Anyone Want an Improved 16-35mm over the much requested 14-24mm?

[GMCPhotographics]

I'm personally not too crazy about a 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. I would much much rather Canon release a further updated 16-35mm f/2.8 III, specifically based on this insane lens patent:

16-35mm f/2.8 IS Pro Lens.

http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-01-06

That patent is by Nikon, I don't see Canon making a lens based on it.


Personally, I prefer a Canon EF 14-24mm as good as Nikon's. If Canon makes a 16-35mm with sharpness that rivals the 14-24mm wide open, image stabilization, and low vignette, I'll be happy to buy that one instead.

Well, most of the pro photographers I know who are on the Nikon format don't like using the 14-24mm lens. It's a bit too wide, doesn't do filters in a conveinient way, it's big and heavy and while it's wide open performance is astounding...stopped down (landscapes or DOF) it's no better than older the 17-35mm. There's quite a few for sale S/H and that tends to say a bit about it.

I personally belive that a single wide lens, regardless how good it is, will never enough to cover every eventuality. I have used my 16-35IIL and Siggi 12-24mm lens for a very long time and I've only just replaced the Siggi 12-24 for a TS-e 17L. But my main "goto" wide lens is my 16-35IIL

[raptor3x]

I want a 16-35/4 IS (like the Nikon).

This is exactly what I'm hoping Canon will release.

[GMCPhotographics]

I want a 16-35/4 IS (like the Nikon).

This is exactly what I'm hoping Canon will release.

I fail to see any real world benefit in having an Image Stabiliser on a wide angle zoom lens.
The current 17-40 f4 L is a widely regarded lens, but I can't see how added IS to it will make it any better?

[J.R.]

I'd take one right now! Sold my 17-40 today and am upgrading to the 16-35 II

[RLPhoto]

Sure, If it's at good as the nikkor 14-24mm Why not?

[RS2021]

I want a 16-35/4 IS (like the Nikon).

This is exactly what I'm hoping Canon will release.

In typical landscape settings 16-35II requires very high shutter speeds even when stopped down...sometimes requiring ND ... what would an IS offer in real terms?

If you are into night time landscape, that is mostly done on tripods, and they generally suggest you turn off IS... so I dont' see the point. It is very much a fanboy dream.

[RS2021]

Going from version I to version II, Canon did make some progress...the fact it is not that stricking a progress is more telling of how hard it is to design UWA zooms than it is of Canon's unwillingness to make it better.

For the same reason, I feel Canon will only get even fewer paybacks with a version III should they ever attempt it. Where they did make progress is with corner and border sharpness and flare control...the original version I was worse. But these are only minimally noticable.

As someone said earlier, the 16-35 II is not super sharp or super perfect...but it is really a well balanced performer for its range for real world uses.

Here is a shot at 16mm straight into the setting sun at f/11 when I was looking for flare. No filters or anything. I am including the top border crop as well...not sure what CR uploading does but it is sharp in the originals.

 

[RGF]

I'm personally not too crazy about a 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. I would much much rather Canon release a further updated 16-35mm f/2.8 III, specifically based on this insane lens patent:

16-35mm f/2.8 IS Pro Lens.

http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-01-06

f/2.8 3 ED elements 5 aspherical ones, and sharpness that rivals the 14-24mm wide open, AND image stabilization!

Internal focusing, low vignette.

I really would much rather have greater flexibility and greater focal range than an ultra wide angle that only does ultra wide, and worse than this proposed lens at that.

Anyone else feel the same way?

If they can make a great 16-35 I would be very pleased.  The 14 prime is a great lens, and an overlap with the 24-70 would mean I could avoid changes lens occasionally.

[BrandonKing96]

I'd actually really prefer the 16-35 being improved.  I wouldn't really like such a bulbous front element that would be on a 14-24, and I'd rather an 82mm filter thread staying on a newer 16-35 so I can just share filters with my 24-70 II

[tron]

I would prefer a superb 16-35 f/2.8L III. In that case I would sell my version 1 16-35 2.8L

[RGF]

In addition to the 16-35 I use the Canon 14 when I need to go wider.  At times I want wider, so the 14-24 would fit the bill.


In the ideal world there would be a small overlap among each of the trinity lens.  Perhaps 14-30, 24-80 and 70-200.

[nicke]

I want a 16-35/4 IS (like the Nikon).

+1

[killswitch]

Definitely would like a 16-35 MKIII over 14-24 for few reasons

1) Non bulbous front element, so that we can use screw in filters.
2) the focal range 16-35 is just so much versatile and can be used in/for so many applications/purposes.
3) 82mm is the new 77mm (for those who also own 24-70 MKII).

Can't remember if there was any rumour regarding an update for this lens, was there?

[Brendon]

+1 for the updated 16-35.  Give me something close to the 35 1.4 color, contrast, sharpness and distortion at the narrow end.  Let the distortion go at 16mm since everything normally looks distorted because of the perspective anyway. 

I've started using the 16-35 regularly at weddings for dance floor photos during the reception.  I like the fact that I can get the 35 mm if I want to move in and just get a couple dancing...I wouldn't be able to do this well at 24mm.  My only real gripe is that it just doesn't have the color and contrast of the 35 prime.  I can forgive some corner softness (there is a lot of it now) but the "pop" just isn't there.

[tron]

Definitely would like a 16-35 MKIII over 14-24 for few reasons

1) Non bulbous front element, so that we can use screw in filters.
2) the focal range 16-35 is just so much versatile and can be used in/for so many applications/purposes.
3) 82mm is the new 77mm (for those who also own 24-70 MKII).

Can't remember if there was any rumour regarding an update for this lens, was there?

I do not think there is one. Not that would  matter much though.
For some reason I prefer the real products from just rumors...