14-24 f/2.8L rumors. The next big wait?
- Thread starter Fietty
- Start date
Now this would be the real ultrawide component of Canon's trinity. Not the 16-35 or 17-40. Of course it has to at least be as good as Nkon's version to be worthy of the title. As for price, the sky's the limit. Don't think Canon cares how Nikon prices their lenses. They seem to just do whatever they want.
Canon does not need to price the same as Nikon, afterall you can't use a Nikon lens on a Canon anyway (I mean retaining full function).
Canon 14mm f/2.8 already cost more than $3k, very unlikely the 14-24L will be cheaper than that unless it is made inferior to the 14L
Will put off some new dslr n existing user, i think. So if market share is not an isue canon can sell higher price even any canon product perform poorer than nikon or other brand
Last edited:
It is a tough challenge.
The lens has to be better than 16-35, which itself is a big challenge.
Then the lens should be comparable to Nikon 14-24 ..
Hmm, at what cost?
The lens has to be better than 16-35, which itself is a big challenge.
Then the lens should be comparable to Nikon 14-24 ..
Hmm, at what cost?
The next big wait.... let's wait till they launch the 24-70mm L II first............... But it is a new great Trinity......... when it is launched...........
The 14-24 would be a welcome addition. If it matches the IQ of the Nikon equivalent, it will be a runaway success. Of course pricing will have a factor in its success.
I was contemplating getting a copy for my Japan trip. I rented a good copy eventually and the lens is great. I am sure you are enjoying this wonderful lens.
It's a great lens indeed, but I would have purchased the Sigma 12-24mm as I spoke to you earlier.. Blame it on my stupidity that I tested the lens with the filter adapter on and though the lens had image circle issue and went on to purchase 16-35L instead :bsmilie:
Yup enjoying it.. but not to enjoying the hole it burnt on my pocket :bsmilie:
U r not alone, me too did the same recently. 200% Agree with you "up enjoying it.. but not to enjoying the hole it burnt on my pocket "
I guess I am not going to run behind 14-24 in near future ... but then again, you people pass the virus too fast!! ..)
Need to be significantly better than 16-35 as the new lense will be more expensive than already expensive 16-35. The difference must be like 17-40 and 16-35 so that we can think of paying the difference in price.
I am very glad I rented the 16-35 instead of burning a hole in my pocket. 14-24 will do just fine for me ;p
Similar threads
