Why has Canon Abandoned F/2.8?

A basic set of lenses consists of three zooms. For Nikon those were 12-24, 24-70, and 70-200 F2.8 zooms. For Canon they have been a 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200 F2.8 zooms. In both cases only the 70-200 have IS. Tamron and Sigma have 24-70 and 70-200 F2.8 zooms. Tamron has a 15-30 zoom coming out early next year.

Canon introduced the 70-200 in 2010 and the 24-70 in 2012 which makes them much newer than Nikon's lenses which date from 2007-2009. The two Tamron's on the market are from 2012.

Then in 2014 Canon introduced 16-35/4L IS. And it now appears we are moments from seeing a new 11-24/4L in early 2015. Canon's 16-35/2.8 dates from 2007.

Have Canon abandoned fast super wide angle lenses? For video and activities that have motion, including wedding photography, the shutter speed can't be dropped below 1/50th (video) or 1/80th second or so. Low light is often an issue.

Is Canon abandoning F2.8 under the assumption that a higher ISO can compensate? Do they expect their future cameras to have better high ISO performance?

DavidNJ100 wrote:

A basic set of lenses consists of three zooms.

Where did you read THAT??

Have Canon abandoned fast super wide angle lenses?

Wider than 35mm, nobody's very interested in shallow depth of field, so avoidance of camera shake is the only real reason to want 'more light', and Image Stabilisation pretty much takes care of that.

11mm f2.8?? That would be nuts! First of all it'd be HUGE; secondly, you'd have to actually be a Parkinson's patient driving a car with square wheels in the middle of an earthquake to see camera shake through an 11mm lens.

Al Downie wrote:

DavidNJ100 wrote:

A basic set of lenses consists of three zooms.

Where did you read THAT??

Have Canon abandoned fast super wide angle lenses?

Wider than 35mm, nobody's very interested in shallow depth of field, so avoidance of camera shake is the only real reason to want 'more light', and Image Stabilisation pretty much takes care of that.

11mm f2.8?? That would be nuts! First of all it'd be HUGE; secondly, you'd have to actually be a Parkinson's patient driving a car with square wheels in the middle of an earthquake to see camera shake through an 11mm lens.

or shooting astrolandscape images. 2.8 is nice to have when you are limited to 30 second exposures and trying to reduce noise. I would LOVE an 11mm 2.8 lens.

Great Bustard wrote:

Doh! I stand corrected! Great images.

Not abandoned, the f/4 design makes lenses affordable for a larger audience, and high ISO on newer camera models is pretty impressive, so shutter speeds can stay up there. I'd rather have f/2.8 in any lens, but f/4 isn't bad in a ultra wide angle, or a giant telephoto either.

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.

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.

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.

Jonathan Brady wrote:

Look how big that front element is... now imagine it needs to let in another stop of light...

That is an exposed aspherical element, they all look like that as do fisheyes. Wide angles usually have the largest front elements. The exception is large aperture long telephotos.

There are lots of places where the subject is very close or very wide and the widest wide angle never seems like enough. This can include indoor shots to city streets.

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.

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.

Canon Rumors.  Poor source,  but I didn't feel like digging deeper.

DavidNJ100 wrote:

A basic set of lenses consists of three zooms. For Nikon those were 12-24, 24-70, and 70-200 F2.8 zooms. For Canon they have been a 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200 F2.8 zooms. In both cases only the 70-200 have IS. Tamron and Sigma have 24-70 and 70-200 F2.8 zooms. Tamron has a 15-30 zoom coming out early next year.

Canon introduced the 70-200 in 2010 and the 24-70 in 2012 which makes them much newer than Nikon's lenses which date from 2007-2009. The two Tamron's on the market are from 2012.

Then in 2014 Canon introduced 16-35/4L IS. And it now appears we are moments from seeing a new 11-24/4L in early 2015. Canon's 16-35/2.8 dates from 2007.

Have Canon abandoned fast super wide angle lenses? For video and activities that have motion, including wedding photography, the shutter speed can't be dropped below 1/50th (video) or 1/80th second or so. Low light is often an issue.

Is Canon abandoning F2.8 under the assumption that a higher ISO can compensate? Do they expect their future cameras to have better high ISO performance?

Why do two new wide angle zooms, the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS and the EF 11-24mm f/4L, make you assume they have abandoned f/2.8? The 16-35mm f/2.8L II, while not the best landscape oriented lense is a great lens for photo journalism and events where the speed can really be taken advantage of.  Nikon had the 14-24 but no equivalent for event photography to the Canon.

For many years I used the f/2.8L II along side the Zeiss ZE 21mm and 18mm that gave me better performance for landscape work but the f/2.8 was a great lens to own.

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.

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.