Why still no 14-24 lens?

YashicaFX2 wrote in post #16386752
That sounds suspiciously like you are after the 10-22 on a crop body.

In my experience it's not as sharp. I still have my 10-22 and 7d. But there is no combo with the 7d that matches the sharpness of the worst lenses I've used on the 5d3.

As for the 16-35, it's really sharp in the center with my 5d. It's the corners that suck.

What I had in mind is the UWA lens that is as sharp corner to corner. Doesn't exist on canons side

I'd also be happy with an UWA lens that was sharp corner to corner. It can even have a max aperture of only f/4 and it would still work for me.

Abu Mahendra wrote in post #16386730
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.

interesting 2o years ago maybe .

tagnal wrote in post #16388556
I'd also be happy with an UWA lens that was sharp corner to corner. It can even have a max aperture of only f/4 and it would still work for me.

you both should switch to Nikon! they make the lens that you want but you'll probably miss something you have now, or think you should have now .

a huge 14-24 with bulbous front element and stunted range is more like an artiste lens than a work lens like the 16-35LII. i'd rather have the latter, and that's what I do have.

there's always the 14L too. I wouldn't mine owning that lens .... if someone else paid for it !

I gave up waiting for Canon to produce a sharp UW and went with Zeiss. If and when a 14-24L surfaces, I won't abandon my Zeiss lenses unless the 14-24L is way over the top.

Oh, and manual focus is not an issue. I don't use a special focusing screen or Liveview, just the focus confrmation light on my 5D III and I get very sharp images every time.

^ Good choice. The Zeiss 21 is pure candy!

On topic. The wait for a tack sharp UWA-zoom from Canon is indeed getting tedious.

Like OP said, people would pay solid money for this lens! .. I.m.o, the only reason to why Canon haven't released it yet is simply that they don't know how to make it.

As i pointed out on another forum, Canon may not want to release this lens.

If Canon were to make a 14-24, it would have to be at least as good as Nikon's version, (a.k.a the best UWA zoom in the world), and that is where the Canon's dilemma begins.

This automatically means that the 14-24L would have to blow the 16-35L II, 17-40L, and even the 24L and 14L out of the water. (Yes, the Nikon 14-24 is that good).

How would this lens fit into Canons marketing machine? A price tag of 3k?

^That's it I think.

The same reason there is no 35LII yet. I think they can't outperform the Sigma 35 for now.

Last time I checked the lens rumors part of this forums there was talk of a couple new W/A canon lenses coming. At this stage if your after a W/A for landscapes I think 3rd party lenses are the best option, or primes. Both the current W/A's zooms are nice and sharp in the center and pretty soft in the corners, I would prefer they got these lenses sharp in the corners before offering wider lenses.

ed rader wrote in post #16388624
interesting 2o years ago maybe .

The hypothetical EF 20-55 f/2.8 is nothing more than a 24-70 f/2.8, the standard standard zoom lens, shifted towards the wide end for those who need wide more than long.

Since Canon is a (large) company and not a hobbyist's garage it has to function given product priorities and resource allocations.

We may want a certain product, but Canon doesn't (and shouldn't) succumb to emotional pleads of a handful of lens geeks. They try to serve their professional users first and when resources allow they get to play a bit (i.e. 8-15 f/4L).

It is true that it seems that Canon has completely abandoned their Landscape photog section and it is a shame. I wonder if the numbers don't really support the marketing case to even bother especially when Zeiss has two exemplary lenses (15mm and 21mm) that can be used for UWA landscape photography at reletively reasonable prices. The manual nature of the lenses is completely inconsequential for landscape photography.

tl;dr Canon is a (mega)corporation, not our favorite friend's hobby garage. If there's no case to make $$$, they will not bother. Deal with it.

I learnt something new today. Here, all along, I thought that Canon was not-for-profit philanthropic organization. Thanks Andrikos. Careful getting off that tall steed of yours.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #16387806
What I had in mind is the UWA lens that is as sharp corner to corner. Doesn't exist on canons side

The TS-E 17mm is an UWA lens.

It is sharp corner to corner.

Perhaps you meant to say is that there isn't an UWA zoom lens that is sharp corner to corner, which would be correct.

Having used the Nikon 14-24 on both D800 and 5D III, I am not as awed by it as I was prior to using it. It's a nice lens. I don't like the cumbersome bulbous front element, which is inescapable in a 14mm lens. So I prefer Canon to develop an improved EF 16-35mm III that is sharper throughout the zoom range. 14mm is a lot of fun, but I feel 16mm is still plenty wide.

Sigma 12-24 is a pretty sharp lens, why wait for a rumoured Canon lens?