Why has Canon Abandoned F/2.8?

rrccad wrote:

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.

In the real world no one can set there own price.  As lenses move north of $2000 they have a fairly high price elasticity. The only EF lenses north of $2500 are long or fast telephotos. At $3000 they probably wouldn't have a big enough market to justify the cost manufacturing and marketing the lens.

The number of people who say 14mm, 15mm, or 16mm isn't wide enough and they must have 11mm isn't going to be large. On the other hand those who may chose an 11-24 to complement their 24-70 and 70-200 rather than a 16-35 is large. Nikon's 14-24 is the benchmark example. Except Nikon's is an F2.8.
It is the difference between a 117° FOV vs 104°, 100°, or 97° FOV.