RalphJ wrote:
I really don't understand all of the bitching and moaning.
When I started coming to FM a few years back, all I ever heard was "When oh when is Canon going to address its wide-angle shortcomings? Why don't they listen to our pleas? They've got great fast primes, great zooms, and great telephotos, but where are the great wide-angle lenses?"
Since that time, Canon has introduced:
14mm II
16-35 II
17mm TS-E
24mm II
24mm TS-E II
I know these lenses are not for everyone, but my point is that it's pretty hard to argue that Canon didn't listen to all of the complaining. (On the other hand, I guess the complaining we'll hear in the near term might bring about the various IS mid/long lenses people are clamoring for!)
By the way, the announcement of a 17mm TS-E is nothing short of astonishing -- a very smart response to Nikon's imitational 24, 45, and 85 T/S lenses introduced recently -- and if it tests well, I suspect it will be a LOT more popular than many here might think. I was so sure that lens would never happen! ...Show more →
That's a big IF! from all reports, the Nikon 14mm-24mm not only beats the Canon 16-35mm L II zoom, it also is supposed to kill the 14L II prime!!! Not sure how it stacks up to the 24L II (although the 24L II''s main attraction is its maximum aperture).
burningheart wrote:
Canon won't be able to survive if you stop buying.
What no new 14mm MKII or 24mm MKII for you I guess you are holding out for the 14-24 oops wrong brand.
I'll be looking forward to see some of your duck shots with the 28-70 but could you maybe try and get some DIF shots in front of a brick wall.
My adapter for the G1 to FD comes in tommorow so I'll see how the FD lenses I have left work with it. If it works easily then I'll be getting a G1 to use that good ole leaded glass.
17mm T+S You forget no PST in Alberta so $3900
...Show more →
If it is $3900, I guess I'll be passing on this. However, I think it should be under $3000, since the USA price is supposed to be around $2500 USD. This should be included in CPS, so hopefully be even a little less.
Dark Slider wrote:
Why? Canon L glass routinely returns >85% of new on the used market. You are only hurting yourself with this one. You can hardly rent glass for a couple of days for that little.
FWIW I like to try and buy once to save myself the loss. If I have a feeling Canon may release an updated product and for the time being could deal without the current product I'll use what I have and wait it out. If there ever comes a time where I absolutely cannot deal without it I'd bite the bullet but I wouldn't be completely comfortable doing so. ATM my current set up gets the job done for the most part, but having a few extra tools in my bag certainly wouldn't hurt. I guess I do things a little different from everyone else...but its hard to break habits.
khurram1 wrote:
From all reports, the Nikon 14mm-24mm not only beats the Canon 16-35mm L II zoom, it also is supposed to kill the 14L II prime!!! Not sure how it stacks up to the 24L II (although the 24L II''s main attraction is its maximum aperture).
Yes, the Nikon 14-24 is an amazing lens; I use it with an adapter on my Canon full-frame bodies because I think it's superior to the 16-35's.
I haven't seen a faceoff yet between the 14-24 and the 24L II; I'm guessing they're pretty close. If they perform similarly, I may trade the 14-24 for the 24L II, because the latter is not only much smaller and can shoot at 1.4 and 2.0; it also takes filters, which is often hugely important in landscape photography.
tuantran wrote:
Since Canon has a large lens mount, is it possible that they can create a sensor bigger than 24x36mm?
No, because none of the existing EF lenses will cast an image circle larger than 43mm or so in diameter (that's the diagonal of a 24x36mm frame). Many of the EF lenses also have a 24x36 baffle on the back to block reflections from the sensor onto the back element.
If Canon ever creates a larger sensor than 24x36, it will require entirely new lenses.
RalphJ wrote:
I really don't understand all of the bitching and moaning.
When I started coming to FM a few years back, all I ever heard was "When oh when is Canon going to address its wide-angle shortcomings? Why don't they listen to our pleas? They've got great fast primes, great zooms, and great telephotos, but where are the great wide-angle lenses?"
Since that time, Canon has introduced:
14mm II
16-35 II
17mm TS-E
24mm II
24mm TS-E II
I know these lenses are not for everyone, but my point is that it's pretty hard to argue that Canon didn't listen to all of the complaining. (On the other hand, I guess the complaining we'll hear in the near term might bring about the various IS mid/long lenses people are clamoring for!)
By the way, the announcement of a 17mm TS-E is nothing short of astonishing -- a very smart response to Nikon's imitational 24, 45, and 85 T/S lenses introduced recently -- and if it tests well, I suspect it will be a LOT more popular than many here might think. I was so sure that lens would never happen! ...Show more →
Hopefully with these new lenses, the parameters of the tilt, shift, or rotate can be embedded into the EXIF or XMP or what-have-you, and DPP can help sort out some of the CA or other optical "stuff" that happens at extremes.
I agreed that would be nice, but if it means increasing the price from $1100 to $2500 it would be a very hard sell for me... I guess I tend to work with the gear I have, but the lack of this feature has not been an issue while actually using my TS-E's... but reading the spec sheet it bugged me. At the $2500 per lens price tag I would have just gone with a MF T/S adaptor and bought some lenses... could get some stellar Zeiss lenses with $5000 to work with!
I just want the independent shift & tilt on all ts lenses....Show more →
Looks like Canon is trying to bury MFDB's for good, these lenses and prices are aimed at people used to paying far more. "Look at me, I can do a great 21 megapixels with incredible weatherproof pro AF cameras and I've got all the lenses you could ever need, you don't need any super expensive MFDB and hugely expensive equipment anymore". I have little doubt that these lenses are not aimed at the usual FM crowd but at the pro MFDB crowd who still can't get over how much a 28mm needing extensive software correction costs.
Looking at the announcement from another perspective is the Canon 17 T+S and 24 T+S better than other camera companies announcements thus far? Nikon's new offering Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX, Leica's SUPER-ELMAR-M 18 mm f/ 3.8 ASPH, Voigtlander's Color Skopar 20mm f3.5 SLII.
khurram1 wrote:
If it is $3900, I guess I'll be passing on this. However, I think it should be under $3000, since the USA price is supposed to be around $2500 USD. This should be included in CPS, so hopefully be even a little less.
The prices have been listed as 2200 and 2500, respectively:
I'm wondering if they'll try and re-use that 17mm's front element for another lens development. That's a killer specialized element otherwise (which would explain its cost)
These seem like really cool lenses, but totally out of my domain for both price and usability.
I'd totally love a 35/2 usm and 50/1.4 usm with a "tweaked" formula or just more modern coatings, but these lenses come when the factories are appropriately tooled and such.
I could still jump ship if Nikon announce a D700x (20+mp);
D700x + 14-24 +24mm shift vs 5DII + 17mm TS-E + 24mm TS-E.
Shift on 17mm for an architectural shooter is not that usefull in the real world as the perspective distortion when shifted would be too extreme for many uses and clients tastes.
I will probably buy the 24mm TS-E as soon as it's available for use on my 5D as the existing TS-E is so awfull at the edges and corners when shifted that this lens may at last give my old 5D something to do it's 12mp justice.
As I said earlier in the thread, the 17 TS-E is now officially a drool lens for me. Me want...me want! The price is a bit out of reach, but believe me (and this goes for a lot of people who do architectural photography, either as a hobby (me) or a profession): I think I'd rather have the 17 TS-E than a 300 f/2.8L IS.
shirozina wrote:
Shift on 17mm for an architectural shooter is not that usefull in the real world as the perspective distortion when shifted would be too extreme for many uses and clients tastes.
Don't really understand this comment, since shift is what corrects perspective distortion. Yes, if you shift in the opposite direction, you'll get more distortion, but this is a way to get ultra wide angle shots while not having those wacky verticals. The 17 may be too wide for some interior shots (that's where the 24 comes in handy), but it's a godsend for exteriors, and will come in very handy for many different types of interior shots as well (just not livingroom shots or the like).
