EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]

[Canon Rumors]

Tweet

More reports [DCI] have popped up today about two new wide angle zoom lenses from Canon. We reported about this yesterday and there has now been some clarification of what the lenses will be.

The first will be an EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM. The EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 would probably stay current even after the new EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM is announced. I imagine the new EF-S lens is smaller, lighter and cheaper. The rumor from yesterday seems to have missed the mark on this lens being a constant aperture of f/4. Though more clarification may be forthcoming.

The second will be an EF 16-35 f/4L IS, which will be the exciting one for a lot of people. For the record, a patent for the EF 16-35 f/4L IS appeared in March of this year.

There has been no more information on a new EF 100-400.

More to come….

cr

[hoodlum]

The new 100-400 will get announced around the same time as the 7Dii.  And the 7Dii will get announced within a few months of the D9300.  Nothing to do but wait until the first shoe drops.

[NancyP]

I would love to see an optically outstanding 16-35mm update, and if the coma is well controlled at f/4, wouldn't mind it being only f/4 aperture.  As with everyone else, I am really most anxious to see a 12-24mm lens of at least the same image quality as the Nikon offering. Image stabilization on WA lens - nice, but not a necessity for me, I use a tripod or steady the camera against a ledge or tree limb or knee or..

[unfocused]

I'm inclined to believe this, since I've got a 17-40 f4 ordered.

On the other hand, this will probably be significantly more expensive anyway.

[transpo1]

I'm not excited about a 16-35mm F4 but would be about a 12-24 or a 14-24 F2.8.

[Dylan777]

I'm inclined to believe this, since I've got a 17-40 f4 ordered.

On the other hand, this will probably be significantly more expensive anyway.

IQ & build quality will define the price tag

[Woody]

I hope the 16-35 f/4L IS becomes available asap. It has the same focal length range (in 35 mm equivalent) as the EF-S 10-22. Cooool...

[Zv]

I like the sound of the 16-35 f/4 with IS. A lot of my wide angle stuff is done while on vacation and without a tripod I'm usually cranking up the ISO quite high to maintain a decent amount of dof. I wouldn't be too bothered by the loss of 5mm on the long end if I did trade up my 17-40L for this anyway. The 24-105 has that covered.

I feel like there have been quite a few wide angle zoom rumors that something is finally going to emerge from it. 

The EF-S one doesn't seem all that great an idea, so it has less range than the current 10-22mm plus it's slower with a varying aperture through 8mm of zoom range? That seems stupid. What's the plus here? Just Image stabilization?

APS-C users already have one stabilized lens with a 24mm equivalent fov in the form of the 15-85mm f/3.5 - 5.6 IS USM.

If I really needed an APS-C wide angle with stabilization wider than 24mm, I'd go with the EF-M 11-22 f/4-5.6 because if you don't have a tripod then chances are it's because you're moving around a lot or saving space.

[Dylan777]

I'm not excited about a 16-35mm F4 but would be about a 12-24 or a 14-24 F2.8.

I like the idea of 16-35 f4 IS or 17-40 f4 IS. Be able to use thread mount filters is a plus on the field. Just make sure this new UWA is good as Nik 14-24 or better. Having IS on UWA is nice, especially when we don't have a tripod around - be able to shoot 1/10 will be awesome.

[Chaitanya]

Interested in the EF-S 10-18mm STM lens. If its priced right then I might get that lens for shooting videos.

[sanj]

16-35 would be a landscape/architecture lens for many. If I would be shooting any serious such shots I would certainly use a tripod with f11. IS would not be useful.
If I am indoors shooting people at a party or such with available light I would need wider f stop to freeze the subject motion. IS would not be useful.

Unlike the 24-70 where I want IS, I am not sure how important IS is to such a wide lens.

I know there are loop holes in my thinking process here but I would prefer an updated lens with 2.8 aperture and IS. 2.8 will help me freeze the subject motion and I would have the mental peace that if I am ever stuck somewhere without a tripod I could take a slow shutter shot.

[preppyak]

The EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM would probably have to be a $3-400 lens to not be DOA. Especially at f/4.5-5.6. The IS would be a nice addition for video people, but, at the expense of that aperture loss. How many people would take the Canon when there are now a variety of 10mm and 11mm options at f/2.8...even worse when you consider the 2 stop loss at 16mm vs the Tokina (f/2.8 vs f/5.6), and the 3+ stop loss vs the Sigma at 18mm. That's basically the difference of IS

[dadgummit]

EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM   Meh.....

Less range, slower focus motor, IS where it is not needed, less light, it had better be $300 or less because it is only good for video.

[Marsu42]

I like the sound of the 16-35 f/4 with IS. A lot of my wide angle stuff is done while on vacation and without a tripod I'm usually cranking up the ISO quite high to maintain a decent amount of dof. I wouldn't be too bothered by the loss of 5mm on the long end if I did trade up my 17-40L for this anyway.

I don't know, to reach a very deep dof w/o focus stacking you'll still need higher iso, most likely higher than the optimal iso range (maybe -400 on ff). Also IS doesn't stop leaves from moving... not that I wouldn't exchange my 17-40L with a 16-35L/IS for free :-) but Canon replacing the "photo journalist" 16-35/2.8 with f4 does sound like [CR0] for me.

[Rienzphotoz]

The EF-S version with IS & STM sounds good for some great UWA handheld video work ... but the EF version with IS ... hmmm!