Thank you all for your insightful comments.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
If I recall, the main selling point of the 7D when it was released was it's superior redesigned AF system and FPS over the XXD. Here was a solution to those in the prosumer segment that couldn't afford a 1D series to afford a better AF system and were complaining about the old 9 point AF system. It was definitely a more action/sports/wildlife kinda camera. Right now, I would say Canon's AF offerings are on-par - so really is a 7d mark II even needed?
My question is what "big" photography related improvements could they do to an already fine piece of equipment
I don't want to sound cynical, but I hope the 7DII isn't just a 70D with the 'top end' ergonomics, just as the xxD line had up until the 60 and 70D combined a rebel interface with the larger body.
A little faster, gain a proper rear wheel + joystick, maybe lose the pop up flash.....
...my point was that shallow DOF is not the drawing card for UWA lenses...
Not for you, but then, you're not 'everyone'.
Fine, if shallow DOF in ultrawide is your thing, have at it. But you'd get better results with a 24 1.4, than 2.8 zoom
Just like the big brother 24-70 II, the new 16-35 f4 IS MTF charts look awesome.
My 16-35 II & 50L are on ebay.
I'll hold off until I see some actual reviews of the 16-35 F4 but I suspect I'll be joining you in putting my 16-35 II on ebay as well... (Especially since I take alot of video with that lens too)
Does this mean no 16-35 f/2.8 III?
Impossible to predict. It's a favorite photo journalism lens, probably much more practical than the 12-24 range. And future high ISO improvements may make an update to the f/2.8 even less relevant.
Long term, I would think:
1. 12-24 (or 14-24) f/2.8L
2. 16-35 f/4L IS (the 17-40 f/4L is a goner I think)
3. 16-35 f/2.8L III (I tend to think there'll be an update)
I think there's room for all three zooms, and if push came to shove I would probably favor an optically excellent 16-35 2.8L III over an optically excellent 16-35 f/4L IS. But I'd prefer an optically excellent 16-35 f/4L IS over the less-than-excellent 16-35 f/2.8L II (which I currently own, and love). The 14 f/2.8L II may not see another update.
I think the 17-40L will stay, and so will the 16-35 II. The 12/4-24 and 16-35 will be additions.
For travel landscape shooting, the 16-35 4L IS is perfect. The IS makes hand held slow shutter speed and low ISO possible which is great. For serious landscape work, really should be looking at the TS-E or Zeiss lenses. For event and photojournalism, the new 2.8 would be the choice to stop the motion.
Reviewing further US and UK pricing and allowing for taxes the 16-35mm f2.8L II and the EF17-40mm f4L are comparable to US pricing (slightly more expensive). The 16-35 f4L however represents a 21% premium over US pricing in the UK clearly Canon Europe are extracting as much as they can out of early adopters. I will wait until the price comes down.
Converted from my currency (CZK) to USD, estimated price is 1375 incl. VAT Still, that places it 275 above 17-40/4L and 475 under 16-35/2.8L II, which according MTF and other specs still sounds like awesome deal compared to 16-35/2.8L II...
The pricing is right on this lens, easily worth spending the 275 over 17-40/4L.
16-35 II is a different ballgame though. If you are interested in doing indoor event work, IMO the 16-35 II f/2.8L is the better purchase; there simply isn't enough light at many indoor events to use an f/4 lens. In fact, often f/2.8 isn't even enough; f/2.8 is more useful in low light than f/4 IS at 35mm, and with shutter speed needing to be 1/100 minimum to freeze motion f/4 will hurt in the ISOs department. A noisy picture caused by five digit ISOs or motion blur will be much more noticeable in low light than less than perfect corner sharpness, and IS aside from not being as effective at wide focal lengths also will not freeze motion. I do have primes that are below f/2.8, but none of them at 16mm which can be useful in tight quarters like a dancefloor. The 16-35 II is one of the rare lenses that has a UWA-wide/normal zoom range, f/2.8, and accepts filters (I don't know how I'd feel with a bulbous element at a crowded event).
On the other hand, for landscape work this new 16-35 f/4L IS looks like an easy winner over the 16-35 II f/2.8.
So it depends what you are going to do with it, as is often the case IMO, 16-35 II f/2.8L remains king for now for event photography.
It seems that the recent competition for Sigma has propitiated that Canon launch prices closer to market reality. If the picture is as good as it looks on the MTF chart, these two lenses are sales success.