Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2012 · Why Canon won't make a 14-24 L
  
 
Rickuz
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · Why Canon won't make a 14-24 L


Many people (including myself) are waiting for Canon to release an equivalent to Nikon's legendary 14-24.

If Canon were to make this lens, it would have to be at least as good as Nikon's version, a.k.a the best UWA zoom in the world, and that is where the problem is.

This automatically means that the 14-24L would have to blow the 16-35L, 17-40L, and even the 24L and 14L out of the water. (Yes, the Nikon 14-24 is that good.)

How would this lens work with Canons marketing machine? A price tag of 3k?

I just can't see them making a UWA zoom that "kills" two of their UWA prime lenses.


Edited on Oct 25, 2012 at 03:03 PM · View previous versions



Oct 25, 2012 at 02:53 PM
retrofocus
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · Why Canon won't make a 14-24 L


Good point, but I guess Canon has to fight other fires currently in their photo business first (see the post here in this board about losses in this area). In fact they seem to be in trouble - hard time to compete with better D800 and D600 cameras, overboard pricing both for cameras and lenses, and new lenses which won't be in high demand either. Not having a 14-24 L lens in the program might be the last of their concerns now.


Oct 25, 2012 at 02:59 PM
big country
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · Why Canon won't make a 14-24 L


it wouldn't kill the 17-40L two different lenses at different price points.

did nikon's 14-24 2.8 kill the 12-24 f/4?




Oct 25, 2012 at 03:00 PM
boingyman
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · Why Canon won't make a 14-24 L


It's been rumored before, but you know how that goes...Besides excellent IQ (let's say similiar to the 24-70 II or 24 TS-E) if it has excellent distortion control and could accept filters without some mod it would be a winner.

If all of the above were true on top of being 2.8, I wouldn't be surprised if it did have a 3K price tag. However with that being said I personally believe Canon will eventually make a 14-24 lens, but in terms of it being 2.8 vs 4 and if it will accept filters or not is something we all have to wait and see.



Oct 25, 2012 at 03:08 PM
PhilDrinkwater
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · Why Canon won't make a 14-24 L


big country wrote:
it wouldn't kill the 17-40L two different lenses at different price points.

did nikon's 14-24 2.8 kill the 12-24 f/4?



Yeh - I agree - it wouldn't touch the 17-40. It may well hit the 16-35, but to be honest I'm not even sure then. I need 16-35 not 14-24 with my lenses. In fact, a 14-24 wouldn't even interest me, although I know it would interest others..

I wouldn't be that surprised if the 16-35 died in favour of a 14-24 though. That would be a shame for me as the overlap with the 24-70 is really useful for my wedding work.



Oct 25, 2012 at 03:10 PM
Invertalon
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · Why Canon won't make a 14-24 L


It could be patent issues with that optical design. If Nikon has the patent it could be another few years until Canon can make one. Just a theory though.


Oct 25, 2012 at 03:10 PM
Lars Johnsson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · Why Canon won't make a 14-24 L


How can a f/2,8 zoom lens kill the f/1,4 prime lens


Oct 25, 2012 at 03:11 PM
Rickuz
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · Why Canon won't make a 14-24 L


Lars Johnsson wrote:
How can a f/2,8 zoom lens kill the f/1,4 prime lens


Yes some people buy primes for the wide aperture and DOF capabilities. But when it comes to UWA primes, most people buy them for the ultimate IQ factor.



Oct 25, 2012 at 03:22 PM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · Why Canon won't make a 14-24 L


PhilDrinkwater wrote:
Yeh - I agree - it wouldn't touch the 17-40. It may well hit the 16-35, but to be honest I'm not even sure then. I need 16-35 not 14-24 with my lenses. In fact, a 14-24 wouldn't even interest me, although I know it would interest others..

I wouldn't be that surprised if the 16-35 died in favour of a 14-24 though. That would be a shame for me as the overlap with the 24-70 is really useful for my wedding work.


I think it would have to be a 14-35L replacement of the 16-35L II, of at least the same IQ. The odds of beating the IQ of the Nikon are slim, so a wider zoom range would make it more versatile and better for wide angle video.



Oct 25, 2012 at 03:24 PM
Lars Johnsson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · Why Canon won't make a 14-24 L


Rickuz wrote:
Yes some people buy primes for the wide aperture and DOF capabilities. But when it comes to UWA primes, most people buy them for the ultimate IQ factor.


I would not call the 24mm lens a UWA either. And Canon don't call it UWA. And if you spend big money on f/1,4. Then you gonna use the apertures between f/1,4 and f/2,8 of course.



Oct 25, 2012 at 03:32 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



stanj
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · Why Canon won't make a 14-24 L


If nothing else, a 14-24 would most likely be a popeye and that would disqualify it for many people, except those with the 14L already.


Oct 25, 2012 at 04:41 PM
garydavidjones
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · Why Canon won't make a 14-24 L


WHAT IS A POPEYE?


Oct 25, 2012 at 04:57 PM
NCAndy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · Why Canon won't make a 14-24 L


Why does a 14-24L have to be f2.8? Keep the 16-35L for the PJ guys and make the 14-24 a f4.0 lens for the landscape guys. It would be smaller, lighter and hopefully less expensive. Make it sharp wide open, low ca, keep vignetting to a minimum and it would sell, no? That way it doesn't step all over the 14L and the 16-35L which are faster.


Oct 25, 2012 at 04:58 PM
harrygilbert
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · Why Canon won't make a 14-24 L


Rickuz wrote:
Many people (including myself) are waiting for Canon to release an equivalent to Nikon's legendary 14-24.

If Canon were to make this lens, it would have to be at least as good as Nikon's version, a.k.a the best UWA zoom in the world, and that is where the problem is.

This automatically means that the 14-24L would have to blow the 16-35L, 17-40L, and even the 24L and 14L out of the water. (Yes, the Nikon 14-24 is that good.)

How would this lens work with Canons marketing machine? A price tag of 3k?

I just can't see them making a UWA zoom that
...Show more

If Canon did make such a lens, and priced it as you suggest, why would that "kill" their lower-priced UWA prime lenses?



Oct 25, 2012 at 05:05 PM
Roland W
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · Why Canon won't make a 14-24 L


The wider the lens, and the larger the aperture, the harder it is to make the front fairly flat so that screw on filters are practical. The Canon 17mm TS-E has the image quality and low distortion that we all want, but has the protruding front, just like the Nikon 14-24 does. But Canon could make a filter holder for square and rectangular slide in filters that bayonets on like the lens cap does, and add that feature to help sell any new UWA zoom.

I personally am not using graduated neutral density filters as much as I used to, and find that doing image combines in post processing actually gives better results. That has me less worried about mounting a filter on a UWA zoom. I actually would like to see an option for a larger hood that could be mounted on the lens via the bayonet, to give better flare protection, as well as act as a better protector of the front element when the lens is in use. I really fail to see why we do not all ready have such a supplemental lens hood available for all the Canon lenses that have bulbous fronts. Such hoods would be on the large side, but would be well worth the hassle they would present. They would not need to store reversed, because you would need the bayonet for the dedicated special lens cap that covers the bulbous element.



Oct 25, 2012 at 05:22 PM
Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · Why Canon won't make a 14-24 L


With respect - you are overstating the greatness of Nikon 14-24. It is an impressive lens in an area that may not be overly valuable or useful to most users. It has higher resolution at low fstop but considerable WA distortion. And it is heavy.

It is not as good as 17TS for lacking wide angle distortion. Its pretty even on iq too. Its narrower when you consider that TS17 can get effective 11mm with shift. I have stopped using uwa non-shift because of the distortion. For landscape, the Nikon might have great resolution but the wa distortion is high. Anyone shooting landscape on a tripod should prefer TS17 or TS24.

For nightscapes with northern lights or aurora, I think it is a bit slow at f2.8 and prefer the canon 24 1.4.

It is not much better than 16-35 at f8. And most landscape shots are >=f8. Ditto 17-40L.

The 17-40L is a budget L and would not be hurt by a high price lens or it would have been killed off by 16-35 2.8. It is also heavy in comparison.

The only place I would say it is competitive (at risk)) is the 16-35 f2.8, for inside, of a people event, in which case, iq is not not nearly as important as speed and likely a client would not care whether you used a 16-36 f2.8 vs 14-24. So nice to have but not neccessary.

Now the better question is - why can't nikon make a good TS17 or TS24 - a lens that is useful (shift /tilt) at high resolution.



Oct 25, 2012 at 07:14 PM
stanj
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · Why Canon won't make a 14-24 L


garydavidjones wrote:
WHAT IS A POPEYE?


A lens with a bulging front element, like the 17TSE, 14L, all fisheyes, and the Nikon 14-24. Can't accept any standard filters.



Oct 25, 2012 at 07:55 PM
alexdi
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · Why Canon won't make a 14-24 L


I'd like to see a full-frame 12-24/4. The ultimate landscape lens. The 16-35/2.8 would remain a better event lens and the 17-40/4 a better value. I think there's room in the stable for this one.


Oct 25, 2012 at 07:59 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · Why Canon won't make a 14-24 L


+1 on 14-24 f4.

It could even be manual focus if you use a camera with decent live view or live view focus. This lets out my 1DS-mk3 sadly.

This focal range is landscape/archetectural when sharp corners are required. f2.8 and AF is event, the 16-35 probably already meets that need.

The 17-40? I compared mine to my 17TSE at 17 f8 and my 24-70 f2.8mk2 at 24 f8. The 17-40 falls on its face everywhere, but especially edges and corners.




Oct 25, 2012 at 08:43 PM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · Why Canon won't make a 14-24 L


Why 14-24? I'd rather it was a 2x zoom for a bit more flexibility so either 12-24 or 14-28. Doesn't need to be f/2.8 and god knows how much Canon would want for that, so f/4 is perfectly fine for this type of lens. But I'm equally amenable to a 16-35 f/2.8 mk III that is tailored to landscape work, unlike the mk II which seemed for the candid style shooters and low light work - no regard for corner performance, it is barely any better than the 17-40L when used for landscape.


Oct 25, 2012 at 09:47 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password