Why still no 14-24 lens?

Anybody with knowledge on the topic...what is the reason that is stopping Canon from producing a nikon quality 14-24 lens? It seems like people are waiting for years and I think people would pay solid money for it. Still nothing from Canon......

Whay cannot Canon crack it?

light_pilgrim wrote in post #16386343
Anybody with knowledge on the topic...what is the reason that is stopping Canon from producing a nikon quality 14-24 lens? It seems like people are waiting for years and I think people would pay solid money for it. Still nothing from Canon......

Whay cannot Canon crack it?

No idea why not, but the bulbous glass in front of a 14-24 takes some work to maintain flare to a minimum. Just go to the Nikon forums and search "14-24 flare problems." You will find plenty.

That said, this 14-24 (Nikon) is supposed to be a great lens.

I don't know either. I mean, there is certainly a lot of people who want it. I have a feeling that they're sort of content with the role that the new TS-E lens have taken in their lineup and they might feel that they suffice for landscapers and of course they are an edge that Nikon has not been able to match.

That's really my only guess. There's no reason why Canon isn't capable of producing this lens. So, it must be market driven and my suggestion above lends to that... and it's smart on their part, why sell one lens, when you can sell two?

The 14-24 will come, but it will be a cinema lens.

It will debut alongside the new super cinema video movie hollywood videography camera.

Ginga wrote in post #16386644
The 14-24 will come, but it will be a cinema lens.

It will debut alongside the new super cinema video movie hollywood videography camera.

Who would be surprised?

On topic. Yes, the wait for a sharp UWA-zoom from Canon is starting to feel a bit ridiculous. People have practically been begging for a 14-24L since 2008, but the response has been nothing but silence. There is another rumor floating around about a hopefully sharp 16-50L, but who knows how many years it'll be before we see these lenses?

And what about the 35L II, 50 1.4 II, 135L II, e.t.c?

I have a bad feeling that Canon's R&D is too busy with other things that us still photographers does not care about.

Hmmm, an EF 20-55 f/2.8 L would be an interesting lens. But it'd have to have little barrel, and sharp in the center right from f/2.8.

Isn't Canon's answer to the 14-24 the 16-35L? Does the extra 2mm make that much of a difference? I have a friend with the Nikon 14-24 on his D800E and he's usually in the 20-24mm range of that lens.

DBNissan wrote in post #16386732
Isn't Canon's answer to the 14-24 the 16-35L? Does the extra 2mm make that much of a difference? I have a friend with the Nikon 14-24 on his D800E and he's usually in the 20-24mm range of that lens.

What i think^^

I would like to have 14mm on the wide end. but honestly, i rather have 16mm instead of only 24mm on the long end. 35mm feels just about right with the 16-35

DBNissan wrote in post #16386732
Isn't Canon's answer to the 14-24 the 16-35L?

davidfarina wrote in post #16386739
What i think^^

Far from it.

The 16-35 would be a nice contender if it was razor sharp across the frame. Its fairly sharp at the center, and a fine lens for photojournalism and weddings. Not so much for landscapes.

There is a reason to why so many canonites buys the Nikon 14-24, rip out the weather sealing and use it with the Novoflex adapter.

Osiriz wrote in post #16386741
Far from it.

The 16-35 would be a nice contender if it was razor sharp across the frame. Its fairly sharp at the center, and a fine lens for photojournalism and weddings. Not so much for landscapes.

There is a reason to why so many canonites buys the Nikon 14-24, rip out the weather sealing and use it with the Novoflex adapter.

Makes sense if the corner-to-corner sharpness is tack-sharp.

Osiriz wrote in post #16386741
...
The 16-35 would be a nice contender if it was razor sharp across the frame. Its fairly sharp at the center, and a fine lens for photojournalism and weddings. Not so much for landscapes....

That sounds suspiciously like you are after the 10-22 on a crop body.

Osiriz wrote in post #16386741
Far from it.

The 16-35 would be a nice contender if it was razor sharp across the frame. Its fairly sharp at the center, and a fine lens for photojournalism and weddings. Not so much for landscapes.

There is a reason to why so many canonites buys the Nikon 14-24, rip out the weather sealing and use it with the Novoflex adapter.

You cant just quote the things you want to hear. My "what i think" was pointing at the statement about the focal length usage, not about it would be canons answer to the 14-24. I was literally saying that a 16-35mm focal length is more usable for my preferences than a 14-24

davidfarina wrote in post #16386815
You cant just quote the things you want to hear. My "what i think" was pointing at the statement about the focal length usage, not about it would be canons answer to the 14-24. I was literally saying that a 16-35mm focal length is more usable for my preferences than a 14-24

Then we are in agreement. I would rather see a 16-35L III or the rumored 16-50L than a new 14-24.

i slapped on a 16-35L this weekend and took some rather uninspiring interior shots. Went home and corrected in Lightroom, pixel peeped a bit and concluded I would never spend cash on this thing.

DBNissan wrote in post #16386732
Isn't Canon's answer to the 14-24 the 16-35L? Does the extra 2mm make that much of a difference? I have a friend with the Nikon 14-24 on his D800E and he's usually in the 20-24mm range of that lens.

If you specifically need the extra wide end, 2mm makes a huge difference, the shorter the focal length, the greater effect each additional mm makes.

Personally I think Canon is content with the 17/24mm TS-E lenses ruling their WA range, as nice as a super-wide zoom would be, having movements is probably even better. Using only the 24 TS-E, you can stitch together a few shots using shift to effectively widen the focal length, while also having tilt and no bulbous front element.

If your friend only uses the 14-24 at 20-24, he would be right at home using only the 24 TS, and although there's nothing from Canon to compete with the D800E as well, he could just get the upcoming A7r with an adapter instead.