Wake up Canon

[dogbert]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>

[michalrosa]

<p>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?<br>

From business viewpoint it makes more sense to manufacture lenses that don't have direct competition.</p>

[ken_henry2]

<p>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.<br>

ken</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>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.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>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!<br>

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.</p>

<p>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. ;)</p>

[hakhtar]

<p>Thanks all for a helpful debate!<br>

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?</p>

[hakhtar]

<p>Attached!</p><div></div>

[steven_crist]

<p><em>"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!)."</em></p>

<p>Special adapter is required.</p>

[rocco1]

<p>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.<br>

Also a f/2.8 "L" zoom lens with that covers the 50mm range and has IS.<br>

But behold - there are 4(or 5) different 70-200mm models to choose from...</p>