EF 16-40 f/4L IS [CR1]

[Canon Rumors]

Share

A replacement to the 17-40 f/4L? Apparently a patent for an EF 16-40 f/4L IS will be filed soon and I’m told to keep an eye for it over the next couple of weeks.

CR’s Take The 17-40 is one of the best values in “L” lenses and is a cash cow for Canon. It does need improvements on the edges and Nikon stabilized their f/4 full frame wide angle. It’s a believable replacement.

cr

– Canon EF 17-40 f/4L $839 @ B&H

[J. McCabe]

If the corner resolution is improved, I'll upgrade the first chance I have.

As for IS, I don't care for it one bit, as when this lens is on my camera, I use a tripod anyway.

[Holy Trinity]

Hello,

I don't see Canon releasing such a lens, it would even kill the 16-35 II if it is sharp wide open.

I don't really believe this rumor, but it would be a good lens for those who shoot both FF and CFx1.6. Make it 50/55mm and it would be perfect.

[Macadameane]

I thought I recalled a review on the 17-40 and it was sharper and handled better in many cases than the other.  The big difference was whether or not you needed f/2.8.  There were some specific situations that the 17-40 did not handle better, such as on the long end:

I found it:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

EDIT:
Having looked a bit more, I think this is the 16-35 I not II.  Although, the 17-40 still compares well to the new one too on the-digital-picture.com

[awinphoto]

My wife would kill me but I'd be in line to sell my 17-40 and upgrade... =)

[neuroanatomist]

Having looked a bit more, I think this is the 16-35 I not II.  Although, the 17-40 still compares well to the new one too on the-digital-picture.com

Yep. it was the MkI.  The 16-35 II is sharper in the corners and has less CA compared to the 17-40.  At the widest angle, the 17-40mm does not perform well at all - the 16-35 is not stellar, but it's noticeably better than the 17-40 @ 17mm. 

The big difference was whether or not you needed f/2.8. 

This is really still the big difference.   If you stop both lenses down into the f/8-f/11 range, the performance is fairly similar.  But, if you'll shoot in low light with the lens (ambient lighting for interior shots, for example, or outdoors at night), the f/2.8 is the better choice, budget permitting.  Unlike many faster lenses, at 16/17mm the DoF with wide apertures is not as limiting (e.g. at 16mm f/2.8 focused at 10 feet, everything from 5 feet to infinity is within the DoF). 

[match14]

It's a pity they cold not make it a tad longer say 55mm or 60mm then it could be the perfect weather sealed standard zoom for 7D.  Current weather sealed options are 17-40 L, too short; 24-105 L and 24 - 70 L, not wide enough.

[HughHowey]

This is really still the big difference.   If you stop both lenses down into the f/8-f/11 range, the performance is fairly similar.  But, if you'll shoot in low light with the lens (ambient lighting for interior shots, for example, or outdoors at night), the f/2.8 is the better choice, budget permitting.  Unlike many faster lenses, at 16/17mm the DoF with wide apertures is not as limiting (e.g. at 16mm f/2.8 focused at 10 feet, everything from 5 feet to infinity is within the DoF).

If the IS is decent, it might more than make up for the difference.

And for those wishing this lens was longer (if it comes out): Crop!

This would be an ideal walkaround for me, especially when I get a 5D3. More megapixels means cropping the hell out of the images. Better ISO means this is as good as a 2.8 is today. *fingers crossed*

[EYEONE]

I'd much rather have a 14-24mm 2.8L like Nikon.  Are we ever going to get one...

[neuroanatomist]

If the IS is decent, it might more than make up for the difference.

I'm sure the IS will be decent (4 stops at least).  But it doesn't make up for the 1-stop difference if your subjects are moving.  Fine - a 16/17mm lens with 4-stop IS can be handheld down to 1 second (4 stops slower than 1/focal length).  But that's not going to help if your subject is moving.  Only a wider aperture (or flash) will do that.  Granted, one stop is not a lot - but it's the difference between 1/30 s (where involuntary motion in a posing subject can still cause a little blur) and 1/60 s (which will freeze that involuntary motion).

[HughHowey]

If the IS is decent, it might more than make up for the difference.

I'm sure the IS will be decent (4 stops at least).  But it doesn't make up for the 1-stop difference if your subjects are moving.  Fine - a 16/17mm lens with 4-stop IS can be handheld down to 1 second (4 stops slower than 1/focal length).  But that's not going to help if your subject is moving.  Only a wider aperture (or flash) will do that.  Granted, one stop is not a lot - but it's the difference between 1/30 s (where involuntary motion in a posing subject can still cause a little blur) and 1/60 s (which will freeze that involuntary motion).

But isn't 4 stops IS better than one stop natural light? Going from an F4 with no IS to an F4 with modern, 4-stop IS makes it better than an older 2.8, right?

[Canon 14-24]

I just hope it'll keep a similar 77mm filter thread if such a lens comes into existence.  It's hard to find screw-on full neutral density filters (in regards of the major vendors B+W and Hoya) greater than 3 stops for an 82mm thread.

[akiskev]

As a user of the current 17-40, I can assure you that corner resolution is not an issue to me. When i need resolution (landscapes etc), i use f/8-13 and I get very sharp images.
If this 16-40 IS hits the shops, I 'll definitely take it just for the IS!!!!

[awinphoto]

If the IS is decent, it might more than make up for the difference.

I'm sure the IS will be decent (4 stops at least).  But it doesn't make up for the 1-stop difference if your subjects are moving.  Fine - a 16/17mm lens with 4-stop IS can be handheld down to 1 second (4 stops slower than 1/focal length).  But that's not going to help if your subject is moving.  Only a wider aperture (or flash) will do that.  Granted, one stop is not a lot - but it's the difference between 1/30 s (where involuntary motion in a posing subject can still cause a little blur) and 1/60 s (which will freeze that involuntary motion).

But isn't 4 stops IS better than one stop natural light? Going from an F4 with no IS to an F4 with modern, 4-stop IS makes it better than an older 2.8, right?

It is better for static low light situations with no motion of the subject matter (architecture, commercial, etc) however if you have subject motion, you get 1 stop faster shutter... It's not much, however if you have subject motion,  and F4 wont cut it, odds are 2.8 wont be perfect either, a fast prime would be... It's about knowing what conditions you are going into before choosing your gear. 

[dtr]

Well, I am looking to upgrade from Tokina 12-24mm and this might be perfect. The current 17-40mm looks rather bad at 18-20mm compared to Tokina. I am using full frame before anyone asked, and yes Tokina works from 18mm+ just fine  , but isn't long enough and doesn't have weather sealing. If that 16-40 would be sharp at f/4 (important for nightscapes and events) with less distracting distortion I will order one. I think it would also make my 24-70L redundant.