Why has Canon Abandoned F/2.8?

DavidNJ100 wrote:

hotdog321 wrote:

Good grief--I just read that the f/4 version is going to cost US $3000! Can you imagine how expensive a f/2.8 would be? Not to mention needing a wheelbarrow to haul the sucker around.

Also, from an engineering and optical standpoint, it is much easier to make a f/4 wide angle truly sharp at the corners as opposed to f/2.8. The new 16-35 f/4L IS is phenomenal. The 16-35 f/2.8 versions 1 & 2--not so much.

Finally, thanks to modern sensors ability to handle low light, there really isn't quite so much a desperate need for that extra stop. I've handheld the 16-35 f/4L IS several times in truly awful light and been quite pleased with the results.

Where did you read it would cost $3000? I find that a bit hard to believe; Canon doesn't have a market for a $3000 super wide angle.

you know this how?

The Nikon 14-24/2.8 is $2000 and very sharp with minimal distortion. The Tamron 15-30/2.8 VC will probably be around $1500. The Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6 is $875 but maybe a step below the others optically. The Tokina 16-28/2.8, which DxOMark says is the sharpest of the wide angle zooms, is $640. The Nikon, Tamron, and Tokina all have large front aspherical elements and don't accept screw on filters. They are all over 2 pounds.

good grief that was almost as inane as your original post. a 16mm UWA isn't even in the same ballpark.

it would / will be the widest rectilinear zoom on the planet, constant aperture at that - they can set their own price. a full 3mm wider than anything else.

I honestly can't imagine this at F/4.0 let alone f/2.8.