaller, lighter version III with even better contrast and lower CA's.


----------



## tron (Jun 20, 2013)

ddashti said:


> Once the 14-24 comes out, many of those who had converted to Nikon might convert back without second thought.


 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## tron (Jun 20, 2013)

Just give me an ultra sharp 16-35mm f/2.8L III please...


----------



## Sith Zombie (Jun 20, 2013)

M.ST said:


> I can confirm that a EF 16-50 f/4 prototype exist.



Cool!  any news on performance or a rough price?


----------



## Destin (Jun 20, 2013)

mxwphoto said:


> What I have always wondered is why the manufacturers do not make the UWA lenses with drop in rear glass filters? ??? ??? The telephotos have it because nobody's going to make a 200mm CPL, so why can't we have it on wide angles - nobody's going to be making curved CPL filters... I'm sure if they make UWAs with rear drop ins it'll sell like hotcakes! That and Canon can sell their own proprietary filters for it as well, so it's a win win for everyone imo. *Wink wink Canon!*   ;D



17-40mm has a drop in filter. It's a standard 77mm thread though. Work that one out.


----------



## messus (Jun 20, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I'm with you there! The problem with the Nikkor 14-24mm lens is that there is a very vocal group who keep telling every one that it's the best wide lens ever....and yet filters are a pain. The curved front element is very prone to damage and even water drops seem to get magnified on it. Sure it's image corners are sharp wide open, but it's not a lot greater than mose wides when stopped down (ie landscapes). It flares badly due to the bulbous front element and the angular distortion is quite high at 14mm. I don't really see much photographic value of those extra 2mm over the far more versatile 16-35IIL.
> 
> The 16-35IIL is a little dated as a design. Newer coatings would be good and less CA. Sharpness, well it's OK but I'm sure Canon can coax a little more line resolution out of a re-design. The thing I love about the 16-35IIL is that it is so versatile. It does so much so well. If I need a wide lens I can rely on...its a 16-35IIL.
> 
> ...



I am sorry to disappoint you, but as a Canon user I must admit that yes the Nikon 14-24 is THE best ultra wide zoom, EVER! 

It is not perfect, and yes it is prone to flares. But in most situations I can live with the flare, or the flare is not present.

I would take the flares, and the lack of shitty filters, on any given day, as long as the lens is optically superior you will find ways to work with all the other "flaws" !

If Canon is smart, they will allow for gelatin filters at the backend, like the 17-40. But hey, filters are so nostalgic, do multiple exposures and blend in post!!

Yes the 16-35 II is versatile, but it it does not do justice to my 7 grand 1DX or my 3 grand 5D3 !

Even the heavy moustache distortion, and the vignetting on the Samyang 14 is correctable in post!
The mushy corners and the insane CA and coma distortion in the EF 16-35 II (and the EF 14 2.8 L II), is impossible to correct in post!

But I would take both a 14-24 2.8 L and a new versatile improved 16-35 2.8 III !

Just BRING EM on this time! And don't let us wait in vain (and pain)!!


----------



## pedro (Jun 20, 2013)

*Re: New Wide Angle Lenses in 2013 [CR2]*



backcountrygirl said:


> I'm for one that would welcome the 14-24mm 2.8!
> If there was a lens Nikon had that Canon didn't have, the 14-24mm is that lens for me!
> If I had to guess on a price I'd say your in the ballpark of $2300 based upon what Nikon's
> price is for it's own 14-24mm 2.8.



I am shooting a 16-35 II since April. WA is one part. Max Aperture is another. Recently I did testshots at very low light on my terrass: candles, some sidelight from the living room, some moonlight. As a high ISO freak I set them to 51k, and exposed 1/6 sec, wide open on the 5D3. Some NR in DPP: Luminance: 7, Chrominance: 19. With the 50 f/1.4 yesterday I was much better off wide open. So, along with these fast lenses a next step in high ISO IQ would be great. Not necesarily higher ISOs. 102k is "okay" with a 5Dish body, but improved IQ at 51k and above 8) Here's a sample of the 51k shot



Moonlight51kVersion I by Peter Hauri, on Flickr


----------



## ewg963 (Jun 20, 2013)

Great please bring on the the 14-24 2.8???!!! I hope that it's as good as the Nikon's version!!!


----------



## ewg963 (Jun 20, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> Thoughts:
> 
> *16-50 F/4 IS* is an intriguing concept. A good percentage of us prefer a wider walkaround than 24-70. I certainly use the 24-50 side of my 24-70 more than the 50-70. I hope this one gets the smaller/lighter L treatment that we just saw with the currently demonized (but still an interesting design) 24-70 F/4 IS.
> 
> ...


I'm with you!!! +1000000


----------



## Jura (Jun 20, 2013)

bitm2007 said:


> 16-50mm is an interesting focal range. It would only leave a 20mm gap between it and the 70-300L and 70-200L's. It could conceivably replace my good but not stellar preforming 17-40mm and 24-105mm L's, leaving only a small gap to the 70-300mm L.



Are you me? This was exactly my thought when I read this. I cant afford the 14-24 but the 16-50 has got my attention. Will help plug a gap at the wide end and free up revenue for some nice filters/better tripod/85 f1.8 etc etc....


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 20, 2013)

M.ST said:


> I can confirm that a EF 16-50 f/4 prototype exist.



.. which most likely would exclude a 2013 release date, thanks. And Canon will sell the more expensive 14-24 uwa first anyway to max profit, just like they sell the 600rt flash and we're still waiting for the cheaper version

Last not least, there also is a 17-40 mk2 prototype, so depending on marketing strategy Canon might opt to go for this cheaper version than a more expensive 16-50L ... or they just cheat a little on the focal lengths and relabel the 17-40L to 16-50L :->


----------



## bseitz234 (Jun 20, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I'm the odd guy out here, because I don't get the interest in 16-50 at f/4 over 16-35 f/2.8 even with the IS.
> ...



I have to agree with this... I never really looked into it much, but after this rumor I was more curious about the 14-24. Sample pictures look... well, not bad, and sharp in the corners, but also almost comically distorted, which actually really bugged me. Given a choice, I'd take the 16-35's soft corners any day.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 20, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> .. which most likely would exclude a 2013 release date, thanks. And Canon will sell the more expensive 14-24 uwa first anyway to max profit, just like they sell the 600rt flash and we're still waiting for the cheaper version
> 
> Last not least, there also is a 17-40 mk2 prototype, so depending on marketing strategy Canon might opt to go for this cheaper version than a more expensive 16-50L ... or they just cheat a little on the focal lengths and relabel the 17-40L to 16-50L :->



If the rumor of a f/4 IS ultrawide is true, then I can see Canon listing it around 1500 USD. The 14-24 would be around 2500 USD. Let the howling begin!


----------



## Zv (Jun 20, 2013)

It's funny, ultra wide angle L lenses are all way way cheaper than the L lenses in the supertele range yet we begrudge paying anything over $1000. What if Canon made like the ultimate UWA with razor sharp corners, no CA or flare, fast AF and just about everything else perfect. How much would you pay? 

Just look at the 200-400. People still bought it right?


----------



## Ayelike (Jun 20, 2013)

Excellent news! I've had my mouse hovering over the buy button of a 16-35II or 14II for some time but knew as soon as I bought one something new would be announced.

Immediately interested in the 14-24 as this would sit perfectly with my 24-70 and 70-200II. Will have to wait to see what the prices and performance are like to potentially be tempted away by the 16-50.

So 6 months to become available and a further 6 months for the launch price to drop a bit?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 20, 2013)

M.ST said:


> I can confirm that a EF 16-50 f/4 prototype exist.
> 
> The EF 14-24 f/2.8 is tested over a long time.



You can't even post an image of a discontinued lens you claim to own, no NDA, privacy issues, or indeed any genuine reason to not back up your inflated claims in that instance, why should anybody have any trust in your hinted insider information when you can't even post a picture of your own lens?


----------



## crasher8 (Jun 20, 2013)

uwa, takes filters, sharp in corners…all other dream factors? 2499


----------



## Universeal (Jun 20, 2013)

14-24f/2.8 so the rumor about a 12-24f/2.8 it wasn't accurate. Will wait and see what they will announce.


----------



## SwnSng (Jun 20, 2013)

he 14-24 is exciting news! If it can match Nikon's legendary 14-24 I would be happy if it can surpass it, my mind would be BLOWN! Starting to save now for it, aside from a long telephoto 400m+, a 14-24 would be my most coveted lens.


----------



## RVB (Jun 20, 2013)

Just a word about the Nikon 14-24mm,I have had this lens three time's in the last few years,It's really good but has one or two faults,it doesn't handle flare or backlighting as well as I would like and contrast falls off slighting at the edge's,it's also quite heavy..

I expect the Canon 14-24 to debut at a high price just like the 24-70ii and 70-200ii did but that price will fall after a few months,it will probably retail at about 2300dollars..


----------



## dlleno (Jun 20, 2013)

Ayelike said:


> Excellent news! I've had my mouse hovering over the buy button of a 16-35II or 14II for some time



you and me both; for once, the timing of this rumor is a benefit!

16-50 f/4 would fit the crop bodies, to be sure, but wouldn't compete directly with the 17-55 due to the aperture. I can see room for all three -- the 16-50 f/4, 16-35 III, and 14-24


----------



## tron (Jun 20, 2013)

dlleno said:


> Ayelike said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent news! I've had my mouse hovering over the buy button of a 16-35II or 14II for some time
> ...


I found a mint & cheap 14mm II so no regrets. However, I was sorry I lost a 16-35 2.8 II used sale.
Not any more. I will use my 16-35 2.8 version 1 and my fixed wide angle lenses in the meantime ;D


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Jun 20, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> M.ST said:
> 
> 
> > I can confirm that a EF 16-50 f/4 prototype exist.
> ...


As a general statement, if you are to be taken seriously as a 'test pilot' sitting on info of to be released gear, just once you should post a statement about something new that is to be released that is not just a response to what CR has already posted. Otherwise, one might come out as not so credible.


----------



## AJ (Jun 20, 2013)

Hahaha. $1k, that's funny.

Seriously now. It'll be at least $2.5k. At least.



Knut Skywalker said:


> The 16-50 F4L IS sounds REALLY intriguing, lets hope it's around 1k and I'll buy it.


----------



## Caps18 (Jun 21, 2013)

While I do wish that my 16-35 f/2.8 was a little longer, I'm not sure the 14-16mm range would make a big difference to me. Especially if I lost the 25-35mm or 25-50mm range.

I'd think about it if I were going to take 1 lens backpacking around the world for instance, but I would miss the f/2.8 of the 16-35 or the f/1.2 of the 50mm too much.


----------



## drjlo (Jun 21, 2013)

dlleno said:


> I can see room for all three -- the 16-50 f/4, 16-35 III, and 14-24



16-50 range appeals to me as better full frame walkaround range than 24-70; but I am afraid increasing the range will likely compromise distortion figures and corner sharpness compared to wide angles with less range, etc 14-22, 16-35. 16-35 II is already not all that great in corners wide open at 35 mm end. 

If Canon manages to pull off a 16-50 with good sharpness across the ranges, especially with a good 50 mm portrait end, I will likely buy that over 14-24..


----------



## EchoLocation (Jun 21, 2013)

i love this rumor. if the 14-24 accepts filters I may be interested if it's priced under $2500.
I'm really interested in this 16-50 if it is sharp and around $1300 or less. I had the 17-40 but it was really soft, so I sold it. That extra 10mm of reach gives this lens a big advantage over pretty much anything else on the market(for full frame.) I can't think of anything else available for full frame that goes from that wide to that long(anybody?)
This 16-50 could be an awesome everyday sorta lens for people who appreciate the 24 side of the 24-70 more than the 70. I'm just not sure I could give up my 2.8 aperture for it. 
Still, it is exciting to think about.


----------



## liyan (Jun 21, 2013)

for 14-24mm f/2.8
I would buy, if this lens accept regular (100mm) filters, I already have a filter collections, that's already very expensive. I wouldn't buy larger filters (>150mm) cuz they're insanely expensive.


----------



## Radiating (Jun 21, 2013)

EchoLocation said:


> i love this rumor. if the 14-24 accepts filters I may be interested if it's priced under $2500.
> I'm really interested in this 16-50 if it is sharp and around $1300 or less. I had the 17-40 but it was really soft, so I sold it. That extra 10mm of reach gives this lens a big advantage over pretty much anything else on the market(for full frame.) I can't think of anything else available for full frame that goes from that wide to that long(anybody?)
> This 16-50 could be an awesome everyday sorta lens for people who appreciate the 24 side of the 24-70 more than the 70. I'm just not sure I could give up my 2.8 aperture for it.
> Still, it is exciting to think about.



Agree 100%, but somehow this seems too good to be true. It feels like pipe dream considering Canon's dragging their feet with good new products.


----------



## Etienne (Jun 21, 2013)

I am most interested in an improved 16-35. Sharper, less distortion ... smaller and lighter would be great too, even if it has to be 18-28


----------



## dlleno (Jun 21, 2013)

Etienne said:


> I am most interested in an improved 16-35. Sharper, less distortion ... smaller and lighter would be great too, even if it has to be 18-28



I'd rank the importance of resolution, Flare control and CA above distortion.

18-28 is a pretty narrow 1.5:1 ratio; in my view, and with essentially no overlap with a 24-<something> zoom. not very attractive to me; I'd rather have a 21mm prime for example, or a 14-24, if there is no updated 16-35.

A "real" 16-35 (by "real" I mean the lens lable is very close to actual focal length) is a 2:1 (or very nearly so), and provides a very good combination of "extension above 24mm" and UWA coverage. Imho there's room for both a 14-24 (a 1.7:1 ratio) and a 16-35, both in f/2.8, and with 24-70 ii caliber optics.


----------



## Sabaki (Jun 24, 2013)

About 18 months ago, when I really started investing time reading lens reviews, it was pretty much unanimously stated the the 70-200 f/2.8 II was the world's sharpest zoom lens. 

6 months or so ago, the 24-70 II f/2.8 was considered a contender to that crown with some reviewers stating it IS the world's sharpest zoom. 

Last month, the 200-400 f/4.0 became the latest to be spoken of in such terms. 

Imagine the new 14-24 f/2.8 rouses similar reviews. 

So with 4 lenses, you could realistically cover the 14-560 range with potentially the 4 best zoom lenses in the world. 

Add your speciality lenses. 100mm L macro, the 17 & 24 TSEs...you may just be looking at the best lens lineup in photography. 

Let's hope the new cameras take a significant step up!


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jun 24, 2013)

Sabaki said:


> About 18 months ago, when I really started investing time reading lens reviews, it was pretty much unanimously stated the the 70-200 f/2.8 II was the world's sharpest zoom lens.
> 
> 6 months or so ago, the 24-70 II f/2.8 was considered a contender to that crown with some reviewers stating it IS the world's sharpest zoom.
> 
> ...



The whole set would probably cost ~$20,000 - can the average participant on this forum fork that much cash for lenses?

I'm sure there are a few photographers on this forum can spend that much cash on lenses, and justify it as well, personally I'll be very happy to be able to add the 24-70mm f/2.8 II & 14-24mm f/2.8 to my collection.


----------



## bseitz234 (Jun 24, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > About 18 months ago, when I really started investing time reading lens reviews, it was pretty much unanimously stated the the 70-200 f/2.8 II was the world's sharpest zoom lens.
> ...



Drop the 200-400 out of that, and you've still got 14-200 covered, which is probably all the average participant on this forum really needs... are there people who need more than 200? Absolutely. But if we're talking averages... Not to mention I don't think there are enough 200-400s in existence to give one to everyone on this forum... :


----------



## Sabaki (Jun 24, 2013)

Drop the 200-400 out of that, and you've still got 14-200 covered, which is probably all the average participant on this forum really needs... are there people who need more than 200? Absolutely. But if we're talking averages... Not to mention I don't think there are enough 200-400s in existence to give one to everyone on this forum... :
[/quote]

lol Full heartedly agree with your take on the financial outlay on those 4 lenses. 
I certainly can't afford it but damn would I love to have it! 24-70 is currently on my radar


----------



## moocowe (Jun 24, 2013)

liyan said:


> for 14-24mm f/2.8
> I would buy, if this lens accept regular (100mm) filters, I already have a filter collections, that's already very expensive. I wouldn't buy larger filters (>150mm) cuz they're insanely expensive.



I think it's very unlikely the 14-24mm will be able to use 100mm filters.
When I designed a filter holder for my Samyang 14mm, I found that anything narrower than 125mm would show up at the sides of the frame.
The LEE holder for Nikon's 14-24mm is for 150mm filters.


----------



## Jay Khaos (Jun 24, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > About 18 months ago, when I really started investing time reading lens reviews, it was pretty much unanimously stated the the 70-200 f/2.8 II was the world's sharpest zoom lens.
> ...



I think Sabaki was just theorizing that the next zoom should be significant considering that latest zoom releases have all be building around each other and also happen to be the best in their class. Not necessarily saying everyone should go and buy all of them... 

I would love a 14-24 2.8...


----------



## Etienne (Jun 24, 2013)

bseitz234 said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > Sabaki said:
> ...



The new 100-400 IS may also be super-sharp. I'd add that in place of the 200-400.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jun 25, 2013)

Etienne said:


> bseitz234 said:
> 
> 
> > Ellen Schmidtee said:
> ...



I bought the 70-200mm f/2.8 II and the mk3 extenders. It has it's price in IQ, but considering the frequency I need a focal length greater than 200mm, I'd rather save on price & weight.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 26, 2013)

moocowe said:


> liyan said:
> 
> 
> > for 14-24mm f/2.8
> ...



Yes, and the Wondapanna filters for the Nikon 14-24mm, Sigma 12-24mm and TS-e 17L are even bigger...165mm I belive!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 19, 2013)

Knut Skywalker said:


> The 16-50 F4L IS sounds REALLY intriguing, lets hope it's around 1k and I'll buy it.



It does, lets hope it is very sharp to the edges.
Could be the ideal complement to the 24-70 II. Sometimes you need IS and this gives you that 24-50 which is perfect, plus, unlike the others with IS it also gives you some nice wide 16-23mm extension.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 19, 2013)

Etienne said:


> I guess I'm the odd guy out here, because I don't get the interest in 16-50 at f/4 over 16-35 f/2.8 even with the IS.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I LOVE image stabilization, and I like it on the new 28 2.8 IS. But f/4 does nothing for me, especially in the longer focal length; f/2.8 give me a lot of extra light when I need it.
> 
> The 14-24 could be interesting if it doesn't flare like the 4th of July as it does in Nikon-land. Otherwise I am only interested in replacing my 16-35 2.8 II ... IF version III is significantly better, and the upgrade doesn't kill my bank account.



IS is so much better than f/2.8 for landscape stuff, f/2.8 isn't much DOF. f/4.5-5.6 and IS does soooo much more. It's a great thing when you don't have time or want to bother with tripods for each shot (with other people or maybe want to see everything and yet still get as solid photos as you can and don't have time to tripod up all shots).


----------



## insanitybeard (Jul 19, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> IS is so much better than f/2.8 for landscape stuff, f/2.8 isn't much DOF. f/4.5-5.6 and IS does soooo much more. It's a great thing when you don't have time or want to bother with tripods for each shot (with other people or maybe want to see everything and yet still get as solid photos as you can and don't have time to tripod up all shots).



Agreed on that, I think a 16-50 f4 with IS would be an ideal outdoor lens for hiking for example, especially if they can keep the size and weight similar to the 17-40. If it comes into being it will be on my list to replace the 17-40, assuming it's an improvement optically.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 19, 2013)

I just bought a 17-40L. Whoops. Looks like ill be using it for along time.


----------



## insanitybeard (Jul 19, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> I just bought a 17-40L. Whoops. Looks like ill be using it for along time.



Well, this is all conjecture anyway. Even *IF* Canon announces the lens this autumn it's a fairly safe bet to say you won't be able to get your hands on it for 12 months at least! Gives me longer to save up :


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 20, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> IS is so much better than f/2.8 for landscape stuff, f/2.8 isn't much DOF. f/4.5-5.6 and IS does soooo much more.



When I started shooting macro, I had to realize how many things in the natural world actually move a tiny bit, I never realized until I tried longer exposure times. Often the same applies to landscape, IS doesn't freeze leaves from jiggling or water from waving. In this case, neither shallow dof *or* IS will help, what's really required is a high iso high dr camera which Canon doesn't have yet.


----------



## insanitybeard (Jul 20, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > IS is so much better than f/2.8 for landscape stuff, f/2.8 isn't much DOF. f/4.5-5.6 and IS does soooo much more.
> ...



But the IS will certainly have some benefits for a handheld video, or lowlight photography when you don't have/ can't use a tripod. Of course it can't help freeze subject movement, but equally, f2.8 isn't the best aperture for a typical landscape shot anyway, so it's always going to be a compromise. I'd rather have the IS available than not- of course, how implementing it affects pricing is another matter!


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jul 23, 2013)

shutterlag said:


> Please Canon, just give us a sharp prime in the teens at a reasonable cost? I love the IQ on my 14mm SamRokinBow, but the build quality makes it almost a throwaway. We've got the choice of that for $350, or the 14mm L v2 for $2,200!!! There must be a happy medium in there, maybe an F3.5, or F4 17mm for $1,000? Please?



+1. All I want is a sharp (across the entire frame) 17mm that can take filters. Preferably f/2.8, but I'd take f/3.5. WHY DOESN'T THIS LENS EXIST?


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jul 23, 2013)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> shutterlag said:
> 
> 
> > Please Canon, just give us a sharp prime in the teens at a reasonable cost? I love the IQ on my 14mm SamRokinBow, but the build quality makes it almost a throwaway. We've got the choice of that for $350, or the 14mm L v2 for $2,200!!! There must be a happy medium in there, maybe an F3.5, or F4 17mm for $1,000? Please?
> ...



Soo.....I just remembered about the Zeiss 18mm f/3.5. Problem is, it doesn't really excite me. I feel as if it needs just _a little_ something extra. If Canon or another manufacturer can replicate the Zeiss performance (or rather come within reason) and simply give it autofocus I'd pull the trigger for what the Zeiss sells for now ($1400). ESPECIALLY if they could make it a 2.8.


----------



## TeenTog (Jul 23, 2013)

> One of the lenses will be the 14-24 f/2.8L,



Please


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 9, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > IS is so much better than f/2.8 for landscape stuff, f/2.8 isn't much DOF. f/4.5-5.6 and IS does soooo much more.
> ...



True, but a little water blur and even some leaf blur from a single shot isn't always so bad and it's not like IS gives you 10 stops to where you are holding really long exposures.

There are lots of times where you don't want to bother with a tripod or can't.

I nabbed an f/9, 50mm at 1/20th the other day with IS in a deep forest and only had to go to ISO400 (i.e. right before the table starts falling out for Canon DR (of course with Nikon I'd had already traded away two stops, maybe Canon is better, I didn't lose two stops going ISO100 to ISO400  ).


----------



## Rocker (Aug 9, 2013)

TeenTog said:


> > One of the lenses will be the 14-24 f/2.8L,
> 
> 
> 
> Please



I am saving for it since the first rumor. I am shure it will be an optical masterpiece, conserning canon recent lenses.


----------



## SwnSng (Aug 20, 2013)

Bring on the 14-24 2.8L please...I envy my friends Nikon 800/14-25 setup, amazing lens body combo. It's about time Canon at least puts up some what of a fight at this focal point.


----------



## lomenak (Sep 11, 2013)

The 16-50L f4 IS would be great! I would love one for sure. I know its a lot to ask but f2.8 in it would be even better - it could be used for star shots too.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 11, 2013)

SwnSng said:


> Bring on the 14-24 2.8L please...I envy my friends Nikon 800/14-25 setup, amazing lens body combo. It's about time Canon at least puts up some what of a fight at this focal point.



Interestingly, with your friends setup, it's the lens which is the limiting factor there, not the camera. Very few lenses can match the IQ demands of a 35+ mp sensor.
A TS-e 17 will out resolve nearly every other wide lens and with its movements, one can cover an effective 12.5mm focal length if you are prepared to tripod, shift and stitch. It's certainly a nice technique for great panos.
The Nikkor 14-24 is good at shooting lens charts but not so useful shooting landscapes imho compared to a 16-35IIL. The bulbous front element makes filter use difficult (like the TS-e 17L) and costly. The resolution wide open on the 14-24 is extraordinary...but stopped down (for DOF) there is little real world difference between it and the 16-35IIL. The extra 2mm at the wide end can usually be nixed by moving a little further back and it's a small benefit vs the problems fitting a polariser and ND filters are compared to the ease of a 16-35IIL.
In my opinion both the TS-e 17L and 16-35IIL are better landscape optics than the Nikkor 14-24....unless you liek to shoot brick walls or lens charts that is ;-D


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Oct 5, 2013)

I just reviewed this potential lens thread after heading to Best Buy a couple of days ago inquiring about the 16-35L. They said that though they could order it for me at their price, $1,499 prior to fixing a misquote in their system, however, the guy also said that the 16-35 had been deleted from their inventory. Being a fellow Canon photographer himself, he mentioned that they will often do this when they have intentions of a replacement product in the coming months. 

Can anyone account for the validity to this idea?

-Tabor


----------



## Jim Saunders (Oct 5, 2013)

Tabor Warren Photography said:


> Can anyone account for the validity to this idea?
> 
> -Tabor



The point I'd make is that Canon is pretty good about covering lengths well so it seems unlikely that a replacement for the 16-35 would have a greatly different zoom range.

Jim


----------



## Ricku (Oct 5, 2013)

Jim Saunders said:


> Tabor Warren Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Can anyone account for the validity to this idea?
> ...


I don't think anyone waiting for a new version of this lens is hoping for a different zoom range.. The thing this lens needs is a big improvement in sharpness! I would never use the current 16-35L II for landscapes, not even if someone gave the lens to me for free.

I've been waiting for a new EF lens to rival the legendary Nikkor 14-24. Many people are hoping for a 14-24L, but I'm more interested in a razor sharp 16-35L III. 

It is very sad that Canon still don't have a truly sharp UWA-zoom lens.


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 8, 2013)

Wow 16-50 F4 lame



Maybe if the 14-24 is good it will go OK with the sigma 24-70 f2 but I have zero interest in another f4 zoom unless its a super tele


----------



## dlleno (Jan 1, 2014)

It would be a worthy successor to the 17-40 to be sure. Better zoom range 77mm, updated IS and optics. But it would be a horrible replacement for the 16-35


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 1, 2014)

Tabor Warren Photography said:


> I just reviewed this potential lens thread after heading to Best Buy a couple of days ago inquiring about the 16-35L. They said that though they could order it for me at their price, $1,499 prior to fixing a misquote in their system, however, the guy also said that the 16-35 had been deleted from their inventory. Being a fellow Canon photographer himself, he mentioned that they will often do this when they have intentions of a replacement product in the coming months.
> 
> Can anyone account for the validity to this idea?



No validity. Best Buy is a notoriously poor prognosticator. They discontinue lots of things, only to add them back later. Has happened a few times at B&H recently, too.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 1, 2014)

Ricku said:


> Jim Saunders said:
> 
> 
> > Tabor Warren Photography said:
> ...



Oh boy....one born every minute....stopped down, it's more than sharp enough.


----------



## Ricku (Jan 10, 2014)

^ Posting web sized pictures to justify your point of view is pretty silly, unless they are 100% crops. The poor corner sharpness of the 16-35L II (and 17-40L) has been proven over and over again.

They are mediocre when compared to other L zoom-lenses like the 70-200 2.8 IS II and 24-70L II, and they pale in comparison to the Nikon 14-24.

Time for an update! But the same thing can be said about a boat load of other lenses from Canon. :-\


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 10, 2014)

Ricku said:


> ^ Posting web sized pictures to justify your point of view is pretty silly, unless they are 100% crops. The poor corner sharpness of the 16-35L II (and 17-40L) has been proven over and over again.
> 
> They are mediocre when compared to other L zoom-lenses like the 70-200 2.8 IS II and 24-70L II, and they pale in comparison to the Nikon 14-24.
> 
> Time for an update! But the same thing can be said about a boat load of other lenses from Canon. :-\



So you think those things you listed will make a great image any more sellable? No it won't...so I would say that the metric by which you judge a lens is way off base...and I'm sure that Canon are in no hurry to replace it becuase it's still selling well.
The sun star image would be hard to do with a 14-24mm lens...sure it might be sharper....although at f16 I seriously doubt there will be much difference in sharpness. The front element on the 14-24 is so bulbous that it's very flare prone. The 16-35IIL is very good at handling flare, far beter that the new 24-70IIL which every one seems to rave about. 
The same is true with the lower image of the light house. The 14-24mm is hard to use filters (not impossible, but a PITA) and the flare issue is a serious concearn to a landscape photographer....but of corse if your only metric is wide open sharpness then yes the 14-24mm is a great lens too.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 10, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Oh boy....one born every minute....stopped down, it's more than sharp enough.


+1 and while in the minority, it's kind of sad to see people on here over the last few days writing off the 16-35 II, 50 1.2, and other "weak" lenses. If these people actually got out there and shot with the lenses, they'd realize that lens charts and resolution tests are just part of the picture. 

When it comes to sharp enough, I shot a whole campaign for a client with the "soft" Sigma 12-24 II I used to own and yet I was still able to print (cropped) photos at 40x60" for them with no problems. The 16-35II could be better, but that doesn't mean it sucks. Photographers will always be limited by their creativity and skills, not their equipment. If you don't believe me, just wait for the inevitable posts by people claiming their Otus 55mm is soft - the same people who "only shoot handheld" ;D


----------



## Woody (Jan 11, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> The bulbous front element makes filter use difficult (like the TS-e 17L) and costly. The resolution wide open on the 14-24 is extraordinary...but stopped down (for DOF) there is little real world difference between it and the 16-35IIL.



This is why I will NEVER EVER buy lenses with bulbous front elements.

People often forget that landscape photographers almost always need to stop down.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 11, 2014)

The TS-E 17 is about as bulbous as it comes, it doesn't even pretend to have a flared rim like the 14-24, however it is not flare prone, it handles light sources very well and maintains excellent contrast. There is also a cost effective filter solution for it.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 11, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> The TS-E 17 is about as bulbous as it comes, it doesn't even pretend to have a flared rim like the 14-24, however it is not flare prone, it handles light sources very well and maintains excellent contrast. There is also a cost effective filter solution for it.



The TS-E 17L does attract more flare and ghosting in direct sunlight than the 16-35IIL. The new Nano coating helps a lot, but it's a big element and it's hard to shade.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 13, 2014)

I really like the "normal" front end of the 16-35 and would rather Canon come out with a souped-up version of that lens vs. a 14-24 (or any other range) with a bulbous front-end.


----------



## mckay photography (Jan 14, 2014)

Very interested in a 14-24 style lens - fingers crossed!

http://www.mckayphotography.com.au


----------



## tron (Jan 14, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> *Announcements in the fall*
> 
> We’re told that two new wide angle zooms for full frame will be coming from Canon in the next 6-8 months. At least one of them could be announced in Q4 of 2013.
> One of the lenses will be the 14-24 f/2.8L, that will complete Canon’s run of lenses covering 14mm to 560mm.
> ...


Sure, new wide angle lenses in 2013, announcement in the fall, etc... ;D


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 14, 2014)

mckay photography said:


> Very interested in a 14-24 style lens - fingers crossed!
> 
> http://www.mckayphotography.com.au



Don't be fooled by the Nikon trolls....many wedding photographers who migrated over to the D700 a few years back, rushed out to get the Nikkor version...only the be very disapointed with the results for groups. Many then sold their and swapped to a 16-35 equivelent. The angle of view is very wide and very distored for groups...and the lack of focal range at the long end is limiting. Sure it's sharp, but that is it's only saving grace. If you need to go wider, get a 8-15L fisheye


----------



## Zv (Jan 14, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I really like the "normal" front end of the 16-35 and would rather Canon come out with a souped-up version of that lens vs. a 14-24 (or any other range) with a bulbous front-end.



Agreed. I'd rather have something I can walk about with that covers a good range. 14-24mm would be less than ideal for groups or street. I've used the 17-40 for street and general mucking about and it's quite useful with a CP-L and light enough that you can carry it about all day, wish it had IS though. A 16-50 f/4 IS would be just the ticket.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 14, 2014)

Zv said:


> A 16-50 f/4 IS would be just the ticket.


I like the idea of that, but would still love something really wide like the Sigma 12-24 II I used to own. I fear that Canon considers our dreams of a super wide covered by the 8-15 f/4. A lot of their articles have pitched it as a wide angle lens, but at least to me, I don't care for the fisheye distortion even if it can be minimized with a perfectly level shot.


----------



## dlleno (Jan 14, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > A 16-50 f/4 IS would be just the ticket.
> ...



seems to me there is market pressure for Canon to produce a rectilinear 14(ish)-24. its absense does seem conspicuous.

In addition, I don't see the 16-35 II going away or replaced. seems astonishing to me to suggest that, as the rumor has. Given its success in the market, and the fact that Canon appears to stick by it no matter what weaknesses the purests point out, suggests it is here to stay and probabably won't be updated any time soon. It would really surprise me if we saw a 16-35 III this year. 

I see an 82mm mm 16-35 II, a 77mm 16-50 and a bulbous 14(ish)-24, all living happily together, as they would target different specialties. The extra FL, IS, and 77mm front end (I presume) of a 16-50 would be welcome advantages if f/2.8 isn't important , complementing the others, including the rumored 24-70 f/2.8 IS. THe 16-35 II is too succesful (strategically) to update it now. 

BTW off the subject, but its kind of amusing to see the tricks that retailers go through to get around MAP and that is happening to the 16-35 right now. happens all the time I know, but its still amusing to think of the conversations among lawyers


----------



## Sanaraken (Jan 14, 2014)

Im just waiting for Canon to come out with a 16-35mm f4 IS. I dont need to shoot at f2.8, but would love to have the IS.


----------



## dlleno (Jan 15, 2014)

Sanaraken said:


> Im just waiting for Canon to come out with a 16-35mm f4 IS. I dont need to shoot at f2.8, but would love to have the IS.



I don't see that happening, but what do I know... If they produce an UWA F4 IS, I would say it would be the rumored EF 16-50 f/4 IS, which I agree would be wonderful for landscapes, especially if it is an L.


----------



## Ricku (Jan 15, 2014)

Whatever the FL is, I think its strange that these lenses were "CR2-rumored" for 2013, never showed up, and now the rumor mill is all quiet.

If 2014 is "the year of the lens", I think we should have some solid info floating around by now. But then again, Canon has always been boringly good at keeping their stuff from leaking out.


----------



## Zv (Jan 15, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > A 16-50 f/4 IS would be just the ticket.
> ...



Oh totally! They need something in that ultra wide range other than the costly 14L. Their foolin no one with the 8-15 fisheye! I opted for the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 instead as I got fed up waiting. It's a pity I can't use filters with it though. Blasted bulbous ends! Haha! 

What is the widest you can get without going bulbous end? Is it 16mm? I imagine a 12-24 or 14-24 would be quite expensive anyway and wouldn't take filters.


----------



## dlleno (Jan 15, 2014)

Zv said:


> What is the widest you can get without going bulbous end? Is it 16mm? I imagine a 12-24 or 14-24 would be quite expensive anyway and wouldn't take filters.



exactly. imho this is why the 82mm 16-35 f/2.8 II isn't going away, and why a 77mm 16-something f/4 IS would go over well.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 15, 2014)

Zv said:


> Oh totally! They need something in that ultra wide range other than the costly 14L. Their foolin no one with the 8-15 fisheye! I opted for the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 instead as I got fed up waiting. It's a pity I can't use filters with it though. Blasted bulbous ends! Haha!
> 
> What is the widest you can get without going bulbous end? Is it 16mm? I imagine a 12-24 or 14-24 would be quite expensive anyway and wouldn't take filters.



Zeiss' 15mm takes filters -- 95mm filters.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 15, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Oh totally! They need something in that ultra wide range other than the costly 14L. Their foolin no one with the 8-15 fisheye! I opted for the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 instead as I got fed up waiting. It's a pity I can't use filters with it though. Blasted bulbous ends! Haha!
> ...



The TS-E 17 takes filters, 145mm filters.


----------



## Zv (Jan 15, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



You say that like you can just buy those at the dollar store! I mean sure I bet the Hubble space telescope takes filters too! ;D

(I meant what regular folk consider a filter - 77mm / 82mm max.)


----------



## Cali_PH (Jan 15, 2014)

Zv said:


> I opted for the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 instead as I got fed up waiting. It's a pity I can't use filters with it though. Blasted bulbous ends! Haha!



Actually, there is a (very expensive) Hitech Lucroit Filter Holder. It was originally designed for the Nikon 14-24, but they made adapter rings for other lenses, including the Samyang. It can be found on their site and places like B&H, Adorama, & Amazon. You'll also probably need to buy new large, expensive filters to go with it of course.

http://lucroit.com/SHOP/category.php?id_category=5

Also I believe Samyang posted something on their FB page about working on their own filter holder for it. As I recall they were hoping to release it around now. 

There are also a number of home-made filter holders I've seen, you can google them and see if they look like something you'd like to try to duplicate.


----------



## Zv (Jan 15, 2014)

Cali_PH said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > I opted for the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 instead as I got fed up waiting. It's a pity I can't use filters with it though. Blasted bulbous ends! Haha!
> ...



Cool thanks!

I'll look out for the Samyang ones. They'll likely be cheap!


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 15, 2014)

Zv said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



I may get rid of my 17-40l because I use my Sigma 15mm fisheye instead. To me, it's a better solution in almost all circumstances.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 15, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...


I can understand, but I'm not just not a fan of the fisheye look. I borrowed the 14 2.8II from Canon and I found it to be kind of blah. The IQ is very good, but it just didn't excite me to shoot with it. I think a zoom is much more useful at these wide focal lengths and I really loved the range of the Sigma 12-24II, but it just wasn't terribly sharp, even when used at optimal settings.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 15, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



I still have a Sigma 12-24mm mkI and it's really a f11-16 lens. There's still nothing which can challenge it's angle view on full frame. Sure it's not very sharp but it's angle of view is unique. I just kind of wish that Canon would take their new hyper wide lens to the same spec but make it sharp...ie 12-24mm f4, fully rectilinear corrected (like the Sigma) and as such sits as a companion to the 16-35IIL.


----------



## Zv (Jan 15, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



I've also considered selling my 17-40L but it has some things that I like - my copy is fairly sharp from 17-24mm f/5.6 + and that's where I use it most. Fast AF. It takes 77mm filters so I can CP-L it and ND it for waterfalls and long exposure stuff. 

For just sheer wide angle fun I use the Sammy 14mm f/2.8.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 15, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I can understand, but I'm not just not a fan of the fisheye look.



This is the problem with fisheye lenses in general - people don't understand what they do or how to use them.

Tell me which of these was taken with a fisheye:

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/huge/IMG_3334.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/huge/5D_24461-5D_24461.jpg


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 15, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I can understand, but I'm not just not a fan of the fisheye look.
> ...


I agree, there are a ton of bad fisheye photos out there, and these are good examples of proper use. Even still, I don't like being limited to keeping the lens perfectly level. If they made a tilt-shift fisheye, I could probably get on board with that


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 15, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



The second one wasn't perfectly level, it was corrected (not defished) later. Software is good for that now, and a fisheye provides for more options, including cropping and defishing.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 21, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Lol...an uber specialist niche lens! A shift function would be cool, although I'm not sure a tile would be beneficial.
I've bought and sold fisheyes so many times over the years. I've had the Canon 15mm, the Sigma 15mm and 8mm several times...and I tended to get bored with them very quickly. Since I bought the 8-15L fisheye...I figured that It combines both types into one small and light lens body and makes it more of a two trick horse...and I'm using it sparingly but more often. It's a lens I've grown to like, although i can't imagine anyone ever buying a fisheye photo from me! So from a commercial point of view...it's a bit of a dud.


----------



## tron (Feb 14, 2014)

Dianoda said:


> A weather-sealed 16-50mm f/4 IS sounds wonderful. As does the 14-24mm f/2.8 - but what'll she cost? $3K?


As a 16-35mm f/2.8 L III ...


----------



## adhocphotographer (Feb 14, 2014)

I got fed up waiting and picked up a 17-40 in December... I'm liking it a lot, but not loving it. I will wait for these putative lenses to be released, do the rounds, and maybe pick one up after a year or so (once the price is stabilised, and they become available here in India).

I am more interested in the 16-50 IS than the 14-24, but lets see what they are like once they are released! This year perhaps???


----------



## Loren E (Feb 14, 2014)

tron said:


> Dianoda said:
> 
> 
> > A weather-sealed 16-50mm f/4 IS sounds wonderful. As does the 14-24mm f/2.8 - but what'll she cost? $3K?
> ...



with 77mm filter threads and IS please...


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 14, 2014)

Zv said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



What can I say, the 17 TS-E is a $2,000 lens, moaning about a few hundred to get the best out of it seems silly. But the Fotodiox system I use is very reasonably priced, certainly puts the likes of B&W, Lee etc to shame.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 14, 2014)

Loren E said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Dianoda said:
> ...



The 16-35 II is already 82mm. Why on earth would they make it smaller when 82mm is turning into the new standard for the zooms? The 24-70 II is 82mm, and surely the 70-200 III (if ever made) would avail itself of that added surface area.

Eventually, I think 77mm filters will be relegated to 'one-step-down-from-priciest' L lenses, like the 17-40, 24-105, 24-70 F/4, etc.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Feb 14, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Loren E said:
> 
> 
> > with 77mm filter threads and IS please...
> ...



I hope not. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM is already a big lens, I hope Canon wouldn't make it any larger.

As far as I understand, the wide lenses got a larger wide element to help reduce vignetting, which is redundant on long lenses.


----------



## jonathan7007 (Feb 14, 2014)

I have a Sigma 12-24 v1 that is sharp (even at wide apertures) and is 99% free of barrel. A friend who shoots architecture recommended it a while back (he has a good copy too) and mine was great! I use it to compliment the 17TSE doing interiors.

However, I believe that the focus action now has a little extra friction between 5 feet and infinity. Just noticed this and the behavior I noticed was that the motor couldn't throw the lens out to a faraway object from the closest distances. I bring this up to point out that Sigma told me they do not have all the parts for the v1 model and couldn't guarantee they could fix it. Mine is so valuable to me I decided not to send it in and take any chances it would suffer from having this "fixed". Manual focus will work at its widest settings, anyway.

I noticed this on a 1-series body with the higher battery voltage, BTW, but need to test it on a different body, but this thread is about Canon's offerings and alternatives.


----------



## dlleno (Feb 14, 2014)

Loren E said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Dianoda said:
> ...



+1 to me a "16-50ish" F/4 IS with 77mm threads and IS would be very attractive, and would fit nicely into the current lineup without tromping on the 16-35 f/2.8 II which appears is here to stay. Sure f/2.8 would be nice but thats the job for a 16-35 III, imho. If such a lens really materializes with that long of a maximum FL, IS will be important even for candids, not to mention narrow aperture landscapes in a pinch where you don't have a tripod. I've even obtained some resonable results with handheld HDR -- with 6fps and a fast enough minimum shutter speed.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 14, 2014)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Loren E said:
> ...



Fair, but why on earth are the front elements of the white superteles so big? It's not just because they are rear-filtered. Surely, being able to pull in more light must contribute to the IQ in a positive way, right? Otherwise, why would they do it?

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 14, 2014)

dlleno said:


> Loren E said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



I see IS going on everything eventually. It's useful at any FL in low-light handheld conditions and videographers always seem to want it. Plus it's a chance for Canon to refresh and upcharge an existing lens design.

Further, it's so much easier (and lighter!) than making lenses a stop faster. One might imagine standard lenses of the future all being F/4 or F/2.8 with 6-7 stops of IS. 

- A


----------



## tron (Feb 14, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


The larger the diameter the faster the lens. In fact Diameter = (Focal Length) / Aperture. 

So fast lenses have large diameters of the front element...


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 14, 2014)

tron said:


> The larger the diameter the faster the lens. In fact Diameter = (Focal Length) / Aperture.



But still some lenses have a larger front than would be absolutely essential (example: 100L/2.8 @67mm & 100 non-L @58mm). 

A larger diameter might be required for a) the addition if IS, b) afaik it also results in a better bokeh and c) sometimes it's absolutely unecessary like with the 17-40L that could be smaller but is built to accept the "standard" 77mm filter size.


----------



## tron (Feb 14, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > The larger the diameter the faster the lens. In fact Diameter = (Focal Length) / Aperture.
> ...


Indeed, my Zeiss 21mm and my Canon TS-E 24mm II use 82mm filters but I guess this comes down to specific lens design. The question I answered however, was about the big white telephotos...


----------



## StudentOfLight (Feb 25, 2014)

tron said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



The maximum f-stop (focal ratio) is focal length divided by maximum aperture.

The aperture is the diameter of the iris opening *inside* the lens. This is equal to or smaller than the front element of the lens. The filter size is larger than the front element and the diameter of the lens is necessarily going to be wider to accommodate electronics and gearing for focusing and zooming etc...

e.g. 50m f/1.4 has an aperture of (50/1.4) = 35.7mm. The front element only slightly larger. The filter size is 58mm and the lens diameter is 73.7mm.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 26, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> The aperture is the diameter of the iris opening *inside* the lens.



No, don't confuse aperture with apparent aperture. The opening inside the lens, the actual gap in the aperture blades, can be much smaller, or bigger, than the apparent aperture. The apparent aperture is the one that determines lens speed and it is determined by its actual size *and* the magnification of that size by the lens elements. Look at this diagram of a Canon supertelephoto, the red arrow is the aperture mechanism and as you can see it is much much smaller than the front element. But look at the lens from the front and the apparent aperture will be the size of the front element.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 26, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> No, don't confuse aperture with apparent aperture. The opening inside the lens, the actual gap in the aperture blades, can be much smaller, or bigger, than the apparent aperture.



Thanks, I didn't know the "apparent aperture" term - but I read about the aperture size being independent to the f-stop on zoom lenses. When is the actual aperture *larger* than the apparent aperture - uwa lenses? Or has the relation apparent-real aperture nothing to do with the focal length and just relates to the lens' general design?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 26, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > No, don't confuse aperture with apparent aperture. The opening inside the lens, the actual gap in the aperture blades, can be much smaller, or bigger, than the apparent aperture.
> ...



The f stop value of a lens is defined by the focal length of the lens divided by the diameter of the objective lens (front element). so a 300mm lens with a 100mm front element has an f stop value of f2.8. That's how it works.
But in recent years, lens designers have over sized the front element to reduce vignetting. But the theoretical f stop value should change. T stop values are more accurate and based on actual light transmission through the lens. Ever noticed that wide aperture primes tend to under expose by a 1/3 stop when shot wide open? Often it's the difference between the F stop value and T stop value.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Feb 26, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > The aperture is the diameter of the iris opening *inside* the lens.
> ...



I have based my definition of aperture on Wikipedia's Aperture article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture#Maximum_and_minimum_apertures

It states that *"the aperture of an optical system is the opening that determines the cone angle of a bundle of rays that come to a focus in the image plane"*

I know that Wikipedia articles are community-driven so accuracy of the information might not be 100%, so by all means go ahead and modify it since you know that the information as represented is incorrect/incomplete/inaccurate.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 26, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> When is the actual aperture *larger* than the apparent aperture - uwa lenses?



I was just covering my butt! I suspect there are some unusual designs of lenses where this is true, but even looking at my 17TS-E, far and away the most extreme lens I own, it honours the apparent aperture "rule".



GMCPhotographics said:


> The f stop value of a lens is defined by the focal length of the lens divided by the diameter of the objective lens (front element). so a 300mm lens with a 100mm front element has an f stop value of f2.8. That's how it works.



Basically it is, for simple lens designs like telephotos, but take my 17TS-E, it should have a 68mm front element, I can't measure it to be any more than 64-65mm.



GMCPhotographics said:


> Ever noticed that wide aperture primes tend to under expose by a 1/3 stop when shot wide open? Often it's the difference between the F stop value and T stop value.



Not with TTL metering systems, the underexposure is due to uncollimated light hitting the sensor at angles it can't fully record, which is why it is worse the further off axis, vignetting. This wasn't as big a problem with film as it will expose to light from any direction, but there is so much stuff in front of the sensor that effectively blocks light that isn't nicely aligned; the metering is carried out in the pentaprism and is not affected by this phenomena. The entire point of TTL metering is to take into account all light loss due to lens extension, transmission values etc, the metering works out the exposure based on the light it is receiving, not the aperture value set and ignoring the T-stop or effective f-stop.



StudentOfLight said:


> I have based my definition of aperture on Wikipedia's Aperture article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture#Maximum_and_minimum_apertures
> 
> It states that *"the aperture of an optical system is the opening that determines the cone angle of a bundle of rays that come to a focus in the image plane"*
> 
> I know that Wikipedia articles are community-driven so accuracy of the information might not be 100%, so by all means go ahead and modify it since you know that the information as represented is incorrect/incomplete/inaccurate.



On the occasions I have edited Wikipedia it has been unedited by the people who got it wrong in the first place, so I don't bother.

But if you read this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture

You will get to this bit



> "In some contexts, especially in photography and astronomy, *aperture refers to the diameter of the aperture stop rather than the physical stop or the opening itself*. For example, in a telescope the aperture stop is typically the edges of the objective lens or mirror (or of the mount that holds it). One then speaks of a telescope as having, for example, a 100 centimeter aperture. Note that the aperture stop is not necessarily the smallest stop in the system. *Magnification and demagnification by lenses and other elements can cause a relatively large stop to be the aperture stop for the system.*"



Hope it helps.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Feb 26, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> On the occasions I have edited Wikipedia it has been unedited by the people who got it wrong in the first place, so I don't bother.
> 
> But if you read this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture
> 
> ...



Not really.


----------



## canonographer (Mar 13, 2014)

I got tired of waiting for an announcement and bought the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8.

Sorry Canon, maybe you can pull it together by the time I decide to get a new 50mm.


----------



## tron (Mar 13, 2014)

canonographer said:


> I got tired of waiting for an announcement and bought* the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8.*
> 
> Sorry Canon, maybe you can pull it together by the time I decide to get a new 50mm.


What kind of lens is it supposed to replace? If you wanted a 14mm Canon already has one.
If you wanted a new UWA zoom then the Rokinon 14mm clearly isn't.


----------



## canonographer (Mar 14, 2014)

tron said:


> canonographer said:
> 
> 
> > I got tired of waiting for an announcement and bought* the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8.*
> ...



Point taken, but unless you have unlimited funds, a lot of thought goes into buying a lens. I really wanted a new UWA lens. I've been anxiously awaiting word of what Canon might have to offer. A 16-50mm f/4 IS with 77 mm filter threads would have been a perfect fit for me. I'd heard it was one of the possibilities and have been waiting for an announcement to confirm or put it to rest for 9 months. Back in June the report was that they would announce within 6-8 months.

In any case, I got tired of waiting and bought the Rokinon. If it turns out that I like that lens and decide I don't need anything between 14mm and 24mm, Canon won't get my money for a new UWA. Incidentally, if they keep dragging their feet with their announcements, I'll probably get Sigma's 50mm too.


----------



## AUGS (Mar 14, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> _The f stop value of a lens is defined by the focal length of the lens divided by the diameter of the objective lens (front element). so a 300mm lens with a 100mm front element has an f stop value of f2.8. That's how it works._


I'm not sure you are correct. By this formula, the new 24-70LII has an f stop of about 24/64 = 0.375. But its a 2.8 lens. While the approximation approaches this as the focal length gets longer and the angle of view becomes narrower (telephotos and telescopes), it is not true for all focal lengths, and especially the wide angles.
My understanding is the f stop is calculated from the focal length divided by the apparent iris aperture via the optical formula of the lens (which includes all the magnifications of the optics).
I may be wrong, so I'd be happy to be corrected.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 15, 2014)

AUGS you are 100% correct.


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 15, 2014)

The trick here is you have to realize that optical designers can do very funny things with focal length, like making an 800mm lens that's only 461mm long, or "retrofocusing" design with an effective focal length that exists entirely outside the lens.
The "focal length divided by aperture" rule is true, but the definition of focal length is more than meets the eye.

I'm sure the video guys here would point out we would all be better off using T-stop anyway.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 18, 2014)

9VIII said:


> The trick here is you have to realize that optical designers can do very funny things with focal length, like making an 800mm lens that's only 461mm long, or "retrofocusing" design with an effective focal length that exists entirely outside the lens.
> The "focal length divided by aperture" rule is true, but the definition of focal length is more than meets the eye.
> 
> I'm sure the video guys here would point out we would all be better off using T-stop anyway.



The word "telephoto" indicates that a lens' focal length is longer than it's physical length. So a 135L is a telephoto lens, but a 85L isn't. Many photographer's assume that a "tele" indicates a longer focal length, but it doesn't. It is possible to have a fairly wide telephoto lens.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Apr 13, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > The trick here is you have to realize that optical designers can do very funny things with focal length, like making an 800mm lens that's only 461mm long, or "retrofocusing" design with an effective focal length that exists entirely outside the lens.
> ...



I learnt something today. So the 40mm pancake is in fact a telephoto lens. Who knew?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 17, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



Yup! While the 50mm f1.4 USM isn't a telephoto either!


----------

