# Canon EF 12-24 f/2.8L [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 27, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/02/canon-ef-12-24-f2-8l-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/2013/02/canon-ef-12-24-f2-8l-cr1/">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>Going wider?


</strong>We’ve spoken about the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/12/canon-lens-patents-review/" target="_blank">existence of an EF 14-24 f/2.8L</a> in the past, a lens that a lot of people want to see come to fruition.</p>
<p>We’ve been told that an EF 12-24 f/2.8L exists in prototype form and could become a product instead of the EF 14-24 f/2.8L. I can only recall <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0001VQ11U/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B0001VQ11U&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20" target="_blank">Sigma making such a lens for full frame</a> cameras. Going this wide would certainly put some space between the cheaper (assuming based on Canon pricing history) EF 17-40 f/4L and EF 16-35 f/2.8L II.</p>
<p>This is the first I have heard of an EF 12-24 f/2.8L, so take it with a big grain of salt. This could be a better range in an f/4 variant, as it would be great for both full frame and APS-C and would really reduce size and weight compared to a 2.8 version.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<p> </p>
```


----------



## Rat (Feb 27, 2013)

A 12-24? I had the Tokina with that range, and it was great on crop. I can't even think how mindbogglingly useful it would be on FF. 







I know this cartoon gets used for everything and its grandma, but what do you do. I'd happily shell out 2k$ for an f/4.

[edit]CR Guy, the amazon link is borked


----------



## peederj (Feb 27, 2013)

I dunno about you but given the loss of DOF and light gathering on a crop sensor, I prefer my lenses to be faster on them, not slower. Also the crop tends to be forgiving of fast and wide lenses' edge blur and vignetting wide open. Bring on the 2.8!


----------



## Rat (Feb 27, 2013)

peederj said:


> I dunno about you but given the loss of DOF and light gathering on a crop sensor, I prefer my lenses to be faster on them, not slower. Also the crop tends to be forgiving of fast and wide lenses' edge blur and vignetting wide open. Bring on the 2.8!


Well, I don't actually use my crop anymore, so I'd be equally happy with an f/4 - more so because there might be a chance that that actually would be priced in the 2K region. An FF 2.8 would probably be in the great white price range. But I wouldn't object to the lens per se


----------



## rs (Feb 27, 2013)

If they can somehow make a 12-24/2.8 with the optical properties of the Nikkor 14-24, it'll be very impressive. Unfortunately the front element will no doubt make the 17 TS-E look flat.

It does sound a bit far fetched to create this with the recent optical quality of their L glass. Personally I'm not interested in something to merely equal the Sigma 12-24 optically.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Feb 27, 2013)

Oh yeah!


----------



## mustafa (Feb 27, 2013)

Sounds expensive.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 27, 2013)

12-24f2.8L? please stop tickling me   ;D


----------



## traveller (Feb 27, 2013)

Sounds very ambitious. It would be nice if it were as sharp as the Nikon 14-24 and priced similarly, but I would very much doubt that. 

Lens design is all about compromise; I would prefer to see a 14-24 that could use the existing Lee filter system for the Nikon version, perhaps adding an internal circular polariser? 

For my needs, I would prefer a lighter (and cheaper) f/4 version -maybe even starting at 16mm (I rarley go that wide) with a smaller, filter friendly front element. To be honest, I'm probably talking about a different lens (a 17-40 replacement).


----------



## robbymack (Feb 27, 2013)

12-24 f2.8...meh at best, price will be well north of $3k.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 27, 2013)

traveller said:


> ... perhaps adding an internal circular polariser?


You'd need a way to get it out of the optical path, when you don't want to lose 1.5-2 stops of light. Perhaps a drop-in type like the supertele lenses use...


----------



## candyman (Feb 27, 2013)

robbymack said:


> 12-24 f2.8...meh at best, price will be well north of $3k.




And east of 1000 gram


----------



## Daniel Flather (Feb 27, 2013)

--SAUCE-- lots of it too. Its cost in a 2.8 in terms of size, weight, and monies would/will be great.


----------



## pedro (Feb 27, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><glusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12985"></glusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12985">Tweet</a></div>
> <strong>Going wider?
> 
> 
> ...



Price at f/4.0? Still north of 2k? Then no thanks.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Feb 27, 2013)

I think my number one concern would be corner sharpness. Based off of recent lens releases they'll get the center nice and sharp, but especially with their super-wides Canon has had some trouble getting the corner and edge sharpness up. 

As for f/2.8 vs f/4, I'd rather f/2.8 since I can stop down to f/4 or beyond to increase quality when I need, but sometimes I just plain need as much light as possible. Although it will make it cost a lot more, and undoubtedly weigh a lot more. *sigh* Tradeoffs, it's always about tradeoffs.


----------



## PhotographAdventure (Feb 27, 2013)

My guess is the 12-24mm f/2.8 will start at $2,500 and eventually, it will rest in the $2,000 range.


----------



## RGF (Feb 27, 2013)

I'd be happy if canon would make a lens equivalent to rather Nikon 14-24. In fact i would like to see canon and Nikon cooperate and make the nikon14-24 work on a canon body. Okay, I'll wake up now and realize that my dream isn't longer in kansas


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 27, 2013)

RGF said:


> In fact i would like to see canon and Nikon cooperate and make the nikon14-24 work on a canon body.



Actually, quite a few people shoot that combo. There's an adapter from Novoflex that supports use of Nikon lenses on a Canon mount, and the 14-24 is probably the most common use for that adapter. It's manual focus, of course, and the aperture has to be set manually. But since the Nikon UWA zoom is optically superior to the Canon offerings, and most UWA uses involve tripods and plenty of time to setup the shot, it's a viable solution.


----------



## ddashti (Feb 27, 2013)

I'd rather see a supreme 14-24 performer than an "acceptably good" 12-24. Unless Canon can pull it off and steal the show for that range, the 14-24 sounds much better (output quality guarantee-wise).


----------



## facedodge (Feb 27, 2013)

Considering the quality of the high end lenses Canon has been putting out lately, I'd say go for it. I'm sure they can think of a way to make it wider and sharper.


----------



## pedro (Feb 27, 2013)

If Canon publish a patent, how much time does it take till anouncement? Generally speaking...Not my lens at the moment...Instead of hunting the "phantom" I will go 16-35 8)


----------



## infared (Feb 27, 2013)

I personally would be totally please with a great performing (AS GOOD AS THE NIKON LENS, CANON!) 14-24mm. Let's see if Canon can get that right, first. They are the weakest in the wide-angle zoom dept..so I would prefer to see them get the basics correct before they try breaking any focal length barriers. The last thing I want to see is a mediocre performing 12-24mm. Skip the wide angle extra reach and focus on sharpness across the image plane, low distortion, realistic cost, etc. I don't need a $3000 home run...I will buy a Zeiss 15mm if I need that (hmm...I might anyway! LOL!)...just give us something solid, sharp and useful. I know Canon can do this without screwing it up..I just know that they have the capability.

This seems to be the sentiment of many here.....hopefully Canon corporate occasionally comes here and reads what we have to say...


----------



## traveller (Feb 27, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > ... perhaps adding an internal circular polariser?
> ...



Sorry, didn't make my point very clear there! Yes that's exactly what I had in mind; any reason why they couldn't, Pentax managed it on their 25mm 645 lens...


----------



## bchernicoff (Feb 27, 2013)

Meanwhile, I truck along quite happy with my Rokinon/Samyang 14mm f/2.8


----------



## ewg963 (Feb 27, 2013)

I like !!!


----------



## deleteme (Feb 27, 2013)

Just what I suggested in a previous post. 
I owned the Sigma 12-24 (ver1) and suggested that Canon needed to make a landmark lens as opposed to a me-too lens.
They also know that there are plenty of potential buyers even at a $2500+ price.


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 27, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > ... perhaps adding an internal circular polariser?
> ...



Would require a "neck" like the supers have for the filter to seat in the optical path properly and make the lens 17mm longer (width of the current 52 drop in) which may impact the design. It would also be considered an "element" in the lens.


----------



## jrista (Feb 27, 2013)

I would absolutely LOVE a 12-24 f/2.8 L for wide-field astrophotography! Imagine the length of exposures you could get, or at lower ISOs, with a 12mm f/2.8 lens! Ooooh, the bliss! I'd spend the money for it, too...12mm f/2.8 astrophotography...man I'm DROOLIN!! ;D

In terms of exposure time, here is what I figure. Currently, with my 16-35 f/2.8 L, I usually get about 30 seconds at 16mm out of it, at ISO 800 - 1600, for a decent "printable" shot (i.e. a shot that could be printed at native size...13x19 for the 7D...without particularly noticeable startrailing. Rule of 600 would indicate 38 seconds, so I shorten that a bit for printability). For a web-sized shot, I can usually expose for about 40-45 seconds, and often use a higher ISO. With the 12-24 f/2.8 L, I figure I could get 45-50 seconds out of it for printables, and maybe as much as 65-75 seconds for web-sized shots! And that is nothing to say of the wider field of view, which would be nice at times...


----------



## rs (Feb 27, 2013)

jrista said:


> I would absolutely LOVE a 12-24 f/2.8 L for wide-field astrophotography! Imagine the length of exposures you could get, or at lower ISOs, with a 12mm f/2.8 lens! Ooooh, the bliss! I'd spend the money for it, too...12mm f/2.8 astrophotography...man I'm DROOLIN!! ;D


If you're using a 7D, why not get the cheap Tamron 11-16/2.8 for astrophotography? Wider, fraction of the cost, and it exists now


----------



## Jesse (Feb 27, 2013)

Yes please.


----------



## Dick (Feb 27, 2013)

Sounds like a lens I'd want to have. Then again... shooting wide shots only here and there, I just couldn't justify the ridiculous price tag they'd put on it.


----------



## jrista (Feb 27, 2013)

rs said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I would absolutely LOVE a 12-24 f/2.8 L for wide-field astrophotography! Imagine the length of exposures you could get, or at lower ISOs, with a 12mm f/2.8 lens! Ooooh, the bliss! I'd spend the money for it, too...12mm f/2.8 astrophotography...man I'm DROOLIN!! ;D
> ...



Do you mean Tokina 11-16? I don't think Tamron makes such a lens. 

I stick with Canon lenses. I've used third-party lenses and teleconverters before, and had problems. Currently, the only third-party thing I use is a Kenko 1.4x GDX Pro 300 teleconverter...it works well most of the time, but with the new Mark II lenses, the camera doesn't get the right information and over-exposes by a stop. I don't like those kinds of issues, and I've had other problems using a Sigma lens in the past, etc. At least when you stay within the brand, those kinds of things never occur. 

Besides, I would expect an EF 12-24 f/2.8 L to offer the best resolution possible in such a lens design. I can't imagine Tamron or Tokina, or Sigma or anyone else, to produce lenses that rival the newest lenses from Canon. I've never seen such resolution before, even in Canon's past lenses (with the exception of maybe the 300 f/2.8 L). The Tokina 11-16 seems to do well against past-generation Canon lenses, but even Canon's own older designs, such as the 16-35, often don't compare to the newer L-series lenses released in the last couple of years. I would also use the 12-24 for landscapes, and the 24mm focal length (on FF, ~16mm on APS-C, although I intend to either get a 5D III or the Canon megapixel monster for my landscapes in the future) is one that I like for landscapes, and it would be nice to have a single lens that covers the wide to ultra wide focal lengths for both landscapes and astrophotography, so I don't have to swap out lenses when I head out to do that kind of photography.


----------



## pwp (Feb 27, 2013)

I have the Sigma 12-24 and in reality probably pull it out a couple of times a year. I've got a good copy. It's a limited use lens that has greater relevance for crop shooters. Still, it's about time Canon got a high IQ UWA into the market. Whether it's f/2.8 or f/4 probably doesn't matter too much. I'd be more likely to buy a stellar 14-24 f/2.8 than a merely good, higher priced 12-24. 

-PW


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 27, 2013)

If its wider and shaper than the nikon, expect these two things. 

1. A ridiculous price tag. 

2. A stupendous waiting list.


----------



## cliffwang (Feb 27, 2013)

rs said:


> It does sound a bit far fetched to create this with the recent optical quality of their L glass. Personally I'm not interested in something to merely equal the Sigma 12-24 optically.



If the IQ of Canon 12-24 L is only slightly better than the IQ of Sigma one, Canon has better not put this lens on the market. I had Sigma 12-24 years ago. The IQ is too soft, so I decided to sell it. Now I am very satisfied my Samyang 14mm which has much better IQ than Sigma 12-24.


----------



## rs (Feb 27, 2013)

jrista said:


> Do you mean Tokina 11-16? I don't think Tamron makes such a lens.


Yeah, I meant the Tokina. You make a great point there about compatibility, and if you plan to go FF, the extra cost of the large UWA imaging circle and inconvenience of the front element shape won't be wasted on you.

If this lens will ever become a reality, I expect Canons high MP FF body to be out by then. It's been rumoured for long enough...

I just hope this lens (if it ever becomes a reality) is less Sigma 12-24 and more Nikon 14-24 when it comes to image quality.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Feb 28, 2013)

Aw man, now I need to change my user name to Canon 12-24!


----------



## jrista (Feb 28, 2013)

Canon 14-24 said:


> Aw man, now I need to change my user name to Canon 12-24!



LOL ;D


----------



## drjlo (Feb 28, 2013)

Personally, it would be much more useful for me if Canon came up with 16-35 f/2.8 MkIII with sharpness in line with 24-70 II and 70-200 f2.8 II, as well as a real good 35 mm end..


----------



## pedro (Feb 28, 2013)

jrista said:


> I would absolutely LOVE a 12-24 f/2.8 L for wide-field astrophotography! Imagine the length of exposures you could get, or at lower ISOs, with a 12mm f/2.8 lens! Ooooh, the bliss! I'd spend the money for it, too...12mm f/2.8 astrophotography...man I'm DROOLIN!! ;D
> 
> In terms of exposure time, here is what I figure. Currently, with my 16-35 f/2.8 L, I usually get about 30 seconds at 16mm out of it, at ISO 800 - 1600, for a decent "printable" shot (i.e. a shot that could be printed at native size...13x19 for the 7D...without particularly noticeable startrailing. Rule of 600 would indicate 38 seconds, so I shorten that a bit for printability). For a web-sized shot, I can usually expose for about 40-45 seconds, and often use a higher ISO. With the 12-24 f/2.8 L, I figure I could get 45-50 seconds out of it for printables, and maybe as much as 65-75 seconds for web-sized shots! And that is nothing to say of the wider field of view, which would be nice at times...



@jrista: Did I get that wrong with rule of 600? I thought the calculation 600:lens length refers to its LONG end? So the 16-35 won't give you more than about 16 sec of exposure. Therefore I like the 5D3 which allows me to crank up the ISOs significantly compared to my trust rusty 30D. Cheers, Pedro


----------



## jrista (Feb 28, 2013)

pedro said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I would absolutely LOVE a 12-24 f/2.8 L for wide-field astrophotography! Imagine the length of exposures you could get, or at lower ISOs, with a 12mm f/2.8 lens! Ooooh, the bliss! I'd spend the money for it, too...12mm f/2.8 astrophotography...man I'm DROOLIN!! ;D
> ...



It simply referrs to the focal length you are using. Doesn't matter if the lens is prime or zoom...a zoom is nothing more than a lens that lets you change the selected focal length without swapping lenses. If I use the 16-35 @ 16mm, then the rule of 600 would logically apply to 16mm, not 35mm.


----------



## pedro (Feb 28, 2013)

jrista said:


> pedro said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



@jrista: oh, didn't know that then. great! thanks for the explanation. then I already have my (at least) 16-24 once I purchase the lens. and that's plenty compared to a phantom lens that might surely be sold at twice the price of the 16-35 should it ever reach the shelves...glad to learn this...that gives me at least 35 sec at the wide end then...wow. 8) So taking a picture at let's say ISO 3200 or even 6400 means capturing way more light than at ISO 800 on a 30D...!!!


----------



## jrista (Feb 28, 2013)

pedro said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > pedro said:
> ...



Actually, to get really technical, the rule of 600 really is kind of a bad way to figure out how long you can expose a night sky with digital sensors. You'll find a lot of anecdotes, such as use the "FF effective focal length on APS-C" and whatnot. None of it really applies, since what actually matters is pixel density, which is independent of form factor.

Here is a better way to figure out what you can really handle (for "native resolution" presentation, anyway...you could transform for web sized with a scale factor): Determine the arc degrees per pixel for a given focal length and pixel size.

If we assume a 12mm lens on a FF sensor, that gives us a horizontal FoV of approximately 111°. If we assume we are shooting with a 5D III, that means we have a pixel row of 5760 pixels, or ~52 pixels per degree. The reciprocal of that gives us the number of degrees per pixel, which in this case is 0.0192°/px. To calculate how many seconds it will take a star to traverse one pixel, divide that number by the arc degrees per second a star moves across the sky thanks to the rotation of the earth (360° / (24h * 60m/h * 60s/m) = 360° / 86400s = 0.0042°/s). At 12mm, a 5D III will experience a *time on pixels period* of 0.0192°/px / 0.0042°/s, or ~4.6s/px.

So, assuming a _time on pixels_ period of 4.6s/px on the 5D III at 12mm, we can figure out how long, in total, we might be able to expose for by determining the number of pixels we are willing to let a star traverse before we assume trailing will be visible. For maximum quality, or the ability to see absolutely zero startrailing at "native resolution", and even offer enough sharpness to enlarge a night sky photo, you wouldn't want a star to affect much more than 4 pixels in a 2x2 block...a 2 pixel pitch. That would mean at 12mm, you could only expose for 9.2 seconds. Thanks to atmospheric effects which causes stars to affect more than the mere 2x2 pixel grid their point light source might affect directly anyway, we can generally assume a larger star trailing pitch. In my experience, 6-9 pixels is easily good enough for native resolution output (and much more than that for web size). Assuming the factor of 9 pixels is valid, that gives us an exposure time of about 42 seconds for a 12mm lens on the 5D III. On the 7D, the same 12mm lens is the FoV equivalent to a 20mm lens on FF, which ultimately gets us to ~3.8s/px, or an exposure time of about 34 seconds for a 12mm lens on the 7D.

If we want to figure out how long to expose for web-sized images, you could make the assumption that the scale factor between native size and the final web size, times the base 9 pixel pitch, divided by two is sufficient to minimize trailing at any size:


```
scaledPitch = (dimNative/dimWeb * 9) / 2
```

I generally like to scale my images to around 900 pixels long size for the web. The ratio between native size and web size is 5760/900, or 6.5x, which when halved leads to a pixel pitch of ~29 pixels. At 12mm on the 5D III, that gives us a maximum possible exposure time of ~ 2min22sec, which still seems too long. To compensate, I assume the scaled pitch is diagonal, so computing for the horizontal or vertical pitch I get (sqrt(diagPitch^2 / 2) = horizPitch; sqrt(29^2/2) = ~20 pixels. That leaves us with a maximum exposure time of ~90 seconds for a 900 pixel web sized image (~5x7" size on the average screen).


----------



## pedro (Feb 28, 2013)

booah. quite some math...thanks a lot for your highly engaged post. not that I would "get" it, but I will try to figure that out. must be great to know all that about photography, so 600 rule naked and uncensored seems quite a bit "stoneagish"...hence I am not great in math, it must do 8) but I keep on reflecting your formula. saved it to my notebook to have it with me. Best regards.


----------



## pwp (Feb 28, 2013)

drjlo said:


> Personally, it would be much more useful for me if Canon came up with 16-35 f/2.8 MkIII with sharpness in line with 24-70 II and 70-200 f2.8 II, as well as a real good 35 mm end..



+1....now you're talking!

-PW


----------



## Mika (Feb 28, 2013)

You may want to hold your horses on this one.

The more recent 14-24 mm patent actually contained a 14/2.8, a 17/4.0, and 14-18/4-4.7, I don't recall the fourth embodiment just now, it had a zoom factor of 1.2 and was in the 20ish millimeter range. This is not to say 14-24 does not exist on Canon - they are surely trying to find a way to do that and determine whether this would sell enough.

Canon seems to trade corner sharpness for less distortion at their wide angles, this is the reason why they don't attain high drawing capabilities - I'm sort of glad they do when using film cameras. I'm not sure on how they deal with field curvature in their ultrawides.

The question I have is what is the point of 14-24/2.8? I understand 14-24, but I don't understand the F/2.8 part in it - the purpose of F/4.0 is much more clear to me.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Mar 1, 2013)

Mika said:


> The question I have is what is the point of 14-24/2.8? I understand 14-24, but I don't understand the F/2.8 part in it - the purpose of F/4.0 is much more clear to me.



Even with the improved high-iso on the latest camera bodies, I would still say for astro-photography or indoor/outdoor low lighting events.


----------



## Radiating (Mar 1, 2013)

pwp said:


> drjlo said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, it would be much more useful for me if Canon came up with 16-35 f/2.8 MkIII with sharpness in line with 24-70 II and 70-200 f2.8 II, as well as a real good 35 mm end..
> ...



Agree 100% I would rather have a 16-35mm Mk III or even better a 16-35mm f/2.8 IS (there is a nikon patent for this that promises superior IQ to the 14-24mm even).

Give us that.


----------



## pedro (Mar 1, 2013)

I guess a next update of a 16-35 will be IS. I can see the reason behind that. As videopgraphy is an important medium today. Therefore I'll buy the current version soonish... Less $$$ for us amateurs ;D


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 1, 2013)

Given how the pros and Canon picked the 24-70 II over a competing 24-70 IS, I'm guessing that the same would happen with the 16-35, that it would be a lot sharper but not have IS. Perhaps the IS version would be a 16-35 f/4. That would mirror that all f/4 zooms would have IS, and that wide to normal f/2.8 zooms would not.

I'd prefer a sharper 16-35 II to a 16-35 IS that is comparable in IQ to what exists today.


----------



## etg9 (Mar 1, 2013)

The 16-35II is my most used lens by a lot, I too would add to the ranks to be much happier with a 16-35III than a 16-35IS. I don't need this lens to be much wider than it is (although 14-24 is fine). I really want it to have much better sharpness than it currently does.


----------



## candyman (Mar 1, 2013)

pwp said:


> drjlo said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, it would be much more useful for me if Canon came up with 16-35 f/2.8 MkIII with sharpness in line with 24-70 II and 70-200 f2.8 II, as well as a real good 35 mm end..
> ...




+1....bring it on


----------



## pedro (Mar 1, 2013)

etg9 said:


> The 16-35II is my most used lens by a lot, I too would add to the ranks to be much happier with a 16-35III than a 16-35IS. I don't need this lens to be much wider than it is (although 14-24 is fine). I really want it to have much better sharpness than it currently does.



Convincing words here. That's why I go 16-35 on the 5D3. Have the 10-22 with my old 30D and that was a very fine lens as the crop equivalent to it. Although it is not that fast.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 1, 2013)

pedro said:


> If Canon publish a patent, how much time does it take till anouncement? Generally speaking...Not my lens at the moment...Instead of hunting the "phantom" I will go 16-35 8)


Canon does not publish patents. They submit a application to the patent office, and the patent office approves and publishes it about 2 years later. As often as not, a lens is released before the patent is published. About 1 in 500 patents or less results is a new product release.


----------



## pedro (Mar 2, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> pedro said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon publish a patent, how much time does it take till anouncement? Generally speaking...Not my lens at the moment...Instead of hunting the "phantom" I will go 16-35 8)
> ...



Thank you for your explanation. So, no one knows what will happen. They're always good for a surprise.


----------



## Harry68 (Mar 4, 2013)

I've tested the Canon 8-15F4 and the Canon 17-40F4. At the first one I always used the long end and with the second one I used the short end most of the time.

For me it is now clear that I need an objective starting with 14mm and ends at 24mm or 28mm. Less than 14mm is cutting the edges at full frame. For more than 24mm I can use my 24-70.

So I hope a 14-24 or 12-24 will come soon to the dealers.


----------



## charlesa (Mar 4, 2013)

It is a fabled lens on the Nikon side, but it has one big problem in my case... it is an absolute horror to find grads or ND filters without an appropriate holder specifically for this lens only.... no guarantee Canon can emulate the quality of the Nikon lens either.


----------



## rs (Mar 4, 2013)

Harry68 said:


> I've tested the Canon 8-15F4 and the Canon 17-40F4. At the first one I always used the long end and with the second one I used the short end most of the time.
> 
> For me it is now clear that I need an objective starting with 14mm and ends at 24mm or 28mm. Less than 14mm is cutting the edges at full frame. For more than 24mm I can use my 24-70.
> 
> So I hope a 14-24 or 12-24 will come soon to the dealers.


14mm on a fisheye is much wider than 14mm on a rectilinear lens:

14mm Rectilinear:






14mm Fisheye:





12mm rectilinear lenses do exist, as in the Sigma 12-24 - and this doesn't have cut the edges on full frame. However, the optical quality isn't up there with the Nikon 14-24:
http://www.lenstip.com/326.11-Lens_review-Sigma_12-24_mm_f_4.5-5.6_II_DG_HSM_Summary.html


----------

