# Did Sigma Beat Canon to an f/2 Zoom? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 28, 2015)

```
We’re told that Sigma may have beaten Canon to the market with an f/2 zoom for full frame cameras.</p>
<p>We’ve been told over the years that Canon was working on a zoom lens faster than f/2.8, but nothing had ever come of it. We’re now being told that Canon has been working on a wide angle L zoom lens which is “faster than f/2.8″, but the exact speed could not be confirmed.</p>
<p>I’ve never doubted that Canon has been trying such a thing, they’re making a lot of “look-what-we-can-do” lenses, such as the EF 8-15 f/4L fisheye, EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x, TS-E 17mm f/4L and the EF 11-24mm f/4L.</p>
<p>Canon won’t be constrained from a marketing standpoint when it comes to pricing for such a lens, so they may be able to make something a bit more versatile than Sigma. Although, usability, size and weight cannot be ignored in such a lens design.</p>
<p>More to come…</p>
```


----------



## coldsweat (Jun 28, 2015)

This lens may be useful to some (I guess 0.01% of photographers), but 24-35 zoom range is as good as useless - may just as well use 24mm prime & crop slightly. 

It really needs to be approx 24-50mm (i.e. similar to the APS-C Sigma 18-35/f1.8) that would be an immediate purchase!


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 28, 2015)

A race to 24-70 f2 sounds much more interesting


----------



## rs (Jun 28, 2015)

coldsweat said:


> This lens may be useful to some (I guess 0.01% of photographers), but 24-35 zoom range is as good as useless - may just as well use 24mm prime & crop slightly.
> 
> It really needs to be approx 24-50mm (i.e. similar to the APS-C Sigma 18-35/1.8) that would be an immediate purchase!


I can't help but feel that Sigma didn't do much market research before developing this product - many zoom owners will already have the 24-35 range covered by two lenses in their kit bag already.


----------



## surapon (Jun 28, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> A race to 24-70 f2 sounds much more interesting



+100 for me, Sir, Dear Dylan777, But must be F= 1.8 or 1,4.
Surapon


----------



## BeenThere (Jun 28, 2015)

Could be the first of a fast zoom trinity. 24-35mm, 35-70mm, and 70-120mm, all f/2?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jun 28, 2015)

BeenThere said:


> Could be the first of a fast zoom trinity. 24-35mm, 35-70mm, and 70-120mm, all f/2?


It would be a holy trinity of zoom lenses.
If the image quality is similar to the known Sigma 18-35mm Art, I'd be tempted to buy it.


----------



## nebugeater (Jun 28, 2015)

If you can not walk in and buy it or order it on line and actually get delivery no one has beat anyone.


----------



## aceflibble (Jun 28, 2015)

rs said:


> I can't help but feel that Sigma didn't do much market research before developing this product


I think they did exactly the right kind of market research for it.
"What's selling these days?"
"Whatever new gimmick hasn't been done before."
"How come?"
"People love to brag online about how big their aperture is and how many megapixels they have."

The fact that the zoom range is useless is irrelevant. They made a zoom with a constant f/2 aperture. That's all that matters. They did it, they got in first, they get the bragging rights, they get the sales from all the spec-sheet nerds.


----------



## George D. (Jun 28, 2015)

Rather looks like f/1.4 "to replace your EF 24/1.4L, 35/1.4L,... in one lens". For f/2 doesn't compete price-wise. For the moment I wonder how Sigma 24-35/2 at f/2.8 performs against Canon 24-70/2.8L II, this would be a good starting point.


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 28, 2015)

How often have people said "why bother with the last 10mm if it looks like crap?"
This is new territory. Maybe using that extra short range allows for a lens that maintains premium IQ across a wider range than any other lens out there.
Given that I still don't own any wide angle primes, this lens could still work for me.
Most 24mm prime lenses aren't terribly impressive compared to the IQ you get on 35mm or 50mm primes. There is that 14mm Fuji lens though. Basically the only distortion free wide angle prime on the market. But that's only on Fuji and it's f2.8.

If the 24-35 is stellar all around then I would probably prefer it to using a prime, but there's no doubting that the limited range sets the bar high.


----------



## Corneria (Jun 28, 2015)

Why do most people immediately 'know' that something is wrong? Sigma released something unique, and why not? That you personally don't like is something else, but it doesn't mean Sigma did something wrong.

Personally if I had to choose between the Canon 24/2.8 IS, 28/2.8 IS and 35/2.0 IS, I would surely buy this Sigma. Why? Because I don't care about IS and I would happily have the usability of three lenses in one. Moreover, it's even faster and cheaper! (I just ignore that it's unknown whether the Sigma is at sharp).

But absolutely speaking, I don't care about this lens. I have the 35mm Art and I adore it. I'd rather buy a 24/1.4 than this zoom lens, as I am just fond of fast glass.

What I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't judge something that you don't care about. Sigma released the first Full Frame f/2 lens, just be happy that the lens line-up is expanding.

That being said, I am still waiting on a Sigma 135/1.8!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2015)

Sigma beat Canon with an f/1.8 zoom for APS-C. Canon still doesn't have one. 

I'm not sure why this is an issue? Choice is good!


----------



## TeT (Jun 28, 2015)

rs said:


> coldsweat said:
> 
> 
> > This lens may be useful to some (I guess 0.01% of photographers), but 24-35 zoom range is as good as useless - may just as well use 24mm prime & crop slightly.
> ...



I felt that the Canon 20-35mm 2.8 L zoom was a good tool when I was using primes and in situations where changing lenses in that range was not an option.

A high IQ f/2 in the 20-35 range would probably sell enough to justify making it;

+1 on the 24-35 being redundant... even at f/2

also....I did not realize that it was a race to the f2 zoom promiseland... I always figured it was just a questionable proposition and now looks like Sigma just stuck a small toe in the water, one that they could likely afford to lose if it got bit off...


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jun 28, 2015)

I hope Canon is able to release something that competes. I'll be curious whether they charge $3,000 or price it reasonably. If the latter, thanks Sigma!


----------



## davidcl0nel (Jun 28, 2015)

I use the 35 IS and I like it very much. It is versatile and very very sharp, that I even crop 50mm part of the image without real loss. And the IS helps a lot in low light / night photography.
If Canon has a 24 2.0 IS thats propably what I also would buy. 2.8 is ok, but not as great... Both lenses would be a very good part. Maybe even a 20 2.8 IS - there 2.8 should be ok. 24 with 2.8 I can reach with an zoom lens...
If both ranges (and I think it is) of this Sigma are very good, this could be a good replacement for two of these lenses. Two, not three. Yes 28mm is in this range too, but 28 is not much from 24... so this isn't an argument.
And maybe maybe this is only a start to show, what is possible.
An 85-135 f/2 would be a ideal portrait zoom....


----------



## rs (Jun 28, 2015)

aceflibble said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > I can't help but feel that Sigma didn't do much market research before developing this product
> ...


I agree that an f2 FF zoom is quite a headline. However, if you are going to stick to a short zoom ratio to keep size/weight/cost realistic, why not go for a range like 50-85/2 instead? 50mm and 85mm primes are very popular, and easier/cheaper to make faster than 35 and 24mm primes too, suggesting a zoom of that range could be simpler to produce. Currently if you want to cover that range with zooms, you're either at f4 or slower with one lens or have to carry two around to get f2.8. This would have bought something unique in terms of both aperture and range to the table. I suspect it would appeal to a wider audience.


----------



## preppyak (Jun 28, 2015)

rs said:


> why not go for a range like 50-85/2 instead? 50mm and 85mm primes are very popular, and easier/cheaper to make faster than 35 and 24mm primes too, suggesting a zoom of that range could be simpler to produce.


Problem here is that there are cheap sub-f/2 primes in that range, in a way that isnt true for the 24mm and 35mm on the Canon side.

I can own an 85mm f/1.8 (quite a nice lens), or a 100mm f/2, and/or the 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8, and have that combo for $600 or less. Which makes a 50-85mm f/2 hard to price at $1500. Heck, makes it hard to price above $1000. 

I think thats gonna be the problem with all of these potential f/2 zooms unless they cover a broader range. 35mm f/2 in a zoom isnt as interesting when it exists as an IS prime for ~$500. And 50mm f/2 isnt that interesting when I can own f/1.4 for ~$300.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 28, 2015)

If _Canon_ offers it:

24-35 f/2L USM would be $1500+

24-50 f/2L USM would surely be north of $2k

And I don't want to know how expensive (or massive) a 24-70 f/2L USM would be. We're in Otus pricing at that point.

- A


----------



## Simen1 (Jun 28, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> A race to 24-70 f2 sounds much more interesting


Such a wide zoom range would probably be a f/2,5.



BeenThere said:


> Could be the first of a fast zoom trinity. 24-35mm, 35-70mm, and 70-120mm, all f/2?


Its a reason Sigma choose wide angle for the first f/1,8 APS-C zoom and now the first f/2 FF zoom. Thats the range where the lenses would be as small as possible. Skew that to more tele and you will get a heavier and larger lens. Especially the 70-120 f/2 must be huge. The manufacturing cost will increase with weight so it might be very expensive too. If Sigma charges 999$ for the 20-35 f/2, Canon might charge the double for the same spec with an L and a red ring. A 70-120 f/2 would probably be twice the price of a 20-35, pushing Canons option up to the Otus price range.

____

I already have my f/1,8 zoom on APS-C and plan to use it on full frame later this year. I even get image stabilization when using it. Yes, i'm a Pentaxian with a FF on the to buy list. The Sigma 18-35 f/1,8 is useful on FF even if i would do a 1,3x crop with chooseable aspect ratio in the wide end.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jun 28, 2015)

Yawn.... this lens is boring.


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 28, 2015)

preppyak said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > why not go for a range like 50-85/2 instead? 50mm and 85mm primes are very popular, and easier/cheaper to make faster than 35 and 24mm primes too, suggesting a zoom of that range could be simpler to produce.
> ...



Along with the availability of more inexpensive lenses at 50mm and 85mm, also consider that perspective changes much more at the wide end, and on top of that, 24-35mm in terms of pure horizontal Angle of View is a difference of 20 degrees, whereas 50-85mm is actually only a difference of 16 degrees.
"Technically" 24-35mm is a wider zoom range than 50-85mm.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=115&LensComp=106&Units=E
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=480&LensComp=121&Units=E

Yes that word "technically" is a very big caveat, in term of multiples the change in Angle of View from 50-85mm is 1.7x, but the perspective distortion is definitely stronger on the wide end, I think you get more variety of shots with 24-35mm.


----------



## aceflibble (Jun 28, 2015)

I'd imagine the bigger factor would simply be the size of a lens. 50-85 f/2 would be much bigger, heavier and more expensive than 24-35 f/2, and the 24-35 f/2 fits nicely in Sigma's existing 18-35 f/1.8 shell.

It's easy to come up with dream scenario lenses which make more sense to the consumer, but from a manufacturing perspective, the fact that they've managed to make _any_ f/1.8 and f/2 zooms is already a helluva task.


----------



## lichtmalen (Jun 28, 2015)

I just don't get why people keep comparing a 35mm prime to a 24 that is slightly cropped. Completely different angles of view and depth of field effects. I am eager for the new zoom as I can't reasonably place the 24 AND the 35 in my bag but still miss my 35 a little.


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 28, 2015)

If we're talking about making modern zoom lenses to complete with primes, the 50-135 range sounds like ripe pickings to me (though only at f2.8, we've pretty much established you're not going to get much of a zoom range at f2.0).

The point would be to have the widest focal range possible while avoiding the extra complication of a retrofocusing design (sub 40mm), so really 40-135 would be the best possible result (assuming that going to 200mm would also make it too large or complicated). What it should accomplish is a lens with sharpness on the same level as the 70-200, but with the extra 30mm on the wide end. I guess that might be a little niche, but if you're only going to have one high quality zoom lens, right now you're either compromising IQ to have the 24mm focal length, or eliminating most of your landscape possibilities with the 70-200 (I've actually been fairly happy framing mountains and general landscape shots with the 40mm Pancake).
Looking at headshot distortion (http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm) I also feel like 40-135 would hit all the focal lengths people commonly use for portraits, particularly that last step from 70mm to 135mm. Beyond 135mm seems to be more about background compression than the person's face.
Given that we can switch lenses and the Pancake is pocketable, maybe that's really the best option. On the other hand we also have people spending Twelve Grand just to integrate a TC into their 400mm zoom lens.
If they could get IQ up to prime-like quality I think 40-135mm would be a worthy addition between the 24-70 and 70-200.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 28, 2015)

A 24-85mm f2 would be a lot of fun and offer a lot of creative DOF effects


----------



## TAF (Jun 29, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> A 24-85mm f2 would be a lot of fun and offer a lot of creative DOF effects



That would certainly be more interesting to me.

If they could get to 150, even a variable f-stop range of 1.8 to 2.8 would be satisfactory...it would cover all the auto focus points on the 5D3


----------



## RGF (Jun 29, 2015)

Besides for bragging rights, for me this is yawner.

F2 or F1.8 or F1.4 would be too heavy to carry with other lens (especially long glass).

I would like to see improvements in the current line, especially on the wide angles.

16-35 F2.8 III or what ever that is as good as the F4 version would be nice.

Make the 14 F2.8 equal in IQ to the Zeiss 15.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 29, 2015)

aceflibble said:


> I'd imagine the bigger factor would simply be the size of a lens. 50-85 f/2 would be much bigger, heavier and more expensive than 24-35 f/2, and the 24-35 f/2 fits nicely in Sigma's existing 18-35 f/1.8 shell.



I'm not so sure that's true. The 18-35 f/1.8 has a 72mm front element, while the 24-35 f/2 has an 82mm front element. I could certainly be wrong, but I think those lenses don't share many components.

- A


----------



## Etienne (Jun 29, 2015)

How about a small light weight 20-35 f/2.8 IS ?


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 29, 2015)

I'm pretty sure I'm going to buy this lens. I love the Sigma 18-35 Art for crop, but I now have a full frame camera. I've come to really appreciate the range, even as limited as it is. The 18-35 lens was criticized for a funny range at the time it was introduced. 

I've been using the 18-35 as a 28-35 lens on my 5d3, but there is more vignetting than I'd like, and THAT is a narrow zoom range. 

If Sigma pulls out something close to the other Art lenses in terms of IQ (anyone see an MTF chart yet?) I'm definitely getting it.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jun 29, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’re told that Sigma may have beaten Canon to the market with an f/2 zoom for full frame cameras.</p>
> <p>We’ve been told over the years that Canon was working on a zoom lens faster than f/2.8, but nothing had ever come of it. We’re now being told that Canon has been working on a wide angle L zoom lens which is “faster than f/2.8″, but the exact speed could not be confirmed.</p>
> <p>I’ve never doubted that Canon has been trying such a thing, they’re making a lot of “look-what-we-can-do” lenses, such as the EF 8-15 f/4L fisheye, EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x, TS-E 17mm f/4L and the EF 11-24mm f/4L.</p>
> <p>Canon won’t be constrained from a marketing standpoint when it comes to pricing for such a lens, so they may be able to make something a bit more versatile than Sigma. Although, usability, size and weight cannot be ignored in such a lens design.</p>
> <p>More to come…</p>


I don't see the issue here. While most offer exists the benefit goes to the photographers. It is just one more option


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 29, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> aceflibble said:
> 
> 
> > I'd imagine the bigger factor would simply be the size of a lens. 50-85 f/2 would be much bigger, heavier and more expensive than 24-35 f/2, and the 24-35 f/2 fits nicely in Sigma's existing 18-35 f/1.8 shell.
> ...



Ok, now I'm getting a little more excited. That's even wider than the 24mm f1.4 prime.
Vignetting on the 18-35 was heavy, even on crop, hopefully they paid extra attention to the problem here.
Edit: Ok I guess I thought it was bad but looking at reviews again (http://www.lenstip.com/374.8-Lens_review-Sigma_A_18-35_mm_f_1.8_DC_HSM__Vignetting.html) it faired well in comparisons to other zoom lenses.
To be fair, the 24mm prime has horrible vignetting as well, and so does every other 24mm lens. Somehow that focal length is just riddled with problems that no-one seems to be able to wrap their heads around.

I also found an interesting quote from the press release: http://www.sigmacanada.ca/2015/06/22/sigma-introduces-world%E2%80%99s-first-large-aperture-full-frame-wide-angle-zoom-lens-with-new-24-35mm-f2-dg-hsm-art/



> In particular, at the 24mm and 35mm focal lengths, this lens offers the performance that is equivalent to that of two prime lenses in the Art line.



That's particularly gutsy If they're saying it performs as well as their own prime lenses at those focal lengths. I'm not going to take marketing material at face value, but my fingers are crossed that they make good on their reputation.


----------



## Simen1 (Jun 29, 2015)

aceflibble said:


> I'd imagine the bigger factor would simply be the size of a lens. 50-85 f/2 would be much bigger, heavier and more expensive than 24-35 f/2, and the 24-35 f/2 fits nicely in Sigma's existing 18-35 f/1.8 shell.


I think its a slightly reworked 18-35. I guess most of the glass is exactly the same.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 29, 2015)

TAF said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > A 24-85mm f2 would be a lot of fun and offer a lot of creative DOF effects
> ...



I'm not understanding what you mean. Focal length has nothing to do with AF point coverage. 
A 24-85 f2 is going to be huge, it's twice the brightness of the existing 24-70 f2.8, which will require a 4x increase in optical mass and probably weight.


----------



## aceflibble (Jun 29, 2015)

Simen1 said:


> aceflibble said:
> 
> 
> > I'd imagine the bigger factor would simply be the size of a lens. 50-85 f/2 would be much bigger, heavier and more expensive than 24-35 f/2, and the 24-35 f/2 fits nicely in Sigma's existing 18-35 f/1.8 shell.
> ...


That's more what I meant. Yes, it's not a direct drop-in for the 18-35 shell, but it's very clearly based on it and is most likely using many of the same parts; everything about it up until the front few elements looks more or less the same and the cosmetic points are identical.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 29, 2015)

While its certainly possible to make a f/2 zoom for FF cameras, making one with a 3X range is not easy to do, and a 2X range is not really very useful for general photography. Making one with less than a 2X range is just a lets make something to brag about and see if it sells.

A 24-70 f/2 IS might catch my attention, but I doubt I would want to carry it around, and I also wonder about the price. I expect to see the Chinese come up with a light weight fast zoom using plastic lenses and light construction in the next 5 years. Their industry is really cranking up, and they are not afraid to try and risk failing, or to sell a product that is not a super high resolution lens. If it sells they will build on it and eventually produce a high end one. Plastic in a $1000 lens may not be a good idea yet, but in a $100 lens, it can be tossed after 5 years.

BTW, DO lenses use plastic for the DO element, Canon DSLR's use a plastic lens to focus the on the AF sensor. There is a lot of work going on to develop plastic lenses. Canon has yet to come out with their particle dispersion element for DO lenses, but I haven't written it off because they keep churning out patents for lenses that use it. It is basically particles dispersed in a resin lens. The trick is to tell each particle to go to its proper place and to make each lens the same. If those particles are not dispersed in the right manner, then the lens will make the image horrible. Obviously, they think that its do-able.


----------



## KateH (Jun 29, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’re told that Sigma may have beaten Canon to the market with an f/2 zoom for full frame cameras.</p>



So... am I the only one who thinks that statement- and the title of this thread- make no sense? Is there a joke I'm missing?

The Sigma 24-35 f/2.0 was announced 9 days before this thread was started. Hate to spoil the surprise, but Sigma beat _everyone_ to an f/2 Zoom, regardless of whether or not the other manufacturers were actively developing such a lens.


----------



## Luds34 (Jun 29, 2015)

macVega said:


> This is not a zoom lens, it is a 24mm prime with the ability to crop a little....



Haha, I like it. 

I know it's getting ragged on for being only a 1.5x zoom. But I found the limited zoom range of the Tokina 11-16 quite useful. As others have said (and similar to the Tokina's 17-28 effective FF FL) there is quite a difference in perspective from 24mm to 35mm.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 30, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’re told that Sigma may have beaten Canon to the market with an f/2 zoom for full frame cameras.</p>
> <p>We’ve been told over the years that Canon was working on a zoom lens faster than f/2.8, but nothing had ever come of it. We’re now being told that Canon has been working on a wide angle L zoom lens which is “faster than f/2.8″, but the exact speed could not be confirmed.</p>
> <p>I’ve never doubted that Canon has been trying such a thing, they’re making a lot of “look-what-we-can-do” lenses, such as the EF 8-15 f/4L fisheye, EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x, TS-E 17mm f/4L and the EF 11-24mm f/4L.</p>
> <p>Canon won’t be constrained from a marketing standpoint when it comes to pricing for such a lens, so they may be able to make something a bit more versatile than Sigma. Although, usability, size and weight cannot be ignored in such a lens design.</p>
> <p>More to come…</p>



the versatility, size and weight i'm sure play an important factor for canon - and let's face it, the 24-35/2 is pretty damned huge for what it does.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 30, 2015)

KateH said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > We’re told that Sigma may have beaten Canon to the market with an f/2 zoom for full frame cameras.</p>
> ...



It's a little murky here, but I believe the implied point was that the Sigma 24-35 f/2 was rushed forward _entirely to steal thunder from Canon's plans_ to offer a faster-than-f/2.8.

Some are reading that Sigma is only doing the 24-35 f/2 to be able to moon Canon and scream "First!". 

Others are interpreting this that Sigma focused on a limited FL range zoom just for this first lens to be able to claim 'first' but they actually have something more ambitious coming down the road.

I don't particularly care either way, but I love Sigma rocking the boat as hard as they can. That's good for all of us.

- A


----------



## meywd (Jun 30, 2015)

KateH said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > We’re told that Sigma may have beaten Canon to the market with an f/2 zoom for full frame cameras.</p>
> ...



What should be taken from the rumor - which is a CR1 - is that canon may already started working on a f/2 zoom lens, and that they still didn't finish which may be caused by not finding a market to it.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 30, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > While its certainly possible to make a f/2 zoom for FF cameras, making one with a 3X range is not easy to do, and a 2X range is not really very useful for general photography. Making one with less than a 2X range is just a lets make something to brag about and see if it sells.
> ...



The page at BHP says it's not a zoom lens. That's really beside the point, though - I think the meaning of the statement was "making [an f/2 zoom lens for FF cameras] with less than 2X range is..."

I could be wrong, though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 30, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > While its certainly possible to make a f/2 zoom for FF cameras, making one with a 3X range is not easy to do, and a 2X range is not really very useful for general photography. Making one with less than a 2X range is just a lets make something to brag about and see if it sells.
> ...



Your reading and comprehension skills are as astute as ever. It's neither a zoom lens nor f/2.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 30, 2015)

dilbert said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Did you note how I said that the statement meant "an f/2 zoom lens for full frame cameras"? The 28-35-50 is, once again, neither a zoom lens nor f/2.


----------



## Monchoon (Jun 30, 2015)

dilbert said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



So how does the Leica fair at say 30mm at F2?


----------



## Mr Bean (Jun 30, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> I’ve never doubted that Canon has been trying such a thing, they’re making a lot of “look-what-we-can-do” lenses, such as the EF 8-15 f/4L fisheye, EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x, TS-E 17mm f/4L and the EF 11-24mm f/4L.


I don't see it as this. Canon's work on new lenses (like the ones mentioned) remind me of Nikon, back in the 70's and early 80's, where they created some rather exotic lenses, because they could (Nikon's 8mm fisheye and 300mm f2 come to mind).


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 1, 2015)

Mr Bean said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > I’ve never doubted that Canon has been trying such a thing, they’re making a lot of “look-what-we-can-do” lenses, such as the EF 8-15 f/4L fisheye, EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x, TS-E 17mm f/4L and the EF 11-24mm f/4L.
> ...



It's not innovation though; just remember that. Anything Canon does can't possibly be innovative.


----------



## Proscribo (Jul 2, 2015)

LonelyBoy said:


> Mr Bean said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...


Indeed, even if they broke the laws of physics and created something light and smallish 16-400mm f/2.8 lens with awesome IQ it wouldn't be innovative. God damn Canon get your s*** together and give us DR and start to innovate! 

Sorry, I had to. :-[


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 5, 2015)

Proscribo said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Bean said:
> ...


But Canon already gave us Dramatic Resolution...


----------



## TAF (Jul 5, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> TAF said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



Focal length, no, f stop, yes.

If you have a 5D3, look in the manual for the required f stop for each focus point. That should answer your question as to what I was referring to.

Would the lens be large? Yes...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 5, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> A 24-85 f2 is going to be huge, it's twice the brightness of the existing 24-70 f2.8, which will require a 4x increase in optical mass and probably weight.



Is the 24-70/2.8 twice the weight of the 24-70/4?


----------

