Rumor of new Canon L lens

[stuartf287]

Has anyone checked out page 129 of the August issue of Popular Photography? In the Canon lens section focuscamera.com is advertising a "12-24/2.8L USM." I am already using a Sigma 12-24, so I probably won't call. I'm just a little surprised no one has picked up on this announcement. Is this genuine? Or a mistake?

[Tom W]

Its more than likely a mistake. These ads have a few in them - not only that, but sometimes, they carry the same mistake month after month. The B&H ad, for the past couple of months, has had redundent pictures of the 16-35 f/2.8L listed one right above the other.

I think that if Canon were to bring out an L lens in this focal length, it would likely not be f/2.8. I could see f/3.5 or f/4 though.

[timmyquest]

it would likely not be f/2.8.

Why not?

Personally, i couldnt justify the need for a 12-24 f/3.5 lens...it would kind of be a waste of money for me.

F/2.8 though would be awsome.

[Tom W]

I don't think the market's big enough for an f/2.8 zoom in that range. Granted, many folks around here might buy it, but in the rest of the digital world, there's a lot more people in the $600 dollar range than in the $1200 dollar range.

The big-money buyers also seem to be flocking towards the big sensors where the 16-35L or the 24-70L will prove wide enough.

I suspect that the 17-40L outsells the 16-35L by a very large margin.

[timmyquest]

I suspect that the 17-40L outsells the 16-35L by a very large margin.

I agree, but that is part of why i wonder why thye'd make a new lens with a similer range 17-40 vs 12-24. Granted there is a nice difference in 12 then 17...but yeah

[CyberDyneSystems]

An f/2.8 in that range? I think it would be HUGE!
...I mean physically huge...

[Tom W]

I agree, but that is part of why i wonder why thye'd make a new lens with a similer range 17-40 vs 12-24. Granted there is a nice difference in 12 then 17...but yeah

Maybe just a plain old 12 mm f/2.8 would be cool. The 17-40 suits my needs at the wide end, and I couldn't justify a big chunk of money to go wider (particularly if the Canon trend might go to bigger sensors in the future).

the 17-40 overlaps the 24-70, and all the 28-XX lenses, but its still a great lens for those times when you need wide. It just isn't super wide on the 1.6X.

[eric1]

what do you think a 12-24 2.8 would cost? 2 grand? 17-40 is wide AND fast enough for me now.

[Belmondo]

what do you think a 12-24 2.8 would cost? 2 grand?

At least---probably more. The fact is, it would be a very popular lens in certain limited professional markets, but would not be a big seller overall.

[Jesper]

I've seen the same ad been discussed on a forum on another website. Most likely the shop who's advertising is just wants to attract attention. If you'd call them to ask about the lens, they'd probably tell you they don't have the lens "yet", keep you on a string and try to sell you other stuff.

Sigma does have a 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG Aspherical (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/html/zoom_intro.htm) lens and Nikon also has a super wide zoom lens. The shop knows that a lot of Canon photographers would like to have such a lens from Canon with "L" quality. Those are the people the shop is hoping to attract.

[nosquare2003]

what do you think a 12-24 2.8 would cost? 2 grand? 17-40 is wide AND fast enough for me now.

The 14/2.8L costs about $1,800. If there would be a 12-24/2.8L, it may cost over 3k!

Well, there won't be many people need such lens. For me, a 12-24/5.6L is good enough...