Wake up Canon

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by hakhtar, Feb 21, 2010.

  1. Considering the popularity of Sigma 12-24mm for full-frame and the price it holds (even the used are sold for about £500/ $769), would it not make commercial sense for Canon to market such a wide lens? I for one would happily pay £700-800 for a full-frame 12-24mm f4L. What do you think?
     
  2. I wouldn't want one: too wide and my feet would always get in the picture! To me 24mm is super wide on FF. My 17-40 4L is so wide as to be almost useless. I'm sure Canon could make a good 12-24 but as a niche product it's near the bottom of the list. I say let Sigma enjoy their little monopoly!
     
  3. My feet are probably not as big as Puppy's, they don't get in shot with the 17-40 and possibly even the 16-35. Super wide is pretty specialised, I think and Canon do cover that range with some primes.
    Interestingly, Sigma have just released a very wide zoom for crop cameras: -
    http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022011sigma8mm16mm.asp
    I'm sure that the marketing people at Canon have a finger on the pulse.
     
  4. The sigma is a truly unique lens (so far). I don't believe that a lens could be too wide, even if it is real challenge to use the wider end of this lens. As there is great difference between 12mm and, let's say 14mm, having a zoom in this range gives great versality. Here is an example with the sigma 12-24 taken at 12mm (and eos 5D mark 1) - I think this motive could have been even better with a 10mm!
    00VpWx-222789584.jpg
     
  5. too wide and my feet would always get in the picture​
    That's ludicrous. The 17mm end (depending on how it's used) yields some of the most breathtaking images. I agree with Mus. A 12-24mm would be a great addition to Canon's lineup which may give some serious competition to their 16-35 f/2.8 II.
    Great shot Jorgen!
     
  6. I would also be very interested in any Canon entry into the full frame 12-24mm bracket lens. I enjoyed using my Sigma 12-24mm and find my 17-40mm a bit limiting. My guess is that there are two reasons why Canon have not plunged into this market yet.
    1) because the Sigma works pretty well and Canon would not be able to compete on price for this niche.
    2) because Nikon has come out with their reputedly class-leading full frame 14-24mm lens. Canon would need to at least give that lens a run for its money.
    But I expect Canon will have to have a crack at this area some time soon just to keep up with Nikon. I look forward to seeing what they come up with.
     
  7. I never thought the full frame Sigma 12-24 was popular in the first place. A rarely see a post about it. A few years ago when the Sigma 30mm f1.4 crop lens came out there were tons of posts on that. Tons have people wanted the crop equivalent to their 50mm fast prime lens. Nikon finally released the 35mm f1.8 DX crop lens and based on reports I've read the demand far exceeds what Nikon thought it would be. It would make more financial sense for Canon to come out with something similar.
     
  8. sbp

    sbp

    @Jorgen - Nice shot. Is this a crop or as-taken? I ask because I have heard that the 12-24 is very soft in the corners. Are you happy with the IQ from this lens?
    Sorry to learn that PF has gigantic feet....
     
  9. The Sigma is not VERY soft in the corners - yes, the center is better, but the corners, when stopped down are still usable. I agree 100% that Canon needs to come out with an offering that competes with the Sigma and the excellent Nikon lens. We landscape shooters like our super wides:)
     
  10. Thank you, Steve! It is cropped slightly, but not much. I usually use the lens with f13 or smaller to avoid softness. I find the corner softness acceptable at thesee apertures, but you must be careful what you put in the corners in your composition, as things look more distorted here than in the centre (things look "stretched out"). Here is another shot taken at 12mm:
    00Vpa4-222809584.jpg
     
  11. I for one would happily pay £700-800 for a full-frame 12-24mm f4L.​
    Many will but a lens like this will never sell at a price like this. You'll need to add 1 or maybe even 2 before each number.
    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  12. I'm still saving for my TS-E 17mm lens, but in the meantime, I picked up the Sigma 15-30mm lens that was the predecessor of the 12-24mm. It is not at its best at 15mm, but acceptable, and gets very good as you move up a little in focal length. Works just fine on a 35mm sensor.
     
  13. PF writes, "too wide and my feet would always get in the picture"​
    And PJ responds:
    That's ludicrous. The 17mm end (depending on how it's used) yields some of the most breathtaking images.​
    No that's called humor and done well since it obviously tickled the pickle of a few here!
     
  14. Canon makes a 10-22mm for crop sensors and a 14mm prime for full frame, which I'm sure is in a whole other league from the Sigma. If Canon did make a 12-24mm for full frame, I assure you it would be an L lens and wouldn't be as affordable as the Sigma version. There would be no reason to make an affordable, mediocre lens for FF b/c most people that own a FF camera have the best glass, and wouldn't settle for a bargain lens.
     
  15. I'm quite positive about the existing Canon wide lens eg 24mm f1.4L which gives very good results but would like wider than this for richer variety!
    00VpiS-222851584.jpg
     
  16. Mus Akhtar : Sit tight and see what lenses Canon will be announcing before April 2010.
     
  17. One problem that Canon have is that the EF 14/2.8L II is already priced at around $2150. If they bring out a high quality L series 14-24/2.8 zoom either the price will have to be astronomical ($2500-$3000) or they will kill off the sales of their prime lens.
    The Nikon 14mm prime is around $1300 and the 14-24mm zoom is around $1700 so the zoom is still affordable yet doesn't totally kill off the prime.
    There's someone on eBay right now selling an empty Canon 14/2.8L II box for $260 (yes, just the empty box). Must be one hell of a lens is the box sells for $260!).
     
  18. I just wish Canon would SOME DAY produce a decent, fast 50mm prime. They did it with the superb 85mm 1.8, but for some reason have neglected the 50 since like forever.
    In any case, the 16-35 is more than wide enough on FF.
     
  19. I'd say that Canon does have a decent 50mm prime. In fact they have three of them. Of course none are perfect. The 50/1.2L is great, but large and expensive. The 50/1.8 is rather cheaply constructed and the 50/1.4 still uses that awful micro USM AF motor system. However they are all pretty decent lenses.
    I do agree that the time has come for a redesign of the 50/1.4 though, this time with a real ring type USM motor and maybe slightly tweaked optics. 17 years without an update is long enough for pretty much any lens!
     
  20. I disagree that Canno 5D Mark II owners like myseld only buy expensive glass. Of course I would like to have All L-series lenses, but in the mean time I have no problem with third party lenses. I own and use the Sigma 70-200 F2.8, Tamron 28-75 F2.8, Canon 85 1.2L, Canon 17-40 F4L Canon 50 1.8. I will most likely purchase the Sigma 12-24 since Canon doesn't even make a comparable lenes for full frame in this range.
    Why not the pictures I have seen using this lens look darn good. My 17-40 is pretty wide, but for real estate interiors this might be an excellent afforadable lens.
    Thanks
     
  21. MP - the 85 1.2 is an expensive lens - $2k
     
  22. Why is everyone complaining that Canon doesn't make a 12-24mm lens? Sigma does, go buy it. Why would a Canon 12-24mm be any better than the Sigma? If you say the Canon would be better quality, then the pricetag will reflect it, voiding your initial point anyways.
     
  23. haven't there been some rumors circulating regarding a Canon 14-24 f/2.8 to compete with Nikon's?
     
  24. I don't know if they were too worried about the Sigma lens, BUT if they were sleeping I'm sure they woke up when Nikon released their lens. I've sure they have already dissassembled a few of them.
    The Nikon lens is a break through for them, which let's face it they probably needed. I'm not up on the latest lens adapters, but if there is any lens that is going to drive adaptor sales for Nikon to Canon this one will be it.
    So ya... I think they must be working on something, and I think they finally might be ready to release an updated 50mm soon too.
     
  25. I'd say that Canon does have a decent 50mm prime. In fact they have three of them.
    Make that four: The 50/f2.5 macro is super sharp and nearly distortion-free. Focusing's a bit noisy, though.
     
  26. One problem that Canon have is that the EF 14/2.8L II is already priced at around $2150. If they bring out a high quality L series 14-24/2.8 zoom either the price will have to be astronomical ($2500-$3000) or they will kill off the sales of their prime lens.​
    The problem with this logic is that it assumes that the EF 14/2.8 L is a reasonable seller and a reasonable profit maker for Canon. I suspect it is not. If it is a slow seller, and does not make much profit due to short production runs then if anything Canon would be wise to kill it off, by offering something more akin to the Nikon 14-24.
    That is, it makes sense for Canon to canabilise its own lineup with better offerings if the lenses in that lineup are not good earners.
     
  27. If it's such a good and popular lens why would Canon bother making its own version to compete with a good product and make very little money in the process?
    From business viewpoint it makes more sense to manufacture lenses that don't have direct competition.
     
  28. I use mine for archectural. Especially for confined interiors and angles. Regarding that 17mm TSE, I zoom in to 14 or 15 mm and crop proportionally. This lens is extremely sharp as any prime and L lens, and very little distortion. A high price L lens does not neccessarily mean it is that good.
    ken
     
  29. Although this is a Canon forum, I think this applies to all the major camera manufacturers. Long gone are the days when manufacturers listened to end users about what they really wanted. In the 70's, Nikon and Canon were very in tune with their customers and produced products that were required. Nowadays, it seems that Nikon, Canon, etc. produce products with little input from end users. Greats like Ansel Adams had George Eastman's ear and when Ansel recommended something, Kodak listened.
     
  30. My old Sigma 10-20mm digital lens is by no means cheap and crummy. While it has its peculiarities, it is not markedly inferior optically to the Canon 10-22mm. As said here, Canon simply doesn't have anything like the Sigma 12-24mm for 35mm sensors, so it's a little precious to be claiming how much better it would be if they actually made one!
    I have been very pleasantly surprised even by my nice Sigma 15-30mm 35mm-sensor lens, which I honestly bought as a stopgap while saving up the princely sums required to enter the "TS-E L"-fold. It gives me the equivalent of the 10mm on my APS-C bodies that I missed when shooting my 5D.
    We need a Martin Luther (not to be confused with Luthor) to stop the selling of Canon indulgences for high prices! Sigma might be the one. ;)
     
  31. Thanks all for a helpful debate!
    I attach another landscape photo taken by 5D + 24mm f1.4L - considering the lens performance here or what my ordered 17-40mm f4L would deliver, is 12-24mm for 35mm sensor really needed?
     
  32. Attached!
    00Vqdt-223327584.jpg
     
  33. "There's someone on eBay right now selling an empty Canon 14/2.8L II box for $260 (yes, just the empty box). Must be one hell of a lens is the box sells for $260!)."
    Special adapter is required.
     
  34. Somehow Canon have a different view of what lenses are required by users. Not wide enough? Yea, I would love to see something like a 10/12mm-24mm in a "L" lens.
    Also a f/2.8 "L" zoom lens with that covers the 50mm range and has IS.
    But behold - there are 4(or 5) different 70-200mm models to choose from...
     

Share This Page