# Wide angle zoom L lenses from Canon in the future. Thoughts??



## 00Q (Mar 7, 2012)

Just sold my lovily Sigma 8-16mm and bought a 16-35 Mk I as Im getting closer to FF. Just waiting for the 5DMKII price to drop now. 

I have been reading reviews and it seems that the 16-35 MKI and MKII aren't too good. There are barrel distortion and vignetting. Optically less good than the 8-16. From what I gather, people use it because it is f/2.8 and that is what is available in the pro range. I will spend time in lightroom to correct for these. 

Im just wondering what are your thoughts on the future canon wide angle zooms. It doesnt seem that one is rumoured to come out anytime soon.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Mar 7, 2012)

My thoughts:

1. The EF 16-35mm f/2.8 is five years old, I don't see Canon replacing it quickly, especially as - based on photozone's reviews - the similar Nikon lenses aren't excellent either.

2. There was a Canon patent published for a 17-40mm f/2.8-4.0 lens. The 17-40mm f/4 is almost ten years old, and the 24-70mm f/2.8 was updated after ten years, so I wouldn't rule this out.

3. Nikon has a 14-24mm, Sigma released an upgraded 12-24mm, and Canon has nothing in this range. Canon might want to release something in this range.

As for lack of rumors - the 8-15mm f/4 was a surprise. There was a rumor about an ultrawide zoom, about a new f/4 L lens, but no patent or "fisheye zoom coming soon".


----------



## Brendon (Mar 7, 2012)

I'm in the same boat here with the desire to upgrade from a 50d to the 5diii. I use my sigma 10-20 on a regular occasion and will really want something to replace that range at full frame. Unfortunately, when you look at the comparesons, the image quality of the 16-35ii doesn't blow me away compared to the simga cropframer and the cost of the canon is nearly 4x! Of course the f2.8 is nice ;-)

I've been looking at the sigma 12-24mm but the inability to use filters for landscape (particulary when including water) is a non-starter. A polarizer and ND filter kit is an essential!


----------



## 00Q (Mar 7, 2012)

Brendon said:


> I'm in the same boat here with the desire to upgrade from a 50d to the 5diii. I use my sigma 10-20 on a regular occasion and will really want something to replace that range at full frame. Unfortunately, when you look at the comparesons, the image quality of the 16-35ii doesn't blow me away compared to the simga cropframer and the cost of the canon is nearly 4x! Of course the f2.8 is nice ;-)
> 
> I've been looking at the sigma 12-24mm but the inability to use filters for landscape (particulary when including water) is a non-starter. A polarizer and ND filter kit is an essential!



Ive had a look at that sigma 12-24 lens. I think you can put filters at the back. 

Still, looking at the photos, MK I or MKII from the sigma 12-24, Im not blown away by it. I conclude that it must be difficult to make a nice wide angle, and esp for FF bodies.


----------



## CanonLITA (Mar 7, 2012)

00Q said:


> I conclude that it must be difficult to make a nice wide angle, and esp for FF bodies.



I agree, when it comes to _zoom_ wide lenses. Still the one thing I envy from Nikon is their 12-24.


----------



## birdman (Mar 7, 2012)

Hate to reference Ken Dopewell, but he says the Tokina 16-28, Canon 20-35L, and Tokina 17mm/3.5 (fixed information) are all very good. 

I have the 17-40L and it is decent. It has beautiful colors. Are you shooting full-frame or sub FF? IF so, the 10-22 is pretty damn good (I had it on my 40d) and the Tokina 12-24 was good, as well.


----------



## Arkarch (Mar 7, 2012)

Thanks, great topic.

I have the 10-22 EF-S and yes, its time to get the EF equivalent as I move up to FF. Makes no sense to have a wide on a crop if you got a FF. 

Mixed reviews on the Canon 16-35. I can cover the top half of that with the apparently very excellent and new 24-70 II. 

But for everything under 20mm .... maybe primes are the answer? I think most of my wide shooting is at crop 10 or 12, and rarely in the middle.


----------



## jwong (Mar 7, 2012)

Arkarch said:


> Thanks, great topic.
> 
> I have the 10-22 EF-S and yes, its time to get the EF equivalent as I move up to FF. Makes no sense to have a wide on a crop if you got a FF.
> 
> ...



Primes under 20mm are very expensive, more expensive than the 16-35L II. The 20mm gets poorer reviews than the 16-35L II, and the 14mm and 17mm TS/E are much more expensive than the 16-35L. The 17mm TS/E also has a max aperture of f/4 and is manual focus. The 16-35L II takes filters in the front while all L primes wider than 24mm can't due to their protruding front elements.

I'd rather Canon redesign the existing 16-35L II rather than trying to match Nikon's range of 14-24mm. The overlap of 24-35mm is great because it results in a lot fewer lens changes and is more useful indoors, and Canon has more patents to work with in the 16-35 range. Plus I can't see them killing off the 14mm.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 7, 2012)

I recall reading a Canon reply to someone asking about the 16-35mm L about 6 months after Nikon introduced their 14-24,, lens. Canon basically said that it was intended for PJ's. I assumed that by that, they meant it was to give 1.3 crop users a wide zoom. At that time, there were not so many Canon FF bodies around.

IMHO, it is time now, with all the very popular Canon FF bodies to produce a superior super wide lens. The big question is, who will be willing to cough up $3K a copy? Not I.


----------



## SomeGuyInNewJersey (Mar 8, 2012)

jwong said:


> I'd rather Canon redesign the existing 16-35L II rather than trying to match Nikon's range of 14-24mm. The overlap of 24-35mm is great because it results in a lot fewer lens changes and is more useful indoors, and Canon has more patents to work with in the 16-35 range. Plus I can't see them killing off the 14mm.



I'd be happy with a 16-35 with the edge to edge sharpness of the Nikon 14-24. Thats what interests me about the Nikon, even more than the focal length, yeah 14mm would be nice but a Canon Ultra wide with a full sharp image would be so much nicer than a new 14-(whatever)mm Canon with soft edges...


----------



## ronderick (Mar 8, 2012)

IMHO, I don't think the solution for UW zoom is quite there yet. 

Aside from inevitable distortion, there's also the question of filters (or the lack of them) for these top UW lenses in the market today. The 14mm, 17mm TS-E, and Nikon's 14-24mm all have that protruding elements, and you'll have to make some hard choices when rain starts falling from the sky.

At least the 16-35mm f/2.8LII can take filter...


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 8, 2012)

I love my 16-35 II distortion is a non issue as its easily corrected using lens correction
I also find vignetting is not that significant even on full frame


----------



## moreorless (Mar 8, 2012)

To me Nikon's range seems a little backwards, as great as the 14-24mm is do most users need f/2.8? doesnt really seem vital to me for whats going to most commonly be a landscape lens while it adds alot to the weight/price and perhaps hurts the flare resistance aswell?

A 14-24mm f/4 IS seems like it would be ideal for many people to me, espeically if Canon looked to introduce some kind of filter system into the design(drop ins or perhaps a screw off hood that leaves a filter ring rather than a fixed one?) rather than just leaving it to 3rd parties to come up with overly expensive alternatives.


----------



## AdamJ (Mar 8, 2012)

moreorless said:


> To me Nikon's range seems a little backwards, as great as the 14-24mm is do most users need f/2.8? doesnt really seem vital to me for whats going to most commonly be a landscape lens while it adds alot to the weight/price and perhaps hurts the flare resistance aswell?
> 
> A 14-24mm f/4 IS seems like it would be ideal for many people to me, espeically if Canon looked to introduce some kind of filter system into the design(drop ins or perhaps a screw off hood that leaves a filter ring rather than a fixed one?) rather than just leaving it to 3rd parties to come up with overly expensive alternatives.



I use the Sigma 12-24 mostly for landscapes and cityscapes and I've so far never needed a wider aperture than its f4.5-5.6.

The Sigma has a two-piece lens cap as you describe but it's pointless because leaving the section with the filter thread on the lens causes massive vignetting on FF. I guess it might work with a crop camera, though. The lens accepts rear gel filters but you obviously can't use polarisers. That's really its only downside.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 8, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> As for lack of rumors - the 8-15mm f/4 was a surprise. There was a rumor about an ultrawide zoom, about a new f/4 L lens, but no patent or "fisheye zoom coming soon".



I bought one of these recently and it is breathtakingly good. 

This is my fisheye so I am still exploring its artistic capabilities. At the moment I am going for portraits with some sucess. I am finding the range 12-15 the most useful for 'normal' pictures.

I will post some pictures when I am happy.

Brian

PS Hardest thing is to keep the tripod legs out of frame


----------



## willrobb (Mar 8, 2012)

ronderick said:


> At least the 16-35mm f/2.8LII can take filter...



+ 1, if I can't get filters on it I don't want to shoot with it.


----------



## moreorless (Mar 8, 2012)

AdamJ said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > To me Nikon's range seems a little backwards, as great as the 14-24mm is do most users need f/2.8? doesnt really seem vital to me for whats going to most commonly be a landscape lens while it adds alot to the weight/price and perhaps hurts the flare resistance aswell?
> ...



The problem with the Sigma to me seems to be that because the part of the lens cap thats also a filter thread needs to cover the built in hood its simpley too far away from the front element so it vignettes. What I was suggesting is that the hood itself be removeble attaching via a filter thread. That way you could take it off when need be and attach filters directly to the lens far closer to the front element thus doing away with the need for an expensive fiddley system ala the Nikon 14-24 aswell as the massive filters it needs due to that smaller distance.


----------



## Axilrod (Mar 8, 2012)

I like my 16-35 II, it's just not that sharp wide open, especially if the subject isn't close to the camera. But at f/4-f/8 I've gotten some very sharp pics with it. But as soon as I got the 14L it made the 16-35 seem soft. 

I want to get rid of the 16-35mm and get the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8, but I shoot a lot of bands in very small places and some of them have 2 members and some have 6, so it's nice having the 16-35 to quickly adjust the static cam. I'm just worried that if I get the 21mm there may be cases where it's not quite wide enough and the 14mm may be too wide. Damnit why does that thing have to be so useful!


----------



## AdamJ (Mar 9, 2012)

moreorless said:


> AdamJ said:
> 
> 
> > moreorless said:
> ...



Sorry, I misread your post. I understand you now. It still wouldn't work because of the protruding bulbous front element on any lens in this focal range. To mount a filter even 1mm from the front of the element, you would first need to mount some kind of filter-holding extension. This extension would block much of the light-gathering surface of the front element. The reason the fixed hood doesn't block the light-gathering surface is because of its petal shape. The reason it is fixed is that there's no reason to take it off, given that filters can't be used. It also provides a limited amount of protection to the protruding front element.


----------



## moreorless (Mar 10, 2012)

AdamJ said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > AdamJ said:
> ...



Even with the bulb like front elements at these focal lenghts though the hood still protrudes further forward plus theres nothing to attach any adaptor to. That means that a system like either the Lee one that allows for moveble filters or one like Fotodiox that allows for screw ins are excessively large and expensive both in terms of the holders and the filter sizes needed. If you allow for the hood to be removed and a filter thread to be present then the size and cost of both the holder and the filters themselves can come down since they'll be closer to the front element.

The other option I mentioned would be some kind of drop in filter system ala the Pentax 25mm 645 lens or Canon's own super teles, wouldnt be quite as effective since only fixed grads could be used but would still give it a clear advanatge over the Nikon.

I can understand not taking this route on cheaper lenses where most users will probabley not want filters but if there competing with the Nikon 14-24mm then alot of the market will be serious landscape users and a pretty high percentage of them do want filters.


----------



## AdamJ (Mar 10, 2012)

moreorless said:


> Even with the bulb like front elements at these focal lenghts though the hood still protrudes further forward plus theres nothing to attach any adaptor to. That means that a system like either the Lee one that allows for moveble filters or one like Fotodiox that allows for screw ins are excessively large and expensive both in terms of the holders and the filter sizes needed. If you allow for the hood to be removed and a filter thread to be present then the size and cost of both the holder and the filters themselves can come down since they'll be closer to the front element.
> 
> The other option I mentioned would be some kind of drop in filter system ala the Pentax 25mm 645 lens or Canon's own super teles, wouldnt be quite as effective since only fixed grads could be used but would still give it a clear advanatge over the Nikon.
> 
> I can understand not taking this route on cheaper lenses where most users will probabley not want filters but if there competing with the Nikon 14-24mm then alot of the market will be serious landscape users and a pretty high percentage of them do want filters.



I've just looked at my 12-24 and actually you're right: the narrowest part of the petal hood is pretty much exactly level with the middle of the front element.

Edit: I need to correct myself. The front element is at its most retracted position at 20mm, where it is level with the narrowest part of the petal hood. It extends from 20mm to 24mm by about half a centimetre, and it extends from 20mm to 12mm by about a centimetre. So at any focal length other than around 20mm, the front element protrudes beyond the narrowest part of the hood.


----------



## moreorless (Mar 11, 2012)

AdamJ said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > Even with the bulb like front elements at these focal lenghts though the hood still protrudes further forward plus theres nothing to attach any adaptor to. That means that a system like either the Lee one that allows for moveble filters or one like Fotodiox that allows for screw ins are excessively large and expensive both in terms of the holders and the filter sizes needed. If you allow for the hood to be removed and a filter thread to be present then the size and cost of both the holder and the filters themselves can come down since they'll be closer to the front element.
> ...



I wasnt saying that normal screw ins would be used simpley without the hood, just that with the ability to detach the hood it would be much easier to use an adaptor for one. Canon could perhaps bundle in a basic screw in adaptor with the lens itself, the filters would need to be larger than normal but not 145-150mm as with the Nikon.


----------

