# Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 15, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10422"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10422" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10422"></a></div>
<strong>New Ultrawide Zoom


</strong>There has been chatter about the possibilty of this lens since the day after Nikon announced their highly regarded 14-24 lens.</p>
<p>The latest is we’ll see this lens announced within the next 12 months. As always, nailing down lens announcement dates is near impossible with Canon. It was suggested that the EF 14-24 f/2.8L would be announced after the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x begins shipping, suspected late in 2012 or the first half of 2013.</p>
<p>An EF 14-24 f/2.8L would complete a pretty remarkable range of lenses in the Canon lineup along with the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II, EF 70-200 f/2.8L II & the unannounced EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x.</p>
<p>Could it also be filterable (with a very large ring) for a circular polarizer?</p>
<div id="attachment_10423" class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 510px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/1424patent.jpg"><img class="size-full wp-image-10423" title="1424patent" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/1424patent.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="300" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L Patent Example Diagram</p></div>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 15, 2012)

Awesome....I better start saving my $$$ NOW. I guess $2500-$3000

I took some shots with Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 with D800, I like this range more than Canon 16-35 II.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 15, 2012)

Hope this one becomes a reality. If IQ is similar to the Nikon version, I'll drop my 16-35mm f/2.8L II like a hot potato.


----------



## Etienne (Jun 15, 2012)

I'm coming around to wanting one of these, although mental blocks include:

Likely huge price
No front filters
Likely big and heavy (whereas 16-35 II is not a bad weight and size, and takes filters)

Must wait and see.


----------



## crasher8 (Jun 15, 2012)

I'll go FF for this Zoom Trinity wide.


----------



## lonelywhitelights (Jun 15, 2012)

"Could it also be filterable (with a very large ring) for a circular polarizer?"

don't think I'd want the wacky looking skies you would get using a CPL on something this wide


----------



## Vonbon (Jun 15, 2012)

Ken Rockwell said "Thou shalt not use polarizer for wide angle" 

but for grads, Lee SW150 System/ Lucroit-Hitech 165mm/ Cokin X-Pro are available while Singh-Ray makes filters for these three.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jun 15, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Awesome....I better start my saving $$$ NOW. I guess $2500-$3000




the nikon costs 1600 euro.... so i guess canon will sell it for 2400 euro.... :


----------



## akiskev (Jun 15, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> Could it also be filterable (with a very large ring) for a circular polarizer?


Using a circular polarizer on an UWA lens is tricky when shooting landscapes with a lot of sky in the frame. Have you ever tried it? Below 24mm you should be very careful and below 17mm* it is almost useless due to the noticeable difference in polarization angle. The variation in the "blueness" of the sky is horrid..
The increased saturation and the reduced distant haze it provides are very welcome, though.

*I'm talking about full frame of course.


----------



## trulandphoto (Jun 15, 2012)

Oh my. Not again. One of my dream lenses. 

At least the 40mm pancake is cheap. This one will not be. But I won't be happy until I have it.


----------



## traveller (Jun 15, 2012)

Surely if Canon wanted to enable usage of such a lens with filters, they would design it with a rear filter holder like the super-teles (or the new Pentax 25mm MF lens)?


----------



## FunPhotons (Jun 15, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Hope this one becomes a reality. If IQ is similar to the Nikon version, I'll drop my 16-35mm f/2.8L II like a hot potato.



Why? I find the 16-35 quite good and useful in that it gives me 35 mm. And it is weather sealed and takes filters, which I seriously doubt this will


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 15, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Hope this one becomes a reality. If IQ is similar to the Nikon version, I'll drop my 16-35mm f/2.8L II like a hot potato.



I wouldn't, but your style and needs as well as budget, I know, are quite different than mine and still, I am very happy to see this lens releasing for Canon systems. I wonder if this will best, the 14mm Canon prime *(I hear that currently, maybe someone can confirm, Canon's 14L prime is superior to the 14mm end of Nikon's 14-24 as well as superior to Nikon's 14mm primes???)* I think if I was willing to chop off the 35 mm end of the zoom, with an intention to pair it to a 24-70, that I would just go for a 14mm prime instead and save a little size and weight. I also don't like that the 14mm prime and the 14-24 lenses have unprotectable, aspherical front elements and I'm not at all convinced that leaving the house with just a 14-24 would be anywhere near as useful for many forms of photography as the same scenario with a 16-35. The 35mm end of the 16-35 is what lets the lens go from ultra wide angle, to a normal viewing angle. You can stick the 35mm end in someones face and get an intimate portrait that doesn't make them look like a mutant, not so with the 24.


----------



## KitsVancouver (Jun 15, 2012)

Jettatore said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Hope this one becomes a reality. If IQ is similar to the Nikon version, I'll drop my 16-35mm f/2.8L II like a hot potato.
> ...



I was just going to ask how many people would ditch their 16-35s for a 14-24. I will likely get the 14-24 at some point, but the 35 is very useful on the 16-35. Indoors where I shoot mostly my kids, I find I use 35 more than I do 16. There are not many instances when I wish I had wider than 16 either in the house or out. 

Thanks for the above post as it made me realize I need both lenses.


----------



## bp (Jun 15, 2012)

drool


----------



## t.linn (Jun 15, 2012)

ssan said:


> One can't really be bothered with blanket statements like that no matter who it comes from. I use a CPL on the ultra-wide angles (10-22 & 16-35L) all the time. Tell me if you see anything wrong with the sky:
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/h_ssan/6407001159/#lightbox/
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/h_ssan/6900330628/#lightbox/
> ...



I would actually argue that you _can_ make generalizations. That CPL's are problematic with ultra wide angle lenses is one I would agree with, even if there are exceptions. Everyone's tolerance is different but I would have probably dodged the dark band above the building in the first image. The CPL banding isn't bad but it's there. The skies in the second and fourth images don't work for me at all. To be clear, I'm not arguing that these are bad images or that there aren't benefits to your using a CPL for these shots; I'm saying that the generalization holds true.


----------



## ssan (Jun 15, 2012)

t.linn said:


> ssan said:
> 
> 
> > One can't really be bothered with blanket statements like that no matter who it comes from. I use a CPL on the ultra-wide angles (10-22 & 16-35L) all the time. Tell me if you see anything wrong with the sky:
> ...



It's always nice to get fresh feedback on things your own eyes might prefer not to see, so thank you for that. Personally though, I'd work towards perfecting my use of the filter on my wide angle as opposed to doing away with it entirely.


----------



## akiskev (Jun 15, 2012)

ssan nice pics. I said that it is tricky, not impossible. And I mentioned that I was talking about the sky, not the reflections.. Plus I was talking about below 17mm situations, as in 14-17mm.


----------



## drjlo (Jun 15, 2012)

Etienne said:


> I'm coming around to wanting one of these, although mental blocks include:
> 
> Likely huge price



I'm thinking more along the lines of Ginormous price. 

I'd much rather see full frame 14-24 f/4 lens that's smaller, lighter, sharper, and less expensive than current 16-35 II, i.e. at least as sharp as Tokina 11-16..


----------



## ssan (Jun 15, 2012)

akiskev said:


> ssan nice pics. I said that it is tricky, not impossible. And I mentioned that I was talking about the sky, not the reflections.. Plus I was talking about below 17mm situations, as in 14-17mm.



Thanks. But I was referring to the Rockwell quote.  And all those were taken with the 10-22mm on the widest end on a crop sensor (16mm equivalent?) so they're technically below 17mm.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 15, 2012)

YES! YES! YES! YES! YES!

The Lens that everyone has been wanting from canon! I'd so buy this over the 5D3. ;D


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 15, 2012)

According to 16-9's review, the Nikon 14-24 is better than the Canon 14mm II prime:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon14l2_nikon1424/nikon1424_canon14l2_a.html

Furthermore, IMHO primes are undesirable for landscapes in comparison to zooms; there are many situations where you can't change your FOV in landscape photography... zooms are indispensable in those scenarios.

I certainly hope that the past performances of Canon's ultra-wide zooms are not indicators for the quality of this rumored 14-24  But for now, I'm sticking to my Nikon 14-24 & Novoflex adapter, which gives stellar performance on my 5D Mark III. But, of course, this setup is impractical for event or fast-paced shooting scenarios.


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 15, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> According to 16-9's review, the Nikon 14-24 is better than the Canon 14mm II prime:
> http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon14l2_nikon1424/nikon1424_canon14l2_a.html
> 
> Furthermore, IMHO primes are undesirable for landscapes in comparison to zooms; there are many situations where you can't change your FOV in landscape photography... zooms are indispensable in those scenarios.
> ...



This very well may be the case depending. I've seen some test reviewers out there posting comparison shots that would go towards proving that if they didn't botch the test/camera settings somehow. But for whatever it's worth The Digital Picture's ISO tool tells a different story. It shows the 14-24 being much much stronger overall on it's 24mm end in general, and shows significantly worse corner distortion on it's 14/16mm end than either the Canon 14 prime or the Canon 16-35, -and then it has equal if not worse CA depending on where you look. Has arguably sharper center frame than the 14mm prime but both are suffering from some CA which is to my eye, what is causing a lack a sharpness. There is definitely a strong case to be made in both directions. I've heard Nikon's 16-35 f/4 VR is even better still for IQ, but again, from the tool comparison above, my eyes slightly prefer the 16-35LII. I would go out on a limb and say, that 'if' the above tests are reliable in any way, I would slightly prefer the 16-35 even in terms of IQ on the 16mm end, and the 14-24 Nikon easily winning these tests on the 24mm end. The test show the 16-35 performance beginning to improve again on the 35mm end.

I don't have any idea how useful this tool is for determining the finest qualities of a lens, but it is showing their abilities in some detail and overall, I would have to say, that absolutely none of this minutia matters whatsoever for my purposes. Needless to say, I'm happy Canon is bringing a 14-24 but I probably won't be in the market for one unless it does something amazing, at the very least it will be fun to rent and play with from time to time in the far future.


----------



## sovietdoc (Jun 15, 2012)

Canon enters the holy trinity.

And my Nikon friends kept telling me to get D800 because there is no canon 12-24 alternative. Hah.


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 15, 2012)

Even in the The Digital Picture's comparison tool, the mid-frame performance of the Nikon 14-24 at f/2.8 exceeds that of the Canon 16-35 at f/8.0 (minus CA). Extreme corners, yes, do not clean up until f/4 or f/5.6 on the Nikon. This pretty much mirrors what I've found in my real-world tests, though I had a weaker copy of the 16-35 & two 17-40s; the former took f/11-f/16 to sharpen up on the edges, & the 17-40s never sharpened up on at least one edge until f/18-f/22, at which point diffraction made the entire image softer.


----------



## DzPhotography (Jun 15, 2012)

I want one


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 15, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> Even in the The Digital Picture's comparison tool, the mid-frame performance of the Nikon 14-24 at f/2.8 exceeds that of the Canon 16-35 at f/8.0 (minus CA). Extreme corners, yes, do not clean up until f/4 or f/5.6 on the Nikon. This pretty much mirrors what I've found in my real-world tests, though I had a weaker copy of the 16-35 & two 17-40s; the former took f/11-f/16 to sharpen up on the edges, & the 17-40s never sharpened up on at least one edge until f/18-f/22, at which point diffraction made the entire image softer.



Yeah the mid-frame I agree, it 'appears' sharper, but that comes at the cost of some extra distortion and harsh CA. So in post you would either be removing CA on the Nikon or adding a touch of sharpening to the Canon to get either/both to an even crisper level. The ends on the Nikon as you say might clean up some at higher f stops but the stronger levels of distortion remains and I'm still seeing strong purple CA fringe on the left side and a tinge of green/yellow fringe on the right sides in areas of contrast even stopped at f/5.6 in the corners


----------



## FunPhotons (Jun 15, 2012)

ssan said:


> *My $0.02 Re: CPL on wide-angles*
> 
> One can't really be bothered with blanket statements like that no matter who it comes from. I use a CPL on the ultra-wide angles (10-22 & 16-35L) all the time. Tell me if you see anything wrong with the sky:



2 out of three that I spot checked have the polarization problem. My brain tells me that the sky is obviously one shade where the picture clearly have the too wide polarizer lopsided view. Nothing wrong with that if you like it, but I have one for my 16-35 and I never or rarely use it. I've seen enough shots with that effect that I recognize it instantly and it says 'amateurish' to me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all trying to call you an amateur, but I use ND Grads to create deep blue and even skies (just like I expect and like I see.)


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 15, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Hope this one becomes a reality. If IQ is similar to the Nikon version, I'll drop my 16-35mm f/2.8L II like a hot potato.



Before reading this I just talked to a Nikon guy who has shot weddings & events for a long time, he's doing macro work now. He was using the Nikon 24-70 and - of course - the 14-24. This is the typical Canon-Nikon conversation: 

"What, Canon doesn't have that?" - "Well, they've got a 16-35" - "I thought Nikon and Canon lenses were comparable" - "No, but Canon will follow eventually, but Canon is more expensive" - "I always thought Nikon was more expensive" - "No, It's been a couple of years since you looked, now it's the other way around". Doh.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jun 15, 2012)

Yes please!


----------



## Razor2012 (Jun 15, 2012)

Great news. It's ok if it takes another 18 months to a cpl of years to be released...I'm still saving for the 24-70II, lol. I doubt very much it will be cheap, but I don't want it to be either. If it's going to follow the 70-200 2.8II and the 24-70II, I want it to be superb.


----------



## JPL_1020 (Jun 15, 2012)

This and that....... So much for comparison between Nikon and Canon UW lenses.  It's hard to please people now a days. 

The good thing is that Canon is adding a new range in their lens line up, and thats all that matters for now. I'm really looking forward to the release of this lens. 8)


----------



## Lee Jay (Jun 15, 2012)

ssan said:


> *My $0.02 Re: CPL on wide-angles*
> 
> One can't really be bothered with blanket statements like that no matter who it comes from. I use a CPL on the ultra-wide angles (10-22 & 16-35L) all the time. Tell me if you see anything wrong with the sky:
> 
> ...



Some have just mild problems, others are quite bad.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jun 15, 2012)

I virtually never use a rectilinear ultra-wide anymore. I prefer my Sigma 15mm fisheye.

I've thought seriously about selling my 17-40L (which I consider to be a good lens, by the way) and I already gave away a 10-22 in favor of a Tokina 10-17 zoom fisheye. I've kept the 17-40L mostly because I already have it, and it's useful once in a great while.


----------



## Big E (Jun 15, 2012)

Oh man I would love this lens if it's anything like the Nikon version. 

Now I have a decision to make. Get a 10-22mm now have fun with it. When the 14-24 comes out see how it is and sell the 10-22 for it. Or wait for the 14-24 and get the 70-200 mkii and have fun with that.


----------



## Razor2012 (Jun 15, 2012)

Big E said:


> Oh man I would love this lens if it's anything like the Nikon version.
> 
> Now I have a decision to make. Get a 10-22mm now have fun with it. When the 14-24 comes out see how it is and sell the 10-22 for it. Or wait for the 14-24 and get the 70-200 mkii and have fun with that.



My vote is for the 70-200 2.8II.


----------



## iaind (Jun 15, 2012)

Willing to test it !


----------



## VASH1291 (Jun 15, 2012)

This is the only focal length I wish Canon would release soon ;D


----------



## Razor2012 (Jun 15, 2012)

VASH1291 said:


> This is the only focal length I wish Canon would release soon ;D



After the 24-70II.


----------



## sovietdoc (Jun 15, 2012)

already put off $3500 in my bank account for this lens. hopefully that will cover it


----------



## Woody (Jun 15, 2012)

Finally!

I guess this may well be part of the Nikon-Canon patent swapping rumors we read about some time back.

Now, we'll like to see Canon make some headway in the low ISO sensor dynamic range department for non-Exmor sensors.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 15, 2012)

sovietdoc said:


> already put off $3500 in my bank account for this lens. hopefully that will cover it



Yeap....put that money in the saving NOW. If the new lens is good as Nikon ver or better, I'll drop my 16-35 II and go wider ;D


----------



## infared (Jun 16, 2012)

Double Drool......if this lens appears and competes with the Nikon...then my 16-35mm II is on the block and I am buying one. Period!!!!


----------



## dstppy (Jun 16, 2012)

You forgot to post the obligatory $1900 price tag 

This sounds like a very good FF lens and a wicked crop-body lens . . . seriously though, if we're super lucky it'll be $1400


----------



## Ricku (Jun 16, 2012)

Woody said:


> Now, we'll like to see Canon make some headway in the low ISO sensor dynamic range department for non-Exmor sensors.


I'm afraid that this recipe is something that Nikon / Sony won't share with others. 

Canon will probably have to find their own solution when it comes to improving their sensor tech.

Until then, I'll be sticking with my 5D2.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 16, 2012)

The big issue with the 14-24 is flare. With the lens protruding out so far, it reaches out and grabs flare that you would not normally expect. This makes it rather specalized, and requires some careful setup and planning. The results can be worth it, but its not a lens to just walk out and start shooting, you really have to watch out for the flare. You often will not see it thru the viewfinder, only when you start editing the images and find it where it was not expected.


----------



## D_Rochat (Jun 16, 2012)

dstppy said:


> You forgot to post the obligatory $1900 price tag
> 
> This sounds like a very good FF lens and a wicked crop-body lens . . . seriously though, if we're super lucky it'll be $1400



By the way Canon has been pricing new lenses and compared to what the Nikon 14-24 is priced at, I'll eat my camera and film it if it's even close to $1400. I'm expecting no less than $2000.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 16, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> By the way Canon has been pricing new lenses and compared to what the Nikon 14-24 is priced at, I'll eat my camera and film it if it's even close to $1400. I'm expecting no less than $2000.



I'm expecting a lot more than $2000 because in contrast to a midrange zoom like the 24-70, an uwa zoom is a specialist lens - so people wanting this over the 16-35L will know what they want it for and will be ready to pay a lot.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jun 16, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> Yes please!



For the record, I'd rather have the ef 20mm f1.8L.


----------



## spinworkxroy (Jun 16, 2012)

I don't know..but somehow i'm not too excited about this lens..It's "specialized" in a way to me..14-24 is a small zoom range and it is VERY wide. Yes, it will fit in nicely with the zoom trinity..but that also means you'll have to carry around super heavy f2.8 glass with a equally heavy FF body...
That was one reason why i didn't go 16-35 and went for 17-40...i wanted a wide yet light enough lens to be a nice walkabout lens as well in times where i'm not specifically going to shoot landscapes.


----------



## MarkWebbPhoto (Jun 16, 2012)

I've been waiting for this lens for some time, the 16-35mm lens has lots of distortion and the corners are crap. The good part is that the front lens element sits nice and safe behind an optional protective uv filter. The front lens element on Nikons 14-24 has no protection. I've seen a few of them get banged up. One part of me wants the lens and another part of me thinks that I'll spend all of my money on it, put it on a second body, and then I sling the camera to my side as I always do with my 5D2 and 16-35 and I bump a table. The hood and filter on the 16-35 saves me all the time but the protruding element on a 12-24 would be at a high risk. The lens would definitely be around 2k so this is a very tough call.


----------



## nda (Jun 16, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> Daniel Flather said:
> 
> 
> > Yes please!
> ...



What the hell is that, and were do i get one?


----------



## dirtcastle (Jun 16, 2012)

spinworkxroy said:


> I don't know..but somehow i'm not too excited about this lens..It's "specialized" in a way to me..14-24 is a small zoom range and it is VERY wide. Yes, it will fit in nicely with the zoom trinity..but that also means you'll have to carry around super heavy f2.8 glass with a equally heavy FF body...
> That was one reason why i didn't go 16-35 and went for 17-40...i wanted a wide yet light enough lens to be a nice walkabout lens as well in times where i'm not specifically going to shoot landscapes.



Personally, I wouldn't say 14-24mm is a tiny range. It could replace a 14mm and a 24mm in many shooter's bags (as is the case with the Nikon 14-24mm). But the range is narrow enough (and wide enough) that it might not pair up as well with other lenses, as a 16-35mm or a 17-40mm does.

I'm guessing a price of at least $2500.

What's this about Canon/Nikon patent swap rumors?


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 16, 2012)

spinworkxroy said:


> I don't know..but somehow i'm not too excited about this lens..It's "specialized" in a way to me..14-24 is a small zoom range and it is VERY wide. Yes, it will fit in nicely with the zoom trinity..but that also means you'll have to carry around super heavy f2.8 glass with a equally heavy FF body...
> That was one reason why i didn't go 16-35 and went for 17-40...i wanted a wide yet light enough lens to be a nice walkabout lens as well in times where i'm not specifically going to shoot landscapes.



My 2cents: the price tag on 16-35 makes people select 17-40, NOT the size and weight


----------



## Etienne (Jun 16, 2012)

Why so much bad talk about the 16-35 2.8L II. It is not a perfect lens, but it rarely let's me down. It's the lens I use the most, and I frequently use it as a walk around, even more than my 24-105.

I also find that a cp is not really needed for blue skies on the UW lens, they usually turn out quite blue without it. Maybe to get rid of reflections, but mostly use the CP on the 24-105, and occasionally on the 70-200.

I'll wait and see on the 14-24. I'm a little concerned about size, weight and price, and will it really deliver that much more than my very convenient, and pretty damn good 16-35 ? By the time it's released there might be an improved samyang 14 2.8 with a chip and no mustache for $500


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 16, 2012)

> Why so much bad talk about the 16-35 2.8L II. It is not a perfect lens, but it rarely let's me down.



Because for landscapes that you may wish to print large, it's not even in the same league as the Nikon 14-24. It's orders of magnitude worse. I've tested 4 Nikon 14-24 lenses all of which with their collective copy variability still, at f/5.6, outperform any of the 16-35 & 17-40 lenses I've tested at f/11 (in edge-to-edge sharpness). 

If edge-to-edge sharpness is not important to you, then, by all means, the Nikon 14-24 is a waste of money, weight & protruding front element


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jun 16, 2012)

dstppy said:


> You forgot to post the obligatory $1900 price tag
> 
> This sounds like a very good FF lens and a wicked crop-body lens . . . seriously though, if we're super lucky it'll be $1400



Considering Canon isn't shy sticking high prices on new lenses, and that the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 is priced at $2000, I think it's safe to assume an EF 14-24mm f/2.8 L would cost as much.

Actually, I think that if Canon priced the EF 14-24mm f/2.8 L much lower than the Nikkor, people will suspect it must be optically or otherwise much inferior to the Nikkor.


----------



## chabotc (Jun 16, 2012)

This would so completely my dream team of lenses, I'd buy one the moment it's available.

The new 24-70 2.8 II looks sharp enough on paper to actually be useful to me (personally I chose to lug around a bunch of primes over depending on the 24-70 2.8, so it'll make a huge difference to be if it turns out to be as good as the charts say), the 70-200 2.8 II is obviously a smashingly good lens as well that I'd never hesitate to use - the only thing that's missing is a really great wide angle zoom.

Right now I'm depending on my 14mm 2.8, which you know, is decent enough, but we all also know it doesn't hold a candle to Nikon's 14-24 2.8's sharpness or versatility.

So yes, a hundred times yes


----------



## infared (Jun 16, 2012)

I will buy this lens..but it will be at least $2000. I suspect more with the outrageous increase coming out of Canon Japan on camera bodies and lenses. I would expect $2400 or higher.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 16, 2012)

infared said:


> I will buy this lens..but it will be at least $2000. I suspect more with the outrageous increase coming out of Canon Japan on camera bodies and lenses. I would expect $2400 or higher.



I hope Canon doesn't read this - or it will be $3000+ or as much as they can possibly get away with, looking at the huge amount of photogs who have been waiting this for years.


----------



## infared (Jun 16, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > I will buy this lens..but it will be at least $2000. I suspect more with the outrageous increase coming out of Canon Japan on camera bodies and lenses. I would expect $2400 or higher.
> ...



Well...if they are charging $2300 for the 24-70mm.... I KNOW this is going to cost more. Undoubtedly. I am still trying to recover for the $3500 I just laid out for the MkIII. Thank God for eBay and a lot of willing buyers for my 5DII and accessories. I just hope that if Canon produces a 14-24 that it is exceptional as the NIkon appears to be. Canon has had a LOT of weakness in the WA zoom area in the past for full-frame zooms. I have my fingers crossed on this one. And I have more than a year to put the pennies in the piggie bank!!!!!


----------



## Danielle (Jun 16, 2012)

I thought the nikonians had been paying about $2500 for their 14-24 anyway. I'd personally expect at least that from canon, and if its actually turns out to be better, it may well be something around $3000.

Still half exciting though.


----------



## Ricku (Jun 16, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> I hope Canon doesn't read this - or it will be $3000+ or as much as they can possibly get away with, looking at the huge amount of photogs who have been waiting this for years.


Of course they can get away with it, and they will! Just look at the 5D3 vs D800 pricetag. Canon did get away with that just fine, even though the D800 is arguably a better camera with a sensor that blows the 5D3 halfway across the galaxy.

As long as canonites continue to bend over, Canon will get away with their crazy pricing.


----------



## JEAraman (Jun 16, 2012)

I'm sold!


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 16, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> > Why so much bad talk about the 16-35 2.8L II. It is not a perfect lens, but it rarely let's me down.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not doubting you are trying to put you on the spot, but do you have any comparison samples handy to illustrate this? Also, from your 1st hand experience, would you comment on the ISO Chart Tests from The Digital Picture that was posted earlier in the thread and how that compares to your direct findings?


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jun 16, 2012)

nda said:


> Daniel Flather said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Flather said:
> ...



You get them at te same place as the new 200-400.


----------



## photophreek (Jun 16, 2012)

I agree with Neuro, 14-24L in the bag and 16-35L II out and I have a very sharp copy of this lens according to my eyes. 

For all those responders hoping for a $2000 price tag.....get ready and start saving now. IMHO, this lens will be $2500 or more.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jun 16, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The big issue with the 14-24 is flare. With the lens protruding out so far, it reaches out and grabs flare that you would not normally expect. This makes it rather specalized, and requires some careful setup and planning. The results can be worth it, but its not a lens to just walk out and start shooting, you really have to watch out for the flare. You often will not see it thru the viewfinder, only when you start editing the images and find it where it was not expected.



For all insensitive porpoises, the TS-E 24mm doesn't have any lens flare. Even straight into the Sun. (Well, okay, there's one veeeery thin faint ring. But no loss of contrast.)

I think it's safe to assume that the same engineers who figured out how to get rid of flare on the 24 will be the ones designing the 12-24, and I'd expect them to improve on their already-unbelievable performance with the 24.

And, no. This lens will not be cheap. It'll be more expensive than either the 24-70 or the 70-200, probably by 10% - 15%.

Personally, I don't expect to buy this lens. Generally, when I want wide, I want movements...I'd get the TS-E 17mm to supplement my TS-E 24mm before I got a 12-24, and I'd only do that if I felt the 24 wasn't wide enough. Considering that 24 still feels like the perfect perspective for my wide-angle stuff, I don't expect that to happen for a long time (though, if I started doing architecture or real estate or the like, I could see that changing).

I've got the 16-35, but I don't use it as much as I thought I might. For me, it's best suited for comedic stuff, like closeup shots of Shriner cars in a parade. That sort of thing is fun, but one only needs so much fun of that type....

And 12mm? I know there're people who put something that insanely wide to good use, but I'm not one of 'em.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 16, 2012)

> I'm not doubting you are trying to put you on the spot, but do you have any comparison samples handy to illustrate this? Also, from your 1st hand experience, would you comment on the ISO Chart Tests from The Digital Picture that was posted earlier in the thread and how that compares to your direct findings?


No problem. Please view the following images at 100% by following the links. All images are taken on my Canon 5D Mark III. The Nikon lens was mounted via a Novoflex adapter.

Here's the Nikon 14-24 at f/2.8 (left) vs. the Canon 16-35 at f/11 (right); first, we'll look at the left side of the frame, middle of the image vertically (i.e. this is not a corner):






Full size image here: http://f.cl.ly/items/2X0R0Z3n2F0M2y1T1T0n/Nikon14-24_vs_Canon16-35_Left.jpg

Now, here's the right side of the frame, middle of the image vertically:




Full size image here: http://f.cl.ly/items/3y0o3e391v352M1O3K26/Nikon14-24_vs_Canon16-35_Right.jpg

As you can see, f/2.8 on the Nikon lens is significantly sharper than f/11 on the Canon lens, *on both sides of the frame*. Meaning, this isn't even a decentering issue.

Now, I could show you the f/2.8 comparisons, but that would just be mean 

As for the the-digital-picture's findings, I find it completely consistent with my findings. If you look at the 'mid-frame' portions, the Canon lens doesn't sharpen up until f/8. The Nikon lens is already sharp at mid-frame at f/2.8 (in fact, at *f/2.8* it's sharper mid-frame than the 16-35 *ever* gets, at *f/8* or *f/11*), with CA disappearing by f/4 to f/5.6. 

In the extreme corners, the Nikon 14-24 at f/5.6 is sharper than the Canon 16-35 *ever* gets. In fact, it's so sharp at f/5.6 in the corner that by f/8 you're already seeing diffraction-induced softness.


----------



## moreorless (Jun 16, 2012)

As far as CPL's on ultrawides go there are many situations where your not going to have the sky in the frame, looking to take the reflections off a specific part of a body of water for example...

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/3899/walesreflectionssmall.jpg

Perhaps one route to take with filters might to be have a petal hood but allow it to be unscrewable with the option to replace it with a filter holder with a normal filter thread. Something like this but smaller because it wouldnt need to go over the petal hood...


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 16, 2012)

Ricku said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > I hope Canon doesn't read this - or it will be $3000+ or as much as they can possibly get away with, looking at the huge amount of photogs who have been waiting this for years.
> ...



-1...sony sensor has Pros and Cons. Same for Canon


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 16, 2012)

Well, since we're on the subject, here's the Nikon 14-24 vs. the Canon 16-35 II both at f/2.8:





Full-size image here: http://cl.ly/HQaY/Nikon14-24_vs_Canon16-35_f2.8_Left.jpg

I told you it wasn't going to be pretty 

If this were a copy variation thing (which I doubt, given all other comparisons on the 'net, e.g.: http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon1424_17mm/nikon1424_17mm1.html), then one should wonder how this unit made it past QC. I've also tested a number of 17-40s, used to own one as well, & saw similar performance, which is why I got rid of them all.

FYI, here's what copy variability looks like between my friend's & my Nikon 14-24 lenses at f/2.8, extreme left edge of the frame (mid-section vertically):





Full-size image here: http://f.cl.ly/items/1O0k1E0X0D3Z1y3G0c1X/Nikon14-24_CopyVariation_f2.8-Left.png

And now extreme right edge of the frame (mid-section vertically):




Full-size image here: http://f.cl.ly/items/2l2V1c0D0V3o1K0u130e/Nikon14-24_CopyVariation_f2.8-Right.png

I've tested 4 different Nikon 14-24s; so now let's look at the the *biggest difference between copies* of the 14-24 I've seen (in terms of decentering issues). Again, please view images at 100% by following the link. 

Left edge, middle of frame vertically, f/2.8:




Full-size image here: http://cl.ly/HRUJ/Nikon14-24_CopyVariation2_f2.8-Left.jpg

Right edge, middle of frame vertically, f/2.8:




Full-size image here: http://cl.ly/HSLa/Nikon14-24_CopyVariation2_f2.8-Right.jpg

As you can see, one lens is better on the left, the other better on the right. But all pretty acceptable for f/2.8, given sharpness differences clear up by f/5.6. 

This sort of performance is something Canon UWA zoom users can only dream of. Let's hope Canon fixes that w/ this rumored 14-24.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 16, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> > I'm not doubting you are trying to put you on the spot, but do you have any comparison samples handy to illustrate this? Also, from your 1st hand experience, would you comment on the ISO Chart Tests from The Digital Picture that was posted earlier in the thread and how that compares to your direct findings?
> 
> 
> No problem. Please view the following images at 100% by following the links. All images are taken on my Canon 5D Mark III. The Nikon lens was mounted via a Novoflex adapter.
> ...



+1....I agreed. Friend of mine has D800 + 14-24mm. Yes...his 14-24mm is much sharper than my 16-35 II.

That's why I was hoping Canon can respond to this lens. As a wide angle lens, 14-24 seems to be better.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 16, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> This sort of performance is something Canon UWA zoom users can only dream of. Let's hope Canon fixes that w/ this rumored 14-24.



Omg - this is brutal and lets the 16-35L look like a p&s lens. And considering the price of the 16-35L2, it gets even worse. If I need an uwa now, I guess I'm better off with one of the efs lenses (Canon 10-22, Tamron 11-16)...


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 16, 2012)

Thanks Sarangiman,

I'm not quite sure what to do with those comparisons, with widely different settings. Were you handheld or on a tri-pod for these? Something(s) seems a bit off, I would say hopefully non-offensively, that this samples makes both lenses seem unimpressive (please don't take any offense to that, as none is intended).

I'm posting a recent sample from the Canon 16-35II shot handheld on a 5D (classic) @35mm, f/11, ISO 1600 with a fast shutter of 1/1600 s. I'm posting a full resolution sample .jpg that was originally shot in RAW and slightly tweaked in Adobe Camera Raw.

This shot was never meant as any sort of test of this lens and I don't expect it to impress anyone, or to drip the last drop of quality out of the lens, I was just walking around and snapping some pictures, it's not the best shot technically or artistically and the noise at ISO 1600 on my camera likely degrade the sharpness slightly, but I thought it might be useful to post as I had it handy.

http://i.minus.com/ibayVUvqc4tBP0.jpg (10MB)

Here is another image from the same day, this time a smaller file size and shot at the 16mm end.
f/2.8, 1/1250, ISO 100


----------



## D_Rochat (Jun 16, 2012)

Jettatore said:


> Thanks Sarangiman,
> 
> I'm not quite sure what to do with those comparisons, with widely different settings. Were you handheld or on a tri-pod for these? Something(s) seems a bit off, I would say hopefully non-offensively, that this samples makes both lenses seem unimpressive (please don't take any offense to that, as none is intended).
> 
> ...



Looks good and I think that might be an interesting high contrast b&w. What are the blotches from on the top part of the image?


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 17, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> Looks good and I think that might be an interesting high contrast b&w. What are the blotches from on the top part of the image?



Thanks, I'll give that B&W conversion a try and post the results. The blotches are quite probably smudges of gunk on my lens filter.


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 17, 2012)

> I'm not quite sure what to do with those comparisons, with widely different settings. Were you handheld or on a tri-pod for these? Something(s) seems a bit off, I would say hopefully non-offensively, that this samples makes both lenses seem unimpressive (please don't take any offense to that, as none is intended).



What exactly do you mean by widely different settings? If you speak of the flare on the Canon lens -- that's simply b/c the sun had set further during the time between shots on the Nikon vs. the Canon. But sharpness is still quite easy to judge. If you're talking about my different apertures-- that was the whole point: that at f/2.8 the Nikon lens exceeds f/11 performance on the Canon. Additionally, I posted both f/2.8 lenses.

These are all taken on a tripod.

I also don't see anything unimpressive about the Nikon shots... care to clarify? The Nikon shots are pretty much sharp edge to edge!

Your shot looks good, but it doesn't speak to the edge-to-edge performance of the lens. You have continually varying distance of subject from the bottom of the frame to the top, with not much/any detail for comparison at the top (mostly just sky). My tests were designed to evaluate the flat field performance of the lens, something of interest typically to landscape photographers. And my tests are hardly showing anything surprising or new for those of who've actually compared the performance of the Nikon 14-24 against lesser lenses. For example, the guys over at 16-9.net.

Also keep in mind: often a wide angle lens can't maintain focus at infinity across the field (when you've intended to focus at infinity) because of field curvature. This'll often result in closer subjects coming in to focus around the edges if you focused the center at infinity. Therefore your image with subjects of varying distance is not indicative of the ability of the lens to focus on distant landscapes across the field-of-view.

Also remember that a 12MP camera will not show defects as well as a 22MP camera, or 36MP, etc.


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 17, 2012)

> Here is another image from the same day, this time a smaller file size and shot at the 16mm end.
> f/2.8, 1/1250, ISO 100



Even at that small image size, I can see incredible softness on the sides... and even well into the frame from the sides.

So, no surprises.

And, again, none of these shots speak to the flat field ability of the lens. Which is where the Nikon shines.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 17, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> dstppy said:
> 
> 
> > You forgot to post the obligatory $1900 price tag
> ...



Wouldn't this logic also apply to Nikon bodies being cheaper than Canon

If the Canon 14-24 came in $500 less than the Nikon would there be a stream of Nikon users swapping to Canon ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 17, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> > I'm not quite sure what to do with those comparisons, with widely different settings. Were you handheld or on a tri-pod for these? Something(s) seems a bit off, I would say hopefully non-offensively, that this samples makes both lenses seem unimpressive (please don't take any offense to that, as none is intended).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Specifically there is a very large difference in shutter speeds between your two comparisons, any little movement or instability on your Canon side of testing could easily impact sharpness to a much larger extent then the Nikon side of the test (I see that all of the cars have motion blur on the Canon test which had a much slower shutter. That's why I asked if you were handheld or not. Also there seems to be a lack of clarity in detail to an extent that I find uncharacteristic of the 16-35 from my own personal use.

I suspect perhaps in camera noise reduction as well as perhaps .jpg shooting are being used (or some other sort of in-optimal post processing), but that's just a guess. Something about the characteristics of the pavement suggest some sort of processing/filtering going on that isn't working out too well. I like to have Noise Reduction in camera turned off completely and shoot in RAW personally.

The Nikon shots in your test are sharper than the Canon shots, but on it's own, outside of this comparison I wouldn't call those results 'sharp'. Chromatic aberrations are all over the shot, hampering it's sharpness to my eyes. To me it's apparent on the street pavement details as well as the safety rail (look for reddish tints if you are having trouble seeing what I'm seeing, it's noticeable on the shadows of the safety rail and elsewhere, at least to me). There's also a lack of contrast in fine details from this image, which comes unexpected at ISO 100.

Perhaps each lens needs to be learned and set individually to pull out it's real world strengths rather than trying to compare them in any sort of controlled or uncontrolled way just to make them compete.


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 17, 2012)

> Specifically there is a very large difference in shutter speeds between your two comparisons, any little movement or instability on your Canon side of testing could easily impact sharpness to a much larger extent then the Nikon side of the test



Easy to disprove... here's the center portion of that Canon f/11 image:





Full-size image here: http://cl.ly/HQcB/Canon16-35_f11_Center.jpg

Tack sharp. Which I'd expect w/ mirror lock-up, 2s delay, Gitzo 2541 carbon fiber tripod w/ RRS BH-40 ball head.

Also, note that I did post the Canon f/2.8 shot (1/250s) side-by-side w/ the Nikon f/2.8 shot (1/320s). Hope you're not trying to say that 1/3EV longer shutter speed screwed over the Canon shot 



> Also there seems to be a lack of clarity in detail to an extent that I find uncharacteristic of the 16-35 from my own personal use.



As I mentioned, that's due to flare b/c I was shooting into the sun. And these are converted RAWs w/ no tone curve applied.



> I suspect perhaps in camera noise reduction as well as perhaps .jpg shooting are being used



Absolutely not. All shots are RAW & processed in exactly the same manner. Shot on the same body (5D Mark III). The only thing uncontrolled about this test is the flare. I could've redone the comparison on a flat cloudy day like I usually do for my tests (not hard to find in Seattle!), but the results were so overwhelmingly obvious that I didn't bother.



> The Nikon shots in your test are sharper than the Canon shots, but on it's own, outside of this comparison I wouldn't call those results 'sharp'. Chromatic aberrations are all over the shot, hampering it's sharpness to my eyes.



CA is rather easily removed in LR/ACR. And all my Nikon shots are at f/2.8. CA cleans up by f/5.6. No extra sharpening applied besides the default ACR setting of 25. Out of curiosity, are you used to seeing pixel-level detail on 21-22MP RAW files, or have you only worked w/ the 12MP 5D? Because those examples are pretty tack sharp, especially for edges, at f/2.8, with no extra sharpening applied... I could show you the center, which is even better, but that's not the point of this comparison.



> There's also a lack of contrast in fine details from this image, which comes unexpected at ISO 100.


As for lack of contrast, these are RAW files, with no contrast adjustments done at all & just default ACR sharpening (25) applied, so, naturally they are flat. 



> Perhaps each lens needs to be learned and set individually to pull out it's real world strengths rather than trying to compare them in any sort of controlled or uncontrolled way just to make them compete.



I wanted an unbiased test of sharpness between these two lenses, & that's all this test was. No more, no less. To me, the results speak for themselves, and *everything* was controlled for save for the flare due to the sun setting. If I were publishing this as a review, yes, I would've redone the shots on a cloudy day where the lighting was not an added variable.


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 17, 2012)

BTW, feel free to PM me if you want links to the original RAW files.


----------



## Woody (Jun 17, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> This sort of performance is something Canon UWA zoom users can only dream of. Let's hope Canon fixes that w/ this rumored 14-24.



The fact that Canon EF-S 10-22 beats the c**p out of Nikon DX 10-24 gives us some hope that Canon will be able to pull off some magic with this rumored 14-24. Canon's EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 and recent EF 24-70 f/2.8 II further prove they are capable of great things.

The only issue as far as I can tell is cost.


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 17, 2012)

> The fact that Canon EF-S 10-22 beats the c**p out of Nikon DX 10-24 gives us some hope that Canon will be able to pull off some magic with this rumored 14-24. Canon's EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 and recent EF 24-70 f/2.8 II further prove they are capable of great things.



Haven't tried those lenses but I suppose I should mention that I've been quite happy w/ the edge-to-edge performance of my 24-70L (version I). The 70-200 f/2.8L II is stunning. I'm not saying that Canon is incapable of making amazing lenses; that'd be an irresponsible blanket statement. I'm just staying that their 16-35 & 17-40 lenses do not stack up against the competition. Not even close.

Oh, and please, please start using 9-blade apertures in *all* your lenses Canon.


----------



## D_Rochat (Jun 17, 2012)

I have no doubt that if Canon produces this lens, it will be nothing short of amazing. I just wonder how long it would be before we see something like this hit the stores.

For using the Nikkor 14-24 on a Canon, is it only af that you lose?


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 17, 2012)

> For using the Nikkor 14-24 on a Canon, is it only af that you lose?



You also have to manually adjust aperture. Metering works pretty reliably for well-lit scenes, but starts to fail in dim lighting or at small apertures (both of which result in less light reaching the exposure sensor, which is why it starts to fail... you have to be within the linear operating range of the meter for it to function properly).

I've found that metering is more reliable in Live View mode, but also fails at very small apertures or when the lighting is extremely dim. That being said, I haven't found this to be a huge issue b/c we're not shooting film here  You can re-evaluate the exposure after you've taken the shot!

The Novoflex adapter that allows you to control the aperture will also set you back ~$250 or so.


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 17, 2012)

sarangiman,

This is getting too complicated for my tastes so I won't fully respond. Thank you for the clarifications/corrections on your settings, though I don't feel that even the center Canon shot you posted is tack sharp or any representation of what the lens is capable of, I have this lingering hunch that somethings altogether are off in both images... I am used to both 18MP crop body shots and 12MP full frame shots. I would like to see the RAW file of the Canon if you wouldn't mind sending it.


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 17, 2012)

> though I don't feel that even the center Canon shot you posted is tack sharp or any representation of what the lens is capable of, I have this lingering hunch that somethings altogether are off in both images...



Yeah I'm not sure how to respond at this point either, since that center crop is pretty much as sharp as I see for any lens at an ACR sharpening setting of 25 (default). I have a feeling you're not liking it b/c of the flare... but I just sent you a PM w/ both RAW files, so you can sharpen & adjust contrast to your heart's content


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 17, 2012)

Thank you sarangiman, cheers.


----------



## Etienne (Jun 17, 2012)

Jettatore said:


> Thank you sarangiman, cheers.



Good god ... you guys can go on forever analysing one photo ...

... there are a ton of reviews on both of these lenses, much more in depth than this one photo taken at different settings can ever provide.

Go to photozone.de for a starter.

It's no secret that the Nikon is sharper than the Canon. But it also flares more easily, it's heavier, more expensive and it doesn't go to 35 mm. The Canon is cheaper, lighter and more versatile.

Pick your weapon and get to work. 

Otherwise you'll have to wait for the Canon to see how it performs.


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 17, 2012)

> ... there are a ton of reviews on both of these lenses, much more in depth than this one photo taken at different settings can ever provide.



How were my photos taken 'at different settings'?



> Go to photozone.de for a starter.



Yup, photozone's numbers are great, & I'm a firm believer in quantitation. But side-by-side images can sometimes tell you what those numbers mean in your imaging system. Which is why I performed the test on my own to begin with. It's just one way of representing the data, & was particularly helpful to me anyway.


----------



## Radiating (Jun 17, 2012)

This would be a seriously amazing lens to have from Canon.

Combine that with releases of a 35mm 1.4L + 50mm 1.4L & 135mm 1.8 L IS and I would be totally content.


----------



## aznable (Jun 17, 2012)

Woody said:


> The fact that Canon EF-S 10-22 beats the c**p out of Nikon DX 10-24 gives us some hope that Canon will be able to pull off some magic with this rumored 14-24. Canon's EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 and recent EF 24-70 f/2.8 II further prove they are capable of great things.
> 
> The only issue as far as I can tell is cost.



and it's beaten by tokina and sigma latest wide angle aps-c zooms...so sigma and tokina are better than canon and nikon in order to deliver aps-c wide zooms? dont think so; it depens which are specs/target price they want to deliver to market.

when they wanted to deliver a superior 70-200 they did, i amconfident they are doing with the new 24-70 and maybe they will do with a fast wide angle zoom...of course the superior quality comes at a PRICE, but this is true for every manufacturer


----------



## Ricku (Jun 17, 2012)

Radiating said:


> This would be a seriously amazing lens to have from Canon.
> 
> Combine that with releases of a 35mm 1.4L + *50mm 1.4L* & 135mm 1.8 L IS and I would be totally content.


Yes, but 50mm 1.4L? 

1.4?


----------



## dirtcastle (Jun 17, 2012)

While it's always appreciated to see example shots, I think we should be able to agree that one person's images don't make a definitive argument for or against a lens. 

Even DxO is controversial.


----------



## Woody (Jun 17, 2012)

aznable said:


> and it's beaten by tokina and sigma latest wide angle aps-c zooms...so sigma and tokina are better than canon and nikon in order to deliver aps-c wide zooms?



That's not my point. I am trying to repudiate the common belief that Canon is incapable of producing decent wide angle lenses.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 17, 2012)

Woody said:


> aznable said:
> 
> 
> > and it's beaten by tokina and sigma latest wide angle aps-c zooms...so sigma and tokina are better than canon and nikon in order to deliver aps-c wide zooms?
> ...



I understand.

Try the TSE-17 and TSE-24 ....


----------



## aznable (Jun 17, 2012)

Woody said:


> aznable said:
> 
> 
> > and it's beaten by tokina and sigma latest wide angle aps-c zooms...so sigma and tokina are better than canon and nikon in order to deliver aps-c wide zooms?
> ...



yes i know you didnt want to say that...i tried to advance one or two step further reasons of your, in my bad english (sorry but i am italian and i am not talented for foreign languages)


----------



## Radiating (Jun 17, 2012)

Ricku said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > This would be a seriously amazing lens to have from Canon.
> ...



Maybe a 1.3, but no manufacturer has ever been able to create a sharp 50mm lens that's faster than f/ 1.4 for full frame. Canon would be well off to lower the aperture and increase the image quality like they did from the 50mm f/1.0 L.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 17, 2012)

Radiating said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > Radiating said:
> ...



Hmm, my 50L is tack sharp wide open. I don't believe there are any other aspherical 50mms for SLR that is sharper.


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 18, 2012)

> While it's always appreciated to see example shots, I think we should be able to agree that one person's images don't make a definitive argument for or against a lens.


Oh, absolutely. Controlled tests are only meaningful when done in duplicate, triplicate, etc. Multiple copies of lenses, for example. I've only presented data from one 16-35 here, for example, though I did present some aggregate data from 4 copies of the Nikon 14-24... showing you the best/worst performance out of a batch of 4 lenses.

But then, do you know my credentials? Do you trust my testing methodology? Etc., & so on & so forth. Which is why I tried to control as many variables as possible, & provide my testing conditions & RAW files if you'd like to see for yourself. 

That being said, allow me to show you a quick visualization of photozone.de's MTF numbers I did of the Nikon 14-24 vs. the Canon 16-35.







As you can clearly see, Nikon *extreme f/2.8* performance matches Canon's *center f/11* performance (the left endpoint of the blue-dashed line matches the right endpoint of the red-solid line).

*Wow, seems strangely reminiscent of the pictorial examples I showed!*

Meanwhile, *by f/5.6*, the Nikon is as sharp at the extremes as the Canon lens ever is, *anywhere*.

*Wow, again, seems strangely reminiscent of the pictorial examples I showed!*

Now, let's take a look at extreme vs. center performance for both lenses. I'll plot extreme/center performance ratios, but this time with resolution (2-dimensional, meaning LPPH numbers have been squared) as a function of aperture), 1 being *equivalent* extreme vs. center performance:






Both lenses are so sharp at the center that the extreme performance only begins approximating center performance after center performance is depleted due to diffraction effects. But the Nikon lens almost approaches center/extreme equivalence by f/11, while the Canon still only shows ~79% extreme vs. center performance by f/11. At f/2.8, extreme resolution is at a staggeringly low *26%* of center performance for Canon, while the Nikon extreme/center performance is at *62%*.

Meanwhile, the Canon extremes never even come remotely close to the Nikon extreme performance, *at best* only achieving *61%* resolution of the Nikon's best extreme resolution performance. Put another way, *at best* the Canon extreme performance is still only *82%* the *worst* performance of the Nikon at its extremes.

*Let me restate that:* the *best* the Canon lens is capable of at the extremes is still only *61%* of the *best* the Nikon lens is capable of at the extremes (2750^2/3500^2 LPPH).

_*61%. Sounds pretty close to 50%. Half the resolution, people.*_

_Are my qualitative pictorial examples still so unbelievable?_ *Science! It works!*

But feel free to take my pictorial results that appear to, qualitatively, directly reflect photozone's quantitative findings with a grain of salt... or, better yet, do your own tests  Of course, if edge-to-edge sharpness has not bothered you in your own shots/printing workflow, then perhaps this is all entirely irrelevant to you!



> Even DxO is controversial.


No, it's not. Not if you know what DXO is actually doing.

If you don't believe them/me, do the tests yourself (as I did). My numbers in my own lab setup with a 13.2 stop transmission step wedge agreed with DXO within 0.3EV. Not to mention real-world comparisons that showed that I could underexpose an image 8x (3 stops) on a D7000 & still get its shadows to look better, pushed 3 stops, than a 5D Mark III image exposed properly.

I still shoot Canon (for reasons I don't wish to enumerate here). But I'm not blind to the _obvious_, which is why I use a Nikon 14-24 on my Canon 5D Mark III (for landscapes).


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 18, 2012)

Great comparison

I wonder how visible this would be on a 30" print? Would the output from the Canon look noticably worse than the Nikon or is this going to more a factor of the body?


----------



## akiskev (Jun 18, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Great comparison
> 
> I wonder how visible this would be on a 30" print? Would the output from the Canon look noticably worse than the Nikon or is this going to more a factor of the body?


If you are closely examining the prints, then be sure that a 30" photo will be enough to tell the difference.

@saringman thanks for the comparison man. The Nikon lens is clearly superior. I don't agree with jettatore's opinion that there is a flaw in your method, because there isn't. You did what was right. I think that you just got an "average" (or typical) 16-35 in your hands.


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 18, 2012)

IRT: akiskev -Both of the pictures in Saringman's tests that he kindly posted are of an un-usable quality *at a 100% viewing*, either on a monitor, or on a high end print, --if not viewing close up for fine detail either full images could work but it's not a nice picture so it's a moot point. Otherwise the 100% crop views on all of the above are unflattering at best and I would say downright unusable. I'm sure someone will respond to the contrary, but if you think either of those images, from the Nikon or the Canon, are usable for viewing at 100% without heavy editing, then I would suggest the visual arts are not for you. If I was going to print any such image I would make sure that the end print could never show such flaws, even if viewed close up, it would be better to see pixels or ink droplets before seeing visual flaws in the image. So akiskev, while you don't have to agree with me, I would have to not agree with you also. At the very least, I get my copy of the 16-35 to produce sharper results without even having to go up to f/11 and I would say from those samples, I'm not even impressed with Nikon's 14-24.


----------



## NWPhil (Jun 18, 2012)

How long will it take to be available in stores? - that's all I care :'(


----------



## rushmore77 (Jun 18, 2012)

Hope it's smaller than the Nikon version.
For now my Samyang 14mm serves me very well. (Sometimes I can't believe how sharp it is.)
But canon 14-24 will be THE prefect lens to get, assuming the size is not too big.
I've been so disappointed with Canon lately but surely this is a great news.


----------



## dstppy (Jun 18, 2012)

rushmore77 said:


> Hope it's smaller than the Nikon version.
> For now my Samyang 14mm serves me very well. (Sometimes I can't believe how sharp it is.)
> But canon 14-24 will be THE prefect lens to get, assuming the size is not too big.
> I've been so disappointed with Canon lately but surely this is a great news.



Is this the same as the $400 Rokinon? I had one for two days and returned it because it wasn't sharp, even stopped down (I didn't expect much to start with, but even so)


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 18, 2012)

> -Both of the pictures in Saringman's tests that he kindly posted are of an un-usable quality at a 100% viewing, either on a monitor, or on a high end print, --if not viewing close up for fine detail either full images could work but it's not a nice picture so it's a moot point. Otherwise the 100% crop views on all of the above are unflattering at best and I would say downright unusable.



Respectfully, I really have no idea what you're talking about, & wonder if perhaps you're not used to viewing 22MP images at 1:1. As for it not being a 'nice picture', this was not a landscape shot, it was a test of a field-of-view that contained lots of buildings approximately equidistant from the camera for easy comparisons of sharpness. 

The center 100% crops are _tack sharp_ from both lenses for a default ACR setting of 25; you can make it much sharper if you'd like to. I don't think anyone here would disagree with me on this save for you. Are you following the links & viewing at 100%? Are you looking at the buildings/railings to judge sharpness? Don't look at trees blowing in the wind & cars moving... look at the static subjects, which are, again, _tack sharp_ in the center, ruling out motion blur or whatever else you are invoking to attempt to invalidate these tests.

The side 100% crops are what they are, which was the entire point of this comparison.

And if you look at the numbers & graphs I posted earlier (e.g. *26%* resolution at the extremes compared to the center at f/2.8 for the Canon, w/ the *best* the 16-35 can do at the extremes, i.e. f/8, still only* 82%* the resolution of the *worst* the Nikon does at its extremes at f/2.8 ), the pictorial examples I've provided should not surprise you at all, unless you also have a problem with photozone.de (who, by the way, do stellar tests).

If you're surprised by these results & would like to contribute to this discussion, I'd encourage you to also try shooting your own flat field tests, maybe even w/ a rental Nikon 14-24 to compare side-by-side. Try to walk in to the test unbiased, hard as that may be. If anything, I was initially biased toward Canon, b/c who'd want to go through all the extra trouble & cost to shoot w/ the Nikon lens on a Canon body, losing AF & aperture control?

As I said earlier, your examples do not provide any indication of how your 16-35 performs on a flat-field, though it's entirely plausible that it performs better than mine did (there are always tolerances in QC & manufacturing). Even if so, I doubt it would be by a wide margin, given the clear lack of decentering issues on my copy, my experience with multiple other copies of the 17-40, & photozone's numbers. Furthermore, your f/2.8 shot clearly shows incredible softness on a good portion of the left side (landscape orientation), even at web resolution. Again, no surprise there.


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 18, 2012)

> Great comparison
> 
> I wonder how visible this would be on a 30" print? Would the output from the Canon look noticably worse than the Nikon or is this going to more a factor of the body?


Thanks Brian. 

Here's an image I shot at f/18 on my 5D w/ a 17-40 a couple years ago:




Larger image here: http://f.cl.ly/items/1I120q0h1n1A1o432J3b/Seattle-RizalBridgeSunset.jpg

Looks plenty sharp at this size, of course, edge to edge. But in a 21"x34" print, the left side is clearly softer than the right. And this was *f/18*. Did my client that bought the image notice? Probably not  But then again, we are our own harshest critic, no?

That was when I started my hunt for a better wide angle zoom... beginning w/ trying to get that lens fixed by Canon, buying another copy, buying a 16-35, etc. etc.


----------



## Kernuak (Jun 18, 2012)

I think it's always been acknowledged that the Nikon 14-24 is superior to any of Canon's wideangle zooms. You could probably increase the perception of sharpness in the 16-35 by correcting the CA, but it also shows how poor it is in comparison to the Nikon lens in that regard too. I know when I was researching a number of years ago, the original 16-35 wasn't really any better than the 17-40, that's why I went for the cheaper and lighter option of the 17-40. However, the MkII did also improve considerably over the MkI. As far as I'm aware, it still doesn't match the Nikon 14-24 though. On full frame, I find 17mm to be too wide most of the time, so I wouldn't get a great amount of use from the 14-24, otherwise I'd definitely consider it with an adaptor for landscapes, although filter use would be a pain. The 17-40 improves from around 24mm (at which point it's probably a little sharper than the 24-105 and definitely has less CA), so it would be interesting to see a comparison between your wideangle lenses at the longer end, to see if the differences are as marked.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 19, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> > Great comparison
> >
> > I wonder how visible this would be on a 30" print? Would the output from the Canon look noticably worse than the Nikon or is this going to more a factor of the body?
> 
> ...



thats a nicely done HDR, did you use photomatix? if so i'd be interested in what your settings were. I'm not normally a fan of anything out of photomatix these days but thats pretty decent


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 19, 2012)

No, that was a merge of 4 exposures all done using a combination of luminosity/hand-drawn masks. Thanks for the compliments.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 19, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> No, that was a merge of 4 exposures all done using a combination of luminosity/hand-drawn masks. Thanks for the compliments.



ah thats why it doesnt look like a puddle of vomit then 
again love your work


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 19, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> Thanks Brian.
> 
> Here's an image I shot at f/18 on my 5D w/ a 17-40 a couple years ago:
> 
> ...



Visually this new post is a fairly nice image, but pretty sharp is not a quality that I would attribute to it. I think this is why we have been in disagreement the entire time, our eyes and ability to see and more importantly how we use language to describe things just aren't the same. Not better or worse, just, not the same. I would say in your new shot that the roads and buildings are approaching sharp, but not sharp, the sky 'is' close enough to sharp for a sky, and the trees and greenery are downright blurry. I would not call this image sharp, even casually.

And from your earlier post...


sarangiman said:


> ....The center 100% crops are tack sharp,,,


No, they aren't. They aren't even close to a definition of something I would call tack sharp, and 100% crops from 35mm DSLR's rarely are. Now, if you don't not understand the concept that it would be better to see visible pixels or ink droplets before noticing visual flaws in the image, like Chromatic abberation or low-contrast or blurred imagery that isn't purposeful, then i just don't know what to say to get on the same page with you so that we can actually communicate, as that was the central point of the entire previous post that you had difficulty in understanding. As to your other comment about not knowing 22+MP resolutions, I believe at least the center lens portion of an 18MP 7D crop would give me some idea as well as 5DIII, D800, 1DsMIII and 5DII RAW files and Phase 1 IQ80 files, so I hope that settles your question, as well, yes I know how to open the full images posted to this forum.

This really is going no-where though, so if any further response isn't likely to clear up communication difficulties or lead to something new, please stop evoking a new response from me. It's a waste of everyone's time, including mine, because at this point, this overcomplicated, under-useful conversation is more of a communications error than anything else so far as I can tell.

I'll add one last thing to try and clarify what 'sharp/sharpness' defined -means to me. Sharpness, is closely related to, if not a viable synonym for 'contrast'. In order to perceive sharpness, there must be contrast. A solid black cube printed on solid black paper will result in zero contrast. A black cube printed on white paper will result in high or if you will 100% contrast at the intersections of black and white areas of the full image. If you keep this in mind, and relate that high contrast is a requirement of sharpness, and then go back and look at your 100% crops (maybe even viewing them in black and white to remove additional confusion, you will see that areas like the pavement grit detail, and even the railings, etc., have a lack of contrast and hence a lack of visual sharpness. Like I tried to explain earlier, when viewed at 100%, these crops are un-usable and any presentation of an image should not allow for such an examination, as it would be simply better to see ink droplets or pixels before being able to discern a lack of contrast and sharpness. For this reason, things like improving exposure of your images, can lead to much sharper pictures. The railing in your Nikon RAW/Crop samples is about the closest thing to sharp the image has going for it but isn't perfect and the Canon RAW/Crop sample overall is exposed less adequately by the photographer than your Nikon sample and hence portrays less sharpness overall, among other things... You will be able to see this readily if you convert the RAW files of both images to B&W using the same settings without any other RAW editing adjustments and then view them at the same 100% viewing level. You will see you did not match exposure in the images, and hence, measuring sharpness between the two of them at that point becomes rather a fruitless effort as the contrast will never be the same and hence the impression of sharpness will vary.

This is my last post on this. I enjoyed some of this discussion and learned a bit, so thank you for that, but communication is often a very difficult thing, and as I mentioned before, this is getting way to complicated without being in person at a computer where we can easily learn what the other means and come to fruitful understandings and higher level conversations quickly. Best regards.


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 19, 2012)

> I would say in your new shot that the roads and buildings are approaching sharp, but not sharp, the sky 'is' close enough to sharp for a sky, and the trees and greenery are downright blurry. I would not call this image sharp, even casually.


I think what you're talking about is 'acutance', or local contrast... yes of course the buildings in this image will have higher acutance than the trees; the local contrast in the trees to begin with in this scene were very low. What is your point? That has absolutely* no bearing* on our conversation of lens MTF as a function of center vs. extreme.



> They aren't even close to a definition of something I would call tack sharp, and 100% crops from 35mm DSLR's rarely are.


You're right, we've had a total breakdown of communication. B/c when I said 'tack sharp', I thought I made it pretty clear that I meant 'about as sharp as you're going to get w/ any lens on this sensor'. Since this entire discussion was about comparing center vs. extreme sharpness on a 5D-ish camera, what would be the point of defining 'tack sharp' in any other way?



> You will see you did not match exposure in the images, and hence, measuring sharpness between the two of them at that point becomes rather a fruitless effort as the contrast will never be the same and hence the impression of sharpness will vary.


Actually, the exposures are exactly the same, barring T-stop differences between the lenses. 1/320s | f/2.8 @ISO 100 is equivalent to 1/40s | f/11 @ISO 200. 

The flare decreases contrast in the Canon image, yes, & I mentioned this a while back. While I agree that contrast of course affects perceived acutance, I respectfully disagree that the decrease in contrast due to flare on the Canon shots prohibits one from seeing the clearly higher sharpness of the Nikon lens at the extremes.

Because if the decrease in contrast due to lens flare is confusing you about which of the following images is sharper:




Full-size image: http://cl.ly/HQaY/Nikon14-24_vs_Canon16-35_f2.8_Left.jpg

Or which of these images is sharper (remember: 100% crop taken from same portion of frame, so as to not give one shot an unfair advantage):




Full-size image: http://cl.ly/HTEK/Nikon14-24_vs_Canon16-35_Corner.jpg

... then you may have to get your eyes checked  

Actually, here let me try to prove to you that the decreased contrast does not significantly affect your ability to judge which lens is sharper. I've done *-100 contrast* to the *Nikon* image. If you quantify the ratio of the brighter vs. darker siding on one of these buildings, the Nikon f/2.8 image (left) now has *less contrast* than the Canon f/11 image (right). Do you still have any trouble discerning which is sharper:





Full-size image: http://cl.ly/HTY9/Nikon14-24_-100Contrast_vs_Canon16-35_Corner.jpg

Seriously, I think I can rest my case now. If I were writing this formally as an article on a review site, yes, I would go out & redo the test on a cloudy day (would've done so already if I hadn't gotten rid of the 16-35) when there is absolutely no change in lighting between shots. But you can draw some pretty darn good conclusions from what I've posted here (barring copy variability, of course). 

Unusable? Hardly. Especially in light of the -100 contrast (to the Nikon image) 'experiment' above.


----------



## psolberg (Jun 19, 2012)

All canon wide zooms and 14mm prime fail to touch the 5 year old 14-24. But that lens won't show up In 2012. I got tired of waiting...
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 19, 2012)

> Actually, the exposures are exactly the same, barring T-stop differences between the lenses. 1/320s | f/2.8 @ISO 100 is equivalent to 1/40s | f/11 @ISO 200.



Laughable, the lighting of the two scenes was completely different. This has become a bad joke and at this point a headache and waste of time. Adios.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 19, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> Thanks Brian.
> 
> Here's an image I shot at f/18 on my 5D w/ a 17-40 a couple years ago:



I have found that the 17-40 is best at f/8- f/11. After that the image gets softer, presumably defraction

Posting on this site further softens a jpeg

I compose my photos to be 10x8 or larger so reducing the image size to post here means that detail and impact is lost.
Below is a picture that I took (yesterday) where every hair can be seen on the face and the reflection in the eye, yet published here gives mush in comparison. Clicking on the hyperlink gives a better version, but still limited - yes for this picture I have 4 flash working on it (like a small flash gang)


When posting pictures here we have to take this into account


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 19, 2012)

> Laughable, the lighting of the two scenes was completely different. This has become a bad joke and at this point a headache and waste of time. Adios.


Yup, as I mentioned ages ago: different lighting due to sun sinking lower causing flare, & yet utterly irrelevant to the conclusions of this comparison, as I've already proven.

'Laughable' is more your denial of a study that shows exactly what most other studies have already shown... without doing your own tests. For example, the one psolberg linked to below...



> All canon wide zooms and 14mm prime fail to touch the 5 year old 14-24. But that lens won't show up In 2012. I got tired of waiting...
> http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html



Yup, thank you psolberg!


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 19, 2012)

> Actually, the exposures are exactly the same, barring T-stop differences between the lenses. 1/320s | f/2.8 @ISO 100 is equivalent to 1/40s | f/11 @ISO 200.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_%28photography%29
_"In photography, exposure is the total amount of light allowed to fall on the photographic medium (photographic film or image sensor) during the process of taking a photograph."_



> Yup, as I mentioned ages ago: different lighting due to sun sinking lower causing flare





> Actually, the exposures are exactly the same, barring T-stop differences between the lenses. 1/320s | f/2.8 @ISO 100 is equivalent to 1/40s | f/11 @ISO 200.


*

My apologies to the entire forum for this entire diversion, this was entirely my fault. If there was a user or moderator split topic function, it would be useful here. This is all about as far away from topic as possible, I got lost and drifted out to sea and then baited back in over and over, my apologies, I will refrain in the future from any such long diversions. Adios.*


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 19, 2012)

> I have found that the 17-40 is best at f/8- f/11. After that the image gets softer, presumably defraction



I absolutely agree with you there. Especially with wide angle lenses, as I understand it, diffraction often sets in earlier b/c the actual opening of the aperture is quite small. E.g. 17mm at f/8 has an opening of diameter 2.125mm whereas an 85mm lens at f/8 has an opening of 10.625mm.

The reason I shot at f/18 was to deal w/ the softness on the left side... it literally kept sharpening up at smaller & smaller apertures even though the center & right started losing sharpness due to diffraction. But I thought: 'better even sharpness across the field, albeit lower, than significantly lower sharpness on one side'. Personal preference, really. 

Luckily, I no longer have to worry about such things with my Nikon 14-24! But would really appreciate a Canon alternative similar in image quality...



> Posting on this site further softens a jpeg



Yup, resizing algorithms vary, & output sharpening decision of course affect perceived sharpness. I chose to actually not use maximal output sharpening in this particular image b/c of the sharpening halos it created around the buildings.

Cheers!


----------



## NWPhil (Jun 20, 2012)

somewhere along the way this thread content changed.... ???


So what about this 14-24 2.8L? Can Canon turn-around and produce this in a year or so?
Wish even they had gone all way to 12mm even, it that meant a F\4 instead


----------



## Ayelike (Jun 21, 2012)

I really want this lens! I was just about to buy a 16-35 f/2.8 II but think I'll wait until we at least hear more about this lens. It'd sit so nice with my 24-70 f/2.8 and my 70-200 f/2.8.

My only worry is it's going to be stupid money like the new 24-70 f/2.8 II. I think I saw a pre-order for £2300 which is over twice as much as I paid for the 24-70 I.

Canon, I'll give you £1,500 for it.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 22, 2012)

Ayelike said:


> Canon, I'll give you £1,500 for it.



LOL then they will give you half a lens


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 22, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> Ayelike said:
> 
> 
> > Canon, I'll give you £1,500 for it.
> ...


But Tamron will give you one and a half!


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 22, 2012)

This is another opportunity for canon to shine and hope they don't mess up on such a great idea as a 14-24L.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 22, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> This is another opportunity for canon to shine and hope they don't mess up on such a great idea as a 14-24L.



I Agreed...but I have a bad feeling about the price. My 2cents: $2500 at least


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 22, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > This is another opportunity for canon to shine and hope they don't mess up on such a great idea as a 14-24L.
> ...



I agree - itro $24-70II


----------



## takoman46 (Jun 23, 2012)

If the EF 14-24mm f/2.8L is going to be over $2000, then I think it would be better to just buy the 14mm f/2.8L II and get the superior optics of the prime. On a related note... if Canon is able to come very close to the optical quality and performance of the prime with this new zoom, then my guess would be that the 14-24 will be waaaaay over $2000... maybe in the ballpark of $3000?... Still probably not worth it when one can buy the prime for $2300. I wouldn't miss the zoom at an ultra wide focal length anyway.

This new lens seems to be a strange move by Canon. Who thinks that the benefits of a 14-24mm zoom outweigh the advantages of the prime? Thoughts?


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 23, 2012)

takoman46 said:


> Who thinks that the benefits of a 14-24mm zoom outweigh the advantages of the prime? Thoughts?



Simple: If you need flexibility, like when shooting weddings or events. 14mm is way to distorted for most uses, but if you have a 24-70 on one ff body and a 14-24 on another, you're covered (just switch to the 70-200 if the situation changes).

Then use a 1dx or wait for the 5d mk4 which might have an actual high iso improvement, and the slower aperture of these zoom won't matter anymore except for carefully staged, thin dof shots or shooting in the dark w/o flash.


----------



## birdman (Jun 24, 2012)

What's crazy to me is that no one mentions the tokina 16-28. It was on sale recently for $699!!!!! Crazy cheap and has gotten very favorable reviews. I don't know if this dream 14-24 canon lens will out-resolve the Tok 16-28, if the Canon lens is even a reality. 

14mm is WIDE!! So wide, for me, that you literally see little detail in the distant horizon. Nearly Too wide, for me. 17-20mm is my preferred FL, which my 17-40L quits distorting at around 19-20mm anyway. I've never needed WIDER, but many times needed sharper. If the Canon cannot accept filters, then it gets a thumbs down for me. On a bright sunny day, this lens becomes a lot less practical. At dusk and dawn (magic hours) I believe you can get by without filters. 

If it does accept filters, then that opens up another thick, juicy layer of opportunities. If I had enough disposable income it would go to a good tilt/shift. One thing I haven't considered: at some point in time I would LOVE a 1d4. So the math gives me 14*1.3= 18mm & 24*1.3=31mm. Hmmm, pretty useful for me.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 24, 2012)

14mm is so wide on a ff that you have to be carefull that the tripod legs are not in the picture : : :


----------



## Kernuak (Jun 24, 2012)

birdman said:


> What's crazy to me is that no one mentions the tokina 16-28. It was on sale recently for $699!!!!! Crazy cheap and has gotten very favorable reviews. I don't know if this dream 14-24 canon lens will out-resolve the Tok 16-28, if the Canon lens is even a reality.
> 
> 14mm is WIDE!! So wide, for me, that you literally see little detail in the distant horizon. Nearly Too wide, for me. 17-20mm is my preferred FL, which my 17-40L quits distorting at around 19-20mm anyway. I've never needed WIDER, but many times needed sharper. If the Canon cannot accept filters, then it gets a thumbs down for me. On a bright sunny day, this lens becomes a lot less practical. At dusk and dawn (magic hours) I believe you can get by without filters.
> 
> If it does accept filters, then that opens up another thick, juicy layer of opportunities. If I had enough disposable income it would go to a good tilt/shift. One thing I haven't considered: at some point in time I would LOVE a 1d4. So the math gives me 14*1.3= 18mm & 24*1.3=31mm. Hmmm, pretty useful for me.


Actually, I often find the 17-40 too wide on full frame, especially if I need to use a combination of CPL and grad filters. I was trying an extreme shot last year (accentuating the distortion by point downwards) and I had real problems trying to keep the tripod legs out of frame. I would find 14mm very limiting and wouldn't make use of it, but I know that others would.


----------



## D_Rochat (Jun 24, 2012)

Screw landscapes! I want this lens for concerts! I love some of the shots I've seen at 14mm.


----------



## takoman46 (Jun 26, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> takoman46 said:
> 
> 
> > Who thinks that the benefits of a 14-24mm zoom outweigh the advantages of the prime? Thoughts?
> ...



My point was that between 14-24mm, you're going to get distortion anyway and that a zoom range of 14-24mm maybe a slight convenience, but an unnecessary feature nonetheless IMO. When would you really need to walk forward but are unable to walk forward with a 14mm to achieve 15mm-23mm framing? The 14mm prime has it's uses in weddings but you just need to be mindful of composition in relationship to image skewing (i.e. I like to use it for shooting peripherals such as wedding dress, cake, venue, etc.). I actually like the look of the 14mm a lot more over the 8-15mm fisheye.


----------



## willis (Oct 7, 2012)

Anything new about 14-24 F2.8L?


----------



## Daniel Flather (Oct 11, 2012)

willis said:


> Anything new about 14-24 F2.8L?



Yeah, it's not coming.


----------



## Ricku (Sep 6, 2013)

This [CR2] rumor said that it will arrive within the next 12 months.

Well, now it's been 15 months. :'( I couldn't be more annoyed.


----------



## wayno (Sep 6, 2013)

Ricku said:


> This [CR2] rumor said that it will arrive within the next 12 months.
> 
> Well, now it's been 15 months. :'( I couldn't be more annoyed.



Those unreliable 'rumors' eh?!


----------



## Ricku (Sep 6, 2013)

wayno said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > This [CR2] rumor said that it will arrive within the next 12 months.
> ...


Yes! Someone should do something about this. :-\


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 8, 2013)

Ricku said:


> This [CR2] rumor said that it will arrive within the next 12 months.
> 
> Well, now it's been 15 months. :'( I couldn't be more annoyed.



Last time I checked, this is STILL Canon*Rumors*.com


----------



## Daniel Flather (Sep 8, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > This [CR2] rumor said that it will arrive within the next 12 months.
> ...



Everything you read on the net is true, so what gives with the 12-24????


----------



## scottkinfw (Sep 8, 2013)

I find that inaccurate rumors, especially when they don't turn out or tur out late, really annoy me,unless I don't care about the topic. I want this lens, and therefore I too am annoyed. I know it is only a rumor.

Oh well.

sek



Daniel Flather said:


> willis said:
> 
> 
> > Anything new about 14-24 F2.8L?
> ...


----------



## duydaniel (Sep 9, 2013)

Canon should spend time improving DR before releasing this lens :


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 9, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> Canon should spend time improving DR before releasing this lens  :



"Don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house" - To me, be able to shoot at higher ISO is more important than DR. That's why I jumped from crop to FF.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 9, 2013)

Daniel Flather said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Ricku said:
> ...


Also, remember that Canon now announces the "development" of lenses 6 months - 2+ years before you can buy one - think the series II telephotos and the 200-400...


----------



## Ricku (Oct 23, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> Canon should spend time improving DR before releasing this lens :


I kinda agree with you.

But still, I want this lens right now! Or a 16-50L, or a 17-40L II.. Just whatever, as long as they finally give us an UWA-zoom with sharp razor sharp sharpness across the frame.

How hard can it be?  It feels like we've been waiting an eternity for a real "Nikon 14-24-killer", and I do think people would pay solid money for this lens. But still nothing from Canon! .. As CR-guy recently said: _"Not even a whisper"._

Whay cannot Canon crack this nut? Are they just afraid to hurt the sales of the 14L and 24L?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 23, 2013)

Ricku said:


> duydaniel said:
> 
> 
> > Canon should spend time improving DR before releasing this lens :
> ...



And what makes the Nikkor lens so great? It's good at shooting lens charts and that's about it. Sharp wide open, sure...but most landscape uses stop down for DOF...and there is lettle difference between it and the 16-35IIL when stopped down. It's a royal PITA to use filters with and it's exessively large and bulky. It's heavily corrected...so it's pretty much useless of shooting people or group shots....which is 80% of professional wide lens use. For architecture, TS-e are a better choice....so I struggle to see where this lens excells...except in the minds of a few lens review sites. As a photographic tool, it doens't seem to master any one genre but detract from most. Landscapes, there are better choices. Group shots, there are far better choices. Architecture, there are far better choices....so what's it good for? Oh yes, shooting lens charts and brick walls....in the mean time a 16-35IIL is generally a far better photographic tool.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 23, 2013)

Ricku said:


> But still, I want this lens right now! Or a 16-50L, or a 17-40L II.. Just whatever, as long as they finally give us an UWA-zoom with sharp razor sharp sharpness across the frame. How hard can it be?



Not hard at all, but *expensive*...

... for my (lack of) money I'd rather take a €600 17-40L mk1 than a €1600 17-40L mk2 with improved sharpness "across the frame" which means *corners*(!) and looking at what I shoot that really doesn't matter. The current 17-40L degrades on crop, but on ff imho fine just like it is now.


----------



## M.ST (Oct 23, 2013)

I want to see the 14.24 2.8 L now.

And a new 17-40 L or 17-50 IS L, a 100-400 IS replacement, the 24-70 2.8 L IS and so on.

Price discussion are stupid. We want new lenses with better IQ´s.

If you don´t have the money for new lenses, then buy the old ones.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 23, 2013)

Ricku said:


> Maybe such comments is one of the reasons to why Canon is so sleepy nowdays.



You got it in one - and welcome to the wonderful world of economy! Canon is a mass-market manufacturer, so (thankfully) they weigh performance vs. cost. If you want performance no matter the cost and also receive a big arrogance boost for free, buy Leica. 



Ricku said:


> Why improve when customers raise voice to stop improvement?



I'm all in favor of improvements, and there's plenty of room for that - just lift all the crippling of camera bodies, for example or offer sealed aps-c lenses. But "improvement" of a much higher price tag is not improvement, it's just a shift in market position.



M.ST said:


> Price discussion are stupid. We want new lenses with better IQ´s.



Who is "we" - I gather you're talking in the _plurale maiestatis_, your grace  ?



M.ST said:


> If you don´t have the money for new lenses, then buy the old ones.



I also would like to receive technology updates like more precise af and IS systems which is little cost for the manufacturer. What I don't want is top-notch iq glass doubling the price for a performance that only few people need, even of course if some opinions might be different in a nerd or enthusiast forum.


----------



## Ricku (Oct 24, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> You got it in one - and welcome to the wonderful world of economy! Canon is a mass-market manufacturer, so (thankfully) they weigh performance vs. cost. *If you want performance no matter the cost and also receive a big arrogance boost* for free, buy Leica.





Marsu42 said:


> I also would like to receive technology updates like more precise af and IS systems which is little cost for the manufacturer. What I don't want is top-notch iq glass doubling the price for a performance that only few people need, *even of course if some opinions might be different in a nerd or enthusiast forum.*


Well holy moly! Thanks for making me see things much clearer. Here I thought I wanted top-notch IQ glass because of the IQ itself, sharp corners, client demand and the ability to produce huge prints. But now I understand that I'm just an arrogant nerd in need of a dick extender. 

Hold the discussion! I'm gonna go and sell my "luxury item" 70-200 IS II now. Better replace it with the MK1 before someone notices my nerdy arrogance. Wohoo 17-40L, here I come!

And yeah, they better quit doing these snobby top-notch IQ upgrades. Or else the price tags of the current lenses will surely skyrocket to untouchable levels! How on earth would anyone be able to afford the 17-40L if Canon released a new version? :


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 24, 2013)

Vonbon said:


> Ken Rockwell said "Thou shalt not use polarizer for wide angle"
> 
> but for grads, Lee SW150 System/ Lucroit-Hitech 165mm/ Cokin X-Pro are available while Singh-Ray makes filters for these three.



I think you cut it prematurely... Polarizer only makes uneven sky but not uneven water or other non-metallic objects. If you included a little to no sky in your photo, you can still use polarizer.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 24, 2013)

Ricku said:


> Well holy moly! Thanks for making me see things much clearer. Here I thought I wanted top-notch IQ glass because of the IQ itself, sharp corners, client demand and the ability to produce huge prints.



You're welcome  ... and to make myself clearer: I think the Canon lineup needs a top 14-24, and the "top of the line" 16-35L could also receive an update for "across the frame" sharpness like the 24-70 did if market demand is there.

However, you were talking of the 17-40L which is a lens placed in the *middle* of the lineup, it's a landscapeish lens so you'll use it stopped down, and it works fine this way. Just as the softness of the 50/1.2 this is not a bug, but a rather feature because it keeps the bulk, weight and - yes - price down. If you want iq beyond that, get a prime (ts), or hope for an updated 16-35L.

But demanding an update of *both* the 16-35L to mk3 and 17-40L doesn't make much sense to me, as a much more expensive 17-50L/4 would catapult it out of the current market position, essentially not "updating" it but replacing it with another lens.

This is the reason why I think requiring every lens from the 50/1.8 to the 200-400L to aspire for top notch iq no matter the cost is a bit on the nerdy side, not to offend you, though your former (now deleted) post didn't really invite a matter of fact discussion I'm also afraid so say.



Ricku said:


> And yeah, they better quit doing these snobby top-notch IQ upgrades. Or else the price tags of the current lenses will surely skyrocket to untouchable levels! How on earth would anyone be able to afford the 17-40L if Canon released a new version? :



Indeed, here you are correct - the 24-70 mk1's skyrocketed to absurd levels after the mk2 release.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 24, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> Vonbon said:
> 
> 
> > Ken Rockwell said "Thou shalt not use polarizer for wide angle"
> ...



I use a polariser a lot on a 16-35IIL...it's fine. Mr Rockwell is making big bold nieve statements again. Yes there's an unevenness...but rotating the polariser can place the dark spot in a neat and compositionally strong place...so what's the problem?


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 24, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > Vonbon said:
> ...



Vonbon?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 28, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > verysimplejason said:
> ...








Try that for an example. Polarised just over St Michael's mount.


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 30, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > Vonbon said:
> ...



ditto, only problem is if you forget you have the polariser and shoot a pano then realise later it won't stitch :'(
other than that i use the polariser on the 16-35 all the time.


----------



## verysimplejason (Nov 27, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > verysimplejason said:
> ...



Well here's a 17-40L with CPL.


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 3, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...


You forgot the other "rule", never use a polarizer to shoot people


----------



## NWPhil (Dec 17, 2013)

well, I am done waiting for the Canon 14-24mm....

I like UWA lenses, and have a nice set of primes on that range.
The 17-40 is not keeping me happy anymore, but indeed was/is a very nice multi tasking lens for travelling and hiking on the light.
Tried the 16-35 mk2, and was not please with color rendition.
Tried the nikon 14-24mm with an adapter, and the the f value guessing work is really a pain - don't mind the MF focus, and compose all open, but often had to re-take the picture due to overexposing; only with live view the reading was coming correct ( maybe I can blame the cheap adapter?)
The 24-70 mk2 is very sharp and has a nice IQ but not an UWA, and old R leica lenses do not offer anything of interest as UWA zooms. 
So, I decided to go after the Sigma 14-24 mk2 - yes, a compromise of many sorts, but I need it now for use - not whenever if ever Canon decides to release it.
Paired with my 24-105, I have all I need for hiking and travelling light.

Thanks for nothing Canon


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 17, 2013)

NWPhil said:


> Tried the 16-35 mk2 from, and was not please with color rendition.



Did you create a profile for it before dismissing it? It takes ten minutes and is done.


----------



## NWPhil (Dec 17, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> NWPhil said:
> 
> 
> > Tried the 16-35 mk2 from, and was not please with color rendition.
> ...



No, I did not(?) - I let the 5Dmk2 UI take over and same in LR.
Similar opinion I got with the ef 8-15mm when compared with old ef 15mm


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 17, 2013)

NWPhil said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > NWPhil said:
> ...



If you had you couldn't have been unhappy with colours and contrast, corner sharpness is another thing all together though, no profile is going to sort that out!

I can't ever see me letting my 15 fisheye go, it is so small, cheap and sharp, and an f2,8, what in the world comes close?


----------



## NWPhil (Dec 17, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> NWPhil said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 17, 2013)

"My aplogies to come off the thread for a minute:

- How and/or where can I get that profile? I mean, can I find one made one already to use as a guidance?
is that to load to the camear or just to LR/PS?

Thanks"

No, not off the shelf. The best way is to get an X-Rite ColorChecker Passport, or any standard 24 patch card, and Adobes free DNG Profile Editor. Take a little time and make a good solid dual illuminant colour profile and apply that to your files on import to Lightroom and you should be happy. 

It doesn't go in the camera, it is for Lightroom and PS to read.


----------



## J.R. (Dec 18, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> "My aplogies to come off the thread for a minute:
> 
> - How and/or where can I get that profile? I mean, can I find one made one already to use as a guidance?
> is that to load to the camear or just to LR/PS?
> ...



+1

NWPhil, basic pointers to creating your own profiles can be found here 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/colorchecker-psssport.shtml

Hope this helps.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 18, 2013)

Regarding profiles, I found Adobe's free DNG Profile Editor to be a nicer program than the X-Rite one. 

As for the question why do we need them? Well if we think about it, the out of the can ones do not make any allowance for the lenses used, they can't possibly be neutral for all lenses, the only way you can normalise your output is if you normalise your input.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 18, 2013)

Unbelievably I just this second got this special offer from B&H through in my email, hope somebody can take advantage of it.


----------



## Arctic Photo (Dec 18, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Regarding profiles, I found Adobe's free DNG Profile Editor to be a nicer program than the X-Rite one.
> 
> As for the question why do we need them? Well if we think about it, the out of the can ones do not make any allowance for the lenses used, they can't possibly be neutral for all lenses, the only way you can normalise your output is if you normalise your input.


Hi, how would the workflow look with this? I am using LR4 today, will upgrade to LR5 soon. Will I have to convert my RAW-files to DNG ang applying this filter before importing to LR?
Thanks!


----------



## J.R. (Dec 18, 2013)

Arctic Photo said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding profiles, I found Adobe's free DNG Profile Editor to be a nicer program than the X-Rite one.
> ...



All the information you need, is available here - 

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/extend.displayTab2.html 

Check out the documentation available on the DNG Profile Editor.


----------



## TexPhoto (Dec 18, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



When did Ken issue that edict?. On his we side I see 2 things: 1 "Avoid polarizers on wide-angle lenses" and 2. "I rarely use polarizers with ultra wide lenses." This seems a lot less like a commandment.

Also, a pic of a kid's hat and shirt are not really a people picture are they?


----------



## NWPhil (Dec 18, 2013)

J.R. said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > "My aplogies to come off the thread for a minute:
> ...



thanks JR


----------



## IsaacImage (Apr 21, 2014)

Any news about this lens ??!!
C'mon Canon - you Can do it.
Please


----------

