# More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 6, 2014)

```
<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/2014/05/more-wide-angle-lens-speculation-cr1/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/05/more-wide-angle-lens-speculation-cr1/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>We’re told that there are two wide angle zoom lenses coming from Canon. One we’re told would be an 11-24 f/4, though it wasn’t mentioned whether or not this would be a full frame or APS-C only lens. Though the source did say the lens would be expensive, which leads me to believe it would be full frame compatible. The same source also says a new 16-35 f/4 wide angle with IS is also on tap and would be quite pricey. However, if they perform in the corners, people will pay nearly anything for a great wide angle Canon offering. I do find it a  bit odd that neither of the mentioned lenses are f/2.8, but perhaps that’s coming down the road.</p>
<p>There was another mention of a new Canon 100-400 being priced in the $3000 range also coming.</p>
<p>This info is not coming from known sources, so treat it accordingly. More to come…</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 6, 2014)

> There was another mention of a new Canon 100-400 being priced in the $3000 range also coming.



The high price bit was tacked on to lend legitimacy to this rumor of the unicorn lens.


----------



## TrabimanUK (May 6, 2014)

11-24? Well there was a rumour of "the widest ever full frame lens" a few months ago. 11mm is wider than Sigma's 12mm, so possibly real, but at fixed f4, out of my price range. I'll stick with my 12-24 Sigma and tweak the pictures in Lightroom.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 6, 2014)

Between the EF-S 10-24mm f/3.5-5.6 and the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6, I don't see where an EF-S 11-24mm f/4 would come in. Maybe if it had IS, STM, or amazing IQ.

An EF 11-24mm f/4, on the other hand, I would buy.


----------



## lycan (May 6, 2014)

I think I'm starting to believe more on this "unknown sources"


----------



## tron (May 6, 2014)

Not even a 16-35mm f/2.8L III lens ?


----------



## tron (May 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> > There was another mention of a new Canon 100-400 being priced in the $3000 range also coming.
> 
> 
> 
> The high price bit was tacked on to lend legitimacy to this rumor of the unicorn lens.


Do you know how expensive are unicorns these days? ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Dylan777 (May 6, 2014)

Performs as good as Nik 14-24 or better + *IS* + screw on filter = I'm in


----------



## unfocused (May 6, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> ...the source did say the lens would be *expensive*...a new 16-35 f/4 wide angle with IS is also on tap and would be *quite pricey.*..a new Canon 100-400 being *priced in the $3000* range also coming.



Okay, I've lost interest.


----------



## tron (May 6, 2014)

I believe Canon should introduce a 16-35 f/2.8L III, a 16-35 f/4L IS and a 14-24 f/2.8L. Then we would be OK as far as UWA FF zooms are concerned (before asking for an IS version of 16-35 2.8L with IS that is) ;D ;D ;D

Is that too much to ask ? 8) 8)

P.S OK feel free to add other variations, price ranges, APS-C UWA zoom ranges, etc... After all it is a rumor site


----------



## candyman (May 6, 2014)

tron said:


> I believe Canon should introduce a 16-35 f/2.8L III, a 16-35 f/4L IS and a 14-24 f/2.8L. Then we would be OK as far as UWA FF zooms are concerned (before asking for an IS version of 16-35 2.8L with IS that is) ;D ;D ;D
> 
> Is that too much to ask ? 8) 8)
> 
> P.S OK feel free to add other variations, price ranges, APS-C UWA zoom ranges, etc... After all it is a rumor site




yes!


And what would be the speculated prices for:
- 16-35 f/2.8 MKIII = ?
- 16-35 f/4 IS = ?
- 14-24 f/2.8 = ?


Who give up the 16-35 f/2.8 MKII for a 16-35 f/4 IS?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 6, 2014)

Ultra wide-angle zoom lens, is the only type of lens that I did not like constant aperture.  After all, I use my 10-20mm in 10mm only, 99% of the time. :


----------



## tron (May 6, 2014)

candyman said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I believe Canon should introduce a 16-35 f/2.8L III, a 16-35 f/4L IS and a 14-24 f/2.8L. Then we would be OK as far as UWA FF zooms are concerned (before asking for an IS version of 16-35 2.8L with IS that is) ;D ;D ;D
> ...




- 16-35 f/2.8 MKIII = 2300
- 16-35 f/4 IS = 1500
- 14-24 f/2.8 = 2300

Prices randomly  speculated of course. I based them somehow on 24-70 2.8 II to 24-70 4L IS price comparisons and I wanted to create confusion between the 16-35 f/2.8 MKIII and 14-24 f/2.8 models ;D ;D ;D

P.S I do not say I would like these prices, it is just a speculation which is different...


----------



## candyman (May 6, 2014)

tron said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...




ouch, ouch, ouch....my 16-35 f/2.8 MKII currently costs 1250 euro
Luckely this rumorpost is a CR1   so I have time to save up more money. Tomorrow I will first spent 850 euro on the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART  ;D


----------



## ewg963 (May 6, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Performs as good as Nik 14-24 or better + *IS* + screw on filter = I'm in


 +1


----------



## Deleted member 20471 (May 6, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> The same source also says a new 16-35 f/4 wide angle with IS is also on tap and would be quite pricey.



This lens is what I have been waiting for, if it is sharp all over... My guess for a price, if it is rumoured to be pricey is around $1500-2000... :'(


----------



## ahsanford (May 6, 2014)

dilbert said:


> If "quite pricey" is more than ~$1000 then it is too expensive. $1000 is the cost of a 17-40/f4 plus add a bit for IS. If it is getting towards $1300 or more then Canon can shove it where the Sun don't shine.



The 17-40 F/4L, 24-105 F/4L IS, 70-200 F/4L, etc. are in that 'entry level L lens' bucket where you get big upgrades over non-L glass, like better build quality, weather sealing, sharper, quicker focusing, etc. _but you don't get _best-in-class IQ or the fastest apertures.

For more money, the 16-35 F/2.8L II, 24-70 F/2.8L II, 70-200 F/2.8L IS II, etc. represent the high end of Canon zooms and you generally net better IQ or can pull off more shots (i.e. speed) with those lenses.

So Dilbert, before I set a price limit on it, I think it all depends on what 'bucket' they put a new wide lens in:

[list type=decimal]
[*]If it's a spiritual successor to the *17-40 f/4L* -- possibly Canon's highest selling non-kit L lens -- even with IS the price should be around $1,000-1,200 at first offering. That lens is a 7 out of 10 lens and should not be priced like top-end pro gear. Even if they (likely) add IS and (undoubtedly) improve the corners over the current 17-40, an F/4 wide zoom shouldn't command a very high price.


[*]If it's a spiritual successor to the *16-35 f/2.8L II*, you are talking $2,000-2,500 as that would be a best-in-focal-length offering from Canon, aimed at pros and not enthusiasts. (Keep in mind, the current II version is still going for something like $1,600-1,700 before rebate.)


[*]If it's altogether something new and desired by pros and enthusiasts alike, say a *14-24L f/2.8* -- look out. They could ask for the earth, moon and stars and people would pay it. I'd see that lens offered at a very high starting price for the long-time wantees, perhaps $3k, and then walked down over time to where the Nikon offering is ($2k I believe). _And if that 14-24L F/2.8 is either front-filterable_ or (more likely) compatible with Lee's oversized filter apparatus on day one, some folks would give vital organs for it. Such a lens would be priceless for some folks.


[/list]
- A


----------



## rbr (May 6, 2014)

The current Canon 14mm f2.8II is already over $2300 and not very sharp in the extreme corners on full frame cameras. A new zoom that is sharper in the corners is definitely not going to be less expensive. Any sort of 14-24 zoom that matches or surpasses Nikon's is going to be well over $3000 I would expect.

In reality, 14mm is pretty extreme for most people in most circumstances. If Canon could come out with ANY lens (zoom or single focal length) in the 16-18mm range that was razor sharp in the corners when stopped down only a little and took screw on filters, a lot of people would be very happy.


----------



## unfocused (May 6, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > If "quite pricey" is more than ~$1000 then it is too expensive. $1000 is the cost of a 17-40/f4 plus add a bit for IS. If it is getting towards $1300 or more then Canon can shove it where the Sun don't shine.
> ...



As much as it pains me, I have to say I'm probably leaning a bit more to Dilbert's side on this one. 

For one thing, neither the categories nor the assessments are quite as clear as ahsanford states.

I don't know where the 24-70 f4 IS would fit into his categories. But, it is selling at $1,200 including rebate, although I don't know whether or not anyone is actually buying that lens.

I don't know why someone would call the 17-40 F4 a "7" out of 10. Virtually every test and review shows it performs every bit as well as the 16-35 f2.8. I suppose you can "score" it slightly lower because it is an f4 lens, but only if one needs f2.8.

I'm always amused at those who make price distinctions between "pros" and "enthusiasts" assuming that pros pay more than enthusiasts, when in reality, it is usually just the opposite. Enthusiasts are more likely to pay top dollar because they have the discretionary dollars to spend. Pros need to worry about mundane things like return on investment. 

Finally, I suspect that someone may be spending too much time on internet forums if they really believe there is such a huge pent-up demand for a $3,000 ultra-wide 14-24 f2.8.


----------



## iMagic (May 6, 2014)

haha. My 14MM II is just fine in the corners from 5.6 onwards. In fact, I prefer it to the Rokinon 14mm which has such stretched corners that I find it unusable. Yes the Canon at 2.8 is soft, but really 5.6 is just peachy keeno. Albeit expensive.............


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 6, 2014)

iMagic said:


> haha. My 14MM II is just fine in the corners from 5.6 onwards. In fact, I prefer it to the Rokinon 14mm which has such stretched corners that I find it unusable. Yes the Canon at 2.8 is soft, but really 5.6 is just peachy keeno. Albeit expensive.............



Bingo. The Rokinon is actually bit sharper, but the extreme distortion in the corners can kill that (depending on the tilt of the sensor).

P.S. If the rumor regarding the price of the new 100-400L is true, it had better be VERY, VERY good. As in twice as good as the 70-300L or 3x as good as the new Tamron 150-600 VC.


----------



## rbr (May 6, 2014)

iMagic said:


> haha. My 14MM II is just fine in the corners from 5.6 onwards. In fact, I prefer it to the Rokinon 14mm which has such stretched corners that I find it unusable. Yes the Canon at 2.8 is soft, but really 5.6 is just peachy keeno. Albeit expensive.............



You're lucky. I had one for several years and loved it when I only used 1D APS-H cameras with the outer third cropped out. When I bought my first full-frame camera it was the first lens to go. Every photo taken with it looked like someone smeared vaseline on the corners of the camera's sensor. I traded it for a Zeiss 18mm,which isn't perfect, but fine at f8 and f11 where I need it most, and better than anything by Canon in that range that I've tried.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 6, 2014)

*Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1] *



dilbert said:


> > We’re told that there are two wide angle zoom lenses coming from Canon. One we’re told would be an 11-24 f/4, though it wasn’t mentioned whether or not this would be a full frame or APS-C only lens. Though the source did say the lens would be expensive, which leads me to believe it would be full frame compatible. The same source also says a new 16-35 f/4 wide angle with IS is also on tap and would be quite pricey.
> 
> 
> 
> If "quite pricey" is more than ~$1000 then it is too expensive. $1000 is the cost of a 17-40/f4 plus add a bit for IS. If it is getting towards $1300 or more then Canon can shove it where the Sun don't shine.



The Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR is $ 1250. I am guessing if the IQ is amazing (the Nikon's is not) then Canon will happily charge lot more than that, and get away with it. I would guess $ 1500 at least, probably as high as $ 1800. Remember, the 24-70 f/4 is still $ 1200 new, and a sharp ultrawide will be much more in demand.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (May 6, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Performs as good as Nik 14-24 or better + *IS* + screw on filter = I'm in



Performs as good as Nik 14-24 or better + *screw on hood (not like the cheap plastic slide on hood on the nik14-24)*= I'm in

Doubt there would be flat front glass for anything wider than 15mm, don't care so much for IS, just give me a good sharp ultra wide in the corners + a not cheaply constructed hood (that falls off on the Nikon) to protect the front protruding glass in my bag/transit (construct it like the 17mm ts-e please).


----------



## thedman (May 6, 2014)

I would buy two of these three. Which of course means this is a bogus rumor.


----------



## Etienne (May 6, 2014)

candyman said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I believe Canon should introduce a 16-35 f/2.8L III, a 16-35 f/4L IS and a 14-24 f/2.8L. Then we would be OK as far as UWA FF zooms are concerned (before asking for an IS version of 16-35 2.8L with IS that is) ;D ;D ;D
> ...



If it's really sharp at f/4, and a little smaller and lighter, I'll probably switch.


----------



## ahsanford (May 6, 2014)

unfocused said:


> As much as it pains me, I have to say I'm probably leaning a bit more to Dilbert's side on this one.
> 
> For one thing, neither the categories nor the assessments are quite as clear as ahsanford states.
> 
> ...



I think it is a pretty clear price strategy on the zooms. See chart below. I'm not picking a fight on the 24-105 vs. 24-70 F/4 -- Canon simply thinks that 24-70 F/4 lens is worth more money.

But as you can see, there are 'budget' L zooms on the left, high end ones on the right, and in a few lengths, there is a middle quality/performance option. The price points are pretty clear to me.

As for the not-really-disparaging remarks on the 17-40, I use it as a great example of an 'if you have plenty of light and your subject isn't moving' great lens. Stopping it down for landscape work is fine. But there are times you need F/2.8 or you need sharp results at an aperture wider than F/5.6, and the 16-35 II is the better call. In general, though, _both lenses are good but not great_. Many on this forum might argue that the 16-35 II should be in the 'better' column and not the 'best' column of ultrawide.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (May 6, 2014)

dilbert said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > As for the not-really-disparaging remarks on the 17-40, I use it as a great example of an 'if you have plenty of light and your subject isn't moving' great lens. Stopping it down for landscape work is fine. But there are times you need F/2.8 or you need sharp results at an aperture wider than F/5.6, and the 16-35 II is the better call. In general, though, _*both lenses are good but not great*_. Many on this forum might argue that the 16-35 II should be in the 'better' column and not the 'best' column of ultrawide.
> ...



Fair. We all peg this stuff differently. 

Some folks would peg good/better/best based solely on IQ and disregard handling, weather-sealing, IS, build quality, etc. A lot of folks peg value in this forum on an odd trinity of sharpness + max aperture + if IS is offered. There is no right/wrong way to look at it. 



> If we consider the 24-70 f/4L IS USM to set the benchmark for what all new f/4 L series lenses will be like then the new wide angle L zoom should be both priced and perform similarly. If a new wide angle f/4L zoom were to be priced above the 24-70 f/4L equivalent then questions need to be asked and to look at what Sigma and Tamron can do in that space as they've shown themselves to be quite decent of late.



+1

I own the 24-70 F/4 IS and it's a splendid lens. Sharper than the 24-70 F/2.8 I and 24-105, but not as sharp as the $2300 King of the Hill F/2.8 II. Shorter and lighter than all of them and the 0.7x macro is the cherry on top. It is the perfect 'better but not best' zoom.

What remains to be seen is if Canon will create 'better but not best' lenses by just slapping IS on older designs or if truly new lens designs will come forward. But I think we should be optimistic: the 24-70 F/4L, the trio of non-L IS refreshes (which turned out to be far better lenses than they seemed at first announcement) are all new lenses. Here's hoping we get new designs for the ultrawide segment as well.

- A


----------



## IsaacImage (May 6, 2014)

Eagerly waiting to buy 11-24 or 14-24.
Preferably 2.8 plsplsplsplspls and before Wedding season is heating us


----------



## SwnSng (May 6, 2014)

I'm no longer anxious about this...I purchased a Rokinon 14mm 2.8 to hold me over.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 6, 2014)

SwnSng said:


> I'm no longer anxious about this...I purchased a Rokinon 14mm 2.8 to hold me over.



+1.


----------



## sdfreeland (May 6, 2014)

A 100-400 for $3000? That's just crazy. Considering the current 100-400mm is pretty good already and the Tamron 150-600mm is similar but cheaper, they would have to be nuts to make it $3000. How much better could it be besides the actual design?


----------



## Don Haines (May 7, 2014)

A 100-400 for $3000? Sounds reasonable, 

28-300 F3.5-F5.6L IS for $2689..... A 100-400 F5.6 L IS of modern design and materials and greatly improved IQ over the series 1 lens could go for $3000...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 7, 2014)

tron said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > > There was another mention of a new Canon 100-400 being priced in the $3000 range also coming.
> ...



very these days

in the Middle Ages, they were pricey, but a well to do knight could afford one, a dinosaur was a bit more a reach back then however, but a few kings were said to own them as beasts of terror and in the Stone Age, well I mean they were both commonplace, in fact, dinosaurs were the typical beast of burden and mode of transport for man (I saw that last bit in some museum somewhere in the Midwest, so I'm pretty sure I'm correct in what I'm saying here about Stone Age man and dinosaurs. I don't see how I could be going wrong.).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 7, 2014)

tron said:


> I believe Canon should introduce a 16-35 f/2.8L III, a 16-35 f/4L IS and a 14-24 f/2.8L. Then we would be OK as far as UWA FF zooms are concerned (before asking for an IS version of 16-35 2.8L with IS that is) ;D ;D ;D
> 
> Is that too much to ask ? 8) 8)
> 
> P.S OK feel free to add other variations, price ranges, APS-C UWA zoom ranges, etc... After all it is a rumor site



no, it's not too much to ask, it's too little! We also need one with just a bit more range, some sort of 16-50 or at least 16-40 with great FF corners

so tack that one on too


----------



## Don Haines (May 7, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Of course dinosaurs and man co-existed.... haven't you ever seen the Flintstones on TV?


----------



## Canon 14-24 (May 7, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> I think it is a pretty clear price strategy on the zooms. See chart below. I'm not picking a fight on the 24-105 vs. 24-70 F/4 -- Canon simply thinks that 24-70 F/4 lens is worth more money.
> 
> But as you can see, there are 'budget' L zooms on the left, high end ones on the right, and in a few lengths, there is a middle quality/performance option. The price points are pretty clear to me.
> 
> ...



I find that chart doesn't represent the ultra wide angle zoom segments that are currently out there. Can't really compare the standard zoom segments that are available with the ultra zooms as with super telephoto primes as well.

This chart attached below I think better represents the void Canon hasn't fulfilled in the FF ultra wide angle zoom segments: 

Given the current offerings, I would fantasize Canon would release an EF 15-35mm f/4 USM IS (flat front element) and EF 12 or 13-14mm f/2.8 USM lens (as Canon offerings tend to be 1mm wider in each of the current segments).


----------



## Khufu (May 7, 2014)

Waffle, waffle, blah...

In real world shooting, people seem to love the kind of results I've had from the sadly discontinued Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 (shot on either the 60D and 5D3) which I got from eBay for a little over £200 - I couldn't tell you about corner sharpness but I can tell you it's pretty sweet for a UWA/hella-niche supplement to my kit... as is the "old" Sigma 24mm f/1.8 for WA WITH BOKEH!!

Just throwing some alt-perspective curveball spanner herring bombs in the works there. I dig Samsung's 16mm f/2.4 APS-C pancake, too. Not entirely sure why I'm still talking. Perhaps because I don't have a disposable $3500 right now but want to feel awesome regardless. Na-night!


----------



## ahsanford (May 7, 2014)

Canon 14-24 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I think it is a pretty clear price strategy on the zooms. See chart below. I'm not picking a fight on the 24-105 vs. 24-70 F/4 -- Canon simply thinks that 24-70 F/4 lens is worth more money.
> ...



That presumes that Canon is going to have the 4 lenses for one zoom range like the 70-200s: two F/4 and two F/2.8 lenses, with and without IS.

They don't even do that in the standard range right now (cough no 24-70 F/2.8 IS cough)...

And Canon seems to be getting out of that business. Aren't they discontinuing one of the 70-200s?

- A


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 7, 2014)

Let's look at the market- 
A. Is there a room for UWA with IS?- yes- videography, high resolution of modern sensors (see wide angle IS primes). Also, corner resolution of the 17-40 could be improved and that will attract a lot of new customers.
B. Is there a room for a sharp, fast, ultrawide? - look at Nikon 14-24 sales. I don't have the numbers- but if it sells in large numbers, then that is an indication for Canon to approach that segment.

Let's look at competitors-
A. What other UWA with IS is available for canon- none. 
B. Assuming, there is a market for a sharp, fast, ultrawide- is there any competition- only from some prime lenses, which are:
a) own product- 14mm II- not particularly sharp
b) Zeiss 15mm, 18mm (?) and 21mm- expensive, manual focus
c) own product- 17mm TS-E- manual focus, expensive

Take home:
A. For an ultrawide with IS- there is definitely an unmet demand. Historically, Nikon has high sales numbers for its 16-35 f/4 VR. So I think Canon can expect a large number of 16-35 II users to move to an IS lens for a low adoption cost. There will also be a small number of people upgrading from the 17-40 due to the IS and better IQ. This will include both people using it exclusively on FF, and people buying it for APS-C with an eye on potential upgrade path.
B. For a sharp, fast ultrawide- this one is less clear. Canon needs to look at the sales figures for the 14-24 and the 16-35 2.8. If there is a bigger number for the 14-24, that means lots of people are willing to pay the premium price and trade off the filter usability and range. OTOH, if the 17-35 2.8 sells better, Canon will be better off bringing out a version III of the lens, or more likely, just keep the 16-35 II around.

(by the way, the prices are off- the 17-35 2.8 costs around $1750, not $ 1950)
[p.s. I tried not to make any assumptions, including: those hankering on the CR forums for a sharp, fast UWA necessarily make up the majority of Canon's customers.]


----------



## ahsanford (May 7, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Let's look at the market-
> A. Is there a room for UWA with IS?- yes- videography, high resolution of modern sensors (see wide angle IS primes). Also, corner resolution of the 17-40 could be improved and that will attract a lot of new customers.
> B. Is there a room for a sharp, fast, ultrawide? - look at Nikon 14-24 sales. I don't have the numbers- but if it sells in large numbers, then that is an indication for Canon to approach that segment.
> 
> ...



Good insights. Makes sense. IS would be cherished by handheld low-light guys and videographers.

Keep in mind the Nikon 14-24 is loved for more than it's unique focal length. That lens is absurdly sharp for a zoom. Canon guys get adapters just to shoot this lens. Lee makes a comically large outrigger setup just for this lens. Qualitatively and quantitatively Every review or test I've seen with it is off the charts -- other than susceptibility to flare and the lack of a thread-able front filter, I don't think I've heard a bad word about it.

I'm not a landscape pro, but as I understand, the 14-24 plus the D800's resolving power and low ISO dynamic range are a killer combination for landscape guys, right?

- A


----------



## adhocphotographer (May 7, 2014)

SwnSng said:


> I'm no longer anxious about this...I purchased a Rokinon 14mm 2.8 to hold me over.



+1 but 17-40!


----------



## AvTvM (May 7, 2014)

Looking at the 2 recent UWA rumours i only expect the following:
• EF-S 10-24/4.0-5.6 IS STM ... Update to current 10-22 and using some design elements from the slightly better ef-m 11-22 IS STM ... Will be compact and have decent, but not stellar iq ... Price? USD 999
• EF 16-40/4.0 IS ... Successor to 17-40, with 1mm more wa and much bettet corners, plus IS. Priced much higher, similar to 24-70/4 l is

My gut feeling is, canon still has no design ready to really match nik 14-24/2.8. especially not at the nikon's really great pricepoint. hopefully they do not bring another slightly improved but still disappointing 16-35 Iii is but keep working until they are ready to bring a f/2.8 UWA with IS that truly matches 70-200 ii and 24-70 ii iq and maked for a worthy 2.8 zoom holy trinity. If they are able to pull off a 14-24 2.8 IS, they can go and charge 2500 for it, which is still plenty more than the nikon.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 7, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Keep in mind the Nikon 14-24 is loved for more than it's unique focal length. That lens is absurdly sharp for a zoom. Canon guys get adapters just to shoot this lens. Lee makes a comically large outrigger setup just for this lens. Qualitatively and quantitatively Every review or test I've seen with it is off the charts -- other than susceptibility to flare and the lack of a thread-able front filter, I don't think I've heard a bad word about it.



Of course, I was talking about the sharpness, not the FL (sharp, fast, UWA).
You are probably right about the popularity of the 14-24. 
But without concrete data about the demand, it is just a speculation, a rumor.


----------



## sanj (May 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> > There was another mention of a new Canon 100-400 being priced in the $3000 range also coming.
> 
> 
> 
> The high price bit was tacked on to lend legitimacy to this rumor of the unicorn lens.



I laughed long and hard.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (May 7, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Canon 14-24 said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



It's not just 70-200 lenses in that segment, telephoto zoom also encompasses cheap and L 70-300s, the 100-400, and an all in one lens compromise 28-300 L - just like the various options in the ultra wide angle segment. There is no same amount spread across each different segment - in specific to the ultra wide angle ZOOM, there is definitely a void that hasn't been filled for ultra wide Canon users since freaking 2007 when the 14-24 was released.


----------



## The Bad Duck (May 7, 2014)

I'd love to replace my samyang 14/2.8 with something like 10-20 give or take 4mm on each side. F/4 seems fine, I would not mind f/5.6 either. But please make it a screw on filter on the front lens, I find that I stick my vurrent 14mm lens really close to dusty mashines and cows that actually lick it out of curiosity.


----------



## pablo (May 7, 2014)

At wide angles, f2.8 is less relevant in terms of depth of field.

Current cameras and future cameras can go up to silly silly iso's, so that lost stop (f4 rather than f2.8) probably doesn't mean much to most folk these days. One stop of iso is no longer life or death in terms of noise.

AF performance, sure it would be great to have an IS UWA that works with the cameras AF at it's best, but even at f4 modern AF systems are all pretty good, and going forward with live view dual pixel focus, the extra light is less relevant that with the phase detection systems we will come to see as old fashioned soon enough.

This is not a lens for your 6 year old 5D2. This is a lens for your 5D4, your 80D, your 7Dmk2.


----------



## climber (May 7, 2014)

And what about 14mm f/2.8, which is already there? 

I also wanted that Canon make 14-24 f/2.8, but then I thought, would I really miss that range between 15 - 23 mm, if I buy 14mm f/2.8. Actually now I don't have money to buy it, but if they won't make 14-24 f/2.8, I will probably buy 14mm which already exist. I also didn't read any tests about that lens yet, so I don't know if it has any weak points.

I'd rather have f/2.8 than f/4 on a UWA lens, because of shooting night skies.


----------



## Deleted member 20471 (May 7, 2014)

More information on the two rumored lenses;

Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM

http://photorumors.com/2014/05/06/canon-rumored-to-announce-two-new-wide-angle-lenses


----------



## Maximilian (May 7, 2014)

*yawn* 
I feel somehow sympathy with CR if this and the other lens rumors are the only information they can get there. 
But these rumors of rumors about rumors are so vacuous, that I now stop reading them until more detailed specs and dates appear and prefer to go out shooting with the lenses I already have.


----------



## ahsanford (May 7, 2014)

nicke said:


> More information on the two rumored lenses;
> 
> Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
> Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
> ...


*
Digicame / Photo Rumors scoops CR again?
*
'Will' and 'next few days' is roughly CR2 material for PR. When it's a done deal (usually 24-48 hours prior), they will simply say 'This is the new [product]'.

- A


----------



## pablo (May 7, 2014)

climber said:


> And what about 14mm f/2.8, which is already there?
> 
> I also wanted that Canon make 14-24 f/2.8, but then I thought, would I really miss that range between 15 - 23 mm, if I buy 14mm f/2.8. Actually now I don't have money to buy it, but if they won't make 14-24 f/2.8, I will probably buy 14mm which already exist. I also didn't read any tests about that lens yet, so I don't know if it has any weak points.
> 
> I'd rather have f/2.8 than f/4 on a UWA lens, because of shooting night skies.



Yeah, what about it? What about the 17mm f3.5 TS-E, what about this? what about that?

All these folk bemoaning the fact that it's not rumoured to be an f2.8... my point was, that is less and less relevant these days. With more capable AF systems, with new AF types that no longer excel with only the fastest lenses, with new digic engines that perform well up to 10's of thousands of ISO....

Perhaps Canon have figured that f4 is workable for more people, or that they can make the lens cheaper and therfore sell more...

Who knows. It's all a rumour. But the fact is Canon make a 14mm f2.8. So we can't speculate. What exactly was your point?


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 7, 2014)

pablo said:


> climber said:
> 
> 
> > And what about 14mm f/2.8, which is already there?
> ...



I think he just wanted some information on the 14 II.


----------



## ahsanford (May 7, 2014)

This thread has moved -- CR2, specs, etc. Looks like new wide glass is finally coming...

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20839.0

FYI


----------



## Pixel (May 8, 2014)

I'm having a hard time mustering up any excitement for a 16-35mm f4. I was hoping for the rumored 14-24mm. :-[


----------



## tron (May 8, 2014)

Pixel said:


> I'm having a hard time mustering up any excitement for a 16-35mm f4. I was hoping for the rumored 14-24mm. :-[


No excitement at all either. I was hoping for a 16-35 2.8 L III


----------



## pedro (May 8, 2014)

An 11-24 F/4.0 would be nice. Bulb lens? And I wonder, what third party brands would do with that. A Sigma 11-24, about the same quality at less $$$? I'm almost in ;-)


----------

