Why has Canon Abandoned F/2.8?

bigfatron wrote:

I obviously should clarify what I was meaning. Yes, as a single lens its not a neck breaker like some telephotos but its nevertheless substantial. And a bag full of lenses at that weight per lens stacks up. Plus it occupies a reasonable amount of physical space. And a similar lens in f2.8 guise is probably going to weigh a kilo or more (2.2 pounds in old money).

The Nikon 14-24/2.8 is a 2007 and weighs 1100gm. The Tamron 15-30/2.8 VC weighs the same including IS.

There have been massive improvements in lens design and fabrication since 2007. It is the reason we are seeing aspherical, ED, SLD, etc. elements in even low cost lenses and why many of the new lens low cost lenses have very good optics.

If the Nikon 14-24/2.8 was 1100g in 2007, I doubt 3mm shorter focal length will add much in 2015. It seems more like an expected improvement. It is the difference between a 104° and 117° horizontal FOV, a subject 25' wide vs 32' wide at 10ft.

Just a sidebar... but Canon now has a 16-35/4 IS introduced in 2014, a 24-70/4 IS introduced in 2012, and a 70-200/4 IS introduced in 2007. This lens may fit in that scheme of less expensive, lighter F/4 lenses.

I was musing about what Canon's next FF lineup may look like. I'm thinking a 6DM2 at around $1500-1600, a 5DM4 at $2500, and a 3D with 42Mp sensor at $3500-$4000. All would need to support 4k video which the 4D could do with binning. An add on video recording module (maybe for $2500-$3500) to the 3D and maybe 5DM4 could record CanonRAW (a video format) to SSD drives.

Add the Canon lenses (which are better than Nikon's offerings at nearly every focal length) and it could be a killer combination.