DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

Why has Canon Abandoned F/2.8?

Started Nov 18, 2014 | Discussions thread
DavidNJ100
OP DavidNJ100 Contributing Member • Posts: 514
Re: Why has Canon Abandoned F/2.8?

rrccad 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.

for sure - and out side of the astroscape crowd to which the Samyang primes are far more suitable, there's just not as much use for the insane size of this as a 2.8

Among 62 Nikon full frame lenses listed at B&H, the Nikon 12-24/2.8 at $2000 is listed as the 9th best seller. It has over 500 reviews. The only more popular wide angle is the 20/1.8 prime for $800.

 DavidNJ100's gear list:DavidNJ100's gear list
Samsung TL350 Canon G9 X Canon EOS 7D Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM +21 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow