Why still no 14-24 lens?

FeXL wrote in post #16393070
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.

I suppose it depends what you use it for, but I have been really happy with the ones I've used on several occasions.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #16393486
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

The real fact is, nobody knows why Canon has not come out with a 14-24... It all is speculation. Whether you believe it is technology, business or "other", nobody knows for sure except those who make the decisions.

IMO, both companies have pros/cons... Grass is always greener on the other side. I will stick to my brown lawn and wait for some rain (sensor tech, 14-24, whatever)...

I agree with you....it is silly to think that the grass is greener on the other side. I never understood discussions about jumping the ship and changing the system. I think today photographers lack the vision, skills, talent and experience....but not the gear.

It was just my little chat about a wish to have lens. I can still do pretty ok with my 24-105 and wait for a better UWA lens. But gear is not the limiting factor....great shots are being taken with what is available.

Still, it would be nice to get this lens on canon.

I have the solution to all of this debate.. Sigma's ART 12-24 2.8 sharp in center and corner to corner..

Ok I have everyone's attention..

You never know.... Look at the 35 1.4 and the 18-35 2.8 for crop both pretty stellar..You never know

I know, if Canon comes out with a 16-35 III, then that may me a different story.

My choices: Samsung 14, Canon 17 & 24Ts e Zeiss 21 Canon 24-70 II

Bianchi wrote in post #16393787
I have the solution to all of this debate.. Sigma's ART 12-24 2.8 sharp in center and corner to corner..

Ok I have everyone's attention..

You never know.... Look at the 35 1.4 and the 18-35 2.8 for crop both pretty stellar..You never know

I know, if Canon comes out with a 16-35 III, then that may me a different story.

My choices: Samsung 14, Canon 17 & 24Ts e Zeiss 21 Canon 24-70 II

But....this Sigma doesn't exist

light_pilgrim wrote in post #16393959
But....this Sigma doesn't exist

That's why you never know was written twice.. You never know

It wouldn't surprise me if Sigma beats Canon to the punch and brings a top-notch UWA-zoom. The only question is why they haven't done it yet.

Canon's arrogance, marketing schemes and focus on video stuff is one thing, but Sigma seems rather hungry on grabbing new market share from us photogs. So come on Sigma, I have a stack of fresh dollar bills waiting for you.

Osiriz wrote in post #16394398
It wouldn't surprise me if Sigma beats Canon to the punch and brings a top-notch UWA-zoom. The only question is why they haven't done it yet.

Canon's arrogance, marketing schemes and focus on video stuff is one thing, but Sigma seems rather hungry on grabbing new market share from us photogs. So come on Sigma, I have a stack of fresh dollar bills waiting for you.

See....this is what I am saying.. So long as the ink dried, you can send along some of those fresh dollar bills to the rest of us....

Osiriz wrote in post #16394398
It wouldn't surprise me if Sigma beats Canon to the punch and brings a top-notch UWA-zoom. The only question is why they haven't done it yet.

Canon's arrogance, marketing schemes and focus on video stuff is one thing, but Sigma seems rather hungry on grabbing new market share from us photogs. So come on Sigma, I have a stack of fresh dollar bills waiting for you.

I don't feel the same way you do about Sigma, perhaps because just about every day I see posts in this forum about Sigma lenses back or front focusing. I could be wrong, of course.

Now, I hear lots of good comments and reviews about Tokina lenses, specially the 11-16mm for cropped sensor, and the 16-28 for FF.

RayinAlaska wrote in post #16394529
I don't feel the same way you do about Sigma, perhaps because just about every day I see posts in this forum about Sigma lenses back or front focusing. I could be wrong, of course.

Now, I hear lots of good comments and reviews about Tokina lenses, specially the 11-16mm for cropped sensor, and the 16-28 for FF.

Don't believe everything you read on the net. Vocal minorities rule the roost. My recommendation is to rent a lens and try for yourself rather than rely on an unknown misc. Internet name.

Hogloff wrote in post #16394584
Vocal minorities rule the roost.

Quoted for Irony.

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.

This isn't a tech issue, it's a philosophy issue. Canon went the low noise, lower res, large photo site way, Nikon went the high res, high dynamic range (at low ISO route).
I'm sure there are just as many people complaining on the Nikon forums about there not being a large photosite, low noise camera, as there are people complaining about canons low Dynamic range and so called banding.

Both manufactures are filling gaps in there lens line up, take Nikons 70-200 F4 for example, a lens canon has had for ages (decades?) that Nikon only just made, I'm sure we will see canon filling gaps in its line up as well (200-400 f4 they recently released for example).

I'd much rather they took a few years and designed an excellent wide-angle zoom, then speeding up the process and giving us a sub-par lens.

I don't think we're going to get a definitive answer of why Canon hasn't made a 14-24 2.8 unless someone on this forum is on the R&D team at Canon, and will spill some major beans. I think it would be a great lens to have though, and Canon would sell a bunch. We can only imagine whats going on in R&D over there, who knows maybe they are working on one?

David Arbogast wrote in post #16392918
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.

That's because Canon is still using Digic 5 tech! Sony and Nikon are taking names! Canon has all this nice glass but, they suck in the sensor department.