How come we don't have 12-24L like Nikon?

[kouasupra]

I know the Sigma has one and so does Nikon. We Canon ever come out with such a lens? I would buy this lens in a heartbeat if Canon decided to go this route.

[frankchn]

Nikon's 12-24 is a DX (APS-C) lens.

[jacobsen1]

yep, the 1 series needs one desperately. I"m a HUGE fan of the sigma 12-24mm though. You can McGyver filters for it and it's a great lens provided it's lack of speed doesn't ruin it for you. I like it so much I had it for my 1 and kept it for OH MY GOD wide on the 5.

Nikon's FF lens is the 14-24mm, it's amazing, even wide open at 2.8. But the problem is it's GIGANTIC (bigger than a 24-70) and ~$1800+.

[Mark1]

How come we don't have 12-24L like Nikon? (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=744318)


Nikon has an L ??

[NicolasRubio]

Nikon has the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8... which was not meant to be in the segment of Canon's EF 16-35mm f/2.8L. The Nikkor that is in this segment is the Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 and Canon's closest rival to Nikon's SUPERB UWA zoom is the EF 14mm f/2.8L.

[bacchanal]

I think Canon's 10-22 compares (functionally) to the Nikon 12-24 (APS-C).

Canon doesn't really have a competitor to the Nikon 14-24. $1800 seems like a steal when you consider the price of the 14L.

[kouasupra]

Canon does have a 10-22 but it won't fit on a FF body. If they can fill in the gap (14-24) then 24-70 and 70-200 that would totally rock IMO.

[tkbslc]

Why doesn't Nikon have a 70-200 F4 L IS?

[k_wakasugi]

Nikon has an L ??

:lol::lol::lol:

[foxesamu]

Nikon came out with a 10-24 f3.5-4.5 which effectively replaces the 12-24 f4 although they're both still on the website and both still available new.

The 14-24 is simply fantastic and I actually think it's a great value but it doesn't make sense on DX.

[xMClass]

I would love a 12-24. That would solve my wide angle needs.

[fWord]

The 14-24 is simply fantastic and I actually think it's a great value but it doesn't make sense on DX.

Agreed with this. The Nikkor however would be quite fitting for a 'dual system' setup: effective field of view of 14-24mm on a FF camera and approx. 21-36mm on an APS C sensor, still a fairly useful range for those of us who like to shoot at the 24mm or 35mm focal length, but nowhere near as exciting as 14-24mm.

At this time I use this lens on a Canon FF camera and also on a Fuji S5, which is a Nikon mount, APS C camera. I highly recommend this lens to those who have both systems. It's very good value for what it does. The only sticker is that we can't use filters on it on a FF camera, but the optical quality is top notch.

[Jethro790]

What about the 16-35 f2.8L? Pretty freakin' close.

[kouasupra]

What about the 16-35 f2.8L? Pretty freakin' close.

Close when compare to a 1.6 crop body using 10-22/10-20. But I'm on a full frame body and I can't see using anything else but canon lenses. Sorry I'm a canon fanboy.

[Jethro790]

Close when compare to a 1.6 crop body using 10-22/10-20. But I'm on a full frame body and I can't see using anything else but canon lenses. Sorry I'm a canon fanboy.

Yes, Canon 16-35 f2.8L

[malcolm027]

Sigma's 12-24 is quite a good lens and at a good price.

[jacuff]

Because they are too busy trying to design the 24-105mm f/2.8L IS.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Though I agree... I'd love to see a Canon 12mm for FF. I've been tempted to pick up the Sigma a few times. Oh well... I'll keep waiting as that lens would be just more of a fun lens than a money maker for me

[S7000]

Canon does have a 10-22 but it won't fit on a FF body. If they can fill in the gap (14-24) then 24-70 and 70-200 that would totally rock IMO.

I have my 10-22 mounted to my 1D right now. ;)

[Canonswhitelensesrule]

I have my 10-22 mounted to my 1D right now. ;)
Was it easy to pop off the baffle? ;)