Canon 14-21mm 1.4L

Peak freak wrote:

I see Canon Rumors are talking up the chance of a Super wide, super fast zoom, again.

I expect this lens would be awesome for things like astro-photography and some other things I can't think of, but I really don't see the point of this lens from a practical or business point of view (at least in the short term), so a brief, informal Poll.

My point being, would Canon sell enough such exotic lens to make it worthwhile compared to a lens with 'mass market' appeal.

Would you rather Canon make a:

Ah... I would just say to leave it be? I initially wondered the same thing then... I remembered they will also be launching a 15-35 f2.8 for sure. So, most of us will go for the latter right? The 14-21 f1.4 is like the 28-70f2 or 50 f1.2 in my book, exotic and canon flexing its muscles. With those 3 it will already have within a very short time 3 lenses that Sony can't match. So unless you need that extra 14mm, just pretend the lens isn't a consideration?

gimp_dad wrote:

Peak freak wrote:

I see Canon Rumors are talking up the chance of a Super wide, super fast zoom, again.

I expect this lens would be awesome for things like astro-photography and some other things I can't think of, but I really don't see the point of this lens from a practical or business point of view (at least in the short term), so a brief, informal Poll.

My point being, would Canon sell enough such exotic lens to make it worthwhile compared to a lens with 'mass market' appeal.

Would you rather Canon make a:

I love the 16-35/4LIS for travel. And I find I don't use it at the long end that often (or if I do, I really wanted a lot more reach). I would love the idea of a Canon version of the newly announced Nikon 14-30/4 S. If it had the IQ of the EF16-35/4LIS and the size of the Nikon it would be a home run.

Doesn't the upcoming RF 15-35 f2.8 mock up not appear to be approximately the same size as the EF 16-35 f4? Not to mention it also has IS. So would that not be better, since you also gain some speed? Assuming it doesn't cost an arm and a leg it should be great.

lawny13 wrote:

gimp_dad wrote:

Peak freak wrote:

I see Canon Rumors are talking up the chance of a Super wide, super fast zoom, again.

I expect this lens would be awesome for things like astro-photography and some other things I can't think of, but I really don't see the point of this lens from a practical or business point of view (at least in the short term), so a brief, informal Poll.

My point being, would Canon sell enough such exotic lens to make it worthwhile compared to a lens with 'mass market' appeal.

Would you rather Canon make a:

I love the 16-35/4LIS for travel. And I find I don't use it at the long end that often (or if I do, I really wanted a lot more reach). I would love the idea of a Canon version of the newly announced Nikon 14-30/4 S. If it had the IQ of the EF16-35/4LIS and the size of the Nikon it would be a home run.

Doesn't the upcoming RF 15-35 f2.8 mock up not appear to be approximately the same size as the EF 16-35 f4? Not to mention it also has IS. So would that not be better, since you also gain some speed? Assuming it doesn't cost an arm and a leg it should be great.

Yea. I’m very interestd to see how the 15-35/2.8LIS compares. If it is close to the size of the current F4 IS version it will be compelling. On the other hand if they make an F4 version that’s even smaller while retaining great IQ like the current 16-35/4LIS it will be a tough choice for me personally. I use the F4 version about 3 to 1 vs the F2.8 (LIII) today because of the advantages of size and IS combined. It’s one of my favorite travel lenses.

Im optimistic about the future. I hope they do ultimately give us two different choices. If the price ratio came out 2x like today I’d probably go with the smaller, cheaper one (assuming they build it not too far into the future).

lawny13 wrote:

Peak freak wrote:

I see Canon Rumors are talking up the chance of a Super wide, super fast zoom, again.

I expect this lens would be awesome for things like astro-photography and some other things I can't think of, but I really don't see the point of this lens from a practical or business point of view (at least in the short term), so a brief, informal Poll.

My point being, would Canon sell enough such exotic lens to make it worthwhile compared to a lens with 'mass market' appeal.

Would you rather Canon make a:

Ah... I would just say to leave it be? I initially wondered the same thing then... I remembered they will also be launching a 15-35 f2.8 for sure. So, most of us will go for the latter right? The 14-21 f1.4 is like the 28-70f2 or 50 f1.2 in my book, exotic and canon flexing its muscles. With those 3 it will already have within a very short time 3 lenses that Sony can't match. So unless you need that extra 14mm, just pretend the lens isn't a consideration?

I agree with all that, and I expect the new 15-35/2,8 to possibly be the best wide angle zoom available. But, there is the issue of cost.

If it is about $2000 as I would expect, then that plus an EOS R just starts to add up to similar amounts to a Z7 + 14-30/4, or an A7RIII + 16-35/4. As a landscape photographer, just close enough to get me wondering.

If however, Canon were to release a 16-35/4 at about $1000, which would go very nicely thank-you with the mid priced EOS R, then (as others have indicated) it becomes a 'no-brainer'.

30-50mm F/1.4 at $3000.

Robert Boyer wrote:

I don't know why there's a faction of people that like their EF lenses but somehow think that using them with the adaptor on the R/RP is somehow "not good". Yes it adds a little bit of extra overall length to the kit but every one of my EF lenses works fantastically on the R with adaptor. So much so I have delayed the purchase of lenses I thought I would buy immediately (like the 50/1.2). Something else to think about is that most of the sigma/sony and even the Nikon "native" glass sort of has a spacer like thing permanently attached to the "native mount". Take a look at most of the Sony G-master glass, ALL of the Sigma "native" mirrorless e-mount glass (which looks a lot like the DSLR glass with a spacer) and even the Nikon 50 0.95.

I thought to myself I would rather have native RF glass but having used my EF glass with the R I am not in such a hurry now. IE I am using my ultra wide zoom EF with adaptor and I am in no hurry now to buy the same lens (or almost the same lens) in native mount. I'll probably end up buying new RF glass that is VERY VERY different than what I have now. I may even buy the 28-70/2 RF but as I said... no hurry.

I'm not against using the adapter per-se, but I do a lot of hiking and being able to have a very nicely sized body like the EOS R, but then having bolt on an adapter and my (probably) larger EF 16-35/4 bugs me in that I am not realizing as much an advantage as is possible. - That Nikon 14-30 is only 485g!!

It is a mixture of real differences and psychological differences, but thanks for your view because it is relevant. I bought a 100D and EF-S 10-18 as my lightweight kit. I think I used it once but was unimpressed. I still carry my 5D2 and 16-35 into the back-country - where there's the will, there's a way...

MitchAlsup wrote:

30-50mm F/1.4 at $3000.

That would make more sense to me where the shallow DOF and more portrait friendly FL would start to be useful.

Other than astro (where I think a prime would be better) a fast ultra-wide zoom would come with too many problems like size, weight and expense to be worth it. Cameras perform so well at high Iso these days and ultra-wide works against shallow DOF.

gimp_dad wrote:

lawny13 wrote:

gimp_dad wrote:

Peak freak wrote:

I see Canon Rumors are talking up the chance of a Super wide, super fast zoom, again.

I expect this lens would be awesome for things like astro-photography and some other things I can't think of, but I really don't see the point of this lens from a practical or business point of view (at least in the short term), so a brief, informal Poll.

My point being, would Canon sell enough such exotic lens to make it worthwhile compared to a lens with 'mass market' appeal.

Would you rather Canon make a:

I love the 16-35/4LIS for travel. And I find I don't use it at the long end that often (or if I do, I really wanted a lot more reach). I would love the idea of a Canon version of the newly announced Nikon 14-30/4 S. If it had the IQ of the EF16-35/4LIS and the size of the Nikon it would be a home run.

Doesn't the upcoming RF 15-35 f2.8 mock up not appear to be approximately the same size as the EF 16-35 f4? Not to mention it also has IS. So would that not be better, since you also gain some speed? Assuming it doesn't cost an arm and a leg it should be great.

Yea. I’m very interestd to see how the 15-35/2.8LIS compares. If it is close to the size of the current F4 IS version it will be compelling. On the other hand if they make an F4 version that’s even smaller while retaining great IQ like the current 16-35/4LIS it will be a tough choice for me personally. I use the F4 version about 3 to 1 vs the F2.8 (LIII) today because of the advantages of size and IS combined. It’s one of my favorite travel lenses.

Im optimistic about the future. I hope they do ultimately give us two different choices. If the price ratio came out 2x like today I’d probably go with the smaller, cheaper one (assuming they build it not too far into the future).

If we were to fast forward 2-3 years from now you might have a very very good point there. However people (not saying you, but people in general) have a tendency to be overly critical at times of all brands. 
Sony went down the small body, small lenses approach with the A7 series, seemingly with the A-mount FF cameras supposedly being their pro type line, with the A7 being a companion type kit. However, it took off, and people started criticizing it for its lack of lenses, "meh" lens performance for the price etc. People also aggressively defended sony. When the GMs came out though people praised them for performance they complained about size, weight and cost (seemingly forgetting completely about physics). 
So move forward to 2018/2019. Nikon went the small package BUT great performance path. They simply have an advantage over sony in that the mount was the first consideration (unlike E-mount originally intended for APS-C with FF coming later as an after thought), making it possible to make not only small, but sharp corner to corner lenses at prices that won't break the bank. They get flak for not being as exciting as canon's RF glass. Canon obviously went the other way, F2 zoom, f1.2 prime... with more super fast primes and fast zooms on the way. Seems like canon decided to release a body that didn't go super small, but would balance will with larger lenses, and take advantage of the shorted flange distance to produce similarly sized lenses such that f2.8 lenses will be comparable to f4 EF lenses... the 70-200 f2.8 is tiny compared to the EF or GM versions. 
I don't doubt that canon intends to eventually release f4 lenses. But they are going big, and they are going at it fast and hard. They will give us a full 14 to 200 mm high performance fast glass in the span of 1 year. Now THAT is aggressive AF, if you ask me. I too may complain like you about size, weight, and more definitely price. But at the same time it gives me piece of mind that I am betting on the right horse, and when they come out with a more pro oriented body that shows us that they can deliver on IBIS, dual slots, and address their sensor read out speed issues I will be far far more likely to be willing to pay for high end glass.

I mean think about it. If by the end of 2019 we have 14-200 f2.8, f2, f1.4 glass would that not be something? Would that not solidify canon's customer base in terms of confidence in the brand? I think in 2020, we will start seeing a mix of more affordable f4 L glass, as well as budget glass. They will be the lenses that are actually easier to design and manufacturer compared to the 2019 line up. 
At least that is how I see it. I do wish they will drop a 50 1.4 or 1.8 at a more reasonable price than the 50 f1.2. Same goes with dropping in some more affordable and smaller f1.8/f1.4 primes. A macro lens would also be nice... but I guess if it isn't smaller/lighter than the EF 100 L they won't be in a hurry with that.

Canon appears to be intent on offering lenses that are not available or even possible in the EF mount. Can't blame them. After all, the EF adapter works absolutely perfectly, so all that EF glass is available now. So why not focus on the more exotic glass for the RF mount?

The one RF lens I would like to see first is that 24-240. I'm hoping it's a good one.

Peak freak wrote:

I see Canon Rumors are talking up the chance of a Super wide, super fast zoom, again.

I expect this lens would be awesome for things like astro-photography and some other things I can't think of, but I really don't see the point of this lens from a practical or business point of view (at least in the short term), so a brief, informal Poll.

My point being, would Canon sell enough such exotic lens to make it worthwhile compared to a lens with 'mass market' appeal.

Would you rather Canon make a:

Actually, I rather see a 15-21 f2