Canon 12-24 f/2.8 L

[JBaz]

I just wish Canon would come out with this lens. I know they have the nice 17-40 and 16-35, but honestly, I'm just jealous that some of my Nikon buddies have the 14-24, or even the 12-24. I don't need another lens to cover 24mm+, I'd like more wide angle for the money. I'll even take a 12-24 f/4 if they just release a model in that zoom range with good full frame coverage.

[cpforyou]

Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG ASPHERICAL HSM?

[Karl Johnston]

That'd be nice...14 is HELLA wide, though, and I think that a 12-24 2.8L would cannabalize the 14 2.8 and the 24 1.4 both of which have had recent upgrades

[JBaz]

yeah, just really wished they have an ultra wide angle zoom similar to the Nikon one. I don't think a zoom lens will ever cannibalize the 24 1.4 L lens and honestly, I don't know that many people who actually own the 14 2.8, its so pricey, even more than the 14-24 from Nikon.

I could understand the price of the 14 2.8 if it was much wider than that for full frame, like 12 or 10, but how much of a difference in viewing angle is that from 14 to 16? 6 Degrees? Doesn't seem hardly worth the price.

[cyruz]

Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG ASPHERICAL HSM?


+1, its supposed to be a sweet lens, though i haven't had a chance to try it first hand yet

[joe mama]

Not a 12-24 / 2.8L, but a 12-28 / 4L that is wicked sharp from f/4, and very well controlled for distortion, flare, and CA. That would be an absolute killer of a lens, and would sell like crazy if priced the same as the 16-35 / 2.8L II.

[Rafal_BC]

Not a 12-24 / 2.8L, but a 12-28 / 4L that is wicked sharp from f/4, and very well controlled for distortion, flare, and CA. That would be an absolute killer of a lens, and would sell like crazy if priced the same as the 16-35 / 2.8L II.

Sign me up!

[GMCPhotographics]

I have both the Sigma 12-24mm and canon 16-35IIL lenses and they are both very different beasts. It would be great for Canon to produce a lens that eclipses the Sigma optically and with it's brightness. But these lenses both perform very different functions. Both the Nikkor 14-24mm and Sigma 12-24mm and Canon 14mm prime are fully rectilinear corrected, which makes them useless for shooting people. but great for shooting buildings.

[Stealthy Ninja]

That'd be nice...14 is HELLA wide, though, and I think that a 12-24 2.8L would cannabalize the 14 2.8 and the 24 1.4 both of which have had recent upgrades

Just like the 24-70 cannibalises the 24L 35L and 50L and the 70-200 2.8L IS eats the 85L 135L and 200L for breakfast.

:p

[GMCPhotographics]

A 12-24mm f2.8 lens is essential for Canon's f2.8 zoom lineup. Since the 35-70/2.8 got extended to a 28-70 and then to a 24-70, the humble 16-35/2.8 has stayed pretty much the same and now overlaps the 24-70 but quite a large focal margin. Once Canon has a 12-24mm in place, then a pro tog can run from 12mm to 200mm @ f2.8 with only 3 zooms...now that's a nice thought.

[Persephone]

A 12-24mm f2.8 lens is essential for Canon's f2.8 zoom lineup. Since the 35-70/2.8 got extended to a 28-70 and then to a 24-70, the humble 16-35/2.8 has stayed pretty much the same and now overlaps the 24-70 but quite a large focal margin. Once Canon has a 12-24mm in place, then a pro tog can run from 12mm to 200mm @ f2.8 with only 3 zooms...now that's a nice thought.

Oh. Is that why it's the 16-35? (or 20-35mm as it was before?) So It would correspond with the 35-70mm?

[GMCPhotographics]

Yes, but it hasn't had the re-tink that the standard pro zoom has had. Probably because 10 years ago, the ultra wide lens was considered a niche and a low sales lens. Since the rise of the 1.6 DSLR crop, there's a lot more of these selling than before but it's still missed the ground up re-think that other f2.8 zoom lenses have had.
I actually like mt 16-35IIL as it is, but it would be nice to swapp out my sigma 12-24 with a simular lens (to suplement my 16-35...it has a different look) but with superior optics and brightness rating.

[Stealthy Ninja]

What would be cool is something like a 10-16mm for FF. Don't care which company makes it so long at it is good optics.

Sort of like a 11-16 (tokina) that actually works properly on FF.

Can you imagine 10mm on a FF!! :shock:

[dcad10]

Just like the 24-70 cannibalises the 24L 35L and 50L and the 70-200 2.8L IS eats the 85L 135L and 200L for breakfast.

:p

exactly!

but then again, the 18-55IS and the 55-250IS cannibalizes the 24-70 and the 70-200 so there you go....

[Stealthy Ninja]

exactly!

but then again, the 18-55IS and the 55-250IS cannibalizes the 24-70 and the 70-200 so there you go....

And the 18-200 eats them all in one monster sized bite.


:lol:

[JBaz]

please... the 16-600 eats em all...

[Persephone]

please... the 16-600 eats em all...

Pic of you holding the lens on the body. Right now, please. :lol:

[divinemethod]

like the 28-300 L pisses on all of the lenses right?

[Stealthy Ninja]

please... the 16-600 eats em all...

Mythical creatures don't count. :p

[JBaz]

its not a myth, it's real! I have seen it with my own two sensors! lol

[Tom W]

If Canon does a 12-24, my guess would be that it'd be an f/4 lens. It would be interesting, and for my wide-angle use, I would consider replacing my 16-35 with it. Although 16 on FF is very wide, 12 would be wicked wide!

[Tom W]

And the 18-200 eats them all in one monster sized bite.


:lol:

All you old trekkies will recognize that the shape of the 400/2.8 is quite similar to the "doomsday machine" that almost took out Kirk and the USS Constellation on stardate 4202.9. The huge 400 has similar power and is capable of eating whole planets in a single gulp.

[jasonleehl]

If Canon does a 12-24, my guess would be that it'd be an f/4 lens. It would be interesting, and for my wide-angle use, I would consider replacing my 16-35 with it. Although 16 on FF is very wide, 12 would be wicked wide!

I agree that a f/4 lens would be great. Probably much cheaper than a f/2.8, could fit maybe 77mm filters and makes it easier for GND attachments.

Composition & correct exposure on a 17mm is already challenging, I wonder how tough it would be on a 12mm..... amazing....

[GMCPhotographics]

If Canon does a 12-24, my guess would be that it'd be an f/4 lens. It would be interesting, and for my wide-angle use, I would consider replacing my 16-35 with it. Although 16 on FF is very wide, 12 would be wicked wide!

Why would it be f4? Nikon's version is f2.8 and it's an optically strong lens.
12 mm is a tricky beast to use on FF, I've been using a Sigma 12-24mm for the past 6 years. It's not an easy lens to master but it's results can be superb.

[Tom W]

Why would it be f4? Nikon's version is f2.8 and it's an optically strong lens.

Price, primarily. Canon could do well to bring an optically excellent ultra-wide f/4 lens that's both wider and less expensive than Nikon's offering. How much if 1 stop of light worth in an ultrawide? How about a few hundred dollars lower price and 12 mm at the wide end instead of 14 (8 degrees additional angle of view diagonally)? I think that would be nice, especially since I would retain autofocus as opposed to having to use an adapter or switch formats to use Nikon's excellent 14-24/2.8 lens.

[Tom W]

12 mm is a tricky beast to use on FF.

Even 16 mm is a struggle at times, but it is quite useful when shooting home interiors and such. I suspect that 12 wouuld be both more difficult and more useful.

[Stealthy Ninja]

The main trouble with UWA is controlling distortion (bendy edges and bulging noses) and avoiding your feet. :lol:

[JBaz]

avoiding your feet isn't the "feat" of the lens manufacturer but the photographer to overcome...