# New EF-S Ultrawide Coming? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 5, 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/?p=16458"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16458">Tweet</a></div>
<p>We’ve been told from a couple of different places that a new ultra-wide angle lens for APS-C is coming this year. It would be a replacement to the very good EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5. I wasn’t told exactly what the new lens would be.</p>
<p>If I had to speculate, I think it would be a constant aperture f/4 lens with IS. If the lens was released for the EOS 7D replacement, perhaps we would also see a build quality bump with something like weather sealing. Just because they’ve never done it for EF-S, doesn’t mean they couldn’t start now.</p>
<p>More to come…</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Cory (May 5, 2014)

I think I'm in.


----------



## AvTvM (May 5, 2014)

Utterly ridiculous. Bring on the 7d II, we've got enough glass. 
Or rather bring on a killer eos-m 3 and we will just use the really good and compact cheapo ef-m 11-22 which has IS already, although canon was so stupid to not make it constant aperture f/4.0. 

Just do it, Canon. So sick and tired of rumors and marketing-differentiated, crippled products. Up yours, canon!


----------



## tron (May 5, 2014)

Stupid rumor. Sorry I cannot believe it.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 5, 2014)

What about an ultrawide for FF with IS. Come on, now!


----------



## Random Orbits (May 5, 2014)

Interesting... it wouldn't be the first EF-S lens that I'd want done, but it would give a sort of symmetry between the EF-S and EF-M lines.


----------



## thepancakeman (May 5, 2014)

tron said:


> Stupid rumor. Sorry I cannot believe it.



C'mon man, it _is_ the year of the lens; this might be THE lens!


----------



## tron (May 5, 2014)

thepancakeman said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Stupid rumor. Sorry I cannot believe it.
> ...


Still it is even more stupid than other rumors


----------



## setterguy (May 5, 2014)

I have to agree with AvTvM, It all talk an no significant products. Blah, Blah Blah! And people have the nerve to criticize Apple! Canon is much worse on bringing new products to market.


----------



## 2n10 (May 5, 2014)

tron said:


> thepancakeman said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



Just because it is not a lens you want?


----------



## tron (May 5, 2014)

2n10 said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > thepancakeman said:
> ...


No just because the existing one is a very good lens.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 5, 2014)

tron said:


> 2n10 said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



+1.


----------



## carlosmeldano (May 5, 2014)

fast STM lenses.

10-22 F4 IS, 17-55 F2.8 IS, both with STM.

with 70D, it makes a huge sense to have STM in these new lenses.


----------



## XNikon shooter (May 5, 2014)

10-22 stm would be great.


----------



## unfocused (May 5, 2014)

Geez people. Chill. It's a CR1 rumor. Some people will use any excuse to rail against Canon.

If you are not interested in this lens, that's fine. I'm not interested either. But why get upset about it. It doesn't affect you one bit. 

Oh wait, it does...If Canon releases *any* lens that adds to its bottom line, it increases the resources available to invest in other products – products that you might be interested in.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 5, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> What about an ultrawide for FF with IS. Come on, now!



+1

About 16-35 f2.8 IS or 16-35 f4 IS...same IQ as Nik 14-24 or better :


----------



## Don Haines (May 5, 2014)

tron said:


> 2n10 said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


and look at all those series 1 big whites that were replaced by even better series 2 big whites..... They were all good lenses and got replaced and nobody is complaining about it.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the people designing lenses are a different team than those designing bodies.... What one team does does not substantially affect the other team.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (May 5, 2014)

Should be titled NEW EF-S Kit Lens Coming! [CR3]


----------



## gamin (May 6, 2014)

I was told not long ago to wait a month before buying a wide-angle Canon zoom, and that I would regret not waiting. Why would someone who could benefit from selling lenses tell me to wait?


----------



## ahab1372 (May 6, 2014)

tron said:


> 2n10 said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


+1
maybe it is just a version II to lower production cost, with identical optical formula


----------



## tron (May 6, 2014)

gamin said:


> I was told not long ago to wait a month before buying a wide-angle Canon zoom, and that I would regret not waiting. Why would someone who could benefit from selling lenses tell me to wait?


Did you want to buy an APS-C or a FF UWA zoom lens?


----------



## gamin (May 6, 2014)

tron said:


> gamin said:
> 
> 
> > I was told not long ago to wait a month before buying a wide-angle Canon zoom, and that I would regret not waiting. Why would someone who could benefit from selling lenses tell me to wait?
> ...


APS-C. I told him I was looking for something in the 10-24mm range, but not necessarily exactly that.


----------



## tron (May 6, 2014)

gamin said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > gamin said:
> ...


OK, everything depends on whether you need that zoom. If you need it get it. Canon lenses retain their value. If you want to use it in Summer you can wait I guess. But even if a new one is announced it will not be available immediately.


----------



## SoullessPolack (May 6, 2014)

dilbert said:


> How about new EF wide or ultrawide zoom that doesn't suck?
> Or is that too hard for Canon?



I, and many other _professionals_, use the 16-35 or 17-40 (I use the 17-40) with great results. I'm not sure what you're implying by stating it sucks. How exactly does it suck? 

What precisely are you expecting from it? I can tell you that us professionals know the disadvantages of these lenses, but it is easy to adapt to and overcome the difficulties, and in the end, we're still making money from these lenses that you state "suck".

The funny thing is, I can totally see it that the extent of your photography's exposure is primarily on the internet, which would make this all the more hilarious ;D


----------



## verysimplejason (May 6, 2014)

10mm IS STM, pancake size. 8)


----------



## e17paul (May 6, 2014)

Where the Canon range falls really short is wide angle primes for EF-S. That was part of my justification for spending out on a 6D. If I could not have afforded that, I would have gone for Nikon or Pentax. 

There is the 14L, but it's daft to invest that money and carry that weight just to get 22mm equivalent. That's how I told myself that the more costly 6D was a bargain. If I had gone to another brand, Pentax have some interesting prime choices, where Nikon have gone overboard on zooms. Incidentally, Pentax is unfairly ignored and underrated, I'm loving my father's K-30.

I'm sure another zoom would be good, but isn't the 10-22 already highly respected above third party options and lenses for other camera brands. 

I haven't even mentioned mirror less options.


----------



## simonxu11 (May 6, 2014)

Year of CR1


----------



## Hannes (May 6, 2014)

e17paul said:


> Incidentally, Pentax is unfairly ignored and underrated, I'm loving my father's K-30.



There was something in a sigma interview a while back saying that pentax uses a mechanical coupling to actuate the iris for the aperture which meant it was a lot more expensive designing third party lenses for what is arguably a niche camera as it is.

As for an ultrawide aps-c lens with constant f4 it would be brilliant, f2.8 even more so but I suspect that would mean a monster of a lens.


----------



## pedro (May 6, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > What about an ultrawide for FF with IS. Come on, now!
> ...



A 14-24 or 12-24 for FF would be very welcome! An F/3.5 F/4.0 would do for nightscapes at high ISOs.


----------



## trstromme (May 6, 2014)

Personally, and I don't know if this is possible; after taking a look at what I've used for landscape shots for the last few years I'd want this:
*throw any ideas of f/2.8 overboard, make this a no compromises slow-shooting style landscape lens, tripod almost required, skimping on speed would probably bring the price down..
*zoom range, nice to have, but not a priority, being able to slightly change framing is ok.
*14 or 16 mm FF equivalent..

mind you I've been shooting landscapes primarily with a Tokina 12-24 f/4

I'd love something that is tuned especially towards being sharp from f/8 and as low as possible.. f/16 yes please... (and yes I suppose diffraction comes into play here with the design of the aperture and which sensor is behind it etc..)
Must take filters well, preferably stacked ones, like a polarizer and an ND filter combined or PL + square grads.., oversized front element/filter threads to avoid killing the corners. non-bulbous front element is a given then I suppose. 
Big fat focus ring with lots of throw, AF? not required.. 
Or going one beyond; what about integrated ND filters; swing into place or drop ins?

My shots on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/trondstromme/

just my two cents..


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 6, 2014)

e17paul said:


> Where the Canon range falls really short is wide angle primes for EF-S. That was part of my justification for spending out on a 6D. If I could not have afforded that, I would have gone for Nikon or Pentax.
> 
> There is the 14L, but it's daft to invest that money and carry that weight just to get 22mm equivalent. That's how I told myself that the more costly 6D was a bargain.



Depending on your goals/needs, FF can be cheaper. Consider that 85mm f/1.2 on APS-C is equivalent to 135mm f/2 on FF, and compare the cost of the lenses.


----------



## greger (May 6, 2014)

I would like to see a new 17-85 f4 IS STM come out. If it still had 67mm filter thread, all the better. If they fixed the 
Chroma aberation problem and the tape that wears out then Canon would be on to something. 17-85 is a nice zoom range on APS-C.


----------



## trstromme (May 6, 2014)

greger said:


> I would like to see a new 17-85 f4 IS STM come out. If it still had 67mm filter thread, all the better. If they fixed the
> Chroma aberation problem and the tape that wears out then Canon would be on to something. 17-85 is a nice zoom range on APS-C.


except for the STM and filter thread parts; I thought this was the 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 USM IS ?
that said, the 17-85 is ok, build quality is not quite up there, but nice as a travel lens and can be had very cheaply now..


----------



## e17paul (May 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Depending on your goals/needs, FF can be cheaper. Consider that 85mm f/1.2 on APS-C is equivalent to 135mm f/2 on FF, and compare the cost of the lenses.


I thought I would be the only one to see that, although I hadn't thought of portrait lenses. 

Of course it doesn't apply to every scenario.


----------

