Why still no 14-24 lens?

Could be patent issues. It is possible that Nikon is using an ideal optical formula that Canon cannot match until the patent expires. That is my guess.

Radders wrote in post #16392483
Sigma 12-24 is a pretty sharp lens, why wait for a rumoured Canon lens?

I don't think a "pretty sharp" lens is what the OP is looking for.

Invertalon wrote in post #16392510
Could be patent issues. It is possible that Nikon is using an ideal optical formula that Canon cannot match until the patent expires. That is my guess.

Patents are good for 20 years so we will be waiting a little longer if that is the case.

Abu Mahendra wrote in post #16392352
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.

It seems you haven't been on this forum long enough to see how "idealistic" and "wishful" people become here...

David Arbogast wrote in post #16392573
I don't think a "pretty sharp" lens is what the OP is looking for.

Well a pretty sharp lens is better than one that isn't even around. I love the Sigma 12-24, very sharp when used around f/10..

Invertalon wrote in post #16392510
Could be patent issues. It is possible that Nikon is using an ideal optical formula that Canon cannot match until the patent expires. That is my guess.

I wouldn't buy it.
There are so many ways around a patent, you can lawyer yourself in court until the actual patent expires. (look at Apple vs. Samsung vs. Apple)

I don't think patents stopped anyone from doing what they want to do.
And if it, they'd be out of business soon enough...

andrikos wrote in post #16392638
I wouldn't buy it.
There are so many ways around a patent, you can lawyer yourself in court until the actual patent expires. (look at Apple vs. Samsung vs. Apple)

I don't think patents stopped anyone from doing what they want to do.
And if it, they'd be out of business soon enough...

Well, in that case. There dies the theory to why Canon can't get rid of the shadow banding and increase the dynamic range from their sensors.

If what you say is true, Canon could just make their own version of Exmor and call it the Canmore.

Ginga wrote in post #16392822
Well, in that case. There dies the theory to why Canon can't get rid of the shadow banding and increase the dynamic range from their sensors.

If what you say is true, Canon could just make their own version of Exmor and call it the Canmore.

It's not a patent issue.
It's a technology issue,

Canon has been using the archaic 0.5 micron process node that doesn't provide enough space to do A/D conversion on the sensor chip (i.e. lower noise).
Sony is using a much smaller 0.18 micron process.

Yet Canon tends to produce some of the best lens out of any manufacturer, still... Even with so-called "technology" issues.

And Nikon can't produce decent chips so they buy them from Sony... So who REALLY is lacking in technology? Canon did not have amazing sensors handed to them like Nikon.

Who REALLY is lacking in technology? Canon.

IMO they don't deserve any special bonus points or credit just because they elect to develop their own in-house sensors; sensors that are not the equal of the Sony sensors.

This lens topic thread is all off the tracks now that we're talking camera sensors.

Invertalon wrote in post #16392877
Yet Canon tends to produce some of the best lens out of any manufacturer, still... Even with so-called "technology" issues.

And Nikon can't produce decent chips so they buy them from Sony... So who REALLY is lacking in technology? Canon did not have amazing sensors handed to them like Nikon.

Sometimes it is a business decision, not a technology decision. Nikon might have felt they could spend their efforts better at other aspects of the camera and just cooperate with Sony on the sensors. Sort of like not manufacturing your own LCD and using a 3rd party or not being into battery development and relying on a 3rd party supplier.

Nothing wrong with these decisions...and from where I sit, it seems like using a Sony sensor was a pretty good business decision by Nikon.

Radders wrote in post #16392611
Well a pretty sharp lens is better than one that isn't even around. I love the Sigma 12-24, very sharp when used around f/10..

I've been using the 12-24 for about 4 years now, mostly interior architecture. Almost exclusively at the wide end. I find center frame sharpness is acceptable (far from great) at f8 and up, the corners are unacceptably soft at all apertures.

andrikos wrote in post #16392638
I wouldn't buy it.
There are so many ways around a patent, you can lawyer yourself in court until the actual patent expires. (look at Apple vs. Samsung vs. Apple)

I don't think patents stopped anyone from doing what they want to do.
And if it, they'd be out of business soon enough...

Not saying patents are the reason we haven't seen a 14-24mm lens, but I have to correct your apparent misconceptions about patents. First, designing around a patent is not always easy, especially if one has a solid invention and the patent is drafted properly. Second, you can lawyer up in Court, but it will cost you. You do realize that Apple and Samsung have each spent tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars in legal fees over their recent battles right? Plus, the only reason the lawsuits haven't affected them much is because of how much money they both have and how quickly their industry moves on to new products and technologies. As we all know, the photography industry does not move as quickly, nor is there as much revenue involved to justify large legal expenses.

As for patents not actually stopping someone from doing something - you may be technically correct, but that is because more than 90% of all patent lawsuits settle. So even though someone accused of infringing a patent may not actually be forced to stop selling a product, they likely ended up paying a lot of money to avoid or settle a lawsuit.

Bottom line is this: patents are a factor in a company's decision to develop and market products. I personally know this from being counsel for many multinational corporations. A company may decide that it wants to take on the patent risks if the potential rewards are big enough, but you would be wrong to assume that companies do not consider them at all or takes them lightly. In fact, if a company fails to consider patent risks in product development, they likely will be out of business soon....

Are we talking sensors or lenses here? If we're talking about lenses like I thought we were, patents don't really enter into this I think. Canon is more than capable of creating a similar spec, and probably better quality 14-24 if they wanted to.

I think, as I said earlier, this is merely a business decision and Canon doesn't feel the need to produce this lens at this time. That's really it. Now why they feel this way is certainly a good discussion but I think discussing why canon isn't capable of producing this lens is a bit off target.

Invertalon wrote in post #16392877
Yet Canon tends to produce some of the best lens out of any manufacturer, still... Even with so-called "technology" issues.

And Nikon can't produce decent chips so they buy them from Sony... So who REALLY is lacking in technology? Canon did not have amazing sensors handed to them like Nikon.

I think this is a very philosophical and not helpful discussion. The fact is, there is no 14-24 from Canon and there is actually nothing available that can match this lens on Nikons side. We do not talk about chips and other lenses that are great...I am just talking this specific lens