16-35mm f/4L IS is here!

Hogloff wrote in post #16900264
Maybe because 14mm and 24mm are not quite the same...let alone the focal lengths between 14 and 24.

well a 24mm tilt shift isnt really 24mm when shifted. I dont know the exact measurements, but it's significantly wider when shifted. Nick was speaking about architecture (interiors specifically), and shifted 24 or 17 would be a lot better than a zoom.

WhyFi wrote in post #16900272
Canon is publicly traded and releases financial statements. Their 2013 report indicates that they see 6% Return On Sales. From what I understand, 5% is typical of a manufacturer. That hardly sounds like evil moneybags territory to me.

Really don't care how they do as a corporation...don't own their stock, but I do care when their lenses approach $2,000 a piece. Their competition is much lower priced and in some cases, deliver a better lens. I don't need a red ring on my lens or a Canon logo on my camera.

Charlie wrote in post #16900303
well a 24mm tilt shift isnt really 24mm when shifted. I dont know the exact measurements, but it's significantly wider when shifted. Nick was speaking about architecture (interiors specifically), and shifted 24 or 17 would be a lot better than a zoom.

Nick was talking about hand holding interior shots and that is not where the 24 TSE shines. I've shot with a TSE and if you want any precision with either tilt or shift...it is tripod time.

Hogloff wrote in post #16900327
Nick was talking about hand holding interior shots and that is not where the 24 TSE shines. I've shot with a TSE and if you want any precision with either tilt or shift...it is tripod time.

for smaller interiors, the 24 wont be wide enough you'll need the 17, but you can definitely hand hold the shifting feature while keeping distortion minimal. Tilting is a little harder, but in live view with focus peaking, it's doable. tripod would be ideal of course, but even with hand holding, I'de opt for the tiltshift.

Charlie wrote in post #16900335
for smaller interiors, the 24 wont be wide enough you'll need the 17, but you can definitely hand hold the shifting feature while keeping distortion minimal. Tilting is a little harder, but in live view with focus peaking, it's doable. tripod would be ideal of course, but even with hand holding, I'de opt for the tiltshift.

Sure you can handhold any type of lens, but of all the different lens out there, the last one I would handhold would be a TSE, especially when shooting interiors as many times you need to take multiple exposures and blend if you have any outdoors scenes coming in through windows. Could you imagine trying to do both a multiple exposure blend along with a 3 shift image all handheld. Good luck with that.

ed rader wrote in post #16899381
yeah I really want 14mm. may have to bite the bullet and get the prime this year. the reason I made that comment about the rumored lens is while the 24-70L f4 IS is a very good lens it's not a game changer like the 24-70L f2.8 II

14mm prime has been calling my name for about 2 months now. So far, I haven't answered.

Hogloff wrote in post #16900305
Really don't care how they do as a corporation...

You were just charging them with unduly lining their pockets, hence my response and some semblance of evidence to the contrary. You may not like the pricing on some of their lenses (I wish that some of them were more approachable, too), but that doesn't mean that there isn't a valid reason for the pricing.

the 10-18mm efs stm appears to have a plastic mount and no distance window. my guess is that it will be priced almost the same as the 55-250mm efs stm.

I don't get why everyone thinks this thing is going to be twice the cost of the 17-40mm... to me it seems like a logical and from what I've read, needed replacement for the 17-40mm... Canon has been putting IS into pretty much all of their lenses lately, I think that's just their plan for the future of all of their lenses, with mirrorless competition having IBIS they pretty much have to put IS into all their lenses to stay competitive.

I'm betting a price somewhere around $999-1199 which to me seems perfectly fair if it's as strong optically as their other recent lenses.

hw_ wrote in post #16900397
the 10-18mm efs stm appears to have a plastic mount and no distance window. my guess is that it will be priced almost the same as the 55-250mm efs stm.

I don't know...I just can't see canon releasing it for less than the 10-22mm...hopefully I'm wrong

DreDaze wrote in post #16900459
I don't know...I just can't see canon releasing it for less than the 10-22mm...hopefully I'm weong

Maybe for volume. Maybe the sale of the 55-250 has been good.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16900445
I don't get why everyone thinks this thing is going to be twice the cost of the 17-40mm... to me it seems like a logical and from what I've read, needed replacement for the 17-40mm... Canon has been putting IS into pretty much all of their lenses lately, I think that's just their plan for the future of all of their lenses, with mirrorless competition having IBIS they pretty much have to put IS into all their lenses to stay competitive.

I'm betting a price somewhere around $999-1199 which to me seems perfectly fair if it's as strong optically as their other recent lenses.

Because all their new IS-updated lenses have been at least double the price of the old versions. Now if it really does come in at around $1K, I'd be quite happy, although I'm still not sure if I'd sell my 17-40.

Sirrith wrote in post #16900576
Because all their new IS-updated lenses have been at least double the price of the old versions. Now if it really does come in at around $1K, I'd be quite happy, although I'm still not sure if I'd sell my 17-40.

For the umpteenth time... no they haven't been. Go look up all the lenses the new IS primes have replaced all cost almost exactly the same as the lenses they replaced costed at launch (after you factor in inflation). The 24/2.8, 28/2.8 and 35/2 IS all cost the same if not less than their old non-IS versions did when new in the late 80's.

The only lens I can think of that they updated and had a significant price hike was the 24-70/2.8 mk2. All others prices went up relatively marginally I'd imagine mostly to cover inflation and R&D costs, these prices always come down after a few years once the initial R&D cost has been somewhat brought down... this isn't a new trend, nor is it exclusive to Canon.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16900590
For the umpteenth time... no they haven't been. Go look up all the lenses the new IS primes have replaced all cost almost exactly the same as the lenses they replaced costed at launch (after you factor in inflation). The 24/2.8, 28/2.8 and 35/2 IS all cost the same if not less than their old non-IS versions did when new in the late 80's.

And when was I comparing them to launch price taking into account inflation? They cost double the price now. I don't care what I could buy a lens for in the 80's, I wasn't into photography in the 80's. I care about what I can buy a lens for now. And right now (well, last year when they were launched), I could buy either the old version for x, or the new IS version for 2x. And this applies to pretty much every new IS version Canon has released. And that is why people think it will apply to this one too.

Price is out 1199 for the 16-35 and 299 for the 10-18. Actually not bad assuming they are good lenses.